Sports Wagering one step closer in NJ....

[bks]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

What has changed is what the 3rd circuit stated what jersey has to do in order to have sports betting at its racetracks and casinos,that is change their sports betting laws, they did.

If the injuction was a slam dunk, shipp would have not have postponed action on the injunction today.

He is bound by the 3rd circuit opinion, in other words he can't say their opinion is doo-doo.

What he can say is that even though jersey repealed its sports betting laws they are still somehow authorizing it by law and grant the request for injunction.



Very thin legal ice.

This. What Robert and Sandy are missing is that Shipp's 2013 ruling is not the last word on the matter any longer. He may still opt to rule in the leagues' favor, but he'll be doing so in contravention of the appeals court language, and that opens up another can of worms.

If the injunction is granted it begins to look like SHIPP is the proponent (rather than a critic) of judicial activism, methinks.

[wiffleball whizz]

According to mike francesa on wfan the producer called up Monmouth and thst said for the first month it will be $100 max and tickets will be handwritten

I didn't hear this my friend told me today

Seems weird.....

Can you imagine just repeating the Vikings 70 times for 100 lololo

[badcompany]

Originally Posted by wiffleball whizz

According to mike francesa on wfan the producer called up Monmouth and thst said for the first month it will be $100 max and tickets will be handwritten

I didn't hear this my friend told me today

Seems weird.....

Can you imagine just repeating the Vikings 70 times for 100 lololo

Yes, and the games will not be televised. The bettors will receive scores via teletype:

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by bks

This. What Robert and Sandy are missing is that Shipp's 2013 ruling is not the last word on the matter any longer. He may still opt to rule in the leagues' favor, but he'll be doing so in contravention of the appeals court language, and that opens up another can of worms.

If the injunction is granted it begins to look like SHIPP is the proponent (rather than a critic) of judicial activism, methinks.

"But the Third Circuit also found that even if the state could not sponsor or license sports betting by law, New Jersey was free to repeal any of its own prohibitions on sports betting, as long as it was privately regulated."

Thus you have the ability to circumvent PASPA and move forward. MP and the other racetracks as well as any casino are able to take bets. Sunday will be a soft opening where tickets will be written up by hand and a maximum dollar limit will be in place as well as only NFL games will be able to be bet on. Once William Hill is given the green light everything will be included betting wise.

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by onefast99

"But the Third Circuit also found that even if the state could not sponsor or license sports betting by law, New Jersey was free to repeal any of its own prohibitions on sports betting, as long as it was privately regulated."

Thus you have the ability to circumvent PASPA and move forward. MP and the other racetracks as well as any casino are able to take bets. Sunday will be a soft opening where tickets will be written up by hand and a maximum dollar limit will be in place as well as only NFL games will be able to be bet on. Once William Hill is given the green light everything will be included betting wise.

Sunday is not here yet, the state is still involved if they make any money on sports wagering, which then make SW in violation of the federal ban.
I personally wish we all could bet anywhere we wanted to. Living in Nevada we also can't open up accounts anywhere but Nevada.
I am rooting that New Jersey can break through, but living in a highly regulated state I know that the road to getting this done will not be easy.
Even if Jersey starts up on Sunday that does not mean that the battle will be over. PASPA has to be repelled at the federal level to finally have clear sailing.

[Stillriledup]

Here's what i'm confused about. The sports leagues are all saying that sports betting being legalized in NJ (specifically) would hurt their business or brand? Do they have to explain in detail how they came to this conclusion, or, can they just say it and because they said it and its their business, we have to take that as gospel?

Its pretty obvious that if anything, legal betting will help the brand since by definition, additional legal betting channels being created will create less demand for illegal wagering.

Also, if anything was going to happen from an integrity standpoint with the games or how they're officiated, its going to happen with illegal bookies and not thru a legal betting company where they not only require you to outlay cash up front, but you will be on videotape making the wager and you will also be on videotape when you CASH the wager. Also, there's a record of any kind of "irregular" betting if its done legally....but if someone fixes a game and makes a large bet illegally, who's ever going to find out about it?

Also, the idea that millions of fans just sit around spending hours watching random millionaires kick or throw a ball around a grass field is sheer folly. People aren't sitting around "rooting" for others, they're rooting for themselves and their own wagers. The more betting that's available, the more people will be interested in the games and thus, more business for the sports leagues. There's zero chance that these sports leagues will lose ONE fan because NJ permits people to bet the games, but they could gain hundreds or even thousands of pairs of eyes that wouldn't otherwise watch the games to start watching.

[bks]

The sports leagues are all saying that sports betting being legalized in NJ (specifically) would hurt their business or brand? Do they have to explain in detail how they came to this conclusion, or, can they just say it and because they said it and its their business, we have to take that as gospel?

in his February 28, 2013 order granting summary judgment in favor of the leagues and permanently enjoining New Jersey from implementing its sports betting law, Judge Shipp held that the leagues would suffer "irreparable harm" in the form of a "reputational injury" through the unwanted association with gambling and from fans' negative perceptions that the outcomes of games may be rigged.

http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2014/...tting.html?m=1

Allegedly, the NFL presented some research supporting this argument, but IIRC they were sealed (not available to the public).

Everyone knows the argument is complete crap. The nFL's real reason for wanting to keeping betting illegal are complicated, but I've summarized hem upthread.

In that same ruling, he also held that there was an "inadequate remedy at law" because New Jersey, by operation of the Eleventh Amendment, would not be liable for monetary damages. Judge Shipp also held that the entry of a permanent injunction against New Jersey would serve the "public interest." Each of these prior findings would bear directly on any new motion for preliminary injunction filed by the leagues since the same considerations are at play.

Why Shipp's prior decisions would "bear directly" on this injunction request is not obvious to me, since an appeals court has made it pretty clear that a new scheme like the one NJ has enshrined in law is within its rights to enshrine. I have little doubt Shipp will grant the injunction, but I really want NJ and Monmouth to give them the middle finger and open anyway (which they won't).

[biggestal99]

Seems to me the judge is letting the clock run out

Today monmouth files its papers.

Tomorrow the leagues response.

Then oral arguements

Than a restraining order.

Less than 100 hours til monmouth takes its first bet.

Allan

[bks]

Hi Allan,

Where are you getting your information abt the injunction proceedings? I appreciate the updates and would like to follow more closely myself.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

What has changed is what the 3rd circuit stated what jersey has to do in order to have sports betting at its racetracks and casinos,that is change their sports betting laws, they did.

If the injuction was a slam dunk, shipp would have not have postponed action on the injunction today.

He is bound by the 3rd circuit opinion, in other words he can't say their opinion is doo-doo.

What he can say is that even though jersey repealed its sports betting laws they are still somehow authorizing it by law and grant the request for injunction.



Very thin legal ice.

Apparently what 3rd circuit did was rule on a portion of the law the first time. NJ took that ruling as a blueprint to circumvent the law. Now the rest of the law comes into play. This what happens when somebody wants something so bad they can taste it. They hear only what they want to hear.
I have learn over the years that there is little rhyme or reason to how the courts rule. It is always a "crap shoot". NJ may yet still win this court fight, but it is going to be long and drawn out and costly. It may or not win small victories in some courts. This ends up at the doorstep of the Supreme Court sooner or later, probably later because the federal courts are jammed. They may or may not decide to hear it.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Here's what i'm confused about. The sports leagues are all saying that sports betting being legalized in NJ (specifically) would hurt their business or brand? Do they have to explain in detail how they came to this conclusion, or, can they just say it and because they said it and its their business, we have to take that as gospel?

Its pretty obvious that if anything, legal betting will help the brand since by definition, additional legal betting channels being created will create less demand for illegal wagering.

Also, if anything was going to happen from an integrity standpoint with the games or how they're officiated, its going to happen with illegal bookies and not thru a legal betting company where they not only require you to outlay cash up front, but you will be on videotape making the wager and you will also be on videotape when you CASH the wager. Also, there's a record of any kind of "irregular" betting if its done legally....but if someone fixes a game and makes a large bet illegally, who's ever going to find out about it?

Also, the idea that millions of fans just sit around spending hours watching random millionaires kick or throw a ball around a grass field is sheer folly. People aren't sitting around "rooting" for others, they're rooting for themselves and their own wagers. The more betting that's available, the more people will be interested in the games and thus, more business for the sports leagues. There's zero chance that these sports leagues will lose ONE fan because NJ permits people to bet the games, but they could gain hundreds or even thousands of pairs of eyes that wouldn't otherwise watch the games to start watching.

Are saying you know more about their business than they do? These people have made a lot of money by being the smartest people in the room. Actually millions of people do sit around watching football without any money on the games. The gambler refuses to believe that anyone can watch sports with money on it because he can't. I live assisted living. Nobody here has any money on any the games, but if you come around on Sunday you would find a lot of TVs on tuned to the NFL. Before you ask, I am the only one here playing fantasy football. I know because I tried to find somebody else here who does to no avail.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Here's what i'm confused about. The sports leagues are all saying that sports betting being legalized in NJ (specifically) would hurt their business or brand? Do they have to explain in detail how they came to this conclusion, or, can they just say it and because they said it and its their business, we have to take that as gospel?

Its pretty obvious that if anything, legal betting will help the brand since by definition, additional legal betting channels being created will create less demand for illegal wagering.

Also, if anything was going to happen from an integrity standpoint with the games or how they're officiated, its going to happen with illegal bookies and not thru a legal betting company where they not only require you to outlay cash up front, but you will be on videotape making the wager and you will also be on videotape when you CASH the wager. Also, there's a record of any kind of "irregular" betting if its done legally....but if someone fixes a game and makes a large bet illegally, who's ever going to find out about it?

Also, the idea that millions of fans just sit around spending hours watching random millionaires kick or throw a ball around a grass field is sheer folly. People aren't sitting around "rooting" for others, they're rooting for themselves and their own wagers. The more betting that's available, the more people will be interested in the games and thus, more business for the sports leagues. There's zero chance that these sports leagues will lose ONE fan because NJ permits people to bet the games, but they could gain hundreds or even thousands of pairs of eyes that wouldn't otherwise watch the games to start watching.

You are the first one here to realize what exactly the professional sports leagues are doing in court, the words "Irreparable harm" is what has now become the focus of their drawn out filings. One specific item "Irreparable harm", proof that this sports wagering platform played in the state of NJ will somehow harm their image, product and branding. People may now look at these games differently where they are only associated with gambling thus harming their image and the possibility of reduced attendance as well as reduced revenue. Their arguement is flawed as gambling in Nevada hasn't tarnished their image as well as any bookie taking bets or the NFL's involvement in fantasy football leagues. I don't believe that Judge Shipp will rule in favor of the sports leagues based on the way the bill was written by Lesniak. What is really at stake here is how the professional sports leagues can benefit from the state of NJ allowing gambling on their games, how they can benefit profit wise, but that part will surely be debated once the sports wagering gets going and becomes successful in NJ.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by bks

Hi Allan,

Where are you getting your information abt the injunction proceedings? I appreciate the updates and would like to follow more closely myself.

John brennan's meadowlands matters blog

Allan

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by onefast99

You are the first one here to realize what exactly the professional sports leagues are doing in court, the words "Irreparable harm" is what has now become the focus of their drawn out filings. One specific item "Irreparable harm", proof that this sports wagering platform played in the state of NJ will somehow harm their image, product and branding. People may now look at these games differently where they are only associated with gambling thus harming their image and the possibility of reduced attendance as well as reduced revenue. Their arguement is flawed as gambling in Nevada hasn't tarnished their image as well as any bookie taking bets or the NFL's involvement in fantasy football leagues. I don't believe that Judge Shipp will rule in favor of the sports leagues based on the way the bill was written by Lesniak. What is really at stake here is how the professional sports leagues can benefit from the state of NJ allowing gambling on their games, how they can benefit profit wise, but that part will surely be debated once the sports wagering gets going and becomes successful in NJ.

Judge Shipp will grant the injunction because getting an injunction is usually pretty automatic. Even if he does not and SW starts on Sunday it will be short lived as the leagues will find some legal means to shut Monmouth down in the near term.
The only way for sports wagering to move forward is to have congress repel PASPA or have the courts rule this law unconstitutional.
This is the reason that you can hear birds chirping when it comes to sports wagering in the casinos in Atlantic City as they are heavily regulated by the state and that flies in the face of the bill that Christie just signed.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Apparently what 3rd circuit did was rule on a portion of the law the first time. NJ took that ruling as a blueprint to circumvent the law. Now the rest of the law comes into play. This what happens when somebody wants something so bad they can taste it. They hear only what they want to hear.
I have learn over the years that there is little rhyme or reason to how the courts rule. It is always a "crap shoot". NJ may yet still win this court fight, but it is going to be long and drawn out and costly. It may or not win small victories in some courts. This ends up at the doorstep of the Supreme Court sooner or later, probably later because the federal courts are jammed. They may or may not decide to hear it.

Actually the feds brought this very point up in their SCOTUS filings and if you notice the feds are NOT a party onthis lawsuit, if shipp does indeed issue a TRO, monmouth will appeal tothe 3rd court of appeals and they will slap shipp silly, and that will be the end of his judical career.

You can't defy a higher courts ruling as a judge.

Allan