CLEVELAND — As the city of Cleveland considers evoking current state law to prevent the Browns from leaving downtown and relocating to a soon-to-be-built domed stadium in Brook Park, the owners of the team have taken the offensive by going to court first.
In a statement, the Haslam Sports Group says the Browns have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court asking that the Modell Law, passed in 1996 and named for former Browns owner Art Modell, who moved the team from Cleveland to Baltimore, be declared either unconstitutional or not applicable to the Browns' plans to relocate their stadium to Brook Park.
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, according to 3News legal analyst Stephanie Haney, 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.
THE CITY'S SIDE
Earlier this week, the city of Cleveland told 3News that it will be "moving forward" in taking legal action to try to prevent the Browns from leaving their downtown home to play in Brook Park.
"We're gonna move forward because that's the law," Cleveland Law Director Mark Griffin told 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."
With the Crew, the previous owners were trying to move the team to another state, and they wanted to do it in the middle of their stadium lease. The Haslams want to move the Browns to a different suburb within Greater Cleveland, and they don't plan to do it until their current stadium lease is up at the end of 2028.
The city of Cleveland doesn't seem to think that matters, but Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost does.
"We don't know what's going to happen tomorrow, much less 4 1/2 years from now," Yost told Haney. "I was in touch with the Browns organization today, seeking clarification. 'What's going on? What is your timeline?' And I'm convinced this is not ripe for any action. We're monitoring, we're watching it, we're aware what's going on, but everybody needs to take a deep breath. I think there's probably quite a bit of posturing going on with regards to this negotiation."
While the city of Cleveland was named as the defendant in the case, the suit also requests that it be served to Yost.
Here is Haney's legal analysis:
"Assuming for the moment that the Modell Law has successfully been invoked, that's not the only hurdle the city will face when it comes to keeping the Browns downtown. If the city gets a group of investors together and they present an offer to buy the Browns, there's nothing in the law that says the Haslams have to accept it.
"Can you force owners to sell a team if the offer is reasonable, or even competitive? That's the untested part of the Modell Law. We don't know what a court would say on that question, because the Columbus Crew case was settled before it got to that point.
That's where things will get interesting if this case makes it before a judge."
THE HASLAM SPORTS GROUP'S STANCE
Haslam Sports Group's Chief Operating Officer Dave Jenkins released the below statement announcing the lawsuit:
"Throughout our future stadium planning process, we have always acted transparently and in good faith with the City of Cleveland and are disappointed in the City’s latest course of action stating its intent to bring litigation regarding the 'Modell Law'. These statements and similar actions create uncertainty and do not serve the interests of Greater Cleveland. Therefore, today we have filed a lawsuit seeking clarity on this vague and unclear law.
As we have consistently conveyed, the intent of our future stadium planning has always been to work in collaboration with our local leaders to find the optimal long-term stadium solution that will benefit our fans while positively impacting our region. Our lease expires at the end of the 2028 season, and we are working hard to develop a long-term solution upon completion of our current agreement.
Today’s action for declaratory judgment was filed to take this matter out of the political domain and ensure we can move this transformative project forward to make a new domed Huntington Bank Field in Brook Park a reality. We have no interest in any contentious legal battle but are determined to create a project that will add to Greater Cleveland by building a dome stadium and adjacent mix-used development, a $3-3.5B project, that will include approximately $2B in private investment. This project will bring premier events and economic activity that will generate significant revenue for the City, County and State. As this is now an ongoing legal matter, we will have no further comments. We look forward to a positive resolution.
CITY AND COUNTY RESPONSE
3News' Lynna Lai caught up with both Cleveland City Council President Blaine Griffin and Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne at a Thursday event. Griffin said he was "glad we're going to get some clarity on this" by having the case go to court, but also expressed dismay at how the Browns stadium saga has played out.
"I'm disappointed that one of our biggest franchises and one of our biggest corporations ... is getting to this point where we have this legal battle," Griffin stated. "I really felt that it was time for us to really get in the room and try to figure out — even though it's at the 24th hour — to try to figure some things out and work out. I don't want this to be personal."
Ronayne, despite acknowledging he represents all of Cuyahoga County including Brook Park, has fought hard against the Browns leaving downtown for the suburbs. While the city has not yet asked the county for assistance in its court battle and Ronayne cautioned against "a protracted legal battle," he also said he will not be "neutral" on the situation.
"Downtown is everybody's downtown. Whether you live in Brook Park, Warrenville, Bay Village, or Solon, it's your downtown," Ronayne said. "This is a very heartfelt issue, but it's also a financial impact to the city that's not in the stadium necessarily, but in the restaurants and the hotels in the bars and everywhere else. So we do support the city of Cleveland in its effort to keep the Browns downtown."
Griffin also said he did not believe the team's desired move to Brook Park was a "done deal," and warned others who might stand in the city's way.
"I want to say this to our state legislature ... and to this court system: If you make moves to try to gut this city of one of our key corporate partners and money maker, all of us will remember," Griffin declared. "You will be up for reelection. You would have to deal with the city of Cleveland in some way, shape, form, or fashion, and none of us will ever forget it."
THE ANNOUNCEMENT
Last week, Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb announced that the Haslam Sports Group decided to move ahead on building a new domed stadium for the team to play in Brook Park. Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam confirmed the news in a statement after Bibb's press conference.
"A solution like this will be transformative not only for Cleveland and Northeast Ohio, but also the entire state of Ohio from the resulting events, tourism, and job creation," the Haslams wrote. "Additionally, moving the current stadium will allow the city and region's collective vision for the Cleveland lakefront to be optimally realized, and downtown will benefit from the major events the Brook Park dome brings to the region."
Bibb said he was informed of the Haslams' decision during a meeting with the pair on Oct. 16.
"The Haslams' choice to move the team away from this progress is frustrating and profoundly disheartening," Bibb said, pointing to recent successes in the downtown area including the groundbreaking of the Cavaliers' new training center and the awarding of $60 million in federal funds for the North Coast Connector.