OAKLAND — Oakland is preparing to sue the NFL and the Las Vegas-bound Raiders, and it could mean the Raiders will leave Oakland earlier than expected. Multiple City Hall sources familiar with the matter have confirmed to this news organization that a lawsuit against the league and the Raiders is expected to be filed and announced soon by City Attorney Barbara Parker. Parker’s office is preparing to file an antitrust suit that could seek millions of dollars in damages, according to the sources who were not authorized to discuss the lawsuit. Three outside law firms will handle the litigation and have agreed to cover the up-front costs of the suit in exchange for a cut of potential monetary damages they get from the Raiders and the NFL. Since early this year, local politicians, including Oakland council members Noel Gallo and Rebecca Kaplan, state Assemblyman Rob Bonta and Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley, vocally supported the fan-driven lawsuit. But for a time it appeared to lack the necessary votes. Councilman Larry Reid, whose district includes the Coliseum property, had previously shown little interest in suing. Kaplan declined to confirm if the city is moving forward with the suit. But, Kaplan, said, “I do believe, and have consistently advocated, that we should seek to protect Oakland taxpayers in dealing with the sports teams.” A City Hall source said Mayor Libby Schaaf, who previously was on the fence about the lawsuit, was on board so long as the city’s legal fees were covered. “The mayor’s office can not comment on anything that was discussed or may have been discussed in a closed session of City Council,” said Justin Berton, a spokesman for the mayor’s office. Former Oakland Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente, a current Coliseum authority board member, said city leadership did little to keep the Raiders from leaving and called the lawsuit “ridiculous.” “You are going to expose the city to potential liabilities and for what?” De La Fuente said. “You are trying to excuse yourself from not doing s— about it.” De La Fuente, who as a councilman helped orchestrate the deal to bring the Raiders back in the 1990s, doubts the city would be protected in a counter suit, even with the outside law firms promising to front money for the first lawsuit. “If you believe that, I will sell you the Brooklyn Bridge,” he said. “Once you are in, it’s very difficult to get you out.” The news comes as the Coliseum authority, a board of county and city officials, is in negotiations to extend the Raiders lease. The team is leaving for Las Vegas, but the authority is in talks, which could be finalized as early as this month, to extend the lease for this season to next season, with an option for another year to play at the Coliseum. The rent to play in Oakland is expected to be doubled. Coliseum authority Executive Director Scott McKibben said Tuesday, the Raiders “made it very clear to me that (if) they City decided to file a lawsuit they would not seek a lease extension to play at the Coliseum but would play elsewhere.” The move is the latest in a saga over the Raiders’ stadium that has lasted years in Oakland, with attempts to move the team to Los Angeles, attempts to build a new stadium at the Coliseum site and with the ultimate vote last year by the NFL owners to allow the Raiders to relocate to a brand new 65,000 square-foot stadium in Las Vegas. Last year, when fans brought the idea of a lawsuit to the authority, McKibben had cautioned against going the legal route. Instead, McKibben favored meeting with NFL executives directly to ask if the $200 million the league offered for the Raiders to stay could be used to help pay off the Coliseum debt. Reached Tuesday, McKibben said he still would choose a path without litigation. “It would be my recommendation that we approach the league with our case and concerns related to the debt,” McKibben said. Oakland and Alameda County still owe about $75 million for stadium renovations made in 1996 to return the Raiders back to Oakland from Los Angeles. Under the deal with the Coliseum authority, the cost of renovations were to be paid with revenue from the sale of personal seat licenses, and the team was not obligated to pay the debt. The Golden State Warriors and the authority are currently in a battle over who should pay the debt from renovations at Oracle Arena. Early this year, a fan group called “We Stand With Oakland” said at a news conference it had been contacted by law firms willing to file legal action against the team and the NFL to either keep the Raiders, get an expansion franchise or, if the team leaves, demand the league pay off the outstanding debt at the Coliseum. That came after a judge in Missouri made a ruling last year in favor of St. Louis officials suing the Rams for relocating to Los Angeles. Staff writer Annie Sciacca contributed to this report.<doc-sep>Oakland Coliseum officials say that a potential lawsuit by the city against the Raiders and the NFL could cause the team to leave after this upcoming season, according to Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle. On Tuesday, Oakland Councilman Noel Gallo told the Chronicle that the multimillion-dollar antitrust lawsuit against the Raiders and the NFL over the team's impending move to Las Vegas that the City Council authorized is expected to be filed and announced before the Raiders open their 2018 season at home against the Rams Monday, Sept. 10. Outside attorneys are handling the up-front costs of the lawsuit in exchange for a portion of whatever the city can collect in damages from the Raiders and the league. The city attorney's office is preparing to file the suit and is waiting for contract language sign-offs from the outside firms that will handle the litigation, according to the Chronicle. Gallo said Oakland could potentially win $500 million in the lawsuit. The Raiders currently play at Oakland Coliseum and are under a year-to-year lease with Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority. Coliseum Authority Executive Director Scott McKibben said the two sides are working on finalizing an extension to the lease for next season and the 2020 season, but team executives told McKibben, "we might as well take the contract and rip it up" if the city pursues the antitrust lawsuit." The Chronicle reports the lease extension would make the city and county $3.7 million next season and $5 million the season after that, and the Coliseum Authority's board is expected to vote on the deal within weeks. If the Raiders do decide to leave after this season because of the lawsuit, they would still need to find a home for the 2019 season because their stadium in Las Vegas is expected to be ready for the 2020 season at the earliest. Neither the Coliseum directors nor the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved Oakland's decision to sue the Raiders and the NFL, which was made within the past week.<doc-sep>The Oakland City Council has authorized a multimillion-dollar antitrust lawsuit against the NFL and the Raiders over the team’s impending move to Las Vegas — legal action that Coliseum officials said could result in the team leaving Oakland at the end of the upcoming season. Oakland Councilman Noel Gallo said Tuesday that the lawsuit is expected to be filed and announced within days, probably before the Raiders’ home opener at the Coliseum on Monday night against the Los Angeles Rams. A second City Hall source told us the city attorney’s office was preparing to file the antitrust suit, and is awaiting contract language sign-offs from three outside law firms that will handle the litigation. The outside attorneys have agreed to cover all the up-front costs of the suit, which will likely seek millions of dollars in damages for the team’s exit. In exchange, the outside firms would collect a portion of whatever dollar damages they are able to extract from the Raiders and the National Football League. Gallo predicted that a lawsuit against the league and Raiders could result in winning damages of up to $500 million. “It’s going to happen,” Gallo said of the suit, calling it “absolutely a good thing.” The Raiders, however, do not share Gallo’s opinion. According to Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Executive Director Scott McKibben, who has been working to finalize the Raiders’ latest lease extension, team executives warned him that they won’t sign any agreement if the lawsuit is filed. “They told me we might as well take the contract and rip it up,” McKibben said Tuesday. The Raiders, who did not return our call seeking comment, are under a year-to-year lease with the Coliseum Authority. The team has been working on a new deal to play at the Coliseum next season and possibly the one after that if their Las Vegas stadium isn’t ready. According to sources, that deal — expected to be voted on by the authority’s board within a matter of weeks — would net the city and county $3.7 million next year and $5 million the following year, if the team extended its stay. Oakland’s decision to sue was made within the past week without the approval of either the Coliseum directors or the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. And not everyone is on board. “It makes absolutely no sense,” said Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum board member Ignacio De La Fuente, who was an Oakland City Council member in the 1990s when the city voted for a deal to bring the Raiders back to the East Bay from Los Angeles. De La Fuente said the city may be opening itself up to a countersuit by the Raiders, one that could wind up costing the city big bucks in the end. “I think the mayor (Libby Schaaf) and the City Council really are just looking to justify themselves for not having done anything to retain the Warriors — and the A’s, for that matter,” he said. But Gallo doesn’t see the risk. “The attorneys needed a client, and Oakland is the client that has been signed up,” he said. “And hopefully we can get the county to join in.” However, Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley, who also chairs the authority, said Tuesday the county likely doesn’t have any interest in signing on to the suit — or, for that matter, staying in the sports business. He said the county supervisors, who are on recess until Sept. 17, still hope to sell the county’s half-interest in the Coliseum site to the city, and any “lawsuit might prolong our entanglement with the sport team.” Still, Miley said he personally supports the city’s decision to file a lawsuit, even if it does prompt the Raiders to exit the Coliseum early. “I think there’s a greater upside to the city pursuing this ... and they are in a good position to force the NFL to come back with damages as a result of the decision to move the Raiders to Las Vegas,” he said. Schaaf was on a plane to the East Coast on Tuesday and was unavailable for comment. However, her spokesman, Justin Berton, said, “The mayor’s office cannot comment on anything that was discussed or may have been discussed in a closed session of City Council.” However, Schaaf has privately been known to be on the fence, expressing concern that she would support the suit only if it wouldn’t cost the city or result in tying up any future development plans for Coliseum property. Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker did not return calls seeking comment either. Oakland and Alameda County still have a roughly $75 million bond debt for renovating the stadium to bring the Raiders back from Los Angeles. Oakland Council President Larry Reid didn’t return repeated calls seeking comment. In March, when the outside law firms pitched the idea of a no-cost lawsuit, Reid questioned participating, saying: “I don’t see how you get a judge to force the NFL or the Raiders to pay off that bond indebtedness when it’s our debt. “And if those who want us to join this suit think the NFL is going to commit to awarding another football franchise to Oakland, I don’t think they live in the real world,” Reid said. Back in March, representatives from a pair of law firms — Berg & Androphy in Houston and Weil, Gotshal & Manges of New York — met with city officials to discuss filing the suit. Jim Quinn, an attorney at Berg & Androphy who has successfully sued the league over both player free agency and the 2011 players’ lockout, told us at the time, “I think they have a valid lawsuit, and they ought to pursue it, because it’s the only way to get the attention of the NFL going forward.” San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross appear Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays. Matier can be seen on the KPIX TV morning and evening news. He can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call (415) 777-8815, or email matierandross@sfchronicle.com. Twitter: @matierandross<doc-sep>
When NFL owners voted in March 2017 to approve the Raiders moving from Oakland to Las Vegas, the expectation was that the team would continue to play its home games at the Coliseum through the 2019 season -- and possibly 2020 -- until construction on their new Vegas stadium is complete. But the Raiders could decide to leave after the 2018 season should the Oakland City Council go forward with a multimillion-dollar antitrust lawsuit against the team and the league over the relocation to Vegas. Oakland Councilman Noel Gallo said the lawsuit could be filed before the Raiders' season opener on Monday night against the Rams, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Gallo predicted the lawsuit could result in winning damages of up to $500 million but not everyone agrees that suing the team is in the city's best interest. Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Executive Director Scott McKibben has been working to finalize the Raiders' lease extension at the Coliseum, and the looming possibility of a lawsuit has prompted the team to threaten to pull out of any agreement. "They told me we might as well take the contract and rip it up," McKibben said Tuesday. The Raiders are under a year-to-year lease and the Chronicle reports that the city of Oakland would net $3.7 million next year and $5 million the year after if the Raiders remain at the Coliseum. And while the city appears on board with the suit, the county hasn't signed on -- and it doesn't look like it will. "I think the mayor (Libby Schaaf) and the City Council really are just looking to justify themselves for not having done anything to retain the Warriors — and the A's, for that matter," Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum board member Ignacio De La Fuente said, adding that the city could be opening itself up to a countersuit. Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley told the Chronicle that the county is neither interested in joining the suit or remaining in the sports business -- but he also said he personally supports the lawsuit. "I think there's a greater upside to the city pursuing this ... and they are in a good position to force the NFL to come back with damages as a result of the decision to move the Raiders to Las Vegas," he said.