Jump to content

Stupidity has no limits...


Recommended Posts

County to appeal ruling in Bengals case

NFL.com wire reports

CINCINNATI (March 8, 2006) -- Hamilton County will appeal a judge's dismissal of a federal antitrust lawsuit against the Cincinnati Bengals, officials said.

The county sued the team and the National Football League, alleging they used monopoly power to win construction of Paul Brown Stadium and a lease that is highly favorable to the Bengals at the expense of taxpayers.

U.S. District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel ruled Feb. 9 that the suit was filed after the four-year statute of limitations expired. The ruling did not address the county's argument that the Bengals misled taxpayers and officials by contending that they needed a new stadium to be profitable and might move if they didn't get one.

Hamilton County taxpayers approved a one-half-cent sales tax increase in 1996 to finance the $450 million stadium. Commissioners signed a lease with the Bengals the following year.

The lawsuit was filed in 2003, three years after the team began using the stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this on the Enquirer site earlier, there was an implication that it was related to The Banks development on the riverfront. Apparently the PBS lease has some clause about the Bengals getting to approve how tall any structure on the riverfront is and they want him to give that up so the development can proceed more smoothly. Mikey said no so now here we are.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bengals disappointed in County appeal


March 8, 2006

Posted: 3:45 p.m.

Despite a federal judge’s dismissal of a Hamilton County lawsuit against the Bengals stemming from negotiations in which county officials admitted the Bengals furnished accurate information, county commissioners voted Wednesday to appeal U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Spiegel’s decision.

“The one person who has done that analysis and looked at all the facts is Judge Spiegel,” said Bengals lawyer Stuart Dornette. “He is an experienced and thoughtful judge who concluded that the County did not have a claim to bring when they jumped into this lawsuit.”

The appeal keeps alive a suit calling for millions of dollars in damages that has hung over the Bengals and the NFL for 34 months with the county claiming the club and the league violated state and federal anti-trust laws during negotiations of the 1997 Paul Brown Stadium lease.

In a statement released by the club, Dornette called it “all the more discouraging because Phil Heimlich, Todd Portune and their lawyers clearly did not take the time, before filing the original lawsuit, to find out the facts.”

Heimlich and Portune voted for the appeal while Pat DeWine dissented on the three-man commission.

Although Spiegel said in his 64-page decision issued Feb. 9 that he felt the Bengals had what could possibly be called an "egregiously" favorable lease that might have been reached by "unlawful competitive behavior," Spiegel also wrote, “Not one of the County representatives has indicated that the revenue information provided by the Bengals and/or the NFL was in any way incorrect or misleading.”

Spiegel also noted the lawsuit failed to meet statute of limitations while observing the county’s negotiators “indicated under oath that, in substance, they believed the Bengals negotiated with them in good faith.”

There is speculation the county could take the Bengals to state court on fraud charges.

The team would feel comfortable in state court because fraud has the same statute of limitations as anti-trust, and its case against fraud would be bolstered by a federal judge saying county officials indicated the Bengals didn’t commit fraud because they negotiated in good faith while also providing accurate revenue information.

Heimlich linked the three-year-old lawsuit to the nine-year-old lease when he ripped the team for refusing to alter the part of the agreement in which the team has the right to restrict height of buildings in the Banks area between PBS and Great American Ballpark.

“They’ve refused to give that up,” Heimlich told The Enquirer. “This appeal may be a hope of removing those restrictions.”

Dornette said the Banks issue, “doesn’t have anything to do with the anti-trust claims that Judge Spiegel threw out.”

Yeah, SSDD. Incompetent local politicians attempt to correct their past mistakes by frittering away even more time and money on a dead-in-the-water lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...