Latest news with #ArtModellLaw
Yahoo
02-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb isn't happy about the Browns' relocation to Brook Park
The Cleveland Browns got what they wanted from Ohio, in the form of $600 million in taxpayer money and a change to the law that would have otherwise kept them from leaving downtown Cleveland for suburban Brook Park. And while the Browns are very happy about the outcome, Cleveland is not. "We are deeply disappointed that the final state budget includes both a $600 million public subsidy for a domed stadium in Brook Park and changes to Ohio's [Art] Modell Law — provisions we strongly opposed and requested be removed," Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb said Tuesday, via "Relocating the Browns will divert economic activity from downtown, create a competing entertainment district, and disrupt the momentum of our lakefront redevelopment." The change to the Art Modell Law allows Ohio teams to move within Ohio. Given that the Ohio legislature created the initial law after the Browns moved to Baltimore in 1996, it seems that there's little room for Cleveland to fight the legislature's decision to change the law. The planned use of unclaimed funds to pay the $600 million to the Browns may become a bigger impediment to the plan. A 2009 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court could provide the basis of a challenge to the plan to tap into the money for the purposes of funding the new stadium. Put simply, "unclaimed funds" are not abandoned. They remain the property of those who have not claimed them. The argument would be that those funds cannot be redistributed by the state for the purposes of building a new football stadium. And so, even as the Browns declare victory and rush forward to make plans for selling season tickets to their new stadium, there's a chance that Ohio will have to scrap the plan to pay the $600 million via unclaimed funds and come up with an alternative approach. The one approach that will never happen is to put the issue to the voters. When the voters have a chance to say whether their money will be used to subsidize the multibillionaire owners of sports teams, the response is usually, "Hell no." As it arguably should be. With the values of NFL teams skyrocketing, why shouldn't NFL teams pay for their own stadiums? The habit of using public funds for such projects feels less like good governance and more like the misadventures of Dennis Moore.
Yahoo
02-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Browns' Stadium Move Hinges on Change to Murky Modell Law
The Ohio legislature is contemplating changes to Ohio Revised Code 9.67, better known as the Art Modell Law, which would facilitate the Cleveland Browns moving to a new stadium located less than a mile from Cleveland's city line. As Sportico has detailed, the Browns and the city of Cleveland have sued each other in different courts over whether and how the Modell Law applies to a proposed stadium project in Brook Park, Ohio, a fellow city in Cuyahoga County. This law blocks Ohio-based pro teams that use a 'tax-supported facility for most of its home games' and that 'receive financial assistance' from playing home games 'elsewhere' unless they satisfy assorted requirements such as offering the team for sale to the government or local buyers. Advertisement More from A key part of the legal dispute is how to interpret the word 'elsewhere,' which is not defined. It could mean a move to, literally, anywhere else—even down the street. Or it could mean a move to a different state. The latter is arguably what politicians and then-Ohio Gov. George Voinovich intended in the mid 1990s. The Modell Law was enacted as a response to the original Browns moving to Maryland in 1995 and becoming the Baltimore Ravens. As reported by lawmakers in Ohio are considering a new budget that would clarify the Modell Law applies only to proposed moves out of Ohio. Another change would indicate that the expiration of the Browns' lease to play in the publicly owned Huntington Bank Field (HBF) in 2028 would count as satisfying the Modell Law. For the changes to go into effect, Gov. Mike DeWine would need to sign them into law. The Browns have repeatedly assured they will fulfill all the terms of the HBF lease and then want to play in a new (and superior) stadium that would host as many as 70 major events a year. City officials have blasted this legislative activity. A spokesperson for Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb says the revisions would 'fail to protect communities like us when a team decides to leave' and the Browns relocating would constitute 'a betrayal of the city and residents who have stood by the franchise for generations.' Advertisement The Haslam Sports Group, which owns the Browns, sees the situation quite differently. In a statement, a spokesperson told Sportico, '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 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. HSG will always maintain its commitment to Northeast Ohio, as the private investment of more than $2 billion in the new enclosed Huntington Bank Field stadium and adjacent mixed-use development in Brook Park shows.' The prospect of the Browns-Cleveland legal dispute ending via statutory amendment would mean a law that raises legal concerns once again evades judicial scrutiny. The Modell Law has long been subject of debate among legal scholars regarding whether it complies with the U.S. Constitution. For example, the ambiguity of the word 'elsewhere' is problematic since it could undermine due process. The Browns—or any pro team that wishes to move from a tax-supported facility to another facility within Ohio—are not informed whether the law even applies. But 'elsewhere' isn't the only problem with the Modell Law. The law also requires teams to provide six months' notice of a move. A notice requirement sounds simple enough, but the law doesn't clarify what actions are needed to start the clock. Advertisement For example, the notice clock might start with a team offering a public statement about an intended move. It could also start with a less public conversation between team and government officials. Alternative starting points could include the presentation of renderings, an application for permits, the purchasing of building supplies or the commencement of construction. These moments all occur at different times, and the law doesn't indicate which one, if any, counts. The Contract Clause as found in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution is also relevant. It prohibits states from impairing 'the obligation of contracts.' The Browns argue their contractual relationship with the NFL, which has extensive legal authority over teams and must approve any change in ownership, would be undermined by a law that requires a sale of the team. Another potential issue stems from how the Modell Law interacts with the Commerce Clause as found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause provides Congress with the authority to regulate interstate commerce and, as it has been interpreted by courts, prohibits states from enacting economic laws that unduly burden other states' economies. The Modell Law, by requiring ownership to offer to sell to Ohio residents, arguably interferes with other states. For similar reasons, the Modell Law might run afoul of the Privileges and Immunities Clause found in Article 4, Section 2. This clause prohibits states from discriminating against citizens of other states. If those citizens are denied the same authority to buy a team, they arguably are deprived of the same rights as Ohio citizens. Advertisement While the constitutionality of the Modell Law has been debated in law review articles, it hasn't been tested in court. About seven years ago there was an opportunity for a court to scrutinize the law, but the opportunity ended via settlement. The opportunity came in the form of DeWine, who was Ohio Attorney General at the time, suing Major League Soccer and Columbus Crew's operator/investor (Precourt Sports Ventures) over the Crew's planned move to Austin, Texas. The litigation ended when the Crew were purchased by local buyers—led by the Haslams—and Austin landed an expansion team. Given the latest legislative developments in Ohio, it's possible the constitutionality of the Modell Law remains more for academic intrigue than practical consequence. Yet the law has still been influential given that it changed the trajectory of the Crew's future and has provided many billable hours for attorneys working on each side in the Browns litigation. Best of Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
NBC Sports
02-07-2025
- Business
- NBC Sports
Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb isn't happy about the Browns' relocation to Brook Park
The Cleveland Browns got what they wanted from Ohio, in the form of $600 million in taxpayer money and a change to the law that would have otherwise kept them from leaving downtown Cleveland for suburban Brook Park. And while the Browns are very happy about the outcome, Cleveland is not. 'We are deeply disappointed that the final state budget includes both a $600 million public subsidy for a domed stadium in Brook Park and changes to Ohio's [Art] Modell Law — provisions we strongly opposed and requested be removed,' Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb said Tuesday, via 'Relocating the Browns will divert economic activity from downtown, create a competing entertainment district, and disrupt the momentum of our lakefront redevelopment.' The change to the Art Modell Law allows Ohio teams to move within Ohio. Given that the Ohio legislature created the initial law after the Browns moved to Baltimore in 1996, it seems that there's little room for Cleveland to fight the legislature's decision to change the law. The planned use of unclaimed funds to pay the $600 million to the Browns may become a bigger impediment to the plan. A 2009 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court could provide the basis of a challenge to the plan to tap into the money for the purposes of funding the new stadium. Put simply, 'unclaimed funds' are not abandoned. They remain the property of those who have not claimed them. The argument would be that those funds cannot be redistributed by the state for the purposes of building a new football stadium. And so, even as the Browns declare victory and rush forward to make plans for selling season tickets to their new stadium, there's a chance that Ohio will have to scrap the plan to pay the $600 million via unclaimed funds and come up with an alternative approach. The one approach that will never happen is to put the issue to the voters. When the voters have a chance to say whether their money will be used to subsidize the multibillionaire owners of sports teams, the response is usually, 'Hell no.' As it arguably should be. With the values of NFL teams skyrocketing, why shouldn't NFL teams pay for their own stadiums? The habit of using public funds for such projects feels less like good governance and more like the misadventures of Dennis Moore.
NBC Sports
01-07-2025
- Business
- NBC Sports
Ohio governor signs Browns stadium provisions into law
The Browns may not get their way very often on the field. They've gotten their way off the field. As it relates to getting a new field. Via Daryl Ruiter of 92.3 The Fan, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed a new budget into law late Monday night. The big, beautiful, Buckeye bill gives the Browns $600 million in state money for a new stadium — and it clears the path to move from Cleveland to Brook Park without violating the Art Modell Law. The $600 million comes from the state's unclaimed property fund. Ruiter notes that a class-action lawsuit was filed last week, arguing that unclaimed funds can't be used for public projects. The Modell Law, which as written limits the ability of the Browns to move 'elsewhere,' was changed to prohibit moves outside the state. Which will make things hilarious in about 10 years, when the Bengals try to move to Columbus. (I'm kidding, Cincinnati. But it definitely would be hilarious.) The Browns still need to come up with more money to get this done, since Cuyahoga County has no interest in participating. With the stadium expected to cost $2.4 billion (it's always more than the estimate), the Browns have managed to get 25 percent of the money from taxpayer funds. Most NFL stadium projects aimed for a 50-50 split. Regardless, it's full Cleveland steam ahead. The team bought 176 acres last week, for $76 million. Hopefully they'll get a better return on that than they have on the $230 million that will go to Deshaun Watson.
NBC Sports
28-06-2025
- Business
- NBC Sports
Browns close on purchase of 176 acres for new stadium in Brook Park
Factory of Sadness 2 is moving closer and closer to reality. With the Ohio legislature amending the Art Modell Law in a way that allows the Browns to move from Cleveland, the Browns have acquired a 176-acre parcel in Brook Park. Via Daryl Ruiter of 92.3 The Fan in Cleveland, the Browns and Haslam Sports Group closed on the sale on Friday, at a price in excess of $76 million. Governor Mike DeWine is expected to sign the relevant provisions into law next week. The Browns hope to break ground in early 2026, with a goal of opening the new domed stadium in 2029. The Browns will be sacrificing the home-field advantage that comes from playing in the elements. They'll be the first team in the AFC North to move indoors. Once that happens, only the AFC East will consist of four open-air, in-the-elements stadiums.
