Mark Davis: City of Oakland’s lawsuit “meritless and malicious”

Posted by Josh Alper on December 12, 2018, 5:31 AM EST
Getty Images

On Tuesday, the City of Oakland filed a long-threatened lawsuit against the Raiders, the NFL and the league’s other 31 teams concerning the Raiders’ impending move to Las Vegas.

The lawsuit alleges the Raiders “brazenly violated federal antitrust law and the league’s own policies when they boycotted Oakland as a host city” in a move that will benefit NFL owners while costing Oakland money. The suit asks for compensation for “the damages the defendants’ unlawful actions have caused and will cause to the people of Oakland.”

Raiders owner Mark Davis told Paul Gutierrez of ESPN.com that the suit is “meritless and malicious” and that he will “let the attorneys make any further comment.” The Raiders are set to move to Las Vegas in 2020 and don’t have a lease to play anywhere next season, although they have proposed a lease to stay put.

In addition to that proposal, Davis has said in the past that the Raiders would move on if the city filed its lawsuit. He had no comment on that question on Tuesday.

Permalink 36 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

36 responses to “Mark Davis: City of Oakland’s lawsuit “meritless and malicious””

  1. Unlike all other teams other than the Steelers and Cowboys, the Raiders are a global brand that will flourish in Vegas.

  2. joetoronto says:
    December 12, 2018 at 6:06 am
    Unlike all other teams other than the Steelers and Cowboys, the Raiders are a global brand that will flourish in Vegas.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    I live in NY and have been to many games involving the Giants and Jets. No team’s fans travel better than the Packers. I am amazed at how many Packers fans are at those games in New Jersey whether they are playing the Giants or Jets. So include them in your “global brand” comment.
    As for the Raiders and how this law suit will come out, I couldn’t care less. Al Davis was great for the NFL and was a major force behind the merger of the AFL and NFL. But it’s no secret that he became a buffoon when he got older and his Raiders have been a disaster for the last three decades. In fact, they are now one of the worst run organizations in the NFL.

  3. Anyone with enough money for the filing fee can file a lawsuit. That doesn’t mean that the case has any merit. This lawsuit certainly has no merit.

    The City of Oakland has had decades to improve the cesspool that is the Coliseum, or build a new facility. The City has refused to do so. The Raiders should have moved years ago.

  4. Raiders will be great in Vegas, but if the city and tax payers built the stadium then I’m all for Oakland going after the raiders and nfl

  7. @joetoronto- Your comment is based on what information exactly?

    FYI – The Browns Backers organization is one of the largest global fan groups in professional sports. That’s right – fans of the lowly Browns. Look it up.

  9. joetoronto says:
    December 12, 2018 at 6:06 am
    Unlike all other teams other than the Steelers and Cowboys, the Raiders are a global brand that will flourish in Vegas.

    ———–

    Will they ever be capable of winning more than 5-6 games in a season? Not as long as Gruden is their head coach.

  11. Leave. Find a willing city with a stadium at least the size of where the chargers play (basically any city with a div 1 NCAAF team) and go there for a year. Remove “Oakland” from everything and just use “Raiders”.

  14. “No team’s fans travel better than the Packers”

    Cowboy fans heavily disagree with your statement. No other team base loads up a bus and buys out a hotel “level” filled with cowboy fans. Why do you think people hate Dallas so much? Imagine if the cowboys start to win again.

  15. What gets ignored in all these articles is how the tax paying public in these cities has gotten put on the hook for paying for a private business’ venue. It’s a precident that got set eons ago and persists despite the fact that the NFL is one of the most wildly profitable businesses in the planet. These teams demand their host cities build billion dollar football exclusive buildings that have very little outside function other than occasional concerts. And if they don’t, they jump to another city. But like the olympics, there will come a day when cities figure out the price isn’t worth the value. They get 8 days of home game city revenue a year for what? Yes I realize there’s a lot intangibles an nfl team brings to a city but Oakland has a lot of problems. Paying for a billionaire’s private business venue should never be one of them.

  16. I disagree that the suit has no merit. The taxpayers of Oakland are still paying off the last round of stadium upgrades, and they did make a quality offer for a new facility in Oakland. But Davis has had this move set in his mind for a long time, and wasn’t about to let a perfectly good new stadium get in his way. He’s chasing dollars because he’s the poorest NFL owner and might feel like a chump compared to the Joneses, Blanks, and Krafts of the world.
    It’s the worst-run team in pro sports, and has been since Amy Trask left. But it has some of the most devoted fans anywhere.
    Uh, hey Mark, do you know where your team is playing next season? You don’t? Case closed.

  17. Son-of-Al is in my estimation the worst owner in the NFL (if not all pro sports). As such, any way that an ownership change occurs would work for me since realistically that’s the only hope that the Raiders have to achieve long-term success.

    However, I doubt that Oakland will win their lawsuit against Son-of-Al. I base this opinion on the fact that the City attempted to sue the Raiders based on the concept of Eminent Domain in the ’80s after Al Davis’ first move from Oakland to Los Angeles. And since that lawsuit failed, I see a similar fate this time around as well.

  19. Mike Beranek says:
    December 12, 2018 at 8:30 am
    I disagree that the suit has no merit. The taxpayers of Oakland are still paying off the last round of stadium upgrades, and they did make a quality offer for a new facility in Oakland. But Davis has had this move set in his mind for a long time, and wasn’t about to let a perfectly good new stadium get in his way. He’s chasing dollars because he’s the poorest NFL owner and might feel like a chump compared to the Joneses, Blanks, and Krafts of the world.
    It’s the worst-run team in pro sports, and has been since Amy Trask left. But it has some of the most devoted fans anywhere.
    Uh, hey Mark, do you know where your team is playing next season? You don’t? Case closed.

    ***************************
    As I said in another post, why has it been 23 years and the city of Oakland still hasn’t paid off the debt on the stadium renovations? That’s the fault of the city and it’s inability to pay its bills or manage its budget, not the Raiders. Oakland also didn’t bring the Raiders back the right way. They should’ve built a brand new stadium instead of putting an addition onto an outhouse.

    Oakland chose not to provide any assistance in financing a new stadium. Las Vegas did. That’s how capitalism works. The lawsuit is a cash grab and doesn’t even ask to block the move. Mark Davis might be public enemy #1 and he’s certainly not the greatest of owners but Oakland has no case. The lease on the Coliseum is up.

  20. Angel Valle says:
    December 12, 2018 at 7:28 am
    Make things right with the city !
    ————————————————-

    That is sort of what they are doing as far as the city goes, it’s unfortunate for the fans but that city government isn’t getting even close to what it ‘deserves’

  22. What gets ignored in all these articles is how the tax paying public in these cities has gotten put on the hook for paying for a private business’ venue. It’s a precident that got set eons ago and persists despite the fact that the NFL is one of the most wildly profitable businesses in the planet. These teams demand their host cities build billion dollar football exclusive buildings that have very little outside function other than occasional concerts. And if they don’t, they jump to another city. But like the Olympics, there will come a day when cities figure out the price isn’t worth the value. They get 8 days of home game city revenue a year for what? Yes I realize there’s a lot intangibles an nfl team brings to a city but Oakland has a lot of problems. Paying for a billionaire’s private business venue should never be one of them.
    ———————————————————————————-

    This is about 80-90% of what happened in St. Louis, but the NFL spun the story to say St. Louis wouldn’t support the Rams therefore they (The rams) needed to leave to stay a viable entity (what a joke). Which was complete BS and people who made that assumption never took the time to look deeper into what was really going on in STL. But the STL v the NFL and Kroenke case is about to get extremely interesting and may end up changing the game for teams looking to hold cities hostage for new stadiums because the case of the City of St. Louis v the NFL is way past the discovery phase and the courts have rejected the NFLs motion to move the case to arbitration. IT IS GOING TO TRIAL. And the city has a very good case. And I am sure Oakland is trying to follow that same pattern here…but the in the STL case Kreonke, Jerry Jones and the rest of the NFL and its owners could be forced to take the stand and open their books and Goodell and the rest of the owners could be sitting on the witness stand. The City is dug in on this and is willing to take this to the end of the road. Stay tuned.

  27. A case that anti-trust laws are being violated is going to be a hard sell. The idea that Oakland is being boycotted is flat out ridiculous. Build a stadium and the Raiders would have stayed.

    The only NFL bylaws pertaining to relocation are that 3/4 of the owners have to agree to it. The Relocation Guidelines are just advice to owners on whether they should vote to allow relocation or not and are not in any way, shape or form a contract with a city.

    This suit remains only slightly less ridiculous than St. Louis’ suit and is similarly meant to help paint a false narrative that the politicians did everything they could (or in fact anything) to keep the team, but it was that evil old owner and the NFL that were the villains here.

    A city has every right to refuse to build a stadium. It’s just they need to bear in mind that someone else will if they won’t.

  29. Mark Davis is nothing other than a spoiled little brat who inherited his position in life. If he actually had to make it on his own, he’d be hawking newspapers on a street corner.

  30. Mark Davis was born with a silver spoon in his mouth (just like his counterpart across the bay in Jeb York) and has never had to lift a finger. He went to one of the worst schools in the nation in Chico St. The Raiders will have left Oakland, not once but TWICE. The Raiders under the Davis family have not had to pay a single penny for their workplace (stadiums) in Oakland, LA, and now Vegas. Don’t you dare talk to us taxpayers about malicious. The Raiders are worth billions in a league worth tens of billions. Screw the Raiders and Mark Davis.

  31. aarons444 says:
    December 12, 2018 at 10:06 am
    Oakland chose not to provide any assistance in financing a new stadium.
    =====

    As should EVERY municipality, until the end of time.

    ***********************
    Agreed but Las Vegas gave the Raiders everything they wanted and more. Don’t fault the team for taking the deal. They would’ve been nuts not to.

  32. @daramsman.
    Same thing in Cleveland. In fact, Cleveland laid out the blueprint for a city suing the NFL and winning. Though I’m not sure the team we got for the last 19 years could be constitute “winning” anything but a chump prize.

  33. A case that anti-trust laws are being violated is going to be a hard sell. The idea that Oakland is being boycotted is flat out ridiculous. Build a stadium and the Raiders would have stayed.

    The only NFL bylaws pertaining to relocation are that 3/4 of the owners have to agree to it. The Relocation Guidelines are just advice to owners on whether they should vote to allow relocation or not and are not in any way, shape or form a contract with a city.

    This suit remains only slightly less ridiculous than St. Louis’ suit and is similarly meant to help paint a false narrative that the politicians did everything they could (or in fact anything) to keep the team, but it was that evil old owner and the NFL that were the villains here.

    A city has every right to refuse to build a stadium. It’s just they need to bear in mind that someone else will if they won’t.

    ——————————————————————————————
    ^^^^^This is what I was referring to in an earlier post of someone being woefully uniformed about the St. Louis situation yet passing assumptions along. What you failed to state in your off base opinion is that the city of St. Louis offered a viable riverfront stadium plan totally PAID FOR BY THE CITY. The NFL and Kroenke did not expect that part to happen even after they were asking for the city to tear down the dome and rebuild an entirely new stadium on the same plot of land. They KNEW that wasn’t feasible because the dome is used for so many other things outside of 10 NFL games a year. Kroenke had his sights on LA and tanked the team, the energy in the team to reduce fan interest to make the claim there was no fan support and we still hung in there for a decade. Jer-ruh Jones and Goodell got involved in the dog a pony show. In this case at minimum Kroenke and the NFL misled the city and its ticket holders and PSL holders that they were doing everything they could to stay in STL while people were still purchasing season tickets when the plan to move to LA was cemented when Jeff Fisher was hired as head coach. HE was the only coach alive that had been apart of moving a franchise. This is why the ticket holders had to recently sue the RAMS and WON to get some of their money back. So I think we need to examine the STL situation alot more because Oakland is filing suit and San Diego could be next.

  35. And Pats, Giants, Packers, Bears and most other teams are not “Global Brand”?

    For the record, NFL is a “GLOBAL BRAND” and ANY franchise done properly in Vegas would FLOURISH.

  36. Agreed but Las Vegas gave the Raiders everything they wanted and more. Don’t fault the team for taking the deal. They would’ve been nuts not to.
    =====

    Short term money grab. Nothing more.

    25 years from now, they will have been better off staying put.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.