If you go through the now closed Save the Crew thread in the Columbus forum, you would be well prepared for the trip. HINT: avoid the Zima.
Agreed but the fair value of McKalla is around $20 mil (based on offers from other developers). The water bonds were revenue bonds backed by payments from Austin water consumers. There haven't been any problems collecting enough money to pay the bonds (unlike say Detroit, where over half of customers are in arrears). But the property bought with the proceeds from the bonds serves as a backstop security interest for the bonds. Aleshire says the city must pay back the value of McKalla to the bond fund before disposing of it via a 20 year lease. I'm not convinced that argument will fly since McKalla doesn't generate any revenue so imo it doesn't impair the ability to repay the bonds. On the other hand it is a bit cheesy for the city to give away the site. Precourt doesn't want to buy it since it would then be taxable. The city doesn't have a spare $20 mil sitting around that can be transferred to the water dept.
The voter guide from the pro-PSV side in Austin: https://medium.com/austinanthem/aus...be2db8420?_branch_match_id=327631866241139543
My memory is different. You are correct that this is a very different league now. MLS as a league was still losing a bunch of money. What damaged Horowitz was the cash calls to cover Tampa, San Jose, and Dallas more than what he was losing in Miami. As the league was salvaging itself in December, 2001 and January, 2002 - Horowitz wanted to continue to operate the Miami Fusion FC. But he also wanted to be excused from league operations cash calls. Hunt, Anschutz, and Kraft wouldn't agree to that and the Fusion were one of the two teams shuttered. From my understanding there were six teams in play for contraction, with the possibility of the league dropping to eight teams. Dallas, San Jose, Colorado, and Kansas City were the other four. Horowitz had a long term operations contract at Lockhart (in fact the annual January Player Combine was held there until that contract expired), and he'd invested millions into sprucing it up to MLS level (in many ways it was nicer than Crew Stadium, in others - not so much). He had already paid for the heavy lifting of owning a franchise, his main losses were the annual ongoing losses. In those days the national/local revenue distributions were different, and league operations were mostly funded by cash calls. Horowitz felt he could handle the Fusion losses, and he wanted a break from the league cash calls - as the new plan (including SUM) promised to greatly expand the national sponsorship revenues - thereby reducing the need for cash calls.
That's what I attempted to get at with my 'under the contemporary environment' qualifier, but might not have expressed it well--Horowitz really wanted the league to divest of league-operated teams. But failing that, he did not want to also sustain the y.o.y. losses on the Fusion. Upshot of that is only that Horowitz wasn't exactly steamed that his team was folded. If Precourt were told his Austin team was being dissolved, he would be. That's a major difference.
Again, I disagree. My understanding is that Horowitz was fighting hard to keep the Fusion on the field - and why not that 2001 Fusion was the most electric collection of talent the league had seen in probably its first 20 years. Horowitz was willing to foot the y.o.y. losses for the Fusion. That's the exact opposite of what I'm reading from you. It was the league losses on top of the Fusion losses that were crushing him. He wanted to get a break in the league cash calls.
I'm telling you Precourt doesn't have the chops to navigate the very complex intricacies of building a stadium. Not financially, politically or organizationally. It won't happen if he retains "operating rights" to a team in Austin.
FWIW, despite the conventional wisdom, I don't see the Modell Law as having much effect beyond this particular instance and I don't see a mad rush to enshrine similar laws across the fruited plain. Two reasons: First because laws can't be made retroactive. As Ohio's AG is positing, the law is entirely transactional: you knew,or should have known, that when you accepted public money you were for practical purposes entering into a contract whereby you agreed to be bound by the terms of the law. No one forced you to take the money; you asked for it, it was given and it came with strings. But you can't pass a law in 2018 regarding money you accepted in past years. So it would have no effect on teams with existing stadiums. You can't (essentially) rewrite the deal you made when the place was built by passing a law. A court will toss that out in a heartbeat. Secondly, politicians in areas which do not have teams but would like one or two will be loath to pass laws which will be seen - and rightly so - as scaring off potential franchises. And even if there is such a law in place, if the government so chooses it can exempt you from the effects of such a law as part of the terms of any agreement. It's not hard to do. Modell, ironically, has been effective in this singular instance because nobody was aware of it. Remember that it was a full two months after Precourt announced that he was "exploring his options" that a lawyer in Columbus was searching for something entirely unrelated in some legal database and his search terms were such that ORC 9.67 popped up. He told a few people and one of them mentioned it to an Ohio State Legislator at a party, IIRC. Which was after Fischer and Mayor Ginther flew to NYC and were so rudely treated by Precourt and Garber that they walked out after 20 minutes and swore they would never go back. The angry message they penned, I still contend, from a hotel bar an hour later was as outraged a business communication as you'll ever see. Awareness of Modell,which demands at least the appearance of negotiations, would have precluded any such ugliness. But MLS/PSV didn't think they had any reason to give the Columbus guys the time of day. The reason: nobody - including the guys from Ohio - was aware that the law existed. But as we all know, and as Judge Brown has blandly noted, ignorance is no excuse. Pass a similar law today and nobody will forget it. It makes all the difference. Now, if you want some help with improvements the first thing you'll ask for is a waiver. Modell/Crew is a one-off,with pretty much zero applicability going forward, even in Ohio.
I disagree that the law is a one-off which will keep leagues from putting teams in states which have similar laws. MLS was certainly aware of the law by the time FCC was awarded their franchise. As far as we know, there haven't been any negotiations to exempt them from the law. Maybe MLS was just putting on a tough guy act or felt like they had to back up their court position that the law was invalid, but I haven't seen anything from Cincinnati expressing concern about the law.
Yes, I know. Thats the bare bones. I was more interested in who proposed the law and what, if any, kind of debate surrounded it.
Yes, I know. I used to be a Browns fans.... I can talk all day about Bernie Kosar, Eric Metcalf and Kevin Mack. I meant the impetus behind it. Since obviously Art Modell didn't propose the law. I realize I wasn't clear.
Not quite - they played in Greensboro before the arena was completed in Raleigh. They have never played in Charlotte except for exhibition games. Their AAA affiliate is the Charlotte Checkers.
A few things. And I will go back to the reality that the whole law was more of cutesy thing to do to gain points from the fine battery throwing people of Cleveland... which is kind of proven in how it was forgotten and buried to irrelevance. In other words, I don't think anyone really expected it to be used. Flash forward to any future situation where MLS might want to move Real Vomit Spaghetti United F.C., and unlike with the Crew, they will have a plan. That was what happened here, an unknown, unused vanity law surprised everyone and probably because MLS has a bit of a time frame and other things to consider, they needed to figure out the Columbus situation sooner rather than later. But, now in Ohio the cat is out of the bag. So moving a team just means, announce the move with significant advance warning, and then make sure to not sell the team to whatever offers are proposed. Wash hands and ask, "what is truth?" Going back to the reality that the law is problematic and vague to begin with, if MLS had needed to, I think they would have fought it and probably won. That means other states would really need to create a law that is much more restrcictive and detailed, which I think most states would balk at, because it starts to feel like a massive over reach to tell their billionaire friends who can and cannot buy their teams and where they can and cannot do their business. I realize the goverment "could" do just that, what I am saying is that most people in elected office aren't keen to do that. One reasons, as stated above, it hurts one's own ability to draw professional sports. A more apt and reasonable law would make sure a government giving tax breaks or incentives gets fairly financially renumerated for a team up and leaving. So now we will probably never know how it would play out in a court of law, because now that people know about it they will avoid it's invocation by working around it.
Also, no owner in their right mind is going to make public declarations of wanting to have a loop hole to move the team one day. If there were some disussions along those lines, you wouldn't be hearing about them. Also, no owner thinks one day they are going to relocate or sell the team. But a league would be interested in that, espcially one like MLS. In the end, the hypothetical to the hypotheical of the hypothetical really doesn't matter. Its sports fans dreaming. Anyway, Ohio tipped its hand, or at least people involved in Columbus did... remember you still have to have a state or city attorney willing to make a case with the law, so now I think any half way decent business man with a team of lawyers will dance around the Modell Law without a problem. Still, I am glad the Crew are staying in Columbus.
There are stadiums and teams that aren't publicly subsidized by Modell standards. So it wouldn't apply to every team which wanted to relocate. The law also gives standing to local would-be buyers of a team which wants to move so it doesn't depend on action by elected officials.
I'm starting to get the sense that the other MLS owners may see Precourt as a 'business lightweight', something they may not have realized when the initial purchase of the Crew happened (which included the move to Austin clause). As things have transpired they may be creating a situation in which the 'business lightweight' is very likely to fail. In the classic metaphor, give Precourt the rope with which to hang himself. So, they give him Austin, and take back the franchise to sell it again when he fails.
More likely, the lease/development agreement between the city of Cincinnati and FCC will have some relocation language, as should any such deal between a team and city going forward where public funds are being used. Much tidier, as the citizens of Bridgeview can attest. As a matter of fact, I need to go digging around for that...
Once the deal is done and dusted, I propose that the Crew rebrand as the "Crewe," just like the team in England. That way MLS would have no choice but to have promotion and relegation and would become a real league that plays real soccer, oops, I mean football, which of course would lead to the USMNT winning the World Cup! I even gave them a head start by creating a new and glorious shield that subtly emphasizes their newfound organic connection with the land where proper footy is played. Behold!