Watch what you ask for. Do you know what a new ownership would do for the future? Would the new owners even keep the team in Columbus?
the popular take here is that the haslams should buy the team after seeing what they've done for the crew since taking over. they've also finally turned around the browns on the field but not without a ton of drama along the way.
the assumption being that if the haslams were to buy the team, they would stay here.
they've been willing to spend big for the browns and the crew to put a winning product out there. i don't think it's
completely fair to say the current ownership group won't spend on some things (players, facilities) but i think there are some areas where they do cheap out (coaches, front office, buyouts, sunk costs) that would no longer be an issue.
From the outside it appears that CBJ ownership has not been involved as much as maybe they should be but they have never handcuffed a CBJ GM by not allowing them to do what they want or spend as much as they need.
i mean, they forced the horton-clarkson trade on the front office. if it was the haslams in charge, they would have probably eaten the horton contract and used the LTIR cap space. the mcconnells decided they'd rather spend $5.8m on a terrible player than spend $10m for a LTIR player + a valuable replacement player.
CBJ ownership also shouldn't get a pass on the babcock stuff, either. there have been rumors for
years that they were too cheap to pay a top-tier coach. they bought low on torts and tried to do the same thing with babcock, who had much more baggage.
there was also speculation that they wouldn't fire the front office as they wanted to avoid paying more guys to not do their jobs.
they get full marks for letting the front office spend on free agents, but the big market/deep pocket teams get advantages outside of roster expenses by being able to eat money to catalyze necessary non-roster changes.
in other words: this ownership hates eating money just as much, or possibly more than it hates losing. that wouldn't be an issue with the haslams.