Calif. Gov. Scorns Bush Response to Levees

[Dinner]

Five years ago it hadn't been exposed that the corrupt city council and mayor were commiting accounting fraud. Now the city can't borrow money and even the sheep who make up the voters would have a cow if their schools get cut, their roads don't get repaired, and their property taxes go up but the charges still get $400 million. It's just not politically possible.

The current thinking is we'd give the team to Chula Vista or Oceanside so that it would remain in the area but they'd foot the bill for a new stadium.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And I note you didn't even address my anti-trust point.

The current thinking is we'd give the team to Chula Vista or Oceanside so that it would remain in the area but they'd foot the bill for a new stadium.

Which may work out, but they'd probably still want the land, especially if they are footing the bill for a $450 mil stadium, when the Padres only had to pay like $100 mil for theirs.

[Dinner]

I'd like a cite it was only baseball with the exemption. Other wise why wouldn't NHL, NFL, and NBA all be besiged with law suits that they were unfairly blocking other cities from getting teams?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I gave the Al Davis lawsuit. Here is another one the NFL lost: USFL v. NFL. Hard to lose an anti-trust lawsuit when you have an exemption .

Why do you think baseball teams don't move very often whereas in the NFL, NHL, and NBA, they are faaar more fluid?

But if you wish to insist

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1205/1290707.html

By virtue of the exemption, coupled with decades of reluctance of various courts to overrule, baseball is the only sport, or business for that matter, that has an exemption to the extent that it does.

For 18 years after Toolson, in case after case, judges admitted that the baseball exemption was flawed, but it was never overruled. Exemptions for boxing, football and basketball were denied in the higher courts, while hockey and golf antitrust exemptions were also denied in the lower courts.

In 1972, Curt Flood's case -- which also challenged baseball's reserve system -- reached the Supreme Court and although it was again acknowledged that baseball's antitrust exemption was "an anomaly," the Court ruled that it is up to Congress to change baseball's antitrust exemption.

Q: So, other leagues are subject to antitrust lawsuits?

A:. Yes. If an owner wants to move a team to another city and the league stops him from doing so, the owner can bring an antitrust claim. Raiders owner Al Davis won an antitrust lawsuit in 1982 after the league wouldn't allow him to move from Oakland to Los Angeles. The NFL lost and Davis moved. The threat, and in some cases the actual filing, of antitrust lawsuits led to more movement among NFL teams, such as the Los Angeles Rams to St. Louis and the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore. Since the last MLB team moved in 1971 (the Washington Senators became the Texas Rangers), there have been seven NFL moves, seven NBA moves and nine NHL moves.

[Dinner]

OK, so they had an exemption but the courts throw it out?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
OK, so they had an exemption but the courts throw it out?

What exactly are you talking about now? Baseball was the only sport that had the exemption and still has it. The Curt Flood case did not throw out the exemption, because MLB WON that case. The reserve clause was thrown out later due to an arbitrator's ruling in an MLB sponsored arbitration hearing.

[Dinner]

OK, so the courts ruled that forbidding a team (nonbaseball) to move was an anti-trust violation. I read:

Exemptions for boxing, football and basketball were denied in the higher courts, while hockey and golf antitrust exemptions were also denied in the lower courts.

And thought Congress had made exemptions but the courts throw out the exemptions. Instead the courts ruled that such behavior was monopolistic.

Then the solution is to give a new team to all the cities who have ***** owners who move the teams. Makes sense since there is already the infastructure in place in those cities. Hell, we still have our old NBA stadium which was built before the ***** ass owner of the Clippers moved the team to LA. LA already had a team.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Oerdin]Then the solution is to give a new team to all the cities who have ***** owners who move the teams. [/q]

Up to the leagues. No one can force them to create a franchise in a city that they don't want to be, just as no one can force McDonalds to put a franchise in an area it doesn't want to go.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Oerdin


IT's funny to hear a supporter of a preemptive war, "OMG! WE MUST GET THE TERRORISTS BEFORE THEY GET US", complaining when we try to get levees repaired before they break.

We already have engineers and construction crews. The state is swimming in them so what we need is help paying for the repairs before they break. This isn't rocket science.

Doesn't California get around 1.4 Billion per year for such projects?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Oerdin]Then the solution is to give a new team to all the cities who have ***** owners who move the teams. [/q]

Up to the leagues. No one can force them to create a franchise in a city that they don't want to be, just as no one can force McDonalds to put a franchise in an area it doesn't want to go.

Don't forget the special non-anti-trust treatment sports teams get (or is it just baseball).

My owh thought is that more cities should become owners a la Green Bay. Sports socialism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Don't forget the special non-anti-trust treatment sports teams get (or is it just baseball).

Please read the thread (but really just the relevant discussion) before posting.

[Colon™]

Poor Imran.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Oerdin]Then the solution is to give a new team to all the cities who have ***** owners who move the teams. [/q]

Up to the leagues. No one can force them to create a franchise in a city that they don't want to be, just as no one can force McDonalds to put a franchise in an area it doesn't want to go.

True but I think the proper tax policies could be very persusive. Something along the lines of the tax rate for the entire league including players and owners in the league is automatically adjusted to the 99% of gross income unless you do what we say should get them to act.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
True but I think the proper tax policies could be very persusive. Something along the lines of the tax rate for the entire league including players and owners in the league is automatically adjusted to the 99% of gross income unless you do what we say should get them to act.

And then they'll say, HEY, we're the new Canadian Football League .

And $10 says Congressmen in New York, Pittsburgh, Washington, Dallas, etc, areas where there is no threat to move ain't going to give a flying fart about your wanting to keep a pro football team on the cheap .

[GhengisFarb™]

Yada, yada, yada.

I just want a local Major League Sports Team that isn't on loan from some other city.