Oakland Raiders Latest Legal Defense Of City Of Oakland Lawsuit Has Major Flaw
Oakland Raiders Latest Legal Defense Of City Of Oakland Lawsuit Has Major Flaw - Video
Oakland Raiders Latest Legal Defense Of City Of Oakland Lawsuit Has Major Flaw The Oakland Raiders response to the City of Oakland's response to the Silver and Black and NFL's motion to dismiss the City's lawsuit over the Las Vegas Relocation includes a major flaw of reasoning and fact. The only reason this vlogger can think of that it's there is to take advantage of Federal Chief Magestrate Judge Joseph Spero's lack of knoweldge of the details and common practices around NFL stadium negotiations. Bascially, the Oakland Raiders response (or “Oakland Raiders Response”) was written as if the City of Oakland had paid $100's of millions in tax payer money to the Raiders and the NFL up front, before an agreement was struck. It's a completely ass-backward presentation that's can only be there due to some effort on the part of the Raiders to fool the judge. This is what the Oakland Raiders Response reads: Oakland contends that the purportedly limited number of NFL clubs affords the clubs market power and allows them to overcharge the Host Cities with which they negotiate. FAC 64. Whatever else might be said about this purported overcharge, Oakland did not pay it. Antitrust standing to complain of overcharges is limited to purchasers of the overcharged item; non-purchasers (even those allegedly priced out of the market) do not have standing. Oakland’s other alleged injuries—lost municipal investments, lost tax revenues, lost rent, and devaluation of the Coliseum property—are legally insufficient to confer standing. As this Court previously recognized, these harms are too indirect, too speculative, and/or not harms to a commercial interest. Ok, let's rip this up, er, take this in stages: Oakland Raiders Response: Oakland contends that the purportedly limited number of NFL clubs affords the clubs market power and allows them to overcharge the Host Cities with which they negotiate. FACT: Oakland Raiders Owner Mark Davis together with his then-business partner Las Vegas Sands Founder and CEO Sheldon Adelson, managed to get the Nevada Legislature to meet the $750 million subsidy ask that Davis and Adelson publicly said they needed for Las Vegas Stadium or they would walk away from the negotiating table with the State of Nevada and Clark County. FACT: The $750 million subsidy came to define the difference between the stadium proposals presented by the City of Oakland with the County of Alameda and the State of Nevada and Clark County: Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf had said more than once that she would not get into a bidding war with Las Vegas. FACT: Toward the last days of the back-and-forth of review and response of City of Oakland / Alameda County plans, Fortress Investments Drew McNight had said to this vlogger that then NFL Business Affairs Executive Vice President and new stadium / LA team relocation point man Eric Grubman told him Davis wanted a kind of “Las Vegas-style” loan structure of $750 million. In other words, Davis reportedly wanted an Oakland deal that was as close to the mirror image of the State of Nevada and Clark County $750 million special hotel tax subsidy as possible. The request took Fortress' McNight by surprise because it would require a wholesale scrapping of the development-driven revenue-sharing plan they had for the Raiders and the National Football League. With those facts, you can see just how weak the Oakland Raiders Legal Defense is. Stay tuned for more analysis of that crappy Oakland Raiders Response To Lawsuit file.
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/41Wkne9a-NM
Oakland Raiders Latest Legal Defense Of City Of Oakland Lawsuit Has Major Flaw The Oakland Raiders response to the City of Oakland's response to the Silver and Black and NFL's motion to dismiss the City's lawsuit over the Las Vegas Relocation includes a major flaw of reasoning and fact. The only reason this vlogger can think of that it's there is to take advantage of Federal Chief Magestrate Judge Joseph Spero's lack of knoweldge of the details and common practices around NFL stadium negotiations. Bascially, the Oakland Raiders response (or “Oakland Raiders Response”) was written as if the City of Oakland had paid $100's of millions in tax payer money to the Raiders and the NFL up front, before an agreement was struck. It's a completely ass-backward presentation that's can only be there due to some effort on the part of the Raiders to fool the judge. This is what the Oakland Raiders Response reads: Oakland contends that the purportedly limited number of NFL clubs affords the clubs market power and allows them to overcharge the Host Cities with which they negotiate. FAC 64. Whatever else might be said about this purported overcharge, Oakland did not pay it. Antitrust standing to complain of overcharges is limited to purchasers of the overcharged item; non-purchasers (even those allegedly priced out of the market) do not have standing. Oakland’s other alleged injuries—lost municipal investments, lost tax revenues, lost rent, and devaluation of the Coliseum property—are legally insufficient to confer standing. As this Court previously recognized, these harms are too indirect, too speculative, and/or not harms to a commercial interest. Ok, let's rip this up, er, take this in stages: Oakland Raiders Response: Oakland contends that the purportedly limited number of NFL clubs affords the clubs market power and allows them to overcharge the Host Cities with which they negotiate. FACT: Oakland Raiders Owner Mark Davis together with his then-business partner Las Vegas Sands Founder and CEO Sheldon Adelson, managed to get the Nevada Legislature to meet the $750 million subsidy ask that Davis and Adelson publicly said they needed for Las Vegas Stadium or they would walk away from the negotiating table with the State of Nevada and Clark County. FACT: The $750 million subsidy came to define the difference between the stadium proposals presented by the City of Oakland with the County of Alameda and the State of Nevada and Clark County: Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf had said more than once that she would not get into a bidding war with Las Vegas. FACT: Toward the last days of the back-and-forth of review and response of City of Oakland / Alameda County plans, Fortress Investments Drew McNight had said to this vlogger that then NFL Business Affairs Executive Vice President and new stadium / LA team relocation point man Eric Grubman told him Davis wanted a kind of “Las Vegas-style” loan structure of $750 million. In other words, Davis reportedly wanted an Oakland deal that was as close to the mirror image of the State of Nevada and Clark County $750 million special hotel tax subsidy as possible. The request took Fortress' McNight by surprise because it would require a wholesale scrapping of the development-driven revenue-sharing plan they had for the Raiders and the National Football League. With those facts, you can see just how weak the Oakland Raiders Legal Defense is. Stay tuned for more analysis of that crappy Oakland Raiders Response To Lawsuit file.
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/41Wkne9a-NM
Post A Comment
No comments :