Cleveland Browns fan suing NFL and the Browns

[BillyBalata]

Businessman Ken Lanci suing Cleveland Browns, NFL over PSL contract violation from lockout

Published: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 10:45 PM Updated: Friday, March 25, 2011, 10:43 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Businessman Ken Lanci sued the NFL, the Cleveland Browns and the league's 31 other teams on Thursday, aiming to save the upcoming football season.

 

 

 

Lanci says in the suit that the lockout violates his private seat license contract with the Browns and jeopardizes his right to watch a full season of home games.

 

He filed the suit in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, asking the court to prohibit the lockout that threatens to cancel the 2011-12 NFL season (Download a copy of the lawsuit <http://media.cleveland.com/metro/other/lancisuit.pdf> )

 

The 60-year-old Gates Mills resident said he is hoping to make a difference with this suit.

 

Allison Carey, The Plain DealerKen Lanci

"What tipped the scale for me is the labor issue between millionaires and billionaires and the fact they can't settle it when the country is in a recession," he said. "Worse yet, they have to rub this in our faces."

 

Lanci, a self-made millionaire, ran as an independent for Cuyahoga County executive last year in a mostly self-financed campaigned. He lost. But he became known, partly for his thick white hair that contrasted with the orange glow he gained from his personal tanning bed.

 

Lanci owns PSLs for 10 seats in Club Section C3, which he bought in October 1997. People pay an upfront fee for a PSL that gives them the right to purchase a season ticket for a specific seat in a stadium.

 

He is in effect saying the lockout robs him of his right to watch games this season because his PSL contract gives him "exclusive use and possession" of 10 specified seats in Cleveland Browns Stadium.

 

On March 10, the NFL Players Association decertified itself as the union for NFL players to avoid a strike, but a day later team owners nonetheless announced the lockout.

 

"The owners and players can't decide what to do with an extra billion dollars between them," Lanci said. "I have the perfect solution. That one billion should go to all cities that gave them money to build football stadiums they couldn't afford to build. This would give these cities badly needed tax relief."

 

The lawsuit caught the Browns by surprise, said Neal Gulkis, a team spokesman. He said he could not comment until the organization could study the suit.

 

Greg Aiello, a spokesman for the NFL, said the league would look into the matter further before commenting.

 

Lanci, who owns Graphic Arts Centre and is chairman and chief executive officer of Consolidated Graphics Group Inc. in Cleveland, is hoping to be a voice for the average Browns fan.

 

"The players union says NFL owners are offering what will be the worst deal ever," Lanci said. "Really? How about being unemployed? Right now they get 59 percent of the take, and that's beyond comprehension.

 

"These players should get on their knees and be grateful they can play a game for that kind of money when so many others in this city and country are hurting financially."

 

When NFL players went on strike in 1982, reducing the season from 16 to nine games, no teams had PSLs.

 

Today, 20 of the 32 teams -- mostly those with newer stadiums -- offer them. The Carolina Panthers were the first team to offer them in 1993, and the Browns followed upon their return to the NFL in 1999 after a three-year absence.

 

Lanci does not consider his lawsuit frivolous. He is seeking at least $75,000 in damages.

 

But does he really expect to win the suit?

 

"At the end of the day, [Cuyahoga County Common Pleas] Judge John P. O'Donnell has to judge if this suit has merit or not," he said, "but I'm sure the court of public opinion will certainly weigh in on this."

[loaf]

I just read this in cleveland.com

Go Ken!

[delusions of grandeur]

I would be absolutely astonished if the teams don't have themselves covered on the PSL contracts.

 

He is in effect saying the lockout robs him of his right to watch games this season because his PSL contract gives him "exclusive use and possession" of 10 specified seats in Cleveland Browns Stadium.

So, just so I understand correctly, he's purchased rights to this seat for every football game he buys his season tickets tickets for, correct? Does anyone think there's not a stipulation in there that states that he only has rights to these seats for games he's purchased and that are played? I mean, he's not allowed to go in there and have lunch on a Friday in his seat, is he? So surely they've covered themselves in the event that there is no football, such as in the most obvious way, with a refund of tickets to those events.

 

Of course his "right" to these seats is non-refundable, but that really doesn't have much at all to do with the buying of tickets to the actual games played. It's just the right to hold his place in line, for if and when those tickets go on sale, which is an important distinction. It's just like how season-ticket holders have rights to post-season games, but they are not required to purchase them, nor are they guaranteed that their team will make it that far in the playoffs...

 

Though he may have a fairly strong argument that when he bought those tickets, it was on the assumption that there would be football played, but just like a company that goes out of business, no one can guarantee that your "first in line" promise can be fullfilled for all of eternity with a product...

 

(Edit: I think I slightly misunderstood the PSL issue, but as you see in the post below, the NFL has nevertheless covered their butts with their terms of sevice)

Edited March 25, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[delusions of grandeur]

Yup, took all of 15 minutes to tear apart the lawsuit: http://media.cleveland.com/metro/other/lancisuit.pdf

 

In addition to clearly stating that you only have rights to "Browns games" that are played, there are several damning statements in their terms of services on page 16:

...or in the event the Owner, in its sole discretion, determines that the Club seats are otherwise not available, Licensee shall not have the right to license the club seats for some events

 

Licensee and Licensee's guests shall be bound by and shall observe terms and conditions... including, without limitation, the policy adopted by the issuer of such tickets with respect to the cancellation or postponement of the game or event.

Owner shall have no liability to Licensee on account of any such cancellation or postponement of a game or event.... Owner shall have no liability to Licensee on any such cancellation or postponement or other failure or deficiency in the conduct of such event.

 

As consumers, we do have the massive right of choosing whether we want to continue to buy into the NFL or not, but it's just silly that anyone would claim NFL games as a "right".