What if that old rebel Al Davis moves his Raiders back to LA ? Al is slapping a lawsuit on the NFL..and wants to go back to LA...rumor has it, its a pretty valid suit.

Would this stir newfound interest in Oakland trying to keep the A's, maybe a sense of urgency ? civic pride kicking in ?

As Ice Cube says: "stop paying homage to the Raiders,Cause Al Davis,never paid us."

E-mail the Senators...yes on HB2941 !

Ah yes, a classic Ice Cube quote. Not to get too off-topic, but I laughed when I read that Al Davis was suing the NFL a few years back because they let Tampa Bay use silver (actually pewter) and black in their new color scheme along with the skull flag. He quoted numbers that said the Raiders were #1 in merchandise sales from 1988-1991 or something, but now had fallen off the pace. Well, Cube and N.W.A rose to prominence wearing their L.A. Raiders and L.A. Kings gear during that time (who knew Cube would one day grace the cover of Sports Illustrated with Shaq).
Other than the Super Bowl win, I always felt that the Raiders biggest contribution during their stay in L.A. was N.W.A's wardrobe (and millions of suburban youths). Anyway, that was obviously sales sparked by a fad and as it fades, kids move on to something else.

Anyway, the Raiders also haven't been too good (sure, last year, but not at the time of this suit) so that might have slowed their sales as well.

I thought that was a stretch and I think this L.A. thing might turn out to be one, too. Al seems to overstate the Raiders prominence.

Okay, now back to baseball. If the Raiders leave, then they might focus a little harder on keeping the A's.

The question is moot! (anybody else remember that old Jesse Jackson bit on SNL?)

Now the question is: How will the Raiders staying put affect the A's staying in Oakland?


-New Yorker
Swinging for the fences....

it would take a miracle to keep the A's in Oakland. the owners have probably already sold the team to Paul Allen in principal.

Hmmm. Got anything to back up either of those statements?


-New Yorker
Swinging for the fences....

MLB prevented an Oakland group that wanted to buy the team in late 99. They had billions more money than the current ownership and had pledged to keep the team in Oakland. MLB shelved the proposition so they didn't have to get the bad pr for actually rejecting it.

The current A's owners are from the South Bay area, the vocal guy, Schott, is a Santa Clara businessman. They bought the team on the cheap to make money. When they sell, they will make a huge profit. The dream of Schott is to have an MLB team in SC, but he knows it is fairly unlikely. The only decent site in SC is the Great America Parkway location, which has until early October to be chosen for MLB. That is way too tight to get a deal worked out, because SC is against the idea at the govt and citizen levels. Come Oct, the delay on building a structure on the site will pass and that option will close.

Schott/Hoffman will sell the team ASAP after that.

the city of Oakland, thankfully, will not fund a ballpark for the A's. This is not going to change anytime soon. they have redevelopment money available, but the current owners refuse to put a dime into a ballpark, so there is simply not enough money.

The A's have a year-to-year lease on their current ballpark after this season. This is the first chance the ownership has had to move the team.

With the team going up for sale after the 2001 season, the owners will sell to the highest bidder. MLB has deliberately prevented local buyers recently, so expect them to ALLOW and support any relocating owners that can get a ballpark built.

This puts Portland in a good situation. If the House bill passes, Portland can have the Oakland A's next season if an owner/group emerges.

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
The question is moot! _(anybody else remember that old Jesse Jackson bit on SNL?)_

Now the question is: How will the Raiders staying put affect the A's staying in Oakland?


_-New Yorker_
http://brewers.mlb.com/mil/photo/ph_hm_barrelman.gif _Swinging for the fences...._

---

I still think the Raiders will leave Oakland. Unlike Davis' other lawsuit, he has a pretty good case against the city of Oakland on this one.
Anyone who thinks differently is a snobby forty whiner fan. (meant to edit this yesterday but didn't get a chance) Or just plain hates Al D.
(editors note: Not all forty whiner fans are snobs, as Daddabom is an exception to the rule, IMO)

Numbers don't lie. People do.
Beware of the Silver & Black attack

[This message was edited by PirateNBama on JUN-06-02 at 07:52 AM.]

Thanx, PNB, I try not to denigrate the East Bay too much! You see, I happen to be married to a Raider fan, whose entire family hails from the East Bay. Since she's such a good cook and Mom, I find it in my best interest to mind my Ps and Qs.

To the "snobby" Niner fans, I say, hey, the Raider fans look like they have more fun, anyway!

Like I said in the NFLPDX posts....


When the Chargers move to LA,it's gonna happen!! The Al-ster is gonna look to San Diego as a new home for his Raiders...Book IT! Every talk show host on XTRA is of the same opinion...

Sounds to me like San Diago wants to keep the Chargers pretty bad to me. Getting nasty. - TBGR

The city of San Diego intends to keep their NFL franchise

San Diego's city attorney warned a Los Angeles developer that its discussions with the Chargers could interfere with the city's contract with the team and lead to substantial costs to taxpayers. That and this report from The San Diego Union-Tribune's Caitlin Rother
City Attorney Casey Gwinn, directed by a unanimous vote of the City Council in closed session Tuesday, sent a letter putting a company headed by Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz on notice that any contact with the Chargers could have a "material adverse impact" on San Diego.

That, legal experts said, is a formal way of telling Anschutz Entertainment Group that it could be liable for damages if its conversations with the team cause the city financial losses.

City Council members and critics of the city's dealings with the Chargers called the letter an important first step in protecting the city's interests.

The letter comes a week after the Chargers announced that AEG had contacted the team to gauge its interest in moving to a stadium the group hopes to build in downtown Los Angeles. A clause in the 1995 Qualcomm Stadium lease between San Diego and the Chargers allows the team to formally begin looking for a better deal elsewhere after Dec. 1 if certain conditions are met. The Chargers have said they need a new stadium in order to remain competitive in the National Football League.

The lease, which included a $78 million expansion of what was then known as San Diego Jack Murphy Stadium, was supposed to keep the team in San Diego through 2020. It includes the infamous provision that guarantees the Chargers revenue equivalent to the sale of 60,000 general admission tickets per game.

Mark Fabiani, hired by the Chargers to coordinate their effort to get a new stadium, has said the Chargers told AEG to check back in midsummer when talks with San Diego officials were further along.

Gwinn's letter expressed concern that the city's potential losses will mount if ticket sales are depressed by publicity about a possible Chargers' move to Los Angeles.

The letter stopped short of threatening to sue AEG. Its last paragraph reads: "The city trusts that AEG will conduct its business affairs in Los Angeles without interfering with the contractual rights and obligations of the city and the Chargers under the agreement."

An AEG spokesman said yesterday that company President Tim Leiweke, to whom Gwinn's letter was faxed, could not comment because he had not seen it.

Councilwoman Donna Frye said she was "extremely encouraged . . . about the action of our mayor and city attorney."

"The group from Los Angeles needed to be put on notice that the team is not free to negotiate with anybody. . . . If they continue to essentially ignore the contract and the process, I would certainly support taking the appropriate legal action," she said.

Former City Councilman Bruce Henderson congratulated the city on taking a more aggressive stance than it has in past weeks.

"It's what, of course, Mr. (Mike) Aguirre and I have been urging the city to do, and that is to take a really close look at this contract and, weak as it may be, see if we can't enforce its terms in such a fashion that . . . the Chargers stay here till 2020 just as they said they would," said Henderson, who is a lawyer. "So I'm ecstatic."

Aguirre, a lawyer who recently filed a lawsuit alleging the city has violated the state's open meeting law in connection with its discussions with the Chargers, called the letter "a powerful assertion of the city's rights."

Aguirre said the city's next step should be to respond in writing to an April 22 letter that Dean Spanos, the Chargers' president, wrote to Mayor **** Murphy asking to begin negotiations now to keep the Chargers from leaving. Aguirre said such a letter should declare that the city will not begin talks before Dec. 1.

Murphy's office released the Gwinn letter yesterday with a statement that said "the letter speaks for itself." The mayor's office referred all questions to Gwinn.

Gwinn's office declined to comment. Spokeswomen for Murphy and Gwinn specifically declined to say whether the city has warned or intends to warn the Chargers not to talk with AEG. They also declined to comment on what legal recourse the city has if AEG ignores the letter or whether they believe the lease specifically precludes the Chargers from talking to any other potential landlord before Dec. 1.

Fabiani released this statement: "As we have said all along, the Chargers are focused on fielding a winning team and finding a publicly acceptable way to become economically competitive in San Diego for many years to come. We are reviewing the city's letter to the Anschutz Entertainment Group, but the letter does not in any way change the Chargers' focus." That and this report from The San Diego Union-Tribune's Caitlin Rother

A man has to have goals- for a day, for a lifetime- that was mine, to have people say, "There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived."
- Ted Williams

not cheering them on. The rivalry intensified when he Raiders moved from Oaktown to LA. Also, Daddabom kinda implied a dilemma that I've had about the Raiders. As much as I would love to see the Raiders return to Los Angeles, the Raiders have one of best fanbases of the NFL in Oakland. In fact, I remember reading an article in my paper about the Raiders complaining how Los Angelians (is that a word??) would love to do just about anything but go to a Raiders game. The Coliseum was always about half full, and Anaheim Stadium had worse attendance than that!!! However, at Oakland-Alameda, the Raiders have been a pretty good draw.
As incredibly stupid as this sounds, probably the best thing to do would be to expand again by two teams. (Can't believe I'm actually saying that. Next thing I know, I'll be agreeing with Paul Tagliabue!! )

Numbers don't lie. People do.
Beware of the Silver & Black attack