Comments on: Goodell LA memo: League has leverage, not teams or cities

By: 2Slick89

2Slick89 — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 23:48:34 +0000

@ML, Thank you!

@chi, I don’t speak representing SOS, I speak representing my self only, and yes you should and are welcomed to attend a meeting, the next one is scheduled for Monday July 9th at 6:30pm Red Lion Hotel 150 Hegenberger Rd Oakland, come one come all, I’m there at every meeting as a volunteer.

By: Marine Layer

Marine Layer — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 23:24:53 +0000

@Chi – You’re not providing a debate here. You’re just throwing out idle ideas. Go to a meeting and make your voice heard.

By: pjk

pjk — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:34:07 +0000

How has Lew Wolff made attending games unattractive? Is it by offering some tickets for $2? Is it the free parking on Tuesdays? The free hot dogs on Wednesdays? Offering the best prices in pro sports? All the great game day giveaways? How has all this made attending games unattractive? As far as the tarps, why does a team that only draws about 15,000 per game (not counting Giants, Yankees and Red Sox games) need 45,000 seats? What is the good of increasing the seat supply when there is no demand? Would the ambiance be better with 30,000 uncovered, empty seats as opposed to the 20,000 empty seats we usually have now? And how can Wolff keep players when A’s ticket revenues do not support the salaries that these players can make elsewhere? And what is Wolff to do about players who refuse to consider the A’s as a free agent destination because the do not want to play baseball in an empty football stadium? What about the existence of “No trade to Oakland” clauses in some players’ contracts? Wolff is trying to solve all this with a new stadium, which has to be built privately, which can be done in Silicon Valley with its rich corporate base but not in Oakland, where the demand for premium seating (needed to pay a ballpark) has proven to be weak.

By: 2Slick89

2Slick89 — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:09:06 +0000

@pjk,
You are right these teams are private ventures and no city/county owns them, however I believe the only reason the Raiders are last team in revenue is simply because as we all know fans like winners and if the Raiders can’t put out a good product on the field and don’t start winning games and subsequently making the playoffs, it’s obvious that no one is gonna go see a team lose, but just watch this upcoming season if the Raiders start winning you will see the games sell out and the revenue will start flowing.
Now in regards to the A’s, it’s my belief that Lew Wolff has done everything in his power to make attending A’s games a not so attractive experience, by tarping off the entire third deck and trading off players that have the chance to do well for the A’s as soon as they start doing good, we all know he is trying to cry wolf(no punt intended) by making the A’s the Appear as a revenue losing franchise to eventually make his case to MLB and grant them the move to the south bay, which will never happen, but that’s another story! lol

By: pjk

pjk — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:41:39 +0000

re: The Raiders belong in Oakland… But they are last or near-last in revenues, no? If Oakland can’t provide the revenues needed to make the team pull its weight revenue-wise, why should the Raiders forever be stuck there because they supposedly “belong in Oakland?”
re: Raiders A’s and Warriors are not just Oakland’s assets, but they are all of Alameda county and Contra Costa county’s assets!!!
…the three teams are private ventures and are not owned by the city or counties. In the A’s case, all this so-called East Bay civic pride has resulted in the ruination of the A’s ballpark and very poor attendance, even when the team is winning.

By: 2Slick89

2Slick89 — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:28:24 +0000

Has everyone here forgot that not long ago Mark Davis was interviewed Monte Poole where he specifically declared Oakland is his number one choice followed by Dublin Ca!! I don’t think Mark Davis will move the team to L. A., at the very least if he can’t get a stadium built in Dublin he will then become the subtenant with the 49ers, now I read someone say that if they do share the stadium in SC, that they should also change their name to the San Jose Raiders!! Lmao!! Really? If the SF NINERS get to move to SC and remain the SF Niners why wouldn’t the Raidere remain the Oakland Raiders if they move temporarily a roughly 40 miles south of Oakland! hell they can move to L. A. and still be called the Oakland Raiders if Mark Davis desires it!!! Carol Davis has been rumored to say she does not want the Raiders moved out of Oakland and it may very well be true, do to the fact that she has never moved to L. A. and remained in her home in Piedmont Ca while the Raiders played in SoCal. The Raiders belong in Oakland period!! The teams most likely and a available to move are the Chargers and Rams. The City of Oakland should not be underestimated and people have to realize the Raiders A’s and Warriors are not just Oakland’s assets, but they are all of Alameda county and Contra Costa county’s assets!!! They more than just three sports teams… They are the Eastbays civic pride!!! Help keep the the Raiders A’s and Warriors in Oakland!! Visit saveoaklandsports.org/ attend the meetings, get involved and become a volunteer!!

By: Otter

Otter — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:08:58 +0000

The comments above reminded me of the stark differences between MLB and NFL. Can you imagine such a memo coming from Selig’s office? I suppose having $1B gives the NFL commissioner a little more weight when he pushes for what is “good for the league”.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:07:22 +0000

The LA Rams did OK attendance-wise until 1990 or so, considering they played in two of the worst stadiums in NFL history. They got a healthy 60k throughout their time at the Coliseum despite the distance from the field and the neighborhood, and didn’t drop off that much in Anaheim until they had one foot out the door in a joint with the worst baseball/football configuration ever. The switch to corporate seats should make LA a stronger market, not a weaker one.
.
I agree that to try to shoehorn two teams in there does not make sense. The Rams can get out of their lease easily in StL and probably make the most sense. Chargers would work too (although I don’t know that LA would accept a SD team as well). AEG has intimated that the Raiders are not who they want given the fan base and their experience with them the last go-round.
.
A new team in LA will definitely have to deal with bandwagonitis, but lots of teams have that. Look at how crappy the 49ers’ attendance was in the 70′s vs. how well it was after they won their first SB.

By: SC BOY

SC BOY — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 04:35:24 +0000

If the Raiders move to Santa Clara, it would be a great move for the BAY AREA because we will keep a two team market, which we can support! Put your allegiances aside, it would benefit the BAY AREA economically if the Raiders stayed here. It is very unlikely that the city of Oakland has the money or resources to realistically get the Coliseum City project off the ground. I’m not a hater, but a realist. It would be a great idea for Raiders to move to Santa Clara, and it would be an even greater move if Mark Davis could get the Oakland name changed to San Jose if they make the move. Anyone in marketing would agreed that a city with almost 1 million in population would be better suited for a professional team than a city with a population of less than a 1/2 million and shrinking. I grew up with the great Raiders teams of the 70′s and would hate to see them leave again. Santa Clara makes all the sense in the world for the Raiders and please throw out the “crime card.” It’s apple and oranges when you start comparing the current crowds that attend Raiders and Niners games compared to the crowds that will be attending the games a the new stadium in SC. It’s would be like comparing the the Giants fans that went to Candlestick versus the current fans that go to AT&T park, very different crowds to say the least. I want to start a new movement called KRITBA, which stands for “Keep Raiders in the Bay Area.” OK, it’s not as smooth as SOS, but it’s a lot more realistic!

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 04:08:31 +0000

Chi, I thought you just said up above that Mark Davis will tell Goodell the Raiders “stand alone.” Which is it? Just a piece of advice, key to having an position in an debate, is having a position. Not changing sides over the course of an hour.