Sports Wagering one step closer in NJ....

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I am not the one you have to convince. It is the sports leagues. They are not buying that argument. As I said before, their argument is that it is their product and that gambling on it in NJ will damage their product and/or brand. They do not have to prove that. NJ has to prove it won't because it is the leagues products. That will take facts and figures that do not exist. Whether you or I think it will or won't doesn't matter. This thing will go to supreme court unless NJ relents. The sports leagues won't give up. Even if the SC rules in favor of NJ, it isn't over. They pressure Congress for a new law and there is some chance they might get it.
It will take some "off the wall" ruling like the results of the games become common knowledge and the leagues do not have the right to stop their use in betting. A ruling like that would have such far reaching effects in other areas, I doubt any court would go there, but with the Robert court, who knows. That is the problem the courts have, almost any ruling in NJ's favor will effect on things outside of this case and outside of gambling too. It is nearly impossible to limit the ruling strictly to case. It almost has to apply to property rights and who owns what.

NJ will have no problem proving that it won't harm the NFL and other sports leagues. So, at that point, when they show the mountains of evidence that basically talk about the NFLs popularity is directly linked to wagering, than what? The NFL would come in and show their data and try and make a case as to why 100% of their fans would watch the games and attend the games even if there was no such thing as betting.

[SandyW]

I highly doubt that you will see sports wagering anytime soon in New Jersey barring a change in federal law or a Supreme Court ruling in favor of New Jersey.
Just because the Supreme Court refused the case this year that does not mean that they would not take it up at a later date.
I am looking at this with a clear view of the issues and have no dog in this fight.

[Charli125]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

As I said before, their argument is that it is their product and that gambling on it in NJ will damage their product and/or brand.

I'm just wondering how, in a court of law, they can argue that wagering in Las Vegas doesn't harm their product/brand, but wagering in NJ does. I don't go to NJ ever, so no biggie to me, but logically it just doesn't make sense.

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by Charli125

I'm just wondering how, in a court of law, they can argue that wagering in Las Vegas doesn't harm their product/brand, but wagering in NJ does. I don't go to NJ ever, so no biggie to me, but logically it just doesn't make sense.

The leagues never said that wagering in Las Vegas does not harm their product.
Las Vegas the gaming capital of the world always was able to take bets on anything that they wanted to, so the leagues could not do anything about it, so in the early 90's when the feds passed PASPA Las Vegas was grandfathered in.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by SandyW

I highly doubt that you will see sports wagering anytime soon in New Jersey barring a change in federal law or a Supreme Court ruling in favor of New Jersey.
Just because the Supreme Court refused the case this year that does not mean that they would not take it up at a later date.
I am looking at this with a clear view of the issues and have no dog in this fight.

The Judge issued a temporary restraining order thus giving both sides an opportunity to be heard if oral arguements are on the docket(or more briefs being filed) the judge will really need to be careful here as any other court that overrules this judge and sides with the sports wagering law as currently written in NJ, may impose penalties greater then the $1.7m the leagues had to put in escrow for the NJ horsemans possible loss of revenue. Very interesting week ahead and no real winners or losers thus far despite the TRO.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by SandyW

The leagues never said that wagering in Las Vegas does not harm their product.
Las Vegas the gaming capital of the world always was able to take bets on anything that they wanted to, so the leagues could not do anything about it, so in the early 90's when the feds passed PASPA Las Vegas was grandfathered in.

So based on your statement no one has ever found a loophole in a law? Ok.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by onefast99

So based on your statement no one has ever found a loophole in a law? Ok.

i don't think this law got one, it was written with the full intent of specifically New Jersey not to get legal Sports Wagering.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by SandyW

What the price on the over or under, plus or minus a 1000 posts before sports betting comes to New Jersey.
New Jersey will be better off spending all that money lobbying for a change in the federal law.

Not one chance in a million getting PASPA repealed.

Better chance to follow the 3rd courts opinion; get this thing back to the 3rd court where they have a chance to win.

Allan

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by onefast99

The Judge issued a temporary restraining order thus giving both sides an opportunity to be heard if oral arguements are on the docket(or more briefs being filed) the judge will really need to be careful here as any other court that overrules this judge and sides with the sports wagering law as currently written in NJ, may impose penalties greater then the $1.7m the leagues had to put in escrow for the NJ horsemans possible loss of revenue. Very interesting week ahead and no real winners or losers thus far despite the TRO.

Monday both sides must JOINTLY file

sounds like the judge wants a hearing right away and get it out of court ASAP.

Allan

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i don't think this law got one, it was written with the full intent of specifically New Jersey not to get legal Sports Wagering.

Or any other state. The intent of the law is clear. Grandfathering in Nevada is the right way to put it. "Grandfathering" has been accepted by the courts in other cases, so that does not give NJ a way out.

[SandyW]

This inside the courtroom of Judge Shipp yesterday by John Brennan does not look to good for New Jersey:

http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowla...erdict-friday/

[TravisVOX]

Originally Posted by SandyW

This inside the courtroom of Judge Shipp yesterday by John Brennan does not look to good for New Jersey:

http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowla...erdict-friday/

How so beyond the fact he issued the TRO? It's a story about the announcement?

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by TravisVOX

How so beyond the fact he issued the TRO? It's a story about the announcement?

Reading this account it appears the judge has not changed his mind from his last ruling and will issue a permanent injunction some time in the near future.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by SandyW

Reading this account it appears the judge has not changed his mind from his last ruling and will issue a permanent injunction some time in the near future.

Lucky for Jersey that a permanent injunction in a district court means only delays, the final judgement of the case on its merits will be settled in the court of appeals where Jersey will have more sympathic judges to listen to its case.

Allan

[biggestal99]

here's the punt:

Most notably, the arguments made by the state regarding federal attorneys last year – that PASPA does not bar a state from removing or amending its sports betting prohibitions – were dismissed here by Shipp, who noted that since the federal government was not (yet) a party to this incarnation of the legal battle, “the leagues are not bound to those conclusions.”

LOL. The leagues are not bound by a federal court opinion, LOL

That's a little preposterous on face value.

Just an inexperienced judge using flawed logic.

Allan