piety@hplabs.UUCP (06/22/84)
I recently heard that the city of Oakland, Ca. has decided to use its powers of eminent domain to condemn the Raiders football team, thus returning them to Oakland. This, I believe, sets precedent in that this is the first time eminent domain is being used to condemn a business, instead of real property. The story goes on to say that the legality of this has already passed the California Supreme Court but is to be brought before the US Supreme Court. It seems as though we're becoming more socialistic by the day, with California taking the lead. What do you netlanders think of all this? Bob
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (06/24/84)
Well, as it has to happen, I read this newsgroup right after net.jokes, and when I saw this article, I thought I was still in net.jokes. I don't see how the Raiders can be forced to move back to Oakland. Do football teams have contracts with cities? -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (06/27/84)
>> Well, as it has to happen, I read this newsgroup right after net.jokes, >> and when I saw this article, I thought I was still in net.jokes. I >> don't see how the Raiders can be forced to move back to Oakland. >> Do football teams have contracts with cities? ================== I see that someone got part of the story, but not all of it. 1] As a precondition for originally coming to Oakland, the Raiders demanded that a new, large, stadium be built (by the city using public funds). The Raiders were given an amazingly low "rent" for using the stadium, which did almost nothing to ease the payments the city was making. 2] Al Attles, the Controling Partner of the raiders decided to move the team, because of a contract dispute over "rent" for the stadium. This move was opposed by the city and by almost every other team in the NFL. They said that if he moved, they would refuse to play his team. So he sued (in LA, of course) and won. 3] Oakland has sued to condemn the team, basing its decision on the fact that the Raiders are (due to their long association with the city) in fact a municipal "landmark". They intend to BUY OUT the Raiders, and bring them back to Oakland. To all you Libertarians out there, you might appreciate the irony of the situation. Al Attles, when he found out that the other teams were going to boycott his new stadium, went crying to the court about "unfair" business practices. But when the city turns around and tries a forcable buy out, he suddenly is all for free enterprise. The whole thing makes me want to puke. Steven Maurer
mats@dual.UUCP (Mats Wichmann) (06/29/84)
OUCH! Poor Al Attles, I am sure he will be quite interested to hear,
among other things that he is majority partner of the {Los Angeles,Oakland}
Raiders. Al Attles is a former player, coach, and current general manager,
of the {Oakland,Golden State} Warriors of the NBA (basketball...). The
person referred to should have been Al Davis.
Matsbarryw@pesnta.PE3230.UUCP (Barry Wenger) (06/29/84)
If the [T]Raiders want to be in L.A., then that's
their problem, so let'em be, I say.
--
Barry Wenger
UUCP: ..!{ihnp4, harpo!idi, ucbvax!hplabs}!pesnta!barryw
PHONE: (408) 727-5540 x242
USMAIL: Perkin-Elmer Corp., Santa Clara, Calif. 95051jeff@dual.UUCP (Jeff Houston) (06/30/84)
Thanks Mats, you caught that before I did - Good Ole Alvin Attles is
associated currently with the Golden State Warriors - Al Davis is the
person (I refuse to say gentleman) who pulls the strings for the Raiders.
I would love to see the Raiders back in Oakland, but the way our legal
system is mucking about with this in California it may never be settled.
Jeff Houston
Dual Systems Corp., Berkeley, CA
{ucbvax,ihnp4,cbosgd,amd70,zehntel,fortune,decwrl}!dual!jeff