stadium
19 August 2024
World of Stadiumsstadium
Aug 19, 2024World of Stadiums
19.08.2024 18:05
source: StadiumDB.com; author: Miguel Ciołczyk Garcia
It is still unclear how the brawl over the name of the stadium in Cadiz will end, even though we seem to have seen everything. Opponents of the change accuse its supporters of glorifying fascism and breaking the law, while supporters of the new name ask for “respect” for the process. Meanwhile, the club and LaLiga are using different names of the facility.
Advertisement
The dispute over the name of Estadio Carranza has not gone away. The name change on the initiative of Cádiz CF from Nuevo Mirandilla to Carranza has outraged left-wing circles and prompted the Spanish government to intervene. The reason is the accusations of fascism levelled against the mayor of Cadiz during Franco's dictatorship, Ramon de Carranza, by which glorifying him would go against the Democratic Memory Law.
Of a different opinion is the Estadio Carranza platform, whose activists have asked for respect for the administrative process that has already begun and the possible judicial consequences. According to them, the name change does not violate legal norms, and residents have twice advocated the name Carranza previously signed initiatives, and the name change to Nuevo Mirandilla took place after a referendum with a low turnout.
© mosi - always on tour
Supporters of the new name also cite as an argument a precedent from Córdoba, where the names of two streets whose patrons were associated with Franco's fascist regime were restored. However, the names were removed, leaving only the surnames, thus avoiding a breach of the law. This was a compromise between restoring traditional street names and avoiding the prominence in public space of people associated with the dictatorship.
The same procedure was used in Cádiz, as the Cádiz CF stadium is not reverting to the full old name Estadio Ramón de Carranza but Estadio Carranza, which in a potential lawsuit could be crucial in determining the legality of the name change.
Meanwhile, it is still not entirely clear what the stadium is now officially called. The Cádiz website, which initiated the change, uses the name as Estadio Carranza, but on the LaLiga website in the Andalusian club's data, the venue is still signed as Estadio Nuevo Mirandilla. Some media cautiously use Estadio del Cádiz (from Spanish: Cádiz Stadium).
© mosi - always on tour
Advertisement
0
Recent CommentsStadium Related News You might want to check out
View by
Browns Push Forward On $2.4B Stadium Despite Political ObstaclesThe Browns’ relationship status with Cuyahoga County, Ohio, is certainly complicated, adding to the drama surrounding the NFL team.
Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam said they are fully moving ahead with their planned $2.4 billion domed stadium and mixed-use development in suburban Brook Park, Ohio, despite a series of funding and legal obstacles. How the county will be involved in the effort, if at all, remains quite uncertain.
On one hand, the Haslams said they are prepared to move forward without any financial involvement from the county, despite prior aims of garnering $300 million toward the project from that jurisdiction. Along similar lines, county executive Chris Ronayne said he has no intention of contributing to a project he has frequently called “a boondoggle.”
On the other hand, though, the team still wants to build a relationship with county leaders.
“Now is the time to work together,” Jimmy Haslam said. “Maybe it doesn’t work out with the county, but now’s the time to sit down and see if we can’t work together. This is an important project. I don’t think many other entities are spending $2 billion–plus in this community.”
As the county situation plays out, the Browns’ stadium project is also battling complications on multiple other fronts. There is an active lawsuit related to the team’s plan to draw $600 million from an account of unclaimed state funds. Separately, the city of Cleveland is challenging various components of the team’s current lease for the downtown Huntington Bank Field, even after a separate challenge related to Ohio’s Modell Law was mooted.
The state money is half of what the team had targeted to gain from public sources, with the Haslams originally set to contribute $1.2 billion. There are hopes of gaining $300 million in municipal-level support from Brook Park, leaving a final $300 million unaccounted for.
Amid all of that, Jimmy Haslam said there is “a 99.9% chance” of the Brook Park stadium happening, but he also acknowledged the inherent difficulties. A formal groundbreaking is targeted for early next year in advance of a projected stadium opening in 2029.
“This is a complicated project,” he said. “There’s stuff going on. It’s three and a half years until the stadium opens, and we will have to work hard every day to get everything to come together.
“We’re going to have the groundbreaking regardless,” Jimmy Haslam said. “Let me say this and try to be very respectful of everybody. … We can do the project without the county. I think it’s best if the county and [Haslam Sports Group] work together, O.K.? And I won’t say anything more than that.”
The Browns’ stadium situation is developing as similar ones are unfolding for current and potential NFL facilities in markets such as Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.
Front Office Sports
stadium
30 July 20253 min readBrowns Push Forward On $2.4B Stadium Despite Political Obstacles
Front Office Sports
30 July 2025
stadium
$3.8B Commanders Stadium On Track For D.C. ApprovalWASHINGTON — The Council of the District of Columbia is going deep into the night to hear from its constituents about the Commanders’ proposed $3.8 billion domed facility at the site of RFK Stadium, but the bill is on track for passage due in no small part to the political evolution of the council’s chairman.
The council began two days of hearings on legislation to build the stadium and redevelop the RFK property with about $1.1 billion in public funds, with Tuesday’s session devoted entirely to testimony from the public. More than 500 citizens had registered to be public witnesses, and the council planned to be in session at least until midnight.
Wednesday’s session, beginning just hours later, will be centered on testimony from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and representatives from the Commanders. The sessions are happening just days after D.C. Council chair Phil Mendelson, following negotiations with the team, restructured the bill to redirect as much as $950 million in stadium- and development-related revenue back to the District.
As the first hearing began, hundreds of residents on both sides of the stadium funding debate held signs and chanted in front of council headquarters. Many of the same arguments in what was called by one resident “the classic jocks versus nerds debate” then played out inside throughout Tuesday. Advocates championed potential job creation and redevelopment on Washington’s east side and the return of the team to its “spiritual home,” while opponents questioned the need for public money to support an NFL team estimated to be worth $6.3 billion.
Amid that, several council members touted the stadium’s potential impact on a blighted area of the nation’s capital, even as they questioned certain deal points.
“I see this as much more than a stadium, but an opportunity to build up people and community,” said council chair pro tempore Kenyan McDuffie. “I’ve heard from countless residents: Bring the team home.”
The council is set to take the first of two scheduled votes on the stadium funding on Friday, with a second to follow in September. While some council members professed themselves on Tuesday to still be undecided, at least five solid “yes” votes exist on the council, two short of the necessary threshold.
“I am confident we will have the votes necessary,” Mendelson said.
A 27-year veteran of the council, Mendelson, a Democrat, was firmly against more than $600 million in public funding toward the construction of Nationals Park more than two decades ago. He was one of six “no” votes in a razor-thin 7–6 decision to develop the ballpark and allow the Montreal Expos to become the Nationals—but only after the relocation nearly fell apart at multiple points.
No other council member part of that baseball vote is still involved with the legislative body, leaving Mendelson as the longest-tenured official there. Over the past two decades, he has shifted from more of a fringe player known for casting protest votes to a deeply powerful centrist and coalition builder who has helped balance out the more leftward-leaning sentiments of the council, and he has led the body since 2012.
“As I have moved from the end of the council dais to the center, so has my ideology,” Mendelson said.
Also helping shape the changed sports sentiment was the fundamentally different nature of the football deal. Getting the MLB club in Washington required a fully funded stadium, as the league owned the franchise at the time and had near-total leverage to completely dictate terms to relocation candidate markets. Commanders owner Josh Harris, conversely, is funding at least $2.7 billion toward the stadium.
Front Office Sports
stadium
29 July 20253 min read$3.8B Commanders Stadium On Track For D.C. Approval
Front Office Sports
29 July 2025
stadium
Daily Digs: Spurs Commit $1B To New Arena Project, Butler'S Hinkle Fieldhouse Facelift, And More!After nearly a year of questions, city officials provided the first detailed look at who would foot the bill for a new Spurs arena as part of a proposed sports and entertainment district in downtown San Antonio.
At a special City Council meeting on Friday, City Manager Erik Walsh outlined preliminary figures showing the split for how the project would be funded between the City of San Antonio, the San Antonio Spurs and Bexar County.
Athletic Business
stadium
28 July 20251 min readDaily Digs: Spurs Commit $1B To New Arena Project, Butler'S Hinkle Fieldhouse Facelift, And More!
Athletic Business
28 July 2025
stadium
Prospective Rays Owner Must Start Fresh As $1.3B Stadium Deal EndsProspective Rays owner Patrick Zalupski, should he succeed in acquiring the MLB club from Stu Sternberg, will officially need to start over in developing a deal for a new venue.
The city of St. Petersburg, Fla., formally terminated the deal to build a $1.3 billion ballpark and mixed-use development. The step was not a surprise given Sternberg walked away from the deal in March, citing increased costs he was not willing to bear alone. The unanimous approval of a termination agreement Thursday, however, means Zalupski and his partners would need to strike an entirely new pact, should they opt to remain in St. Petersburg long-term. As it is, some reports have suggested Zalupski prefers Hillsborough County, where the NFL’s Buccaneers and NHL’s Lightning play, as a future home for the team.
The St. Petersburg deal termination—arriving just over one year from when the pact was approved—critically reverts land redevelopment rights from the Rays back to the city.
“While the Rays’ decision is terribly disappointing, our mission was to adapt and refocus on our primary objective—the progress of our city,” said St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch. “The most important element of this is that the development rights of this area, previously held by the Rays since 1995, are now in the hands of the city. This puts us in the strongest position to assure that the future development of the Historic Gas Plant District meets the needs of St. Petersburg.”
Zalupski, meanwhile, has reached an agreement in principle on a $1.7 billion deal for the Rays, something MLB commissioner Rob Manfred briefly referenced last week at the league’s All-Star Game in Atlanta.
“I have no reason to quibble with or dispute the reports that have been out there,” he said.
A deal, however, won’t be too soon for some local officials.
“Cheap Stu. The Yankees and Phillies have spent millions of their own $ on their spring training stadiums in recent years, while Stu has to sit back and watch everyone else pay for his stadium,” said Pinellas County commissioner Chris Latvala, a frequent critic of Sternberg, in a social media post. “He can’t leave soon enough.”
St. Petersburg officials, meanwhile, are making more progress on repairing the hurricane-damaged, city-owned Tropicana Field so the Rays can return there next year.
Already, preparations have begun to install new roof fabric to replace what was shredded last fall by Hurricane Milton, with that particularly visible part of the job scheduled to be done late this year. The city council, after legally ending the deal for the new stadium Thursday, also approved $5.2 million in electrical and lighting repairs for Tropicana Field.
While the Rays are playing this year at George M. Steinbrenner Field in Tampa, the spring training home of the Yankees, the club intends to return to Tropicana Field next year, and confidence is growing both with MLB and the city that it will be achievable.
The league plans to release the 2026 schedule next month, and that will give some further clues. An early-season slate that is front-loaded with away games would give crews more time to finish the work. The interim stay at the open-air Tampa stadium this year had the inverse situation, with the Rays playing a large chunk of home games in April and May to avoid the brunt of midsummer Florida heat.
Front Office Sports
stadium
25 July 20253 min readProspective Rays Owner Must Start Fresh As $1.3B Stadium Deal Ends
Front Office Sports
25 July 2025
stadium
Commanders Restructure $3.8B Stadium Pact Ahead Of Council VoteIn the urgent push to complete the Commanders’ $3.8 billion stadium deal with the District of Columbia as soon as possible, the NFL team has agreed to a series of substantive changes that improve the pact for the public sector.
The Josh Harris–owned Commanders agreed to a series of deal revisions for the project at the RFK Stadium site that will redirect as much as $950 million back to the D.C. over a 30-year period—particularly through venue-related parking and sales taxes and non-game parking revenue that now will flow to the local government. Additionally, a new funding plan will restructure some of the debt financing and save D.C. tens of millions in interest costs.
The changes arrive just before two days of scheduled public hearings on the deal on July 29 and 30. D.C. Council chair Phil Mendelson said Thursday morning he will bring the matter to a full council vote on Aug. 1, just after those hearings. Approval by the full body is now expected, particularly in the wake of the changed deal terms.
“We feel we have a much-improved agreement,” Mendelson said. “It’s clear that the Commanders showed through their negotiations their commitment to the District, and their willingness to consider what’s in the best interest of our citizens.”
The reworked pact additionally includes a specified $50 million in community benefits, with the team helping fund local youth sports programs, and a plan to build about 6,000 housing units on the stadium campus, up from a prior minimum of 5,000. As a result, the overall deal expands materially beyond what was originally agreed to in April. The plan to construct a domed facility at the RFK Stadium site, where the team previously played from 1961 to 1996, remains the single-largest private investment in District history.
The frenetic sprint to complete the stadium agreement arrives as U.S. President Donald Trump last weekend said he wants the Commanders to revert to their prior nickname, and threatened to kill the stadium deal should they refuse. Trump’s power to actually do so remains limited, but his comments appear to have sparked a heightened urgency among the deal principals.
“The team was willing to improve the deal considerably in return for the earlier vote,” Mendelson said.
After staying silent through this week’s nickname saga, the Commanders applauded Mendelson’s latest move.
“Through this process, we’ve seen firsthand how committed our city’s leaders are to building a strong future for the District,” said Commanders president Mark Clouse. “With the Council’s announcement today, the opportunity to bring the team back to its spiritual home and revitalize a critical part of the nation’s capital is now one step closer.”
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who previously sounded alarms over perceived delays in the approval process, similarly cheered the move to get a council vote scheduled.
“We’re not trading housing for a stadium—we’re using the momentum of the stadium to build more housing,” she said. “It’s a win for our team, our city, and our residents.”
As the Commanders’ situation has developed, other federal officials have pressed D.C. leaders to complete the deal. Rep. James Comer (R., Ky.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, wrote to Mendelson last week, imploring him to complete the deal as soon as possible. Comer was a key part of a prior agreement to transfer control of the RFK Stadium property from federal authorities to the D.C. government.
An opening of the new facility remains targeted for 2030.
Front Office Sports
stadium
24 July 20253 min readCommanders Restructure $3.8B Stadium Pact Ahead Of Council Vote
Front Office Sports
24 July 2025
stadium
Browns $600M Stadium Deal Hit With Suit Over ‘Unclaimed’ MoneyThe Browns’ plan to relocate to suburban Brook Park, Ohio, and build a $2.4 billion domed stadium and mixed-use development has moved from one legal quagmire to potentially another.
As expected, a recently approved state plan to provide $600 million toward the stadium project, backed by funds from an account of unclaimed funds, has generated a lawsuit. A group of former Democratic lawmakers in Ohio has followed through on a prior threat to challenge the use of that money, filing a lawsuit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court against several state officials and claiming the plan is unconstitutional on both the state and federal levels.
The unclaimed funds are derived from sources such as utility deposits, uncashed cashier’s checks, and forgotten bank accounts, with Ohio currently holding nearly $5 billion of such money. For the new Browns stadium, some of those funds would be used to help support stadium construction, and then repaid through future tax revenues generated at the venue.
”The state now intends to confiscate the private property … for the purpose of funding a private development, depriving the rightful owners of their property,” the lawsuit reads in part. “The state intends to do so, even though it has long been settled that funds held by the state of Ohio in its ‘unclaimed funds’ account are private property.”
The lawsuit seeks class-action status and an injunction to block the use of the unclaimed funds, and it says the public-sector costs will ultimately exceed $1 billion when factoring in additional related costs.
“The state of Ohio intends to steal over a billion dollars in private property from its citizens and pour it into the pockets of [Browns owner] Jimmy Haslam, one of America’s richest men,” said Jeffrey Crossman, former Ohio legislator and part of the group that filed the lawsuit. “Everyday Ohioans are outraged by this blatant abuse of power. The government can’t just take someone’s property and give it to someone else.”
The legal challenge closely follows the approval of the Ohio budget that included not only the Browns stadium funding, but also changed elements of the state’s Modell Law to apply limitations on pro teams in the state relocating only if they intend to leave Ohio entirely. That shift in the Modell Law essentially mooted a prior lawsuit from the city of Cleveland, which had argued the Browns’ intended move to the suburbs was unlawful.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has opposed the use of the unclaimed funds and called it “poor public policy,” but still believed it was legal. Along similar lines, Gov. Mike DeWine previously said he anticipated the lawsuit as the recent state budget process unfolded.
“I’m sure that will be tested in court, if that’s what we end up doing—if that’s what the legislature ends up doing,” DeWine said last month regarding the use of unclaimed funds. “So I’m sure that will be tested. But that’s nothing. A lot of things get tested in court.”
Front Office Sports
stadium
09 July 20253 min readBrowns $600M Stadium Deal Hit With Suit Over ‘Unclaimed’ Money
Front Office Sports
09 July 2025
stadium
Commanders’ $3.8B Stadium Deal In Jeopardy? Mayor Sounds The AlarmAs temperatures rise in Washington, D.C., so, too, do political tensions over the Commanders’ bid to build a $3.8 billion domed stadium on the grounds of their former home, RFK Stadium.
The euphoric feelings that existed less than three months ago, when the Commanders and owner Josh Harris first unveiled their plan to return to the District, have given way to frustration and doubt. Already facing an uphill climb to secure sufficient D.C. Council support for more than $1 billion in public funding for the project, Mayor Muriel Bowser is now sounding alarms about a potential collapse of the deal.
“I think that everybody should be treating this urgently,” Bowser said on WTEM-AM. “Nobody should have the nonchalance that I’ve heard from some, the ‘Oh, what’s a month? What’s two months? What’s three months?’ I think it introduces a level of uncertainty and risk that’s intolerable for most business organizations.”
Asked on the radio show to rate her worry about the Commanders’ deal on a scale of zero for “not concerned” to five being “very concerned,” she answered with a four.
“When you’re a big-city mayor, you’re concerned about everything—I’ll put it at a four,” she said.
Core to the dispute is a decision last week by the council and its chair, Phil Mendelson, to separate consideration of the Commanders’ funding from a broader deliberation of the upcoming D.C. budget. That, in turn, threatens a provision in the deal for the council to approve funding by July 15 to preserve a planned 2030 stadium opening. Mendelson has argued that the July 15 deadline is not realistic, particularly given the due diligence needed to review the agreement, and that the Commanders won’t realistically need public funds until early next year.
In the meantime, the Commanders hosted a dinner earlier this week for council members in Georgetown to answer questions and help build support for the stadium effort. It’s currently thought that there are four solid “yes” votes on the council for the stadium funding, three short of the needed threshold.
Stadium and arena battles, however, are nothing new in the nation’s capital. Delayed council approval of the funding for Nationals Park more than two decades ago nearly derailed MLB’s relocation of the Montreal Expos to become the Nationals. Much more recently, Ted Leonsis planned to move his NBA Wizards and NHL Capitals to neighboring Alexandria, Va., in a new venue before reaching a deal last year with Bowser to renovate the teams’ current home, Capital One Arena, instead.
Harris, meanwhile, is also proceeding with plans to build a new arena in the South Philadelphia sports complex and begin a WNBA expansion franchise there, both in partnership with Comcast Spectacor.
Front Office Sports
stadium
02 July 20253 min readCommanders’ $3.8B Stadium Deal In Jeopardy? Mayor Sounds The Alarm
Front Office Sports
02 July 2025
stadium
$600M For Browns Stadium Sparks Cleveland Backlash, Possible LawsuitThe Browns are officially getting $600 million in state money toward a planned domed stadium and mixed-use development in suburban Brook Park, Ohio. The fallout from that budget decision, however, is still unfolding.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law late Monday a state budget that includes a $600 million “performance grant” for the Browns. Those funds, approved last week by the Ohio legislature, will be paid out from an account of unclaimed state funds, such as utility deposits, uncashed cashier’s checks, and forgotten bank accounts, and repaid through future tax revenues.
DeWine said he opposed that structure, but nonetheless, did not exercise line-item veto power to quash it.
“That was not my first choice. I had another way of doing it,” DeWine said Tuesday morning, of helping fund the Browns’ stadium. “But governors don’t get everything they want. … My criteria was that it would not spend money out of the general fund and it would not directly compete with education, directly compete with mental health. Stadiums should not compete with mental health, should not compete with education. So this budget, while it doesn’t do it the way I originally designed it … meets those criteria.
“This is a win for taxpayers, and it will provide significant money for things that improve the quality of life in Ohio,” he said.
A group of former Democratic lawmakers in Ohio, meanwhile, intends to file a class-action lawsuit, calling the use of those unclaimed funds unconstitutional.
The budget signing also codified a change to Ohio’s Modell Law, designed to help prevent pro teams in the state from moving, that will only trigger those protections should a franchise look to relocate out of state. That shift essentially moots an ongoing lawsuit between the Browns and the city of Cleveland.
More broadly, Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb blasted the budget approval and what the Browns’ move to the suburbs will do to the city.
“Relocating the Browns will divert economic activity from downtown, create a competing entertainment district, and disrupt the momentum of our lakefront redevelopment,” Bibb said. “It will also trigger substantial taxpayer-funded infrastructure upgrades—including highway reconfigurations and public safety enhancements—adding significant public costs on top of the stadium itself.”
Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam, for their part, cheered the DeWine signing and touted the ambition in their $2.4 billion stadium and development plan. A groundbreaking is now set for early next year, in advance of a planned opening in 2029.
“The new, enclosed Huntington Bank Field will be completely fan-centric, a first-of-its-kind design in the NFL, and a dynamic venue that draws visitors from across Ohio and beyond, for concerts and significant sporting events throughout the year,” the pair said in a statement.
Front Office Sports
stadium
01 July 20253 min read$600M For Browns Stadium Sparks Cleveland Backlash, Possible Lawsuit
Front Office Sports
01 July 2025
stadium
Bengals Strike 10-Year, $470M Stadium Deal To Stay In CincinnatiThe Bengals will remain in Cincinnati through 2036, after an expiring stadium lease had threatened their future in the city after this season.
The NFL franchise and Hamilton County have agreed to a new 10-year lease to continue playing games at Paycor Stadium, and give the venue a $470 million renovation. There is an option for a further 10-year extension through 2046. That total renovation cost is down significantly from previous proposals, which climbed as high as $1.2 billion.
The team’s current lease was set to expire in 2026, unless a new deal was agreed to by June 30. In April, Bengals EVP Katie Blackburn sparked concern when she said, “We could, I guess, go wherever we wanted after this year.”
On Thursday, Blackburn, who is the daughter of Bengals owner Mike Brown, heralded the new lease extension as a “significant day for the Bengals and Hamilton County as we secure the team’s future in Cincinnati.”
The Bengals will invest $120 million in the renovation project and cover 75% of the new improvements to the stadium. An official announcement said the franchise and Hamilton County would “continue to work collaboratively to secure meaningful funding from the State of Ohio to further support the renovation efforts.”
Specific details on how that public funding will be secured are unclear. Other NFL franchises around the country, including the Bengals’ in-state neighbor, the Cleveland Browns, have struggled to get public stadium funding. However, the cost of Cincinnati’s proposed project is far lower than new stadium builds and other upgrades that can be well into the billions.
Paycor Stadium opened in 2000 and was known as Paul Brown Stadium after the franchise’s late founder until 2022.
Front Office Sports
stadium
26 June 20252 min readBengals Strike 10-Year, $470M Stadium Deal To Stay In Cincinnati
Front Office Sports
26 June 2025
stadium
Browns $2.4B Stadium Plan Now Relies On Ohioans’ Forgotten MoneyThe Browns’ $2.4 billion plan to build a new stadium and mixed-use development in suburban Brook Park, Ohio, has cleared one major hurdle, but it will likely soon face others.
The state legislature has likely mooted a legal battle between the NFL team and the city of Cleveland over Ohio’s Art Modell Law, named for the late former owner of the Browns and designed to keep pro teams playing in publicly supported facilities from moving.
The law blocks any team relocation without giving city officials six months’ notice and an opportunity to buy the franchise, and became the source of competing lawsuits from the team and the city as the Browns look to depart Huntington Bank Field in downtown Cleveland. A last-minute change to the Ohio budget, however, alters the Modell Law to apply the limitations only to teams looking to leave the state of Ohio entirely.
The shift, not surprisingly, angered city officials, with Cleveland saying in a statement that “we strongly oppose this legislative maneuver because Clevelanders have invested hundreds of millions in the lakefront stadium and surrounding infrastructure. This proposed change fails to protect communities like us when a team decides to leave.”
The Browns and team owner Haslam Sports Group called that sentiment a mischaracterization.
“The General Assembly’s amendment of the Modell Law confirms that the law is intended only to prevent teams from breaking a lease or leaving the state,” the team said. “The Browns are doing neither of those things. The team is staying right here in Cuyahoga County, less than a mile from the city line, and HSG will honor every commitment of the Browns’ current lease.”
That lease at Huntington Bank Field expires after the 2028 season.
As the state budget now moves to Gov. Mike DeWine for his signature, that monetary plan includes $600 million in previously approved funding for the Browns’ stadium in Brook Park. That money would be drawn from an account of unclaimed state funds, such as utility deposits, uncashed cashier’s checks, and forgotten bank accounts, and repaid through future tax revenues. DeWine has until June 30 to sign the final budget.
Two primary obstacles, however, remain in that plan. DeWine has line-item veto power and could strip out that particular piece of ratified legislation. A group of former Democratic lawmakers in Ohio, meanwhile, intends to file a class-action lawsuit against the move if it proceeds, calling the use of those funds unconstitutional.
“These are funds held in trust. This is not state property,” said attorney and former state Rep. Jeff Crossman. “These funds belong to all those hardworking Ohioans across the state with forgotten savings accounts, uncashed checks, overpaid utility bills—they’re not abandoned. … We’re not anti-stadium. We’re anti-theft.”
Front Office Sports
stadium
26 June 20253 min readBrowns $2.4B Stadium Plan Now Relies On Ohioans’ Forgotten Money
Front Office Sports
26 June 2025
stadium
Chicago Fire Planning $650M Stadium As Bears, Sox Projects StallMajor League Soccer’s Fire have taken close note of other pro stadium deliberations around Chicago, and they are determined to have a much smoother—and quicker—path from concept to reality.
The Fire began their formal effort to develop a $650 million, soccer-specific stadium near downtown Chicago, holding a community meeting Monday night with local alderman Pat Dowell about the club’s plan to anchor The 78, an undeveloped parcel on Chicago’s South Loop.
As the neighboring Bears, White Sox, and Stars have each faced numerous obstacles in their pursuits of new facilities, particularly around obtaining public financing, the Fire and owner Joe Mansueto are moving full steam ahead with a private financing plan designed in part to have a new facility open roughly 33 months from now.
“We’re completely focused on making sure we deliver,” Fire president of business operations Dave Baldwin tells Front Office Sports. “We see ourselves as something of a sleeping giant, particularly as the biggest MLS market with only one team, and we want to ensure that this world-class city has a soccer stadium to match.”
There is little time for any sort of delays, though, as the club intends to secure all its needed zoning and preliminary approvals in the coming months and have shovels in the ground by the end of the year, and perhaps sooner than that. Such a rapid timeline would allow the Fire to stay on schedule for the stadium’s planned spring 2028 opening in collaboration with Related Midwest, the developer that owns The 78 land.
There is no active consideration, meanwhile, to have the White Sox join the Fire at The 78, Baldwin says. The MLB club has actively studied the site as a potential ballpark location for more than a year, and said earlier this month they “remain confident” the site could still house two facilities, but nothing has progressed beyond that.
“We wish them well, but right now, there’s no plan for any other stadium at The 78,” Baldwin says.
The Fire, meanwhile, also unveiled initial designs late Monday for the 22,000-seat stadium. Working with Gensler, which designed several other MLS facilities, including ones in Los Angeles and Austin, the early drawings aim to reflect the grittier nature of Chicago with a heavy focus on brick and steel.
“We want this to be truly emblematic of Chicago and are working around a theme of ‘enduring elegance,’” Baldwin says. “The core idea is to have something that looks like it would have fit right into the landscape of Chicago from 50 years ago and will be just as appropriate 50 years from now.”
That said, the design also pulls some influences from other recently developed MLS stadiums, as well as soccer facilities in Europe.
“One of the first things we did after Joe got involved with the team was move downtown to Soldier Field,” Baldwin says. “We’ve loved being in the city, but we’re really looking forward to having a true home-field advantage and that level of intimacy with our supporters right on top of the pitch.”
Front Office Sports
stadium
16 June 20253 min readChicago Fire Planning $650M Stadium As Bears, Sox Projects Stall
Front Office Sports
16 June 2025
stadium
Oakland Athletic Sets Date For Breaking Ground On New $1.75B Vegas StadiumThe Oakland Athletics’ relocation to Las Vegas will take a significant step forward this month as the team prepares to break ground on its new $1.75 billion ballpark in the heart of Sin City.
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the ceremonial groundbreaking is scheduled for June 23 at 8 a.m., marking a major milestone for the franchise and its future in Southern Nevada.
While preliminary construction began in late April, the upcoming event will serve as a formal celebration with team officials and local dignitaries in attendance. Expected guests include Athletics ownership, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo, members of the state legislature, and representatives from the Clark County Commission.
The stadium’s construction is expected to take 32 months, with the goal of completing the venue in time for Opening Day 2028.
In the interim, the Athletics are playing their home games at a minor league ballpark in Sacramento, California, as they await the completion of their permanent home in Las Vegas.
The team’s pursuit of Las Vegas began in 2021, after Major League Baseball authorized the franchise to explore relocation options. The move came following years of stalled efforts to secure a new stadium in Oakland—a process that has drawn criticism regarding its sincerity.
Looking ahead, the organization anticipates strong local support for the team once it arrives in Las Vegas, citing expectations of a predominantly regional fan base for home games, the team told the Review-Journal.
Stadia Magazine
stadium
12 June 20252 min readOakland Athletic Sets Date For Breaking Ground On New $1.75B Vegas Stadium
Stadia Magazine
12 June 2025
stadium