I remember the above piece being quoted in a previous version of this thread, to which I had provided the following reply:
OT: - All-Purpose Expos Return Speculation Topic
We're not going to get a reliable legal opinion out of a sports piece based on generalities.
I love and respect Macramella, but he doesn't practice law in Florida.
Any MLB team that is facing relocation has recourses. Reality is that we don't really know how courts will deal with them.
What I do know is that the jurisdiction of the courts that are designated to hear a lawsuit is important. Florida courts are not NY courts. There is a reason a significant number of major contracts choose NY as their jurisdiction to hear litigation -- NY courts are much more inclined to award high damages and to not detract from the letter of an agreement. Macramella doesn't draw a distinction, nor does he provide background info on this critical aspect. He's arguing the letter of the agreement but how it is going to be interpreted and disposed of is a whole other ballgame.
Also, assuming Florida law applies, there are precedents from sports law and other related industries that could help circumscribe the matter. Of course, there is no legal opinion provided from the firm Macramalla works for cause they weren't mandated to draw one up. There'd be no money in it for them evidently since Expos potential ownership has not retained them. So Macramalla resorts to general principles of contract law to come up with general guidelines.
Bottom line -- Tampa remains a relocation target. And a potential ownership group won't have to wait until 2027 to make it happen. Damages can be quantified and negotiated upon as a cost of doing business. Macramalla's piece doesn't change that in the least.
I don't think anything has changed right now to merit a different reply.
We're only going to find out how serious the currently perceived hurdles are when a relocation decision will be imminent.