OT: City of Oakland sues NFL Raiders, "illegal cartel" NFL over move to Las Vegas

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,870
Sin City
Oakland sues Raiders, NFL in federal court alleging 'illegal move' to Las Vegas

Oakland filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday challenging the relocation of the Raiders to Las Vegas, calling the move illegal and demanding compensation for hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

The long-awaited suit against the Raiders, the National Football League and every other team in the league seeks damages for the “unlawful decision to boycott Oakland” but does not ask for the Raiders to remain in the city. Oakland claims the NFL and its teams collude as an “illegal cartel” to demand that cities bankroll new stadiums with public funds or be shut out of the marketplace with team relocations.

On top of antitrust violations, the complaint alleges that the Raiders and NFL breached their contract with the city.

For sure the lawyers are gonna win with all the legal fees generated.

Could push the Raiders to relocate sooner (and play at Sam Boyd in LV?) :dunno:
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,743
What grounds does oakland have here? Is there a lease that says Riaders have to play their games in Oakland. It's a private business that they can do what ever they want.

Since when were the Raiders required to actually build a new stadium in oakland? This sounds like an illegal regulation by the city.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devonator

BKIslandersFan

F*** off
Sep 29, 2017
11,447
5,060
Brooklyn
What grounds does oakland have here? Is there a lease that says Riaders have to play their games in Oakland. It's a private business that they can do what ever they want.

Since when were the Raiders required to actually build a new stadium in oakland? This sounds like an illegal regulation by the city.
They just want money back from subsidizing stadium renovation to get them back front LA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anisimovs AK

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,743
They just want money back from subsidizing stadium renovation to get them back front LA.

But were the raiders required to pay it back? if its not written that the raiders are required to pay it back then i don't see how the courts can order the team to do so. This is why everything must be written.
 

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,586
1,382
Ajax, ON
Looks like a very expensive publicity stunt on the part of the city with 1 home game left and no lease for next season.

So why sue now? It's been nearly 2 years since the league approved the move.

Is the city a co-signed on the relocation agreement with the other owners?

I can't see this going anywhere. The big question is where they'll play next year.
 

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
What grounds does oakland have here? Is there a lease that says Riaders have to play their games in Oakland. It's a private business that they can do what ever they want.

Apparently NFL policies are set to promote interest of the league in its home territory first and not seek highest bidders for relocation:

4. At the outset, the Relocation Policies expressly confirm that: each club’s primary obligation to the League and to all other member clubs is to advance the interests of the League in its home territory. This primary obligation includes, but is not limited to, maximizing fan support, including attendance, in its home territory.


The Relocation Policies further confirm that “no club has an ‘entitlement’ to relocate simply because it perceives an opportunity for enhanced club revenues in another location.” In other words, the Relocation Policies first and foremost favor a team’s home territory over relocation in order to promote team stability – which is thus clearly one of the procompetitive goals of the Relocation Policies - and all other considerations are viewed through that narrow lens. Because the Relocation Policies were adopted to address Defendants’ antitrust violations, Defendants are not free to disregard them. When Defendants breach the Relocation Policies that are in place to mitigate their collective actions, they essentially re-violate the antitrust laws those Policies were designed to comply with. This has the effect of putting Defendants in the same place they were at the time the Ninth Circuit rendered its decision in Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum 35 years ago, i.e., in violation of the antitrust laws. That is precisely what happened here.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,743
Full details:

http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/PDFS/Raiders Docket No. 1 - Complaint.pdf

Any stadium subsidies should come with strings attached otherwise owners will simply threaten relocation if they don't get what they want. A Franchise is an appreciating asset while a football stadium is a depreciating one. Once a team leaves, taxpayers are left with the bill and not much to show for.

And that's not the teams fault if the city didn't have it written that the team is required to pay back the subsidies. Basically they are going to make the courts force the team pay back the city.
 

aqib

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
5,135
1,148
Its not the Raiders orthe NFL's fault that the city has bonds that were a longer term than the lease they signed. After not getting to move to LA in 2015 the Raiders signed a 1 year lease with 2 1 year options. The lease that got them back from LA was already done at the end of 2015.
 

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
And that's not the teams fault if the city didn't have it written that the team is required to pay back the subsidies. Basically they are going to make the courts force the team pay back the city.

Yeah if this is not explicitly in the contract then hard to argue team owes anything even if the city relied on its interpretation of NFL policies to protect this investment. Think here lawyers argue NFL/teams bully cities by exploiting market control into getting those sweet deals.

Will be interesting to see how this goes down.
 
Last edited:

aqib

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
5,135
1,148
Full details:

http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/PDFS/Raiders Docket No. 1 - Complaint.pdf

Any stadium subsidies should come with strings attached otherwise owners will simply threaten relocation if they don't get what they want. A Franchise is an appreciating asset while a football stadium is a depreciating one. Once a team leaves, taxpayers are left with the bill and not much to show for.

The subsidies come with strings. The strings are called a lease. The Raiders came back in 1995. They signed a 20 year lease. They played out the 20 year lease and have since played another 3. If Oakland has any debt left thay was a stupid financing decision
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeCubs and LeHab

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,743
Raiders owner Mark Davis calls Oakland lawsuit 'meritless and malicious'
The lawsuit calls the Raiders' move to Las Vegas illegal, and Raiders owner Mark Davis thinks the suit is a waste of time.

War of words begins

And last i read The raiders don't have a long term lease. I think they been doing a year by year lease. And as far as i know there is no lease for next season. So how exactly is the relocation "illegal". There is nothing to bind them to play in oakland next season.
 

Grudy0

Registered User
Mar 16, 2011
1,878
122
Maryland
This is an interesting take by the City of Oakland (CoO).

The net result of the argument by CoO is that after amending the bylaw with the updated relocation policies, must the bylaw be followed by the League?

It's basically the reverse of the "Raiders II" lawsuit in 1982, where Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum argued successfully that the bylaw as written then ran afoul of antitrust law. And at that point this is like the Balsillie attempt during the Coyotes bankruptcy to make the NHL look bad. CoO is trying to get the NFL up on the stand to address that bylaw and make the NFL look bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llama19

patnyrnyg

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
10,838
869
Full details:

http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/PDFS/Raiders Docket No. 1 - Complaint.pdf

Any stadium subsidies should come with strings attached otherwise owners will simply threaten relocation if they don't get what they want. A Franchise is an appreciating asset while a football stadium is a depreciating one. Once a team leaves, taxpayers are left with the bill and not much to show for.
In a perfect world, yes. However, politicians bend over backwards for the teams, not the other way around. Unfortunately, they think about "developing" an area and all the "$ and jobs" it will bring to an area, despite the number of studies and reports indicating that the benefit to the city is a fallacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llama19

patnyrnyg

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
10,838
869
And last i read The raiders don't have a long term lease. I think they been doing a year by year lease. And as far as i know there is no lease for next season. So how exactly is the relocation "illegal". There is nothing to bind them to play in oakland next season.
They do not have a lease at all for 2019.

NFL should cut the city of Oakland a check and use the opportunity to look like the good guy here. Doesn't have to be the full amount, but enough that they are at least giving the indication that they see their responsibility in it, even if legally they are not obligated to pay a dime.

However, this is not the NFL's style. For arguments sake, let's a check for $20MM would be acceptable for Oakland, the NFL would rather spend $40MM fighting it and not give Oakland a dime.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,285
12,586
South Mountain
This is an interesting take by the City of Oakland (CoO).

The net result of the argument by CoO is that after amending the bylaw with the updated relocation policies, must the bylaw be followed by the League?

It's basically the reverse of the "Raiders II" lawsuit in 1982, where Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum argued successfully that the bylaw as written then ran afoul of antitrust law. And at that point this is like the Balsillie attempt during the Coyotes bankruptcy to make the NHL look bad. CoO is trying to get the NFL up on the stand to address that bylaw and make the NFL look bad.

It seems like largely the same argument that St Louis made which didn't result in anything when the Rams moved.

Does the league have to follow their own policies? Oakland isn't a party to the league constitution or bylaws, so the first obstacle is establishing standing to complain about that in the first place baring some other legal foundation for the suit--presumably the anti-trust element.

Does the league have to follow their relocation bylaws to avoid running afoul of anti-trust law? Maybe/sometimes. Following the relocation bylaws isn't blanket protection against an anti-trust ruling. Likewise not following the bylaws shouldn't result in a de facto anti-trust violation.

It gets even trickier here in that the league's actions don't appear to constitute a restraint of trade--if anything the Raiders move to Vegas is the complete opposite of that. Part of the suit involves the NFL owners "profiting" from the relocation fee. On the flip side, that relocation fee could equally be viewed as an incentive for the Raiders to remain in Oakland and discourages a relocation.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,743
It seems like largely the same argument that St Louis made which didn't result in anything when the Rams moved.

Does the league have to follow their own policies? Oakland isn't a party to the league constitution or bylaws, so the first obstacle is establishing standing to complain about that in the first place baring some other legal foundation for the suit--presumably the anti-trust element.

Does the league have to follow their relocation bylaws to avoid running afoul of anti-trust law? Maybe/sometimes. Following the relocation bylaws isn't blanket protection against an anti-trust ruling. Likewise not following the bylaws shouldn't result in a de facto anti-trust violation.

It gets even trickier here in that the league's actions don't appear to constitute a restraint of trade--if anything the Raiders move to Vegas is the complete opposite of that. Part of the suit involves the NFL owners "profiting" from the relocation fee. On the flip side, that relocation fee could equally be viewed as an incentive for the Raiders to remain in Oakland and discourages a relocation.

So profiting from a relocation is now "illegal" good lord what is city of oakland even thinking?
 

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
In a perfect world, yes. However, politicians bend over backwards for the teams, not the other way around. Unfortunately, they think about "developing" an area and all the "$ and jobs" it will bring to an area, despite the number of studies and reports indicating that the benefit to the city is a fallacy.

This is one of arguments (valid or not) here. League controls supply by limiting number of teams which drives cities to bid against each other as demand is high. NFL maintains all power in negotiations which is somehow anti competitive.

Think lawyers here approached Oakland (not the other way around) with a pitch to try this in court, hope for a quick settlement to make a few bucks and some public exposure. At least city is not on the hook for legal fees.
 

BattleBorn

50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
Feb 6, 2015
12,069
6,017
Bellevue, WA
They do not have a lease at all for 2019.

NFL should cut the city of Oakland a check and use the opportunity to look like the good guy here. Doesn't have to be the full amount, but enough that they are at least giving the indication that they see their responsibility in it, even if legally they are not obligated to pay a dime.

However, this is not the NFL's style. For arguments sake, let's a check for $20MM would be acceptable for Oakland, the NFL would rather spend $40MM fighting it and not give Oakland a dime.

Fighting it doesn’t set a precedent that the league will pay cities a “ransom” to move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major4Boarding

Cellee

Registered User
Dec 20, 2014
8,951
6,168
St. Louis fans got their seat license fees back when the fans sued the team.
 

BKIslandersFan

F*** off
Sep 29, 2017
11,447
5,060
Brooklyn
This is one of arguments (valid or not) here. League controls supply by limiting number of teams which drives cities to bid against each other as demand is high. NFL maintains all power in negotiations which is somehow anti competitive.

Think lawyers here approached Oakland (not the other way around) with a pitch to try this in court, hope for a quick settlement to make a few bucks and some public exposure. At least city is not on the hook for legal fees.
In that case maybe there is something to this.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->