Currently, the Raiders do not have a stadium lease to play anywhere next seasonGETTY IMAGES
Raiders Owner Mark Davis called the city of Oakland's federal lawsuit against the team and the NFL "meritless and malicious," according to Paul Gutierrez of ESPN.com. The Raiders do not have a lease to "play home games anywhere next season," but the team has "already proposed a lease to remain" at Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum for '19. However, Davis has said that he "would not play there if a lawsuit was filed" (ESPN.com, 12/12). In L.A., Sam Farmer notes friction between the franchise and the city "could push the Raiders to explore other options for what is supposed to be their last season in Oakland before moving into a new stadium in Las Vegas that’s scheduled to open" in '20. The Raiders have "one more home game this season, on Christmas Eve" against the Broncos (L.A. TIMES, 12/12).
CITY COMPLAINTS: In S.F., Kimberly Veklerov in a front-page piece notes Oakland in the lawsuit calls the Raiders move to Las Vegas "illegal" and demands "compensation for hundreds of millions of dollars in losses." The "long-awaited suit" seeks damages for the "'unlawful decision to boycott Oakland,' but does not ask for the Raiders to remain in the city." Oakland "claims the NFL and its teams collude as an 'illegal cartel' to demand that cities bankroll new stadiums with public funds or be shut out of the marketplace with team relocations." On top of "antitrust violations, the complaint alleges that the Raiders and NFL are violating their own policies and bylaws." The suit notes that Davis was "among the beneficiaries of relocation fees paid by the Rams and Chargers" as part of their move to L.A. and "alleges that none of the money actually goes toward relocation-related expenses." Oakland is "seeking triple damages from the Raiders and the NFL at trial but did not put a number on the amount." St. Louis has a "similar ongoing lawsuit against the NFL and the Rams" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 12/12). USA TODAY's Lorenzo Reyes notes the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, has "help from law firms Berg & Androphy and Pearson, Simon & Warshaw" (USA TODAY, 12/12).
ROAD SHOW? NBC Sports Bay Area's Ray Ratto said of where the Raiders could end up playing in ‘19, “Given the fact that the lawsuit is not just against the Raiders but the league and the league office, the league is probably going to let Mark (Davis) do what he wants in terms of that. At that point, they would have to sort of smooth the waters in San Diego or San Antonio, I've also heard. In either of those events, they would have to get tacit permission from the teams that are closest. ... While (those clubs) don't really want the competition for a year, if they're basically being sued by a city, they're likely to sort of circle the wagons and go, ‘Okay Mark, we'll bail you out for this year, but just that one year’” (“The Happy Hour,” NBC Sports Bay Area, 12/11). ESPN's Scott Van Pelt said, "There are a ton of Raider fans in San Diego, but is the Spanos family going to let that happen. Maybe it’s ... at UNLV’s stadium for a season. Who knows? But just the idea of the Raiders and their ‘Mad Max’ fans as a caravan of nomads for years is sort of an amazing thought” (“SportsCenter,” ESPN, 12/12). In Nevada, Chris Murray wrote under the header, "Could The Raiders Play in Reno's Mackay Stadium In 2019? (FOXRENO.com, 12/11).
DOESN'T MEAN MUCH? In S.F., Al Sarasevic writes unless the NFL "decides to pay off Oakland, this should be good theater," but "little more." That is the "sad part of this whole affair." This lawsuit has "little chance of changing things for the true plaintiffs, Raiders fans." Maybe this lawsuit "can provide some protection to the next municipality that buys into a team, then finds its soul on the market," and maybe the NFL will "think twice before running this game elsewhere" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 12/12).
