Skip to content

Lawyer expects governmental entities to join potential lawsuit against Raiders

Getty Images

The lawyer plotting possible litigation against the NFL and the Raiders arising from the team’s plan to leave Oakland could be getting a few key partners for the effort.

Via Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Daily, lawyer Jim Quinn said that the “fully expects” Oakland and other local governmental entities to take part in the effort to block the move to Las Vegas or otherwise obtain legal relief arising from the team’s decision to move. Quinn explained, per Kaplan, that if Oakland agrees to participate, a decision then can be made regarding whether litigation is the proper approach.

It’s still unclear whether a lawsuit would rely on an actual or implied contract, a federal or state statute, or some principle of the so-called common law, which potentially would create legal duties based on precedent from past cases resolved by the court system. It’s likewise not known whether a lawsuit would try to keep the team from leaving or target compensation for financial losses resulting from the move.

One potential goal of the litigation could be to leverage guarantees regarding a replacement franchise, and possibly an agreement to keep the Raiders name, logos, colors, and records in Oakland. Though Art Modell agreed to that approach in 1995 when moving the Browns (which became the Ravens) to Baltimore, it’s hard to imagine Raiders owner Mark Davis abandoning the identity of the franchise.

Permalink 32 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
32 Responses to “Lawyer expects governmental entities to join potential lawsuit against Raiders”
  1. Wisconsin's Favorite Son Jeffrey Be Dahmed says: Jun 16, 2017 8:49 PM

    I hope Oakland wins if they do file. Some of us here are thinking of filing a lawsuit to have our Packers removed from Green Bay. No one should be forced to be there. No one.

  2. cmoney20 says: Jun 16, 2017 9:03 PM

    Big time lawyer here. This case has no merit.

  3. squackduckhawk says: Jun 16, 2017 9:06 PM

    The Raiders gave the City of Oakland ample opportunity to come to an agreement. The Raiders simply called the City’s bluff, took their ball, and found a new home.

  4. jrossizzle says: Jun 16, 2017 9:11 PM

    Raiders in a lawsuit.
    Al Davis LIVES!!!

  5. richabbs says: Jun 16, 2017 9:16 PM

    The Jets have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl next year, than these guys have winning a law suit against the Raiders and the NFL.

  6. tylawspick6 says: Jun 16, 2017 9:20 PM

    bye bye raiders

  7. trubroncfan07 says: Jun 16, 2017 9:22 PM

    California Government needs to stay out of this, they can’t run anything well. I am amazed they did not just pass another five dollar gas increase and pay for the new stadium with middle class money. They would then probably turn around then give all the poor Oakland fans fee tickets to the game.

  8. droppedinagreasefire says: Jun 16, 2017 9:24 PM

    The Raiders in another lawsuit? My, my, my! Such a good, Christian owned team.

  9. tbeverli says: Jun 16, 2017 10:22 PM

    Ah lawyers, the death of America.

  10. bighairbingopro says: Jun 16, 2017 10:27 PM

    Oakland will never get another NFL franchise again. Let their names, colors, stats go to Vegas. The die hards don’t care where they play.

  11. r502 says: Jun 16, 2017 10:51 PM

    Oakland politicians are looking for cover with voters. They did nothing and the team is leaving. It may very well cost them with voters when the reality sets in that the team is gone. They made the choice, and it was probably the right one not to use public money to build a stadium for Mark Davis. Stand up and own the decision; a bogus lawsuit makes the mayor and city council look like transparent schmucks.
    The lawyers are just blood sucking vermin looking to capitalize, as usual.

  12. piis314 says: Jun 16, 2017 11:55 PM

    If the city of Oakland had put half as much effort into keeping the team and not having them play in a sewer pit as the would in this litigation, this wouldn’t be an issue.

    They certainly didn’t have an issue when they were on the receiving end of luring a team away from their home market.

    I hope the NFL and Davis file a counter suit and OWN Oakland after this fiasco.

  13. bws1066 says: Jun 17, 2017 12:07 AM

    a bunch of crap, they never did this when they left Oakland before so the Raiders should keep their name. Oakland sure didn’t get together for a new stadium so there is no reason for them to keep the name.

  14. idun215 says: Jun 17, 2017 12:42 AM

    So do they wanna keep the team and spend taxpayers money on a billion dollar stadium? Seems like a lose lose no matter what side of the coin they’re on.

  15. drunkraider says: Jun 17, 2017 12:48 AM

    This makes me laugh, they wouldnt even dream of doing this if AL was alive.

    not only would they get owned in court, he would probably counter sue and hose them for everything they have.

  16. bigwinintx says: Jun 17, 2017 1:33 AM

    This will force the NFL to reveal if the Raiders have actually lost revenue.
    Other than that, what’s the basis of the move?

  17. dallashomer says: Jun 17, 2017 4:26 AM

    Shameful. Stay in Oakland.

  18. dickrummy says: Jun 17, 2017 5:24 AM

    It’d be cool if Oak & Alameda spent a couple billion on lawyers to keep the team, won, then renamed them the “Hostages.”

  19. araidersfan says: Jun 17, 2017 5:41 AM

    I was very much against Al Davis’ 1st move away from Oakland in 1982 and I’m equally against this 2nd move by Son-of-Al.

    But I don’t think that the city of Oakland has much hope in suing the Raiders, They actually attempted an action in 1983 where they went to court to condemn the Raiders as “important public property” and buy the team from Davis at a court-determined price (concept of eminent domain) – but that failed.

  20. Iknowitall says: Jun 17, 2017 6:57 AM

    From the “owner” down to the fans…..the Raiders are a joke and embarassment

  21. slick50kc says: Jun 17, 2017 7:09 AM

    The Las Vegas Felons sounds about right.

  22. 49ersfury says: Jun 17, 2017 7:47 AM

    The Vegas deal is so bad that the Senate is trying to pass a bill
    to ban public funding of stadiums. Mark Davis’ business acumen is so bad, and Jerry Jones greed is so vast that it’s going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs for NFL teams; Public Funding of Stadiums.

  23. dejadoh says: Jun 17, 2017 10:19 AM

    Why are they not suing the Golden State Warriors. They are moving very soon (new building under construction across the bay in San Francisco). Where’s the outrage? I saw Libby at the A’s game last night with high school students. 82+ games > 41+ games > 10+ games.

  24. 24hoursinaday24beersinacase says: Jun 17, 2017 10:30 AM

    So if Oakland got to keep the Raiders name and colors like Cleveland did, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO BUILD A STADIUM TO GET A TEAM THERE!!!

  25. richabbs says: Jun 17, 2017 1:34 PM

    Let’s face it, Baltimore let Cleveland keep the name because it was God-awful. Baltimore would have rather gotten the Colts name back, but Irsay wanted around $25 million from Modell, who was willing to pay $5 million. So, I doubt Oakland will wind up getting the name back if they ever get another team.

  26. mdintino1420 says: Jun 17, 2017 3:28 PM

    STL said they were going to sue for the Rams moving. What good did that do? What a stupid waste of time. This is why Davis should have moved the team right away and play at Sam Boyd until the new stadium is ready.

  27. fedora59 says: Jun 17, 2017 4:01 PM

    The Raiders involved in a lawsuit about moving? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  28. stucats says: Jun 17, 2017 6:35 PM

    the haircut from the picture is called a “Raider Fader”

  29. fmc651 says: Jun 17, 2017 7:42 PM

    stucats says:
    Jun 17, 2017 6:35 PM

    the haircut from the picture is called a “Raider Fader”


    More like tragic. Gawd awful cut that is.

  30. harril3 says: Jun 18, 2017 2:43 AM

    The suit probably has little merit. But it could put Davis in a precarious cash situation. Most of his wealth is tied up in the team and he has to come up with his $500 million share of stadium money, plus eventually another $500 million to the league, payable over 20? years. The guy is only worth a billion…

    So a suit like this could make it difficult to pay players what they want in terms of signing bonuses and guaranteed money, if the lawyer fees start adding up. If the point of the suit is to screw the Raiders, then the plaintiffs should drag it out as long as possible.

  31. droppedinagreasefire says: Jun 18, 2017 1:46 PM

    the haircut from the picture is called a “Raider Fader”


    More like tragic. Gawd awful cut that is.

    Son, you ever been to an Oakland home game? Nearly every one there is truck stop trailer trash. It aint pretty.

  32. droppedinagreasefire says: Jun 19, 2017 7:44 PM

    Gonna take a wild guess here, but the guy in the pic with the raider haircut doesnt have a job.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!