The Cleveland Browns have just two games remaining before they close the book on their latest season of frustration and disappointment.

While everyone will get a much-needed break after the final whistle blows in Baltimore on January 5, one topic related to the team will most certainly not be decided anytime soon. And that is debate over where the team will be playing its home games in the future.

Team officials have made it clear they intend to build a domed stadium and surrounding entertainment district in the Cleveland suburb of Book Park. City and county officials have continually countered with their preference for the Browns to remain downtown on the lakefront and play in a renovated Huntington Bank Field, which has been home to the team since its return to the NFL in 1999.

For the Browns, team officials have been busy focusing on a campaign to win the hearts and minds of fans and politicians. This campaign started with the release earlier this month of an economic study conducted by RCLCO, a real estate consulting company.

According to a story on the team’s website, the main takeaways from the study include:

• A domed stadium can attract up to an additional 1.5 million visitors through a mix of year-round programming of various sizes and major events.
• A projected annual direct economic output of $1.2 billion across Cuyahoga County, as well as create nearly 5,400 permanent jobs.
• Total annual spending at bars, restaurants, and hotels downtown is projected to increase by about $11 million over what is generated today by the activity at Huntington Bank Field.

That was followed up last week with a team-led interview with Lance Evans, lead architect of HKS, the firm chosen to design the domed stadium.

Evans hit all the right notes, especially by appealing to fans when he discussed the approach to creating the Dawg Pound in a new stadium:

“You’ve got to start with the Dawg Pound and the idea that it is a celebrated item. When we were listening to the fan base about what they wanted in the building, number one was to restore the power of the fans of the Dawg Pound. And so, we’ve created essentially a wall, a vertical wall of fans for the Dawg Pound. We have brought them as close as we can to the players and to the end zone. We’re going to have the visiting team run out right beside them. It is going to be a raucous wall of electricity, and we’re excited about that. That informed the decisions, like really the seating bowl was informed, the whole design of it, around this idea of catering to the kind of fandom of Brown’s nation, which is palpable.”

Finally, the Browns have been conducting surveys to gauge interest in the idea of the domed stadium project. While some local media have made a big deal out of the surveys, they appear to be filled with the standard type of questions that are commonly used when undertaking a project of this magnitude, such as how important the addition of restaurants and bars is to the project, how often the survey respondent would visit the area on non-game days, and the like.

One interesting element of the surveys comes in a series of questions that lay out some potential price points for season tickets, including amenities like unlimited food and drink, or priority access to other events. The prices are not the actual prices, but are shown solely for “research purposes.”

No matter what the results of the survey say – either for or against the domed stadium – there is nothing compelling either side of the debate to act on the results, so it is probably a good idea to not get too worked up about their existence.

There are two areas that deserve some attention, both of which come from the government side of the debate.

The first comes from Cleveland City Council President Blaine Griffin, who confirmed last week that the city plans to use the state’s Modell Law to try and keep the Browns downtown. Griffin is joined in that fight by Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne.

The city first floated the idea of using the law, which requires owners of professional sports teams that play in a taxpayer-supported stadium to give at least six months’ notice before leaving and must give the city or local investors an opportunity to buy the team, in October.

While nothing official has happened, the city has hired the law firm of Jones Day to reportedly act as outside counsel as the city works on its response to the team’s position that the law is unconstitutional, according to NEOtrans blog.

Ronayne also continues to lead the fight to keep the Browns downtown as opposed to using public money for the Brook Park site, as the told NEOtrans:

“Cuyahoga County cannot afford to subsidize the creation of a second downtown with taxpayer dollars. I continue to ask for the downtown stadium renovation plan to be shared publicly and for the Cleveland Browns to come back to the negotiating table with the city of Cleveland to build off of the billions of dollars of investments already made in the downtown core.”

The second comes from the Statehouse in Columbus, where lawmakers closed out their year by giving the Cincinnati Bengals a tax break on their upcoming $120 million renovation of Paycor Stadium.

As part of an amendment to House Bill 315, the Bengals can exempt themselves from around $9.3 million in sales taxes if Governor Mike DeWine approves the proposal.

Ultimately it is a lot of posturing between the Bengals and Hamilton County officials, which you can read more about here. As it relates to the Browns and their plans, it is still unclear how the amendment could potentially impact a new or renovated stadium project, but it is something to keep an eye on in the coming months.

While the 2024 regular season is winding down, the battle over where the Browns will call home is far from over. As always, it is important to remember that the Browns current lease does not expire until after the 2028 season, so they are not going anywhere. And even if they eventually do land in Brook Park, it is only a move to the suburbs so they will still be the Cleveland Browns.