‘After accepting more than $350 million of taxpayer money, the Cleveland Browns are violating state law and their contract agreements with the City.’
CLEVELAND — Amid the Haslam Sports Group’s plan to build a domed stadium for the Cleveland Browns in Brook Park, the city of Cleveland has gone to court to try to “ensure that the Cleveland Browns continue playing in downtown Cleveland.”
According to a release from the city, the lawsuit filed in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court alleges that “after accepting more than $350 million of taxpayer money, the Cleveland Browns are violating state law and their contract agreements with the City.”
The foundation of the lawsuit is the so-called “Modell Law,” a statute passed by the Ohio General Assembly in 1996, a year after Art Modell moved the original Browns from Cleveland to Baltimore.
The entire statute from the Ohio Revised Code reads as follows:
“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:
- Enters into an agreement with the political subdivision permitting the team to play most of its home games elsewhere;
- 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 Modell Law, enacted in response to the Browns’ 1995 attempt to relocate to Baltimore, prevents team owners from exploiting public investment and protects Ohio taxpayers from losing professional sports teams that play in publicly funded facilities,” the city wrote in its release. “At the request of the Browns and the NFL, the City of Cleveland’s taxpayers have spent hundreds of millions to support the Browns and to build a world-class lakefront.”
The city added that it believes the Haslam Sports Group is “is attempting to circumvent the law through a hastily filed federal lawsuit aimed at evading compliance with the Modell Law, arguing it does not apply to their potential relocation plans.”
“The Modell Law is clear: if you take taxpayer money to fund your stadium, you have obligations to the community that made that investment possible,” Mark Griffin, law director and chief legal counsel for the city of Cleveland, said in a statement. “The Haslam Group’s circumvention of these requirements not only undermines the trust of Cleveland’s residents but also violates a law designed to protect all Ohioans.”
The lawsuit, according to the city, seeks to enforce the Modell Law, “alleging Browns ownership violated legal obligations by failing to notify or offer Cleveland a chance to purchase the team. Despite significant taxpayer investment in Huntington Bank Field, ownership is pursuing a new stadium in Brook Park, disregarding the law and their commitments.”
“It is ironic that the Haslams, who are currently not complying with Ohio’s Modell Law, previously relied on the same law to acquire the Columbus Crew soccer team,” Griffen added, referring to the Haslams’ purchase of the Major League Soccer club several years ago that kept it from moving to Austin, Texas. “Their use of the law to secure the Crew underscores the importance of these protections for communities and taxpayers, making their current sidestepping of the Modell Law even more glaring.”
3News has reached out to the Browns and their attorney for comment and will post any updates in this story.
‘DEEPLY UNFORTUNATE’
Last week, the Browns responded to Mayor Justin Bibb’s Dec. 30 letter calling for the Haslam Sports Group to make the team available for purchase by the city or private individuals as stated in the Modell Law.
In simple terms, the Browns told the city to get ready to battle in a court of law.
“The Browns understand that the City intends to assert legal claims in connection with those matters, as it has made clear in earlier public statements, and the Browns look forward to expeditiously resolving all of the parties’ claims in the litigation pending before the Honorable David Ruiz in the Northern District of Ohio,” wrote attorney Anthony C. White, representing the Browns.
In response, attorney Justin Herdman, representing the city of Cleveland, seemed to express frustration at the Browns’ short response to Bibb’s letter.
“The City is entitled to assurance that the Browns intend to uphold their contractual obligations, including complying with Ohio law,” Herdman wrote. “Rather than assure the City that the Browns intend to comply with their legal obligations, the Browns provided no meaningful response. The City has no choice but to read the Browns’ letter as a direct refusal to comply with their lease and Ohio law’s requirement to provide the City and local individuals with an opportunity to purchase the team. … This confirms for the City that the Browns (and its owners) are directly flouting duly-enacted Ohio law as well as the Browns’ contractual obligations to the City.
Herdman continued, “This all is deeply unfortunate.”