MLS and Anthony Precourt Put Columbus on Notice

Andrew Erickson just obtained a letter from PSV/MLS to the City of Columbus/State of Ohio (Friday evenings are for breaking/dumping news) regarding the lawsuit filed to prevent them from moving the Columbus Crew to Austin. Let’s dig in, shall we?

We’ll go through this paragraph-by-paragraph:

Screen Shot 2018-03-16 at 3.31.05 PM

Your basic summary. We lawyers get paid by the word, after all.

psvletter1

Essentially, this is a lawyerly way of saying, “we don’t believe this applies, but even if it does, we’ve complied with everything we’re supposed to.” Of interest, this seems to hint at a potential argument, indicating that there has been ample time since this news came out for local ownership to come and make a bona fide offer to purchase the team. Basically, “you’ve had your chance.” I’m not sure that’s going to fly, but again, lawyers.

psv2.png

To amplify this point, PSV/MLS go into some detail to show that the City of Columbus effectively had “constructive notice” (i.e., “you should have known”) on the move since the story regarding the move to Austin was made back in October, and at a minimum by November when the parties had that infamous meeting to discuss the move. Now, I doubt a “constructive notice” argument is going to get very far, especially given the “parallel paths” claims by PSV/MLS, but that’s why corporations have in-house counsel, to come up with novel legal arguments.

Again, PSV/MLS stress that this may not even apply  (“to the extent required”), but their argument could be that the City has had ample time to process the fact that the PSV wants to move, and therefore could have pursued any course of action they wanted. And, I’m not sure this notice issue really matters, inasmuch as we’re still more than six months out from the end of the year, or the beginning of MLS 2019.

psv3.png

And here is the money shot. For purposes of any future arguments, you can mark down today (3/16/18) as, at minimum, the date notice was given that PSV/MLS intend to cease playing at Mapfre Stadium. Interestingly, PSV/MLS are also covering their bases regarding the second provision of the statute, by requesting that offers by interested local ownership groups to purchase the team be proffered to PSV/MLS.

Again, they’re clearly not stipulating to the validity of this lawsuit, but they are wisely covering themselves in the event they lose the injunction/lawsuit. And now they can investigate how substantial those offers to purchase the team are. And we could potentially get a look at how PSV/MLS value the team. That’s likely to open of another can of worms, as there is no indication per the statute, that PSV/MLS are required to accept any offer, let alone a bona fide/market value one.

Screen Shot 2018-03-16 at 3.33.07 PM

As I said, we lawyers get paid by the word.

Screen Shot 2018-03-16 at 3.34.08 PM

I’ll bet.

Andrew also has a response from Attorney General DeWine, which says what you’d think it would. The next step for the plaintiffs is to file the injunction. This does not mean that PSV/MLS are forgoing any defenses (they specifically reserve all defenses) regarding ripeness, but I think we can safely assume that both sides are now preparing for the long fight ahead.

Advertisements
  1. DeWine is taking the position that today is the notice date and local investors have 6 months from now to buy the team. DeWine is adding the word “reasonable” to the statutory term “opportunity”. It might be a bit of base stealing but I think the court will likely agree with him on that point.

    Like

    Reply

  2. […] (PSV) and Major League Soccer (MLS) formally providing notice to the City of Columbus of their intent to cease playing at Mapfre Stadium in 2019, and also requesting bona fide offers for interested local parties to purchase the […]

    Like

    Reply

  3. […] fact that PSV/MLS is currently “complying” with the Moddell law, in that they’ve provided notice of intent to move and requested bona fide offers from local investors. Combine that with the fact that we’re […]

    Like

    Reply

  4. […] is by far the easiest one to argue. That is the date that PSV/MLS sent a letter to the local government providing notice of intent to cease playing at Mapfre, and requesting bona fide offers from local […]

    Like

    Reply

  5. […] is by far the easiest one to argue. That is the date that PSV/MLS sent a letter to the local government providing notice of intent to cease playing at Mapfre, and requesting bona fide offers from local […]

    Like

    Reply

  6. […] are still not sure if PSV/MLS are going to argue that the notice they provided to the plaintiffs of their intent to cease playing at Mapfre was on October 17 or November 15, […]

    Like

    Reply

  7. […] 2017, the six-month notice requirement has long since passed. And even if not, the alleged March notice means that the 180 days is up in […]

    Like

    Reply

  8. […] were exploring Austin; November 15, when PSV/MLS met with the Mayor and the CBP; March 16, when PSV/MLS wrote that letter; and some as-yet undetermined date, when/if the Court decides notice has been […]

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Advertisements
Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: