The case decided on Thursday, though, seemed promising to takings fans because it wasn't about compensation. It was about the requirement that any government taking must have a 'public purpose.'
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Fans don't like owners. They know they are somewhere - actually, in Germany, some owners are anonymous. Fans don't sympathize with owners, so ownership stays in the back.
Fans will treat something preciously if they're given the opportunity to do so.
So, in the last year, the whole cast sued for release from our contracts.
Besides, there were 50,000 fans or more there, and they wanted to see the best you've got. There was an obligation to the people, as well as to ourselves, to go all out.
Today, free agency takes away a lot of your heroes, they go somewhere else. Some of them don't but a lot of them do-take the higher offer to go somewhere else. And, it turns the fans off because they get attached to the players.
The team was supported by the fans, and the city was committed to a new building. But that wasn't good enough for Walter O'Malley. He had a better deal, and he passed up a good deal for a better one. I don't think that was right, because ownership of a ballclub is at least a semi-public trust.
For me, I don't participate in the filming when I represent a reality show star in a case, because that would mean waiving my right to attorney-client privilege, and that would hamper my ability to mount an effective case.
I got a lot of publicity, but it steamrolled. Event organizers weren't used to that kind of behavior, so later, they tightened the rules.
Nobody sues their fans.
Anybody can decide if they have got the money to fight a case if they don't like a particular thing, and they complain to the watch committee, local council or whatever.