Foxborough counters Kraft Group’s lawsuit over stadium licensing charges

Native Information

The city argues Kraft Sports activities is making an attempt to keep away from contractual obligations by characterizing public security reimbursements as illegal licensing charges.

The city of Foxborough fired again after Kraft Sports activities & Leisure and the New England Patriots filed a lawsuit in opposition to the city over new monetary obligations tied to Gillette Stadium’s annual leisure license. 

On Tuesday, Foxborough introduced it filed a 61-page reply and counterclaim asking a choose to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the businesses are “contractually certain” to pay the general public security prices related to stadium occasions — bills the city says mustn’t fall on native taxpayers.  

“These public security companies are uniquely required due to the dimensions and nature of the occasions held on the stadium and shouldn’t be borne by Foxborough taxpayers … Beneath its longstanding contract with the City, the Plaintiffs are required to bear these bills, a indisputable fact that the Plaintiffs failed to incorporate inside their underlying enchantment,” the city mentioned in an announcement.

The counterclaim comes after Kraft Sports activities — together with co-plaintiffs New England Patriots LLC, Kraft Soccer LLC, and NPS LLC — sued the city June 15 in Norfolk Superior Court docket, accusing Foxborough of “repeatedly misusing its state-granted licensing authority unlawfully to extract funds” from the organizations that function Gillette Stadium and its occasions. 

In response to the criticism, Foxborough used the stadium’s 2026 leisure license renewal to impose roughly $1 million in new annual monetary obligations, regardless of state legislation limiting leisure license charges to $100. 

Foxborough, nevertheless, argued the plaintiffs have “purposefully mischaracterized” the dispute. In its counterclaim, the city contends the funds usually are not illegal licensing charges however reimbursements required below the events’ longstanding lease settlement to cowl the general public security companies wanted for large-scale occasions. 

The city mentioned it’s “upset” to see the claims introduced by the businesses, as they “fail to acknowledge the intensive work” by Foxborough’s public security groups, noting that greater than 70 occasions are held on the stadium annually. 

Within the submitting, Foxborough rejected many of the claims made by the Kraft Group and its co-plaintiffs. The city asserted that the firms “willfully” confused state licensing rules with their contractual necessities below the stadium lease.

“Whereas the plaintiffs, a set of multibillion-dollar companies, would favor to have Foxborough taxpayers bear these bills, they’re contractually certain to pay for the general public security companies which can be obligatory to make sure protected and environment friendly occasions at their personal venue,” the doc states. 

The city maintains that it “acted lawfully and appropriately in issuing the license and imposing situations obligatory to guard public well being and security.” 

Within the submitting, Foxborough additional denied the plaintiffs’ allegation that the city had introduced the corporate “with an bill for $953,640.” Foxborough acknowledged it as an alternative had issued its first bill, a one-twelfth installment, below the phrases of the leisure license.

Foxborough’s counterclaim moreover argued that the lawsuit violated “implied covenant of excellent religion and truthful dealing” by denying situations agreed to their lease.

“On account of such breach, the City, the patrons of the stadium occasions and the tax-payers of Foxborough have suffered or will endure hurt which might solely be remedied by means of particular efficiency of the obligations below the Lease and License,” the courtroom submitting states. 

Together with asking the courtroom to dismiss the criticism, Foxborough has requested that the courtroom award the city “its prices, charges, and bills within the protection of this matter as a result of frivolity of the criticism and the plaintiffs’ lack of candor to this tribunal.”

“The City stays dedicated to defending each public security and the pursuits of its residents whereas guaranteeing that occasions at Gillette Stadium can proceed to be carried out safely and efficiently,” Foxborough officers mentioned. “The City can be dedicated to making sure that the house owners of Gillette Stadium adhere to their obligations.” 

A spokesperson for Kraft Sports activities didn’t reply Tuesday night to a request for remark.

The authorized battle marks the most recent growth in ongoing negotiations over leisure licenses for Gillette Stadium. 

Earlier this 12 months, a disagreement over safety bills briefly raised questions on preparations for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which is scheduled to deliver another match to Foxborough. 

In March, members of Foxborough’s Choose Board mentioned they’d not approve the leisure license required for the matches except the Kraft Group agreed to cowl an estimated $7.8 million in public security prices. The dispute was finally resolved after the Kraft Group agreed to cowl the safety prices, clearing the way in which for the World Cup matches to maneuver ahead.