Latest news with #ArtModellLaw
NBC Sports
19-05-2025
- Business
- NBC Sports
Cuyahoga County executive accuses Haslam Sports Group of "greed and opportunism" in stadium effort
It appears that the Bengals and the Browns are in a competition to have the most contentious relationship possible with the counties where they currently play their home games. And they're both winning. Not to be outdone by the current hostilities between the Bengals and Hamilton County over a new lease at Paycor Stadium, the Browns are battling with Cuyahoga County over the team's determination to leave Cleveland for a domed stadium in Brook Park. The latest escalation came on Monday, when Cuyahoga County executive Chris Ronayne sent a letter to Haslam Sports Group accusing Browns ownership of 'greed and opportunism.' The one-page correspondence also says Jimmy Haslam and company are 'distorting the facts' and 'attempting to bully the public and fleece County taxpayers for [Haslam Sports Group's] private gain.' Ronayne accuses Browns ownership of 'pushing a costly, risky, and poorly conceived plan that uses public subsidy to diminish our region, our communities, and our businesses.' He calls the team's effort to build a $3.4 billion facility a 'boondoggle.' Last week, Haslam Sports Group COO Dave Jenkins sent a letter to Ronayne accusing him of 'communicating misleading information' about the Brook Park project and describing the opposition to the domed stadium 'truly disheartening.' The exchange of nastygrams comes at a time when the Browns are trying to secure $600 million in Ohio funding through the issuance of bonds. Separate from the funding fight is pending litigation between the Browns and the city of Cleveland regarding the application of Ohio's Art Modell Law to the team's effort to leave its downtown stadium. Even if both teams end up getting what they want, there's an ugliness to the process that is unhelpful and unbecoming to everyone involved. And while public unpleasantries are hardly unprecedented when it comes to stadium politics (e.g., the time the Browns left Cleveland 30 years ago), the two fronts of animosity in the Ohio cities that currently host NFL teams invite speculation as to one or both situations will eventually catch fire like the Cuyahoga River once did. A dozen times, apparently.
NBC Sports
06-04-2025
- Business
- NBC Sports
Art Modell Law applies to Bengals, too
You don't live in Cleveland, you live in Cincinnati. But you still benefit from a law aimed at keeping Cleveland from losing the Browns, again. The Art Modell Law, passed in 1996 after the Browns became the Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland was left without an NFL team for three seasons, applies to all professional sports teams in Ohio. And while multiple pieces of Modell Law litigation are currently pending in connection with the Browns' ongoing effort to exit downtown Cleveland for suburban Brook Park, the Modell Law hovers over the stadium situation in Cincinnati. Bengals executive V.P. Katie Blackburn said it this week. The team has an option on a two-year lease extension. If the option isn't exercised by June 30, 2025, the team's lease at Paycor Stadium will expire before the start of the 2026 NFL season. 'We could, I guess, go wherever we wanted after this year if we didn't pick the option up,' Blackburn said. Some have tried to downplay the remark or dismiss those who put a spotlight on it. Whatever. It's a big deal whenever any owner publicly declares that their team could, in theory, move away. Beyond the terms of the lease, the Bengals would have to deal with the Modell Law, if/when they try to move. The Bengals, if the law applies, would have to give local groups a chance to buy the team before moving it out of town. But the law might not apply. The Browns' current attack against the provision would, if successful, benefit the Bengals. That doesn't mean the Bengals will move. Wiping out the Modell Law, however, would give them even more leverage in their ongoing talks with Hamilton County over upgrades to their current stadium.
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Browns continue to attack Art Modell Law as "unconstitutional"
Thirty years after the Browns left Cleveland because they couldn't get a new stadium, the Browns are attacking the law that was passed to keep the Browns from leaving Cleveland in order to get a new stadium. Dueling pieces of litigation are pending over the Art Modell Law, aimed at preventing a repeat of the team leaving town. Via the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Browns have asked to amend their pending lawsuit. It's a basic procedural step that is routinely granted. The Browns continue to attack the Modell Law as unconstitutional. The team's overriding goal is to move to suburban Brook Park. The Modell Law requires the team to provide six months' notice before leaving town, with residents having a chance to buy the team. Although it's important for the city and the team to coexist, the lawyers are talking tough — as lawyers often do. 'Our actions in court are intended to ensure that the city's irresponsible and baseless attempt to apply the Modell Law to the Browns does not slow our momentum to build a world-class stadium right here in Northeast Ohio for the Browns, our fans and the entire Ohio region,' Haslam Sports Group's chief administrative officer and general counsel Ted Tywang said in a statement issued to the Plain Dealer. The Browns filed suit in federal court. The City of Cleveland filed suit in state court. The Browns view federal court, where the judge is appointed for life and not subject to an election, as the preferred forum. The city sees state court, where the judge is accountable to the ballot box, as the better place for the case to be resolved. Via the Plain Dealer, the Browns have attacked the city's lawsuit as 'legally meritless and fiscally irresponsible.' (That's how the game is played; every civil defendant sees every case filed against it as meritless or frivolous.) The team also has accused the Browns of attempting to "run out the clock so the Browns are unable to bring the Brook Park stadium to fruition by 2029, and so hold the team, its fans and the community hostage to an inferior alternative and the political whims of city managers." Even if the Browns manage to circumvent the Modell Law, they still need to strike a deal for public financing for a domed stadium at Brook Park. And they need to make it happen without the issue being put out to vote, because the citizens of very few if any cities, counties, or states would vote at this point to devote taxpayer funds to the construction of stadiums for sports teams with values approaching, if not exceeding, $10 billion.
NBC Sports
20-03-2025
- Business
- NBC Sports
Browns continue to attack Art Modell Law as "unconstitutional"
Thirty years after the Browns left Cleveland because they couldn't get a new stadium, the Browns are attacking the law that was passed to keep the Browns from leaving Cleveland in order to get a new stadium. Dueling pieces of litigation are pending over the Art Modell Law, aimed at preventing a repeat of the team leaving town. Via the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Browns have asked to amend their pending lawsuit. It's a basic procedural step that is routinely granted. The Browns continue to attack the Modell Law as unconstitutional. The team's overriding goal is to move to suburban Brook Park. The Modell Law requires the team to provide six months' notice before leaving town, with residents having a chance to buy the team. Although it's important for the city and the team to coexist, the lawyers are talking tough — as lawyers often do. 'Our actions in court are intended to ensure that the city's irresponsible and baseless attempt to apply the Modell Law to the Browns does not slow our momentum to build a world-class stadium right here in Northeast Ohio for the Browns, our fans and the entire Ohio region,' Haslam Sports Group's chief administrative officer and general counsel Ted Tywang said in a statement issued to the Plain Dealer. The Browns filed suit in federal court. The City of Cleveland filed suit in state court. The Browns view federal court, where the judge is appointed for life and not subject to an election, as the preferred forum. The city sees state court, where the judge is accountable to the ballot box, as the better place for the case to be resolved. Via the Plain Dealer, the Browns have attacked the city's lawsuit as 'legally meritless and fiscally irresponsible.' (That's how the game is played; every civil defendant sees every case filed against it as meritless or frivolous.) The team also has accused the Browns of attempting to to 'run out the clock so the Browns are unable to bring the Brook Park stadium to fruition by 2029, and so hold the team, its fans and the community hostage to an inferior alternative and the political whims of city managers.' Even if the Browns manage to circumvent the Modell Law, they still need to strike a deal for public financing for a domed stadium at Brook Park. And they need to make it happen without the issue being put out to vote, because the citizens of very few if any cities, counties, or states would vote at this point to devote taxpayer funds to the construction of stadiums for sports teams with values approaching, if not exceeding, $10 billion.
NBC Sports
12-03-2025
- Business
- NBC Sports
Browns dangle "up-front cash" to support bonds for new stadium
The Browns have a habit of attempting to solve problems by throwing money at them. Deshaun Watson doesn't want to play for the team? Throw money at him. Myles Garret doesn't want to stay with the team? Throw money at him. Via the Browns are dangling 'up-front cash' as insurance against the potential underperformance of bonds issued to help pay for the team's proposed stadium in Brook Park. Per the proposal, the Browns would set aside $38.25 million. If revenue from the stadium project and surrounding development doesn't cover the cost of the bond, the money would be used to bridge the gap. (The investment would grow to $150 million by 2054.) The Browns hope to secure $600 million through the bond offering. The offer flows from concerns that the team's plan for repaying the bonds is overly optimistic. The proposed suburban domed stadium has an estimated cost of $2.4 billion. The Browns would cover half, and the taxpayers would handle the rest, for the privilege of having a building that a multi-billion-dollar business would use as its primary workplace. The Browns also are willing to cover any cost overruns at the new stadium. (As the Bills are learning the expensive way, that could end up being a massive commitment.) The separate problem for the Browns comes from multiple lawsuits relating the Cleveland's Art Modell Law, passed after the old Browns became the Baltimore Ravens. The new Browns are currently throwing money at that one in the form of legal fees, which will not be insubstantial.
