Two months after the Cleveland city council declared it was considering employing Ohio’s “Art Modell law” to block the Browns from moving to suburban Brook Park, Mayor Justin Bibb sent a letter to Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam saying, yup, he intends to do that thing:
Bibb wrote that the team has not provided an opportunity for the city or others to purchase the team, which is required by law. Bibb went on to say if the opportunity becomes available, the city plans to assemble a group of buyers or a single buyer from the area to purchase the team to prevent them from moving out of downtown.
Bibb ended the letter with a deadline, saying the team had until Jan. 9, 2025, to respond to the letter. If the Browns don’t respond or the team states that it doesn’t plan to comply with the law, the city will take “appropriate legal action.”
The Haslams have already sued in federal court to have the Modell law declared an unconstitutional violation of the federal Commerce Clause, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has filed to intervene in the Haslams’ suit on the side of enforcing the law. It’s not immediately clear what “appropriate legal action” Bibb intends to take, but clearly this is upping the legal ante here.
According to Bibb’s own letter, the Modell law applies to any “owner of a professional sports team that uses a tax-supported facility for most of its home games and receives financial assistance from the state or a political subdivision thereof,” which clearly covers the Browns, and prohibits them from “playing most of its home games elsewhere” without providing the six-month notice, which … does the six-month clock start relative to when the team announces it’s moving, or once it starts negotiating to move, or figures out where on earth to get the money for its proposed $2.4 billion stadium, or what?
Haslam Sports Group spokesperson Peter John-Baptiste issued a statement saying the team was “reviewing the correspondence from Mayor Bibb” and asserting that the Modell law and the city’s actions “create uncertainty and do not serve the interest of Greater Cleveland,” which is not exactly a legal argument. There’s going to be a lot to hash out in court, certainly.
The whole thing is dumb. The idea of the law was a direct butthurt reaction to the Browns moving OUT OF THE MARKET.
Quite frankly, with the notable exception of the Braves moving to Cobb County, why waste time worrying about a team moving to the suburbs when it’s still in market? Especially a pro football team that is still going to play the bulk of its games on weekends when going to that suburb is not problematic?
Oy. Why don’t elected officials spend more time actually, you know, not giving away the store than worrying about another municipality wanting to foot the bill for something you’ll still get use of?
(Obviously, the original Browns moving, just in case that wasn’t clear.)
If the Browns were proposing to relocate to a suburb on their own dime, or if the suburb were capable of funding the team’s entire $1.2 billion public ask, your point would have some merit. But neither scenario applies here— the Browns seek $1.2 billion from the State, County, and cit(ies) to enable their move. Moreover, the $1.2 billion does not include a future expensive infrastructure ask which the team continues to hide behind the curtain. Cleveland and Cuyahoga County are appropriately protecting their respective tax bases.
So if the county and the state don’t want to fund the $1.2 billion, why don’t they just, you know, not fund it? The Modell Law seems like a bit of a kludge here.
sure. but something is going to happen. so rather it not be double the price and go to a dump by the airport.
I don’t understand the logic in saying “something is going to happen”.
If the team and it’s partners want to fund that something, then it may happen. Starting from the point of view that “we have to agree to something in an effort to limit our losses” is an actual guarantee of losses.
The stadium may be in a poor location (as was it’s predecessor), but it was part of the deal the team (and league) agreed to, so I don’t see a problem. If they want to move, they are free to do so when the lease expires.
Offering money to induce them to move is tantamount to paying your tenant to leave: it only makes sense if there is a better and higher revenue option available. In this case, there is no other option. Having the Browns move would cost the city some revenue (though I’m not sure that revenue would outstrip the added expenses of having them), but nothing like what they are asking for. In addition, they aren’t moving very far and will almost certainly keep Cleveland in their name.
Let Them Go. Doing so is a win win.
The city of Cleveland doesn’t want them to move out and leave a big hole in an already struggling downtown. So they are using the little leverage they have. Good for them.
Also, you must not be from Cleveland, because the city they are proposing (Brook Park) is a dump that specializes in all-nude strip clubs and abandoned Ford factories. They have no money to offer.
Also, the proposed move comes with a $1.2 taxpayer bill…..while keeping them where they are under the renovation proposal it is $600 million from taxpayers. Of course it’s all ridiculous, but $600 difference is huge.
So it sure seems to me the elected officials are spending their time actually, you know, not giving away the store
“Also, you must not be from Cleveland, because the city they are proposing (Brook Park) is a dump that specializes in all-nude strip clubs”
You act as if that’s a BAD thing, when Brook Park gifted humanity the legendary
A FORMER CLERGYMAN REVIEWS STRIP CLUBS !
https://www.clevescene.com/news/a-former-clergyman-reviews-strip-clubs-3147196
It would be interesting to see what useless fluff New Orleans and Louisiana have spent hundreds of millions on in the Superdome while leaving critical security infrastructure like bollards and anti-vehicle wedges broken. And they say keeping us safe is the first priority. Leaving Bourbon Street wide open to Islamic state terrorists on New Years is scandalous.
The protective barriers were being rebuilt as part of the Super Bowl security plan.
I’m not sure why Superdome funding should have anything to do with protective barriers on a street that’s nearly a mile away from the stadium