Columbus Crew to Austin Texas?

Well, it certainly seems to make Ted happy.

 

Just wrote it up.

https://socceresq.com/2018/04/16/sa...y-request-to-provide-discovery-to-plaintiffs/

The request itself is pretty standard in the context of the dismissal motion they'll be making. But we need to see what arguments they are specifically arguing before I can fully assess the viability of the motion.

 

Maybe the request is standard in Ohio. In my experience in California, courts look askance at requests to stay discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss.

 

Yes, those would be disputes on questions of law and in addition to the dispute about questions of fact.

 

I think the court will grant the stay of discovery pending the motion to dismiss. The discovery requests are extensive and the motion to dismiss is theoretically dispositive.

My guess is the next few events will be filing of the motion to dismiss, denial of that motion, a ruling on when notice was given (March is most likely imo), probably a ruling for the plaintiffs on tolling, then discovery begins.I wouldn't be surprised if MLS starts a separate action in a federal court challenging the constitutionality of the Modell law on various grounds.

 

reap what you sow, that goes for MLS too.

 

If I can even get one person to change their mind and stop watching MLS or not start all together it will be worth every second of my time.

 

Depends on the timing. Here, we're dealing with a motion set about six weeks after the case was filed. And how many interrogatories/requests for production do you typically send out ten days after the compliant is filed? It's pretty rare in my experience. Especially given the nature of these requests. That's not to say that PSV/MLS will get 3/4 months. But I think six weeks is probably reasonable.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think discovery should generally be prohibited pending resolution of dismissal motions, but, with very limited statutory exceptions, generally it is not.

In this case, as I've posted previously (possibly on the Columbus board), if I were the judge I would name a special master to preside over the negotiations and insist that bona fide investors vouched for by plaintiffs' counsel get whatever due diligence information they need subject to protective order maintaining its confidentiality from the public record in order that they may make their purchase offers. Except for the information the investors need, any other discovery would be stayed.

I would advise the parties that I am withholding any ruling on the motion to dismiss and a potentially unnecessary determination of constitutional questions, until this alternative dispute resolution process plays out in full and in good faith, to the satisfaction of the special master. And I would further advise the parties that when and if I did rule on the motion to dismiss I would do so in conjunction with ruling on a preliminary injunction. If the former is denied, the latter would be granted, because the likelihood of success on the merits prong for injunctive relief would be satisfied by virtue of the statute's constitutional validity.

 

Along these lines, I'm curious why MLS and the sports leagues would want to pursue this through litigation...

First, this is a law that has lain dormant for over 20 years. Hasn't seen the light of day. Nationally, there have been very few opportunities to pursue it. Why would there be a rush to enact a similar law?

Building on this, communities have become more sophisticated with claw back provisions for subsidies in general. From the looks of things, there is a clause requiring FC Cincinnati to purchase the stadium if they move.

Next up, MLS is actively seeking expansion. However it comes about, a team in Austin and one in Columbus is expansion. Worst case is mls needing to negotiate a King Solomon style splitting of the baby.

In allowing the law to play out, MLS's worst case is that they have to find a way to turn down an offer in Columbus for some reason.

Lastly, no trial, no appeal, no precedent.

The only thing this litigation does is buy time until Austin is resolved. MLS can defer a sale to local owners in Columbus until Precourt has a stadium deal in place in Austin. The time line puts this in the late summer/early fall. That way, Precourt can remain an owner throughout the process.

 

I have very little to contribute to this thread; my understanding of lawyer-speak is virtually nonexistent. I'm proud of myself simply for knowing what "et cetera" means, let alone all those Latin legal terms y'all throw around.

All I can say is, with the news this week on Cincinnati's stadium progress, it would be a dang shame if Cincy joined the league and Columbus was no longer with us. It seems to me that would be a no-brainer rivalry, the kind MLS purports to be so fond of.

 

Never go full Tinfoil Ted

 

I know i know but I’m losing it over here!

Seriously though I feel helpless as do a lot of people. Sure there are certain steps you can take to try and make your voice heard but not much.

In all serisuosness I was kidding about jumping on twitter and going full on Ted but you all have somehow convinced me that maybe it’s not a bad idea.

Twitter handle: MajorLeagueSoccerreform

 

With that handle you might be able to kill two birds with one stone!

 

Amen

 

Wow ! Crew are willing to open books to bonafide buyers if they agree to non disclosure. Time for the Nation Wide owned Mayor to put up or shut up.

 

There isn't any doubt that the CP has rounded up some qualified local buyers. There is considerable doubt about how much will be offered for the team and whether or not PSV must accept a reasonable offer or is free to reject any they don't like.

 

Here is the link...not sure why so many don't post links
https://www.bizjournals.com/columbu...ners-prepared-to-open-books-to-bona-fide.html

 

Cheap disposable phones.

 

Who knew health care was so complicated? Nobody did. Nobody.

 

Your trolling is weak.

Really need to put a little effort into it.

 

Facts are facts, the Mayor spearheaded the bailout of both the Nationwide arena and the Bluejackets. His handling of the Crew has been the opposite. Perhaps your upset that this so called idiot called it and warned Crew fans this would happen years ago and you were the only hardheaded fool to dismiss the possibility and get personal just like a girl. Sorry Billie.

 

you're

 

Well, for one thing your entire premise is wrong. Mike Coleman was the Mayor of Columbus when the arena deal was done.