billykaykay Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 https://thebolditalic.com/raider-revolution-how-oakland-could-use-the-5th-amendment-to-keep-the-raiders-a87271f0263d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Sounds good but it would be a cluster###k of epic proportions in practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr1 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 it won't work like when Truman tried to seize the steel industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoTom Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Can you imagine what kind of precedent this would set? Any time a business wants to move, the municipality could seize its assets. There's no chance of this happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Wow, I read into this for a while and thought it was satire. This is the dumbest legal article (if it's even that) written regarding the NFL ever. "Artists burning in slums"!! Property taking under eminent domain?? Ridiculous. Forget the fact that Oakland's last minute stadium "offer" was a shameless face saving gesture by a group of politicians happy to seen Davis go....now that broke city is going to come up with 2.1 billion to buy out Davis?? And the NFL would not fight the incredibly goofy idea that the "owner" of the "Oakland Raiders" could be a city appointed trustee----because the NFL would be afraid of a "PR nightmare" of fighting this idea? And the Raiders have appropriated "Oakland culture"? WTF is that? Isn't half the fanbase from LA anyway? And he's panty twisted because of traffic on TNF games (one a year tops?)? Bay Area commies speaking out. It is a good piece for a laugh though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 The USFL won treble damages on the $1 awarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judman Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 The author's point that protracted legislation (even if threatened) could bog stuff down is an interesting one. It keeps alive a conversation that the NFL would rather see concluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Government using an eminent domain argument to take over an entertainment business? Uh...no. That is called Communism. No way, no possible way, that would ever fly. I can't even believe someone wasted their time doing research on such a stupid idea. Taking over lands for infrastructure is quite different than taking over a billion dollar plus entertainment franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Entertaining hot take. Next one on when your favourite group, that you followed since their first release, has now sold out and concerts are taken up by people who jumped on the bandwagon for their 5th album? They don't belong there, you are owed this, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Just let them move stop trying to stop the inevitable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Are there any franchises that would gladly throw the keys on the table and say "there you go, Commish"??? A few years ago I was advised there were 7 in the NHL that would gladly have packed it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 The fact that anyone would advocate this (even if they know it was just a silly pipe dream) is downright frightening, and really says something about the mentality of some Americans. As someone pointed out, this would basically be communism. Besides, If the government used eminent domain to seize control of the land, that would only account for the stadium. Not everything inside the stadium, or everything that uses the stadium to perform. Otherwise, what would stop the city from laying claim to a musician that uses the stadium for a concert? Or the vehicles of someone that displayed his collection at a car show? (I honestly don't know what else that stadium is used for beyond football use, but you get the idea). The team and everything Oakland Raiders would still belong to Mark Davis. And he could still move them wherever he wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuvian Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 I could see the City seizing the stadium but not the team that is privately held. These owners finance the elections that employ the politicians who write the laws. In short, the 1% own democracy that is until Trump arrived - a paradigm buster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 I could see the City seizing the stadium but not the team that is privately held. These owners finance the elections that employ the politicians who write the laws. In short, the 1% own democracy that is until Trump arrived - a paradigm buster. Trump hasn't changed anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 The fact that anyone would advocate this (even if they know it was just a silly pipe dream) is downright frightening, and really says something about the mentality of some Americans. As someone pointed out, this would basically be communism. Besides, If the government used eminent domain to seize control of the land, that would only account for the stadium. Not everything inside the stadium, or everything that uses the stadium to perform. Otherwise, what would stop the city from laying claim to a musician that uses the stadium for a concert? Or the vehicles of someone that displayed his collection at a car show? (I honestly don't know what else that stadium is used for beyond football use, but you get the idea). The team and everything Oakland Raiders would still belong to Mark Davis. And he could still move them wherever he wanted. I could see the City seizing the stadium but not the team that is privately held. These owners finance the elections that employ the politicians who write the laws. In short, the 1% own democracy that is until Trump arrived - a paradigm buster. Seizing the stadium from themselves? They already own it. This guy's article makes zero sense on its face. His town (rightly) turned down financing of a new stadium because they can't afford it. So they would then spend 3-4 times as much to own the team?? He clearly doesn't understand how the NFL (or the rest of the country outside of his coffee shop) works. The NFL would never allow trustee ownership--even if this guy's completely off the wall fantasy of eminent domain seizure was to come true. The NFL would be happy to watch the vast majority of the American public crap all over Oakland is such a scenario was attempted. In fact, it's one of the few imaginable scneaios where the general public would sympathize with the NFL. I can imagine all of the "yeah...MAN!!"'s that this manifesto produced in the "art/football fan" world around the Bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HT02 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 https://thebolditalic.com/raider-revolution-how-oakland-could-use-the-5th-amendment-to-keep-the-raiders-a87271f0263d I hate to see the Raiders leave Oakland, it just doesn't seem "right" and those fans are among the best in football. That being said the article is full of half-truths and some outright lies. I've been to the Oakland Coliseum (2012) and it is truly the worst stadium I have ever seen and I have been to been to 34 in my lifetime (some of them have been replaced). I would say the idea of eminent domain for a football team is both idiotic and unconstitutional but since the appeals process would take it through the 6th Circuit Court, never say never Are there any franchises that would gladly throw the keys on the table and say "there you go, Commish"??? A few years ago I was advised there were 7 in the NHL that would gladly have packed it in. I don't believe that for one second, the value of all the major sports leagues grows at a rate that far outpaces inflation. If they were really ready to "give the keys back" they could sell the team for a nice profit in a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuvian Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 the fact that all the recent moves are California teams is telling. I read years ago that San Diego simply did not have taxpayer support for stadium funding with the city being very broke and dealing with much more important social problems. Ideally these facilities would be entirely privately funded. I love the game but it has no place at the public trough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Trump hasn't changed anything... exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 (edited) Trump hasn't changed anything... exactly hey hey.. thats political! Mods ??? Edited April 6, 2017 by dwight in philly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOKIE Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 I quit reading at "cities spend hundreds of billions on stadiums...." Cmon man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts