Cleveland’s law director says the city will send the Browns a letter reminding them about the current state law, then will take the matter to court if necessary.
CLEVELAND — The city of Cleveland says it will be “moving forward” in taking legal action to try to prevent the Browns from leaving downtown and relocating to a soon-to-be-built domed stadium in Brook Park.
Specifically, the city plans to use current state law, passed in 1996 and named for former Browns owner Art Modell, who moved the team from Cleveland to Baltimore, as the justification to keep the NFL team on the lakefront. The law states the following:
“No 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 shall cease playing most of its home games at the facility and begin playing most of its home games elsewhere unless the owner either:
- (A) Enters into an agreement with the political subdivision permitting the team to play most of its home games elsewhere;
- (B) Gives the political subdivision in which the facility is located not less than six months’ advance notice of the owner’s intention to cease playing most of its home games at the facility and, during the six months after such notice, gives the political subdivision or any individual or group of individuals who reside in the area the opportunity to purchase the team.”
The provision of the law at issue here is the requirement for the Browns owners to entertain offers to buy the team from investors who would keep the team in downtown Cleveland, before they can carry out their plan to move the team to Brook Park.
“We’re gonna move forward because that’s the law,” Cleveland Law Director Mark Griffin told 3News’ Stephanie Haney in an interview. “We’re gonna move forward because that is what the Cleveland city ordinances require us to do.”
So how would that process work? Griffin pointed to a previous situation involving the Columbus Crew soccer team, where the previous owners signaled their intent to move that team to Texas. That case ending up settling out of court, and the team remains in Columbus to this day.
“In the Columbus Crew example, then-Attorney General (Mike) DeWine started with an initial letter reminding the teams that they have an obligation to follow [Ohio] Revised Code 9.67. About three months later, he followed up with a lawsuit asking the court to compel compliance with the law,” Griffin explained. “So here in Cleveland, we would similarly move forward with a letter and then, if there is not compliance with the law, we’d ask a court to intervene.”
The Haslam Sports Group, owners of the Browns, shared the below statement about the possibility of the Bibb administration invoking the Modell Law to keep the team from leaving the city of Cleveland:
“Obviously, we have a clear understanding of the situation that resulted in the original creation of the Modell Law, and our current stadium efforts and desire to make a transformative investment in Greater Cleveland and the entire Northeast Ohio region could not be more different. Our dome stadium and ancillary development focus in Brook Park is the optimal solution for our fans and the region not only because it will bring more large-scale events and economic activity but also because it will open up the lakefront for more impactful development. The proposed Brook Park project will bring far more value to Cleveland than just the 10-12 events the current stadium attracts annually. This long-term stadium solution is about strengthening Greater Cleveland and Northeast Ohio by creating more growth opportunities for our region. Our commitment to Cleveland will not change and our off-the-field work throughout Northeast Ohio will continue. We are not moving out of Northeast Ohio and while more work remains to make the Brook Park vision a reality, we look forward to continuing to make progress on this exciting opportunity with our public partners and other stakeholders.”