So to Crew fans, they saved paradise by putting up a parking lot?

 

I'm glad Bill beat me to this topic! The only things I can add:

Don Garber must resign - not for lying, we'd hardly have pro sports in the world if that were suddenly a crime - but for incompetence. No one expects Fredo Precourt to know the intricacies of Ohio sports law. He has people for that, and Don Garber is one of those people. I didn't know that Ohio had passed a FU Modell Act, either, but I'm not paid to know these things. Someone at the Hunt sale should have known, and Garber absolutely should have known before hiring Suttles.

Which is the other reason Garber has to resign - putting his name to that was insanity. Leaving Precourt and the Crew off it doesn't mean the smoking gun isn't an inferno, that letter was sent halfway through a four-year expansion process where Austin was not involved at all.

One group of people who should be screaming for vengeance, of course, are currently being acting like Mystery Flavor Dum-Dums. But billionaires are a superstitious, cowardly lot, and if they’re willing to do Stupid Human Tricks for Mr. Garber, they must think it’s worth the effort. And if the San Antonio example shows that it’s a thin line between dog and pony show and donkey show, that’s actually been positive for the surviving candidates. The other owners may be anti-landmine, but not as much as they are pro-other people stepping on landmines.

And Garber’s willingness to perform dirty work for so unworthy a liege as Precourt must be extremely heartening to the other prospective owners. “If he’s willing to go through all this for Precourt,” they must be thinking, “how hard will he work for bosses who aren’t pinheads?”

Judge Wolff in San Antonio is ticked off, but the Spurs, like the other expansion candidates, are not. And that's damn weird.

And litigation hasn't been a serious obstacle to franchise moves since Al Davis. But Davis never ticked off the (entire) state of California (all at once).

Garber might be thinking that Ohio politicians around Cincinnati will balance out the ones in Columbus. But Columbus + Cleveland? Lots of luck.

Oh, and Keith Naas is another pro-follow on Twitter, but I'm sure there are other #SaveTheCrew types finding gold everywhere.

 

The statute give the city and individuals located there the right to buy the team. You're correct that it doesn't say who sets the price. Disagreement over that will be settled by the courts in Franklin County as the common pleas, appellate, and state supreme court all sit here. And all the judges are elected.

 

I think Garber is Fredo. Precourt is more like Carlo Rizzi.

 

The Columbus Condemned. I like the sound of it. The best outcome would be a new, downtown stadium with a Packers ownership scheme.

 

Fantastic stuff Bill Archer.

 

The valuation of the team.

Won't it be difficult for them (PSV/Garber) to set an astronomical price since it goes against the narrative they have been harping on about (team is not profitable, not sustainable, low sponsorship, et al)?

 

i guess so.. but also if you have a shitty car, a lets say a poorly mantained 70's dodge dart, no one is stopping you to put a million dollar price tag on it. You could also say it has sentimental value for you and because of tha cost you more.

The good thing is that if the courts agree that some significant tax dollars went into the crew, then they might have some ground to stand on when deciding the price.

 

Yeppers. Just the sort of thing that leads to injunctions, BECAUSE it's uncharted and a remedy at law (i.e., money damages) isn't easily determined.

Sand in the gears.

 

Get out the popcorn!

 

I'm perfectly familiar with the court system, thanks. The statute gives them the "opportunity," which sounds like a right of first refusal at best. There is little to no chance that a court is going to (1) value an MLS franchise and (2) force a sale to a private party. But I do agree this could tie the team up and stop the move. It will be interesting to watch.

 

Dude, there is zero chance Don Garber resigns.

 

If you can find the old owners of Inn The Wood or Acropolis Chili they will tell you about eminent domain. Both were torn down when UCincinnati expanded on Calhoun Street.

 

Amazing twist. I think Ohio will go to the wall over this - not for love of the Crew, but to protect their other professional teams and the precedent. I hope Garber is sweating right now.

 

Garber did an interview with Men in Blazers released 7 Dec 17 in which he states (in addition to a bunch of lies about the Columbus situation -saying we drew 13K for the opener against NYCFC....) that his contract is up at the end of 2018. When asked how long he plans to hold the job, he was coy, but did say that the process of identifying a replacement has already begun. So to me that says he is going to go away after 2018.

 

Hadn't heard that, but it makes sense

I don't think that's the same as resigning because of how poorly he's handled his preferred franchise move, though.

And to be clear, it's obvious MLS wants an operation in Austin at this point. There can really be no debate. My feeling from down here in Texas is that the plan of building that stadium where they want to build it isn't going to fly, though, which destroys the whole plan.
Perhaps Austin says "no" to anything but a suburban stadium and MLS just gives up and forces Precourt to sell. Might be the only way out of this at this point.

In terms of the Crew moving and the law Bill writes about, I wonder how they would handle it if MLS claims they are "folding" the Crew and at the same time a new "expansion" team ends up in Austin. It is true that almost all of the contracts are held by the league, not by one ownership group. So presumably the league could argue that the players, though playing in Columbus, actually work for a company headquartered in New York, and thus are not subject to this Ohio law.

I don't know. I'm sure their lawyers are working their way around this as we speak.

 

There is a difference between taking property through eminent domain to be used for other public purposes, and taking a business and continuing to operate it. I have never seen an example of that.

 

Speaking as somebody who follows a relocated team in Houston (Relocated or expanded? That's actually a long, involved question for another time.), I have a few things to add:

1. I'm very happy California did not have a similar law in 2005.

2. Anyone who thinks the city of Austin, the same city that kicked out Uber until the state crassly overruled them, is going to just up and fund a soccer specific stadium anywhere in city limits, then I hope the sparkle ponies in your world bring you great joy.

3. If DeWine is really going to the wall over this, then MLS is delightfully screwed. There will be a long-drawn out legal battle of which MLS will want no part. It will not be about the constitutionality of the Ohio law, nor will it be about who wins or loses that battle. The fact of the battle happening benefits Columbus and Ohio and puts MLS/Garber squarely in the loser's circle no matter any outcome. The threat of the lawsuit is the nuclear-tipped missile, and as any old Cold Warrior will tell you, such devices are best used as political weapons, not explodey ones.

4. San Antonio has always and forever been a better site in central Texas for MLS than Austin. Precourt may be a sharp pinhead, but that makes Garber a dull one for even indulging this Austin thing. Go forward there and, not even thinking about the Ohio AG's office, you're screwing the Spurs by clearly not engaging their expansion bid in good faith. That'll be a fun thing to play out in a court, preferably one in San Antonio where the estimation in the community held by the Spurs causes Pope Francis to look at Rome and say "Hey, how can I get some of that?".

5. I agree that this almost certainly derails Cincinnati's bid, unless that stadium is built just across the river in the Northern Kentucky suburbs.

6. And whither San Antonio? If this situation is really the Brian Clough's fifth martini of Don Garber's reign, then the Spurs might just be thinking longer term to a less-pinheady replacement, and taking their chances there. Their silence on this whole thing is illustrative of their canniness. I mean, when your opponents are busy walking into a tar pit of their own making, best to take out the mobile and pretend you're on a call. If SA does eventually get a team, then someone might look back to this situation right now and say "Nicely played, Spurs."

 

Why do you think there is no chance the law is enforced? If Precourt publicly announces that the team is for sale to any local governmental body or individuals who can come up with his price of $500 mil, he'd be deluded to think that satisfies the statute. If someone else offers $20 mil, saying that's all a money-losing business is worth, Precourt's not obliged to accept the offer but again it's likely to be settled in the local courts. The statute creates a right and where there's a right there's a remedy.

 

I'm not sure that "MLS" wants a team in Austin. Precourt does and Garber probably does too or at least wants out of Columbus. But the rest of the owners don't seem enthusiastic about Austin. Paulsen lamented the decision. Roth tried to dissociate himself (ha). It seems more accurate that the other owners are willing to acquiesce to Precourt running his team his way but perhaps have doubts about the wisdom of his choices.

 

Regarding point 3, DeWine has no reason not to go to the wall on this. Defending and upholding state laws is his current job as AG. It's also popular and will help his campaign for Governor. The other candidates (both sides have multiple candidates in the primary) will probably feel the need to one up DeWine as he's an old establishment Republican guy. Columbus will have a new city attorney in a few weeks so he might try to get to court first.

 

Wouldn't have stopped the Quakes move. There was nobody who stepped forward to buy the team.

Garber has taken a number of significant gambles over the course of his tenure. SUM, NYCFC, increasing rate of expansion - if any of those had blown up on him, he probably would have had to quit. Chivas USA blew up in his face, but he was able to cushion the blow thanks to the LAFC mutation.

This is shaping up to be his first no questions asked failure, and it's shaping up to be a nationwide laughingstock. And he was involved in it, up to his neck, and early enough that these issues should have been foreseen and avoided.

Even a little thing like "Is Austin excited about the team?" was bungled.

 

Someone should forward this info and maybe a question to the TV analysts who will no doubt be interviewing Garber during the MLS Cup. I would love them to drop a question regarding this law to Garber live on air just to watch the expressions on his face.

But because they value access to him, they probably won't ask that because he'd never speak to that network again.

 

You are begging the question by assuming that "enforcing" the law requires the Court setting a price which the seller is forced to accept. That is an extreme outcome that one would expect to be supported by the statutory text. He may be required to negotiate in good faith, but should the parties reach impasse, he will have fulfilled offering the required "opportunity."