The Cleveland Browns certainly have their fair share of questions this offseason, but none are bigger than the quarterback position and what they will do. They could go the veteran route and acquire someone like Kirk Cousins or Sam Darnold,

Cleveland’s fight to keep the Browns from moving from their downtown home into a proposed dome in the suburbs has taken yet another legal turn.

To Case Western Reserve University law professor Eric Chaffee, there’s one big takeaway from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s decision to enter the battle between the Cleveland Browns and the City of Cleveland. “It means the state is willing to take a side here — and it does want the Browns to remain in Cleveland,” Chaffee said.

In August, the Browns announced their intentions to move to Brook Park, which is about 13 miles southwest of the current stadium, because it was “their most compelling option.” The team described it as a $2.4 billion project, which was later revealed to include a domed stadium.

The city of Cleveland has filed a lawsuit to stop the Browns from leaving their lakefront stadium and building a domed stadium in suburban Brook Park.

The city of Cleveland has filed a lawsuit against the Browns over the team's proposed move to a new stadium in the Brook Park suburb. In the lawsuit filed

The City of Cleveland returned fire Tuesday in its battle with the Haslam Sports Group. The city filed a lawsuit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas asking for one of two things: that the team be offered for purchase by local buyers to prevent the move to Brook Park or that the company negotiate its exit from the city.