|
Post by DEATHBYPOPCORN1990 on Apr 6, 2018 2:27:18 GMT -6
Hey Mike,
Thank you for the very in-depth multiple responses, all I'm trying to establish from a fan base and market standpoint is that there usually is a lineage reason or rationale for a team and its identity when originally being incepted.
Take for example the Utah Jazz which once were the New Orleans Jazz, after moving to Utah they originally kept the name Jazz as they hadn't established a new market branding in advance, they eventually defaulted to the name Jazz which really has nothing to do with Utah, and yet has everything to do with the heritage of New Orleans and its music scene.
The Los Angeles Lakers are another example, originally the Minnesota Lakers, due to the Land of 10,000 Lakes in Minnesota, sure the Lakers is cool name and seems to fit LA now with its lime Light and Showtime Scene, however it really has nothin to do with Los Angeles.
For me its all about the original branding, which is why the team is called what it is called.......
As goofy as some team names are, imagine the Anaheim Ducks moving to another market and still being called the Ducks, after knowing the name is based in the origins of the Disney Movie which is based in CA.
That is all I'm saying, call me a nostagia buff caught up in the past, thats just how I feel, its bad enough that in MOST markets teams move because of money, usually at the upper levels, and not because of the fans, or politicians that won't fund the super wealthy because their roads are crumbling.
Priorities need to be priorities, sports comes secondary to the real importances of life, tough bananas if there isn't a badea in the owner booth.
It is the brand the fans relate to, if the Jets had moved to Minneapolis in 1996 and were there Jets today, that wound would have been irreparable to me to this day, even with the Winnipeg Whatevers coming back from Atlanta in 2011, I grew up with Jets, it meant something, it was a time and place that some other fanbase would hold and would have been inconceivable to this day.
The only silver lining in the Jets move was that Phoenix became the Coyotes, as a result Winnipeggers held beyond hope that someday maybe, the Jets, just maybe, would be back, but that wouldn't have happened if Phoenix held onto the name......
I'd hate to be a confused Minnesota Wild/North Stars/Dallas Stars fan right now.
I get that Winnipeggers franchise history originates in Atlanta, the name though is what gives us the separation and the connection at the same time.
I hope Atlanta get their Thrashers back, It really wasn't the fans fault from what my uniformed opinion can see.....
Just and additional thought....
Brooklyn Dodgers and the history of the name DODGERS ----- now the longstanding LA Dodgers..... and on and on.....the debate goes.
Perhaps, its the loss of one and spoils to going another that makes it so great, nobody loves the story of the New Jersey Devils and their story.....lol
|
|
|
Post by DEATHBYPOPCORN1990 on Apr 6, 2018 2:31:51 GMT -6
Debate
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Apr 6, 2018 8:37:01 GMT -6
^ you make some good points. Baltimore was dead set on naiming their football team the colts. The nfl threatened to sue the cfl team if they called themselves that. They had to make a new identity when they got the ravens and the fans have embraced it. Same thing goes for the wild, im sure everyone in minnesota wanted the north stars back but it wasnt an option, but they have embraced what they got. Calgary and dallas kept the original team names because they felt they were a fit to the new market when they got their teams. Thats the big thing, the name has to suit the market for fans to connect with it, i mean can anyone imagine the baltimore browns being a big seller? As for atlanta getting another team, theyve had two chances to support hockey, time to move on from that market.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 6, 2018 8:43:14 GMT -6
Hey Mike, Thank you for the very in-depth multiple responses, all I'm trying to establish from a fan base and market standpoint is that there usually is a lineage reason or rationale for a team and its identity when originally being incepted. Take for example the Utah Jazz which once were the New Orleans Jazz, after moving to Utah they originally kept the name Jazz as they hadn't established a new market branding in advance, they eventually defaulted to the name Jazz which really has nothing to do with Utah, and yet has everything to do with the heritage of New Orleans and its music scene. The Los Angeles Lakers are another example, originally the Minnesota Lakers, due to the Land of 10,000 Lakes in Minnesota, sure the Lakers is cool name and seems to fit LA now with its lime Light and Showtime Scene, however it really has nothin to do with Los Angeles. For me its all about the original branding, which is why the team is called what it is called....... As goofy as some team names are, imagine the Anaheim Ducks moving to another market and still being called the Ducks, after knowing the name is based in the origins of the Disney Movie which is based in CA. That is all I'm saying, call me a nostagia buff caught up in the past, thats just how I feel, its bad enough that in MOST markets teams move because of money, usually at the upper levels, and not because of the fans, or politicians that won't fund the super wealthy because their roads are crumbling. Priorities need to be priorities, sports comes secondary to the real importances of life, tough bananas if there isn't a badea in the owner booth. It is the brand the fans relate to, if the Jets had moved to Minneapolis in 1996 and were there Jets today, that wound would have been irreparable to me to this day, even with the Winnipeg Whatevers coming back from Atlanta in 2011, I grew up with Jets, it meant something, it was a time and place that some other fanbase would hold and would have been inconceivable to this day. The only silver lining in the Jets move was that Phoenix became the Coyotes, as a result Winnipeggers held beyond hope that someday maybe, the Jets, just maybe, would be back, but that wouldn't have happened if Phoenix held onto the name...... I'd hate to be a confused Minnesota Wild/North Stars/Dallas Stars fan right now. I get that Winnipeggers franchise history originates in Atlanta, the name though is what gives us the separation and the connection at the same time. I hope Atlanta get their Thrashers back, It really wasn't the fans fault from what my uniformed opinion can see..... Just and additional thought.... Brooklyn Dodgers and the history of the name DODGERS ----- now the longstanding LA Dodgers..... and on and on.....the debate goes. Perhaps, its the loss of one and spoils to going another that makes it so great, nobody loves the story of the New Jersey Devils and their story.....lol Thank you for this well written post and I agree that in 90%+ of the cases that you are correct. I totally get it and understand what your are trying to say! I'm a sports history buff myself. The original name/history should stay with the city ala Cleveland/Charlotte and when a new facility gets built the team gets "reactivated" if the reason the team left was ONLY a facility problem(Jets/Nordiques/Rams/Sonics/Browns, Hornets etc.....). Your right Jazz/Lakers don't match Utah/LA but it's too late now since those names are now beloved by local Utah/LA fans even though they make no freaking sense. I wish they had grandfathered Colts for Baltimore but it's too late now since the Ravens won 2 super bowls and the Colts won in Indy. They should have left the name Chargers behind for San Diego since those fans supported the team but hopefully the NFL does the right thing in a few years and moves the actual Chargers team back. The only rare cases of a clean break should be this 1. Oilers-Reminds houston fans of Bud Adams(he was an oil man) Oilers was tainted too because of all the playoff collapses(see blowing a 35-3 lead in Buffalo). Fans in this case wanted the fresh start. 2. Raiders- The Raiders transcend any town. The Raiders are roaming pirates. That's their persona. They are part of NFL history with 3 super bowl wins and many hall of famers. If you left the name in Oakland there would never be Raiders in the NFL again. I couldn't imagine an NFL without the Raiders. In this case too it just wasn't a facility problem though the Coliseum royally SUCKS for both sports! Such unique circumstances with the 49ers winning so freaking much killing the Raider fan base, Davis being NUTS and angering A's fans/taxpayers. 3. A clean break is a must if the original team wasn't beloved and lasted only a short period or weren't supported and it just wasn't a facility problem. Brands becomes tainted(California Seals/Vancouver Grizzlies/Phoenix Coyotes/Atlanta Thrashers/Chicago Zephers of the NBA). Thrashers weren't around long and even if you accept Atlanta got screwed by Atlanta spirit a rebrand would be needed. If Atlanta got another chance you couldn't go with Thrashers. Same case if the NBA ever returned to Vancouver in the distant future. The original Grizzlies were only around 5 years so there was no long term history/brand loyalty though Grizzlies wasn't a bad choice for a name given BC's Grizzlie bear population. Grizzlies would be thought of as failure if you went with it because of the 1st Grizzlie team. Same thing with the San Jose Sharks. There is no way you could have gone with Seals since the Seals lasted such a short period. If the Coyotes leave Phoenix for Houston in a couple years and one day the NHL came back you couldn't go with Coyotes again because of tainted brand.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 5, 2018 7:11:48 GMT -6
Oakland lining up lawsuit against Raiders, so team threatens to leave town earlyThe Oakland City Council has authorized a multimillion-dollar antitrust lawsuit against the NFL and the Raiders over the team’s impending move to Las Vegas — legal action that Coliseum officials said could result in the team leaving Oakland at the end of the upcoming season.Oakland Councilman Noel Gallo said Tuesday that the lawsuit is expected to be filed and announced within days, probably before the Raiders’ home opener at the Coliseum on Monday night against the Los Angeles Rams. A second City Hall source told us the city attorney’s office was preparing to file the antitrust suit, and is awaiting contract language sign-offs from three outside law firms that will handle the litigation. The outside attorneys have agreed to cover all the up-front costs of the suit, which will likely seek millions of dollars in damages for the team’s exit. In exchange, the outside firms would collect a portion of whatever dollar damages they are able to extract from the Raiders and the National Football League. G allo predicted that a lawsuit against the league and Raiders could result in winning damages of up to $500 million.“It’s going to happen,” Gallo said of the suit, calling it “absolutely a good thing.” The Raiders, however, do not share Gallo’s opinion. According to Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Executive Director Scott McKibben, who has been working to finalize the Raiders’ latest lease extension, team executives warned him that they won’t sign any agreement if the lawsuit is filed. “They told me we might as well take the contract and rip it up,” McKibben said Tuesday. The Raiders, who did not return our call seeking comment, are under a year-to-year lease with the Coliseum Authority. The team has been working on a new deal to play at the Coliseum next season and possibly the one after that if their Las Vegas stadium isn’t ready. According to sources, that deal — expected to be voted on by the authority’s board within a matter of weeks — would net the city and county $3.7 million next year and $5 million the following year, if the team extended its stay. Oakland’s decision to sue was made within the past week without the approval of either the Coliseum directors or the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. And not everyone is on board. “It makes absolutely no sense,” said Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum board member Ignacio De La Fuente, who was an Oakland City Council member in the 1990s when the city voted for a deal to bring the Raiders back to the East Bay from Los Angeles. De La Fuente said the city may be opening itself up to a countersuit by the Raiders, one that could wind up costing the city big bucks in the end.“I think the mayor (Libby Schaaf) and the City Council really are just looking to justify themselves for not having done anything to retain the Warriors — and the A’s, for that matter,” he said. But Gallo doesn’t see the risk. “The attorneys needed a client, and Oakland is the client that has been signed up,” he said. “And hopefully we can get the county to join in.” However, Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley, who also chairs the authority, said Tuesday the county likely doesn’t have any interest in signing on to the suit — or, for that matter, staying in the sports business. He said the county supervisors, who are on recess until Sept. 17, still hope to sell the county’s half-interest in the Coliseum site to the city, and any “lawsuit might prolong our entanglement with the sport team.” Still, Miley said he personally supports the city’s decision to file a lawsuit, even if it does prompt the Raiders to exit the Coliseum early. “I think there’s a greater upside to the city pursuing this ... and they are in a good position to force the NFL to come back with damages as a result of the decision to move the Raiders to Las Vegas,” he said. Schaaf was on a plane to the East Coast on Tuesday and was unavailable for comment. However, her spokesman, Justin Berton, said, “The mayor’s office cannot comment on anything that was discussed or may have been discussed in a closed session of City Council.” However, Schaaf has privately been known to be on the fence, expressing concern that she would support the suit only if it wouldn’t cost the city or result in tying up any future development plans for Coliseum property.Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker did not return calls seeking comment either. Oakland and Alameda County still have a roughly $75 million bond debt for renovating the stadium to bring the Raiders back from Los Angeles. Oakland Council President Larry Reid didn’t return repeated calls seeking comment. In March, when the outside law firms pitched the idea of a no-cost lawsuit, Reid questioned participating, saying: “I don’t see how you get a judge to force the NFL or the Raiders to pay off that bond indebtedness when it’s our debt. “And if those who want us to join this suit think the NFL is going to commit to awarding another football franchise to Oakland, I don’t think they live in the real world,” Reid said. Back in March, representatives from a pair of law firms — Berg & Androphy in Houston and Weil, Gotshal & Manges of New York — met with city officials to discuss filing the suit. Jim Quinn, an attorney at Berg & Androphy who has successfully sued the league over both player free agency and the 2011 players’ lockout, told us at the time, “I think they have a valid lawsuit, and they ought to pursue it, because it’s the only way to get the attention of the NFL going forward.” www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Oakland-lining-up-lawsuit-against-Raiders-so-13204582.php?utm_campaign=twitter-mobile&utm_source=CMS%20Sharing%20Button&utm_medium=social
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 5, 2018 7:16:45 GMT -6
Don't see how the city can have any case. This is just a naked cash grab. The Raider lease ran out and a new stadium was not built because the city chose the A's(which was the correct choice) and what polling indicated their citizens wanted. If I was the Raiders lawyer I'd show the mayor 1 hour after the Raiders announced moving running an Oakland A's flag up on top city hall with the A's team president and mascot. The politicians and majority of citizens didn't want the Raiders. Now you turn around and sue them? LOL I hope the city gets stuck with damages if they go through with this. You didn't support the Raiders, celebrated when they left move on please!
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 6, 2018 7:24:12 GMT -6
OaklandStadiumWatch @oakstadiumwatch 21h21 hours ago More Let me try this again: *after* this season, how many more years do you want the Raiders to play in Oakland?
86% 0 more years 9% 1 more year 5% 2 more years
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 6, 2018 7:27:58 GMT -6
Besides losing their fans base with the LA move and Al Davis's "work" during the return and moving to Vegas the remaining fans are irate over Mark Davis and Jon Gruden trading away Khalil Mack to the Chicago Bears because Mark Davis couldn't afford the $90M signing bonus Mack wanted. The Raiders also gave Chicago a 2nd round pick in return for 2 likely mid-round 1st's. Also this off season the Raiders traded a number 3 pick to Pittsburgh for Martavius Bryant despite him having a drug problem and being suspended while with Pittsburgh. Guess what he's going to be suspended again and the Raiders release him. So they just gave Pittsburgh a number 3 pick for NOTHING. So much for the Raiders being the NFL Chicago Cubs. LOL Here is a recap of the Raiders horrible day on Saturday trading Mack and losing a no.3 pick for nothing. www.silverandblackpride.com/2018/9/1/17810746/jon-gruden-and-the-raiders-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-day
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Nov 2, 2018 22:07:42 GMT -6
NFL should be alarmed that Raiders are disintegrating under Jon GrudenIn the spring of 2017, when NFL team owners approved the Raiders’ move from Oakland to the Las Vegas market, it was assumed that Mark Davis could pull it off without embarrassment. After all, the franchise had bright prospects. The Raiders’ brand was thriving again, and even Davis seemed to be stepping up, selling himself as a man ready to exceed his reputation. To the NFL’s fraternity of owners, the Las Vegas approval was something of a gift to Davis, granting him the opportunity to emerge as something more than the funny-haired, cash-poor heir to Al Davis. And Mark Davis seemed ready to thrust himself toward that new frontier, celebrating the Las Vegas approval with some forward-facing nostalgia: “My father always said, ‘The greatness of the Raiders is in [their] future.'” Nearly 19 months later, the Raiders’ present is bleak. The promising future looks anything but guaranteed. And the NFL, well, it should be very worried. Because Davis has already fallen flat on his face in the middle of the three-year transition to Sin City.If the owners didn’t already know it before Thursday night’s embarrassment at the hands of a bad San Francisco 49ers team, they should know it now: This Raiders roster is the worst in the NFL. The kind that transformed a third-string San Francisco quarterback into a star. That had 49ers general manager John Lynch beaming in laughter on the sideline and defensive end Cassius Marsh reeling off more celebratory roundhouse kicks than a “Road House” marathon. That’s how sad this has become in Oakland. The roster has almost no discernible long-term talent, after appearing to have some generational cornerstones only a season ago. Edge rusher Khalil Mack was no longer affordable. Wideout Amari Cooper had too many struggles. And now Derek Carr, the presumed franchise quarterback, looks more like a massively overpaid game manager. None of which speaks to the depth of the 53-man roster, which is aging its way toward the league’s scrap heap.None of that is good. But here’s what is even worse: Head coach Jon Gruden has had a bonfire with most of general manager Reggie McKenzie’s remaining talent. The personnel evaluators and coaching staff don’t appear to be remotely on the same page. That means the shared mechanism meant to rebuild this franchise is either mismatched (best case) or completely broken (worst case). Now the Raiders are the worst team in the NFL – with an old roster largely devoid of talent – that is totally dependent on a mismatched leadership group that can’t repleniCrap quickly or reliably. And this is what the NFL is sending toward Las Vegas. Basically the opposite of the Los Angeles Rams, who should arrive to their multibillion-dollar Inglewood stadium smack in the middle of a Super Bowl window. That’s how differently these two opportunities have worked out. Two diverging paths, both having everything to do with the owners’ choices.
The Rams’ Stan Kroenke went into his project with all the money in the world. Billions at his disposal. So he poured it into his roster and empowered his subordinates to find the right coach for the talent. Davis stepped into his project with hundreds of millions of dollars. A great deal of which he devoted to the 10-year contract for Gruden, who was then empowered to do whatever he felt necessary.
One plan has flourished. The other has flopped.If the league’s owners aren’t furious about that disparity, they will be in 2019 because this franchise isn’t going to turn around in one offseason. And it likely won’t by 2020, either. Not when the future of the front office appears completely up in the air. Not when the quarterback looks increasingly likely to be traded when the season ends. And not when Gruden keeps grousing about the building wave of “negativity” like a man who doesn’t understand his Bay Area fanbase expected to be abandoned in 2020 – not 2018. That latter part is particularly maddening – Gruden’s nose getting out of joint at the negative coverage of this calamity. This is a man who spent a decade as part of the media. His job was to be critical of others in an expansive library of ESPN appearances that are not aging well. He isn’t ignorant. He knows how this works. He knew back in January that his massive contract would invite massive expectations – not a massive rebuilding project. If this cratering and rebuild was even a remote possibility, then Gruden was a fool for letting Davis present his arrival as the return of the prodigal son. And he most definitely should have never let anyone tease the idea that Gruden would deliver anything whatsoever on his way out of town. But the hype machine was cranked up. Promises were made. Big f-ing talk was not in short supply. So there’s no getting out of this now. Gruden’s not quitting with so much money – and his football reputation – squarely on the line. Davis isn’t firing him. And the league can’t back out of a Las Vegas move that is just over the horizon. If only for that reason, it’s time to hear Mark Davis step up and speak. He owes an explanation to his Bay Area fans. He owes a plan to a Las Vegas community that can see the glow of this garbage fire from thousands of miles away. And he owes something to the NFL’s team owners who bought a promise that “the greatness of the Raiders is in [their] future.” Right now, only a Las Vegas stadium is promised in the Raiders’ future. The greatness has been lost. And someone needs to explain how the worst team in the NFL will change that by 2020.sports.yahoo.com/nfl-alarmed-raiders-disintegrating-jon-gruden-060137437.html
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 2, 2018 18:54:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 10, 2018 6:08:44 GMT -6
Video from 2 days ago
|
|
|
Post by ekjet72 on Dec 10, 2018 10:03:59 GMT -6
As an ex-Winnipeg boy, it would hard to explain my choice of the Raiders as my NFL team. But it goes way back to the AFL days in fact. After Bud Grant and the Bombers staff left for Minnesota, I had to choose another team for my post CFL season fix and it certainly wasn't going to be the Vikings so off to AFL which was going to merge soon with the NFL anyway I went. Oakland had Daryl Lamonica and Warren Wells and whole bunch of out-sized outlaws that looked great to a young fan. Besides their offense was killer on the Strat-O-Matic FB board game. The defense not so much! Anyway I chose a winner. Many Suoer Bowl appearance and wins later they fell victim to the grandiose egos of the owners. The state of the dynasty as it winds down in Oakland is embarrassing and die-hard fans are leaving. A fellow in Alameda Ca., that I know, who knew Stabler, Freddy, Marv Hubbard, Jim Otto and others can't even go to his season ticket games...he gives them away. Chucky has turned out to be the destroyer not the Messiah he was hoped to be and there is a fair bit of resignation and sunken shoulders as the Oakland fairy tale winds down. We shall see what the story reads like in Vegas but I suspect the fans with their passion, we see in the black hole in Oakland, will be muted in LV!
|
|
|
Post by ekjet72 on Dec 10, 2018 10:06:49 GMT -6
Oh yeah, I reconciled with the NFL. The Vikings are my second favorite NFL team.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 10, 2018 16:40:31 GMT -6
As an ex-Winnipeg boy, it would hard to explain my choice of the Raiders as my NFL team. But it goes way back to the AFL days in fact. After Bud Grant and the Bombers staff left for Minnesota, I had to choose another team for my post CFL season fix and it certainly wasn't going to be the Vikings so off to AFL which was going to merge soon with the NFL anyway I went. Oakland had Daryl Lamonica and Warren Wells and whole bunch of out-sized outlaws that looked great to a young fan. Besides their offense was killer on the Strat-O-Matic FB board game. The defense not so much! Anyway I chose a winner. Many Suoer Bowl appearance and wins later they fell victim to the grandiose egos of the owners. The state of the dynasty as it winds down in Oakland is embarrassing and die-hard fans are leaving. A fellow in Alameda Ca., that I know, who knew Stabler, Freddy, Marv Hubbard, Jim Otto and others can't even go to his season ticket games...he gives them away. Chucky has turned out to be the destroyer not the Messiah he was hoped to be and there is a fair bit of resignation and sunken shoulders as the Oakland fairy tale winds down. We shall see what the story reads like in Vegas but I suspect the fans with their passion, we see in the black hole in Oakland, will be muted in LV! Last I've heard Vegas PSL's are selling well. I don't think they will have trouble filling the stadium though it may be with opposing fans if the Raiders continue to be this bad. If they get new ownership and win they will be fine. If Vegas can support the NHL they certainly can support 8 NFL games. The Raiders downfall was the move pointless move to LA. The Oakland Coliseum was outdated but so was the LA Coliseum. All the move to LA did was wreck the Oakland fan-base. In the period they were in LA the 49ers won 5 of 13 superbowls. They way they returned under Al Davis did the rest of the damage. The not selling PSL's debacle and leaving the city on the hook for Mt. Davis that they later shut down because they didn't have enough fans also hurt along with the almost constant losing. They also angered too many A's fans with Mt. Davis blocking the Oakland foothills. If the Raiders would have stayed the new proposed stadium would have only seated 55,000 fans because Mark Davis admitted they don't have enough fans to fill a normal sized NFL stadium. They next smallest NFL stadium is Soldier Field at 61,500. The Raiders tear down is looking like a disaster. The Raiders got this year and next years number 1 picks from the Bears for Khalil Mack and this years number 1 for Amari Cooper. The Bears and Cowboys are going to be division winners baring a major collapse so 2 of their 3 number 1's at least are going to be mid 20's picks. OUCH!!! Not what the Raiders were expecting when they made the trades. The Raiders also beat the Steelers and moved down to number 3 with their own pick. They could run the table or at least win 2 of 3 of their remaining games. They are at Cincinnati next(they suck), play Denver at home(Denver is done with their loss) and are at Kansas City who could be playing backups with the number 1 seed clinched. So they could be picking only 10th(ish) and mid 20th twice. What the Raiders need most is new ownership. Mark Davis doesn't have the money to be a pro sports owner. Only good thing about this year is Derrick Carr is starting to grasp Gruden's system(though that's killing draft position) and Gearon Conley at corner is starting to look like the real deal. Reggie McKenzie is out and Gruden is going to bring in his own personnel guy. Maybe they pull some rabbits out of the hat with the 3 so-so number 1 picks.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 11, 2018 16:26:27 GMT -6
Oakland files lawsuit against Raiders, NFL City says league violated its relocation policy when it approved the team’s moveThe town is taking the Raiders and NFL to court. City Attorney Barbara Parker on Tuesday filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against the team and the league, a suit city leaders hope could net millions in damages and pay off the approximately $80 million in debt remaining from renovations at the Coliseum. It may also send the on-again, off-again Oakland Raiders packing early for Las Vegas.Parker said the NFL violated antitrust laws by approving the move to Vegas and the team’s departure goes against the league’s relocation policy. “The defendants brazenly violated federal antitrust law and the league’s own policies when they boycotted Oakland as a host city,” Parker said in a statement. “The Raiders’ illegal move lines the pockets of NFL owners and sticks Oakland, its residents, taxpayers and dedicated fans with the bill. The purpose of this lawsuit is to hold the defendants accountable and help to compensate Oakland for the damages the defendants’ unlawful actions have caused and will cause to the people of Oakland.” Oakland City Council had earlier voted to authorize Parker to file the suit, along with outside law firms. Two fan groups, We Stand with Oakland and Forever Oakland, led by Raymond Bobbitt and Gregory “Griz” Jones, first called for legal action. The outside law firms include Berg & Androphy and Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP. “The NFL has a long history of misusing its tremendous market power in violation of antitrust laws,” Quinn, the lead attorney from Berg & Androphy said in a statement. “This time the NFL defendants violated their own bylaws in their effort to cash in on the Raiders’ move. Oakland is standing up to this unlawful and disloyal treatment by the league owners.” Quinn has had success in other suits against the NFL. In another case earlier this year, a judge in Missouri ruled in favor of St. Louis officials suing the Rams for relocating to Los Angeles. But legal victories in antitrust cases against the NFL are rare. Stadium expert Roger Noll, professor of economics emeritus at Stanford University, earlier said the only successful antitrust suit by a city against the league was LA Coliseum vs. NFL, which included the Raiders.“Many cities have sued to try to block a team from moving, and none have succeeded,” Noll said in September. “Of course, the city (Oakland) may have an interesting, new theory of antitrust harm, so I want to read the complaint before I reach a conclusion about the merits.” The suit comes as the Coliseum authority is negotiating with the Raiders to extend the team’s Coliseum lease for at least one year. The lease negotiations could include an option to play the 2020 season in Oakland in case the $1.9 billion, 65,000-seat Las Vegas stadium doesn’t open on schedule. Coliseum authority Executive Director Scott McKibben said the team has “made it very clear” it would not sign a lease extension if a lawsuit is filed. “The Raiders demand language that assures them the city will not file a lawsuit against them,” McKibben said Tuesday. Team officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday. Team owner Mark Davis has not returned previous messages on the matter. Not everyone is on board. Even though the outside law firms have taken the case on a contingency basis, meaning it comes at not cost to the city, critics worry Oakland would not be covered if the Raiders filed a counter suit. F ormer Oakland Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente, who is currently on the authority board, previously called the lawsuit “ridiculous” and said Oakland may not be financially covered if the NFL or the Raiders counter sue. “You are going to expose the city to potential liabilities and for what?” said De La Fuente. It’s unclear where the team would play in 2019, if not at the Coliseum. Noll said there are no attractive options in the Bay Area or Las Vegas. Seating capacity at college stadiums are smaller than the Coliseum, he said. “In this case, the Raiders would be sacrificing a lot not to stay in the Coliseum, so the issue is how much it is worth to them to retaliate against the city on their way out of town,” Noll said. “As a business proposition, moving next year makes no sense.” www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/11/oakland-files-lawsuit-against-raiders-nfl/
|
|