source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction My expectation at this point is that there will be a settlement. I'm not sure how much leverage Ohio has, but at this point I expect the current iteration of the Crew to move and Columbus to maybe get an expansion team. To paraphrase Beto: "reasonable people can disagree on this issue".
They've argued a few times that it's been given already, right? But honestly? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's not up to me to worry about that.
Laws are presumed to be constitutional at first, right? That doesn't mean it can't be later declared unconstitutional at some point. It hasn't been tested. There have been no completed trials or decisions on this law. Ohio laws have been deemed unconstitutional before: Osborn v. Bank of the United States - https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/22us738
Kinda. You argue points then say it’s not up to you, yet your opinion is based on those things. You hope Austin gets the current Crew team, have probably heard it will happen, and have heard the Law in Ohio doesn’t mean much. It’s pointless to tell you that Crew fans, with understandably biased opinions, have examined this from every angle. And I can tell you I think you will be disappointed, what you have heard will probably not happen. G’night Austin. Enjoy the worst owner in sports. We are glad to be rid of him in Columbus.
I did not make the reference. PO'd did. I'm being snarky because you have clearly made little actual effort to get up to speed on the topic to the basic facts, or take the time to literally Google the keywords from the reference you were questioning which led right to the info you seek. I have no interest in rewarding such laziness and it's frankly rude.
What he is missing, that you are aware, @stanger, is POd's explanation of why the constitutionality is unlikely to be able to be adjudicated before the current active case in OH. @POdinCowtown you have the floor, if you'd say it for like the 6th or 30th time...
You know what... Y'all seem incapable of having serious conversation without resorting to insults. None too surprising when Morgan Hughes set such a negative tone from the beginning. The biggest failing of your movement is supporting him as a figurehead. I'm naturally empathetic and listening to Morgan on Uncle Sam's podcast recently had me feeling even more empathetic until, per the #SaveTheCrew standard, he began calling Precourt "manbaby" repeatedly. How is anyone supposed to take that seriously? Enjoy your stadium...
First, let me address the pushback you are getting from Crew fans at the moment. Realize that we have some fatigue here. Many of us have followed every thread, tweet, council meeting, PR statement, news article, legal opinion for 11 months and then discussed argued lived and learned in this thread (Ok it just dawned on me that this conversation is not taking place in the MLS N&A 300+ page thread where all this has been hashed and rehashed) as well as the ~1200 page mega thread in the Crew forum where we did it all the first time, before the 300 page MLS N&A thread and now here we are in thread #3. So forgive us if we're a bit raw. Jumping into page 20 is not nearly the offense I thought you were committing were you jumping in at page 300. It's easy to get lost on this merry go round. I apologize for lashing out. Thank you for putting in some work in these two posts. I have not read through these or the links at this time, and by the time I do someone else will likely have responded specifically, but I believe your source material of "states" laws is not as specific as "Austin" laws and may not be applicable. The RFP info came up during Austin City Council meetings which we also dissected from every angle and while we in Columbus are still a little fuzzy on the RFP angle, we know it is real as the lawyer Aleshire threatened ACC he'd sue them for NOT going through an RFP and also Austin laws state that the people can trigger a referendum on any ACC decision. Whether or not either of these things happen remain to be seen, and neither looks to have much intent to follow through as this moment, but that could change tomorrow. Also the other developers could bring suit as POd also pointed out, though again while they made public statements we have no knowledge of their desire to follow through. The point is there are at least 3-4 known ways and parties that could cause trouble yet, so Austin should postpone the chicken counting festival.
So your issue is Morgan calling your owner a manbaby? Are you ********ing kidding me? [emoji23][emoji23]
You found one law in the last 100 years that was unconditional. One. You think the Modell Law is the second. It’s becoming more and more apparent that you deserve Precourt.
IIRC, in a filing last March, PSV/MLS said that they have notice on numerous occasion, but the filing should be considered notice. I think the judge accepts that as the date. PSV/MLS's problem in all of the is that they ignored Columbus early in the process. That's why the judge tolled the 6months-to give Columbus a chance to purchase the team. But, I don't think any of this matters. From what has been rumored, the offer in Columbus is similar to, if not better than, what the league accepted in Cincinnati. If that's the case, the league would be stupid to turn it down, and the judge wouldn't let them anyway.
And, Precourt is having trouble finding a temporary location to play... https://www.mystatesman.com/sports/...ssing-toward-contract/4WeJW9tNRRxhIusRHfXxxI/
I know you have been on the other threads and the subject of notice is pretty vague. I don’t think the city/State has acknowledged receiving notice, I know the leaseholder for the stadium ground hasn’t. And, selling season tickets for next year certainly doesn’t help them establish a date to move before then. Should be interesting how the courts decide if a sale isn’t finalized before the court rules.
Shocker.............because he didn't have a fully fleshed out detailed plan to move the team. Those details get you every time............. It's almost as if he went to SXSW a few times and said to himself: "By golly this is a perfect place for a pro soccer team!" Meanwhile an actual Soccer Team Owner, Phil Rawlins, closed up shop in Austin and moved to Orlando because he felt that Austin wasn't a good market for MLS...............
Yes, "might" because opponents of a soccer stadium at McKalla have threatened to sue to stop it. They may not follow through on the threats or might lose if they do. But they may also win their case. Yes, I don't follow Texas real estate law. For most of the last 500 years in common law jurisdictions, a lease has been considered a change of ownership for a period of time. That's not the case currently in most places where tenants rights are inferior to landlords. When leasing public land, sometimes tenants get superior rights to landlords. Thus the Crew can ban signs critical of Precourt inside Mapfre which the state couldn't do. Same thing with open carry of firearms, etc. IMO it's entirely plausible that a Texas court might consider a lease that could last for decades and which conveys rights beyond the city's to be a change of ownership in the guise of a lease. Especially if the lease is a sweetheart, below market deal. Or maybe not.
Um, it's pretty clear the Modell law isn't going to be overturned by state courts in Ohio. Maybe they'll rule that PSV has complied with it and let the team leave. But the arguments for its unconstitutionality are weak. People, businesses, even states lose rights they might otherwise have when they accept funding. A Federal contractor can't fire people for being gay, even if the place where they are located would allow non-federal contractors to do so. A college that acceptes federal financial aid for students can't ban inter-racial dating. States that accept federal highway money have to have a drinking age of at least 21, etc. From a legal realism point of view, the 10th district court of appeals made its position clear so the Judge isn't going to overturn the law. The state supreme court may take it up but Justice DeWine isn't going to toss a case brought by his father, AG DeWine. MLS would very much like to get the Modell law overturned but they can't run to a Federal court in NY or DE. They have to challenge in Federal court in Columbus. Federal judges aren't elected as state judges are, but they do live here and the same problems with the constitutional arguments arise.
The plaintiffs won't have a problem getting a preliminary injunction against a move pending the outcome of the trial. The requirements are preventing irreparable harm, a likelihood to succeed on the merits, minimizing damage to innocent 3rd parties, and not being contrary to public policy. Those all favor preserving the status quo pending the outcome of trial.
It's possible for an Ohio state court to overturn an Ohio law as being incompatible with the state or US constitution. But it's unlikely to happen with the Modell law. MLS/PSV would have a better chance in Federal court since the judges there don't have to run for election. But there are a couple of problems for MLS. They can't go to a federal judge in Manhattan, where the league HQ is located. They have to come to Ohio to challenge an Ohio law. Additionally, the state case is well underway. A Federal ruling overturning the Modell law would be dispositive in state court but that's unlikely to happen due to clogged dockets. Additionally, MLS would risk not only setting a precedent, they risk their business model. The State of Ohio is free to make counterclaims against MLS and PSV. MLS teams operate much more independently nowadays than back in the 90s when Fraser was decided. IMO there is fertile ground for an anti-trust suit vs MLS , which is exactly what the single entity structure was intended to prevent
The single entity is ripe for a new challenge. I wouldn't be surprised if the owners don't kill it and adopt a more traditional league structure in the near future without a court case. Single entity has outlived it's purpose. It was created to allow the league to be stable during its formation. It's no longer needed for that purpose and is now holding the league back. But this is a discussion for another thread.
Nope.....Single Entity is exactly why people are investing in MLS and NOT upstart leagues such as the NASL. Single Entity takes some of the risk out of investing in Pro Sports, especially a sport like soccer that doesn't have a long history of sustained success at the major professional level in this country. While some things may be scaled back, or simplified.........make no mistake, single entity is here to stay for the foreseeable future.
If it's up to MLS, then sure. But it's becoming more and more of a fiction. At some point the union or a rival league or spurned city will win an anti-trust suit vs MLS.