Comments on: News for 9/6/12

By: bartleby

bartleby — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:46:16 +0000

The “lots of foul territory” suggestions are ridiculous. Getting rid of the foul territory so fans can have a decent view is one of the main reasons to build a new park.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:48:18 +0000

letsgoas
September 8, 2012 at 5:55 PM (Quote)

“i don’t know if they could do what the chisox did to comisky when us cell gave them a ton of money for the naming rights but they changed their third deck which also was very steep when they first built that stadium and made it more in line with other 3rd decks for baseball parks.”

The White Sox simply removed the top 8 rows of the upper deck and installed a partial roof. They did not change the pitch of the upper deck; it’s as steep as it ever was. Their multi-year renovation was about creating more expensive seats to sell and removing cheap/lousy seats that were rarely sold; in that respect, they succeeded. (I suppose they could have just tarped them off.)

By: letsgoas

letsgoas — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 00:55:25 +0000

not only would they have to rebuild at least 1/2 and maybe even more even if they tore down everything other than mt davis they imo still would need to improve mt davis as a whole. the seats on top are so steep. i don’t know if they could do what the chisox did to comisky when us cell gave them a ton of money for the naming rights but they changed their third deck which also was very steep when they first built that stadium and made it more in line with other 3rd decks for baseball parks. could they do the same with the mt davis seats all the way up? add to that maybe cutting the # of luxury boxes and as sombody months ago mentioned maybe combine 2 or 3 of them since they really aren’t sold out thru out the years since they were built into the structure. inside mt davis i’ve read critics say it has all the charm of an airport terminal but i think the raiders could “raider” it up farily easily.

By: letsgoas

letsgoas — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 09:19:30 +0000

i would think the raiders would want to have a brand new stadium. somethings about even the mt davis half of the coliseum isn’t that great although i guess they could be fixed if the raiders were to tear down the original coliseum and made drastic changes to the half they’re keeping.
…
those seats at the top of the structure are way too steep and high above. i don’t know if the coliseum can do what us cellular with the chisox help did which they too have a steep third deck but completely rebuilt the 3rd deck where the seats aren’t as high up. also the luxury boxes, they’d probably have to be refurshed, somebody brought up this idea months ago which is to combine one or two of those mt davis luxury boxes into one huge one since those things don’t sell all that well in the first place. also inside mt davis i’ve read comparisons having the charm of an airport terminal. course they could “raider” it up down the road.

By: chris

chris — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:20:21 +0000

Sorry, next topic

By: chris

chris — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:16:42 +0000

I have been reading since the inception of this site. I absolutely love what ML and Jeffrey have done. I enjoy the interviews and look forward to when the A’s have a brand new home. I do not see that happening in Oakland, though. I think it to be quite intrusive of SOS to barge onto this site. I think barge is too strong a word but couldn’t think of another word. Anyway, I would not mind reading about SOS if it were newsworthy. Same goes for the calendar.I

By: pjk

pjk — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:32:40 +0000

It would make sense to keep the half of the stadium built in 1995. But how much public money is available for construction? $0.00. How much of a contribution do you think the Raiders can offer? This is the team with the lowest revenues in the league, if Forbes is to be believed.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:26:05 +0000

Just because JerryWorld and MetLife stadium cost $1 billion+ doesn’t mean a new Raiders facility needs to. Once the A’s are out of the coliseum, they could tear down the old part and rebuild a modern facility around Mt. Davis. If Cal can gut and rebuild Memorial stadium for $320 million, certainly this could be done to the Coliseum for ~$500 million or so. No other land or infrastructure costs.

By: LoneStranger

LoneStranger — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:47:13 +0000

@pjk – I agree, not much could come from the city, but they do have free land. They would essentially refuse to renew the A’s lease, tear down the Coliseum and the Raiders would build the new football stadium. If they can’t wrangle money from the NFL, then they stick around in the Coliseum until the NFL is comfortable that enough time has passed. Or, if the City manages to find a way to build the Coliseum City idea, they might suggest the Raiders move to SC for two years. It’s as possible as any other guess.
.
I think the Raiders would have been better off joining the 49ers in building the new stadium in SC from the beginning, but they didn’t. Right now, I think the most financially responsible choice is to just nut up and move in with the 49ers. As a tenant, however, I don’t see the Raiders sticking in that situation forever. I expect it would last for about a decade, then they’d move when the NFL was ready to give them stadium money.
.
On a related note… I wonder if the Raiders would be willing to pay the 10% gate charge to the City of Berkeley to play at the renovated Memorial Stadium for a couple years instead of playing in SC? No, that would be an Al Davis move, choosing less gate receipts vs being a tenant to the 49ers.

By: pjk

pjk — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:27:12 +0000

Lone: If Oakland doesn’t have any $$ for the A’s, how’s it going to have anything for the Raiders, whose facility would be in the $1 billion price range? Especially when the city is still paying off the football improvements added in 1995? Think Oakland voters would sign off on a $1 billion football stadium? I kind of doubt it.