49ers stadium finalist for Super Bowl in 2016 or 2017 + Raiders news

The NFL’s rules for building a stadium are simple:

  • City/municipality must have skin (money) in the game
  • Minimum capacity of 63-65,000, with potential expansion to 70,000+
  • NFL will provide up to $200 million for per team/stadium if new construction
  • If successful, NFL will award a Super Bowl at a future date

At the NFL owners meetings today, the 49ers were notified that they are one step closer to that last bit. According to Sports Business Journal’s Daniel Kaplan, San Francisco/Santa Clara is a finalist for Super Bowl L (2016) along with Miami. The city that loses out on L becomes a finalist for LI (2017), competing with Houston.

View from nearby Capitol Corridor/ACE train station. Picture taken 10/9

The Super Bowl is an award from the league for getting a stadium deal. It’s no small reward, as numerous cities would kill for the opportunity to bring in hundreds of millions in economic impact to a region. The actual amount of economic impact is up for considerable debate, but no one can doubt the amount of media coverage, blocks of hotel rooms booked solid, and plain spending from visitors that occurs with each big game. Last February we discussed what hosting a Super Bowl in San Francisco would be like and what it would entail. It’s worth a read if you’re interested.

View from Santa Clara Golf & Tennis Club of north side of stadium

Miami is the competitor for L, and despite its 10-time history of hosting the game, is at a distinct disadvantage. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has warned the Dolphins and Miami that if the region wanted to continue hosting the game, improvements such as a roof would be required. For now, all the NFL is looking for are some improvements to sightlines, lighting and sound, and a canopy over some of the stands. If those improvements don’t happen (and they aren’t funded at the moment), it’s easy to see the 49ers and SF/SC winning by virtue of its newer facility and novel location.


Kaplan also had a key Raider-related tweet coming out of the owners meetings.

In addition, Davis talked about how outdated the Coliseum is (Shush! Can’t badmouth the Coliseum dude!), while saying that he has little interest in sharing the Santa Clara stadium with the 49ers even though the 49ers deserve great credit for getting the stadium project done. The Coliseum remains the default option simply because the land and location are already prime, but as Davis continues to talk up Dublin’s Camp Parks site, one has to wonder what Davis really wants. Is he looking to pit two East Bay cities against each other, the way his dad had done in the past? Davis has to be looking to minimize the team’s exposure. Yet it’s hard to see how the Raiders could put together as richly-backed a deal as the 49ers for a new stadium. It sure seems as though the Raiders will be sticking at the Coliseum until the best deal possible falls into Davis’s lap.

81 thoughts on “49ers stadium finalist for Super Bowl in 2016 or 2017 + Raiders news

  1. Hasn’t Dublin already made it clear it wants nothing to do with a Raiders stadium? What kind of “concessions” can Davis extract from a hostile host city?

  2. Actually RM, the Super Bowl would be hosted in Santa Clara/Silicon Valley, 40+ miles south from that smaller aforementioned burgh. Hopefully the local powers that be (city’s of SC, SJ, the SVLG) don’t allow SF to completely hijack said $uper Bowl in 2017. Speaking of that year, it’s shaping up to be huge for the South Bay re a Super Bowl and Cisco Field nearing completion.

  3. York says Frisco is the Giants” home,” even though the team won’t be playing there, doesn’t practice there and by the team’s own admission has very few season ticketholders there. Go figure…

  4. This is why I miss Al Davis… What mark needs to do is show Dublin how a Raider stadium could do wonders for the Dublin economy. I think San Ramon, Pleasonton, Dublin and Livermore could all benifit from this move and allows the Raiders to market in a more prime area of the east bay they can build relationships In that community. Chevron is in san Ramon wonder of they will be intrested??? But what I get from this article is that at least mark is thinking raiders in The bay area.

    As for superbowl in the south bay. Wow. Must be like new years and mardi grai all in one. Glad its coming to the bay in a few years. Shit might be show to get a job doing somethin there during superbwol weeks

  5. Football games 10 days a year really boosts the economy? It’ll boost traffic but that will be about it. A multiplex cinema would probably bring in more $$$ NFL football stadiums sit vacant 355 days a year.

  6. Ian RapoportVerified‏@RapSheet

    Raiders owner Mark Davis on his best option: “Absolutely Oakland. Love to build a new stadium right on the site. What we’re working towards”

  7. @eb
    I’ll double check that source quote, but I feel good about it tho. Maybe Quan and her boys have a something viable after all

  8. BTW RM,
    nice photos. Will be awesome when Cisco Field is at similar stages of construction. Go A’s, go San Jose and Go POTUS!!

  9. i for one hope every team here locally gets to play in venues worthy of their tradition of history somewhere somehow. as a niners fan it’ll be nice to see a team that has been as successful as any team over the past 25-30 years finally play in a venue worthy of their on field success and hope the same will happen to the a’s before the end of this decade is over with.

  10. Dublin sure seems like a non starter since the city has expressed the opposite of interest in an NFL stadium previously.
    As for the Niners, Tony thye’ve said SF will be where the celebrations, etc… will take place as they are still SF’s team.

  11. It seems Mark Davis is biding his time…

  12. the current mayor of Dublin is different from the mayor that said she didnt want anything to do with the Raiders. As we learned with Fremont, changing mayors can have a big difference.

    • I wouldn’t dismiss Dublin too prematurely. As jesse noted, Mayor Tim Sbranti is different and is a huge sports guy. Sbranti and County Supe Scott Haggerty have some pull, and if Eric Swalwell beats Pete Stark in three weeks they’d be a formidable group locally who could put together a stadium deal at Camp Parks.

  13. One way to create value for your product is to create a demand for it- even if it’s artificial-

  14. And where is the city of Dublin (pop 46k) going to provide the Raiders besides a site, which they already have for free at the coliseum?

  15. Make that “what” is the city going to provide

  16. San Jose Earthquakes’ new digs will break ground this upcoming Sunday too…

  17. I can tell you excavators are already digging at the Earthquakes site.

  18. What would a football stadium in Dublin do when it wasn’t being a football stadium?

  19. Hmmmmmmm. Very existential thought there Briggs……

  20. It may be existential, but he’s also got a point. Dublin makes even less sense than Santa Clara does as a home for an NFL Stadium. And a one team NFL stadium still remains asinine in a region with two teams.

  21. Dublin is being used purely for leverage. No way the Raiders build there. Davis should be using the Santa Clara stadium more for leverage, I agree. He should threaten to move to Berkeley or Stanford (again just for leverage): those are the most NFL-ready facilities in California right now.

  22. @A’sFan – Can’t threaten to move somewhere where you’re not welcome. Neither Cal nor Stanford have any interest in hosting NFL games and stadia are too small.

  23. Tony,

    Of course SF will hijack the Super Bowl, or a big chunk of it. 33,000+ hotel rooms and a history of hosting conventions/tourist-friendly spots make that a no brainer. But the teams will need an HQ/practice facilities for a week, so figure Stanford gets one and ?? the other.

    Can someone please explain why a new Raiders stadium–wherever they want to put one in this market–is a good idea? They already have club seats, plenty of skyboxes, seemingly excess seating capacity. The fan base mostly rejected PSLs the first time, will those who bought them really want to pay up all over again? Seems like a pipe dream.

  24. Random tibits: Stanford Stadium is finishing up paving a significant portion of their formerly dirt parking lots. They’ve also added some crosswalks to help with crowd flow. The dirt lots were visually nicer, but I’m sure the updates help with overall event management.

  25. I hope Dublin works, I can take vasco road or of I’m coming from Tracy going to Raider games will be easy…. Oo and one more thing new stadium means SUPERBOWL in the east bay…that will be huge. I wonder if all the right pols fall into place , I wonder what kinda design the new raider stadium will have. Has to gave a different feel than santa Clara. Maybe I’m ahead of myself but I really beileve mark Davis sees that Oakland city leaders do not want to pay for sports. Whether its the raiders , a’s or warriors. Fine. But Dublin might be and that would be the place to go.

  26. Dublin pay $1 billion for a football stadium? Or even 10% of it? I really really really doubt it. I think what is happening is Davis would settle for a new publicly funded stadium in Oakland but won’t get one. He’ll again have to consider any Los Angeles offer.

  27. Yeah I can’t see the Raiders paying their own way like the Niners are doing. And at the same time Dublin doesn’t have the ability to pay as much as even Santa Clara did into their stadium. On top of that the Raiders fan base has already proven they won’t pay for PSL’s last time they were asked to which of course is one of the key funding mechanisms for a private stadium like the Niners are building. I don’t care how friendly the politicians might become in Dublin. A small town like theirs can’t pay the Raiders way the way the Raiders both want and need them to. It’s at best nothing but a leverage ploy to get some movement out of Oakland in the event LA ceases to be available for leverage in the next couple of years (if the Raiders themselves are beat to the punch by someone else moving to LA).

  28. What strikes me is the fate of all these struggling, unstable teams in all four pro leagues are linked. The owners and leagues are conscious of not oversaturating the markets. And we’ve had enough time to study all the pro sports markets to pretty much know how many teams (if any) each major city can support.

    I don’t think Oakland can viably support three teams well, based upon the poor attendance of the A’s. I do think that the city becomes more attractive as a long term home for the remaining tenant(s), however, when one or two of the other tenants chooses another city as a home.

    So, if the Raiders jump to L.A., the chances of the A’s staying in Oakland probably go up. Mount Davis could be torn down, a portion of the stadium reconfigured, etc.

    if the Sacto Kings go to Seattle, and the W’s get a new arena in SF, the chances of HP Pavilion getting an NBA basketball team in 15-20 years go up a bit (Grizzlies, once their lease ends). But if San Jose gets the A’s, the odds of SJ getting a basketball team go down, because then SJ is a very oversaturated market (Sharks, A’s, Grizzlies).

    From a political perspective, this makes everyone want to sit on their hands until more cards unfold, and leave all their options open. That includes Selig, Quan, Goodell, Davis, everyone.

    I think the NFL-to-LA decision, which we’ll know by February when teams submit their applications, has a definite ripple effect for MLB, and even the NBA.

    If the Chargers leave SD for LA, is San Diego a potential NBA franchise again 15 years from now? (I think it should be, even though it failed once before – it’s a great free agent destination, and the league and the city are much different than they were in the early 80s).

    Can the NBA expect to be successful in Anaheim (Kings), when that market is about to get 1-2 new NFL franchises? (My hunch is no).

    Can Southern California support 3 NFL franchises? (My strong belief is no – we’ll either see one team in LA and the Chargers stay put, or the Chargers and an NFC team both move to LA).

  29. Wow u guys are some Dublin haters….well ML says don’t sleep in Dublin and like I said before a rich community in Dublin probably has more connections to others that gave money so untill the Dublin idea is dead…I feel its very much alive.

    But yes I agree with Dan and pjk if ur mark Davis he better apply to L.A quick so that way he can gauge if Oakland at all wants the raiders.

  30. Not hating on Dublin. It’s a great small city. But it’s just that, a SMALL bedroom city lacking in the resources to do what it needed publicly for an NFL Stadium. I mean hell, it’s 1/3rd the size of Santa Clara and that city despite being one of the more financially sound cities in the state was barely able to contribute their portion of the Niners stadium. On top of that Dublin is far from the core Raiders fan base, it doesn’t have the best freeway access (the 680/580 corridor being one of the most congested in the region), and it’s bound to run into massive NIMBY problems from all those well to do people adjacent to Camp Parks who paid good money for their homes far away from the main bustle of the Bay Area. I just don’t see any way it happens no matter how friendly a few politicians might be. And on top of that it’s not like Parks is closed. It’s still a semi-active base which adds a Federal Gov’t issue as well.

  31. “Dublin is far from the core Raiders fan base” Not in the least. There’s a strong Raider fan presence throughout all of the East Bay and, heck, most of Ca. Although, I generally agree that Dublin seems far fetched. In terms of L.A., I believe a team needs to show that all possibilities in their region have been exhausted and they must apply for the move in Jan. I can’t see the Raiders showing that all avenues have been checked, when Santa Clara is obviously doable. I imagine the Chargers will get their foot in before the Raiders even have the opportunity (that is if they are in fact interested in LA, even with all of their vocal Bay Area planning.)

  32. Eb, have the Raiders not mentioned LA?

  33. Mark Davis stated that anywhere would be a possibility if the situation was right after his first press conference, including L.A.. Since than he and Amy Trask have routinely stated that Oakland and the East Bay is their first choice. They’ve also been actively meeting with Oakland officials. One can assume that the many mentions of wanting to stay in Oakland/the East Bay and the personal meetings with city leaders/business community are just a diversion with L.A. being the real goal, but I’d like to think the organization isn’t lying to its fans. Perhaps they are, who knows.

  34. Can u imagine the damage at least to the east bay if they lose the raiders to LA…but for good this time…geeezzz, it would be the 49ers market for the taking…I hope mark Davis understands he could end up like art modell in a different way.

    Also does anybody know if there will be two lockerrooms in the stadium just in case the Raiders decide to move in

  35. Berry, I imagine very little damage to the East Bay should the Raiders leave. Sports don’t provide a whole lot to the economy.

  36. But Jeffrey ,eventually the economy will get better especially and hopefully in the east bay.. and then when thongs are going good and ppl have jobs ..we would look around and ask ourselves “where did the A’s and Raiders go???”….Omg i would really hate to hear that and maybe I might with the way things are going.

  37. Interesting thoughts on the whole realignment of teams and saturating a market. My question is can the East Bay better support just one or two teams? If the Warriors go to San Francisco, could that make the Raiders and A’s more “viable” in Oakland? If the Raiders move to Dublin/Santa Clara?
    What would the Oakland sports market look like if just one team remained? Would that team be able to tap into the enormous civic pride in the East Bay and become “viable?”
    As an aside, yes, I am upset at the Warriors moving.

  38. personally, my opinion is “yes. one team can ride the Oakland, Richmond, San Leandro, Hayward vibe.” My bet would be the Raiders can do this best because they can bring in folks from all over. Maybe a football stadium at howard terminal is the answer. Aesthetics were never in question at this site… 8 games are easier to manage than 81.

  39. My wife worked at Camp Parks for a number of years and knew the individual responsible for the environmental management. Per a discussion I had with him at a get together one time, he stated that there were some discussions a long time ago between Parks and A’s ownership about a potential A’s stadium, but that it wasn’t in the cards given that Camp Parks was asking for too much (and possibly A’s ownership seeing it as a non-preferred site). However he stated that he thought things had changed from Parks point of view, but that no one from the A’s was in contact anymore. The parks location is literally a block from Bart and sits within 1 mile of the 680/580 interchange. Also, I’ve thought for a long time that a lot of the A’s (and Warriors) season ticketholder base is in the Pleasanton/San Ramon/Danville/Alamo/Walnut Creek area. Seems like this location would not be ideal as San Jose or Fremont, but could be a much better option than Oakland, considering certain factors and great public transit access. Marine Layer, any thoughts??

  40. @Dublin Jeff – I had always heard that price was the biggest hurdle, making a stadium project prohibitively expensive because of the need for free land. I know that 180+ acres north of Dublin Blvd. is part of a big new master planned community, and that toxics cleanup is supposed to have been done to clear the way.

    It’s difficult to appraise Camp Parks as a potential stadium site because there is another project waiting in the wings right there and we don’t know how much land and parking would be sought for a stadium. From an EIR standpoint I think it could get problematic if SunCal’s development is approved, since you’d have residential on one side and a high-traffic shopping center on the other. It reminds me of Friars Road in San Diego’s Mission Valley. Friars has Qualcomm Stadium on the east end and a bunch of residential and commercial to the west. On Sundays with Chargers games it can be an absolute nightmare getting in and out of there. Even with that issue, if there’s a small city like Santa Clara that could try to make it work, it’s Dublin.

  41. You guys really need to drop the whole Raiders to LA discussion, it will never happen. The only team that can meet the criteria to move to LA any time soon is the Chargers. The Chargers have a year to year lease, and is the only team that “has acted on good faith” and tried to negotiate for a new stadium with their own community for the past 10 years.

    The Chargers’ three-month escape hatch overlaps by 15 days with the league’s relocation policy, which requires notice of an intention to move to be filed with the league office between January 1 and February 15.

    The relocation policy also requires a team that hopes to move “to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that maximizes fan support in their current home community.” Relocation is appropriate only “[i]f, having diligently engaged in good faith efforts, a club concludes that it cannot obtain a satisfactory resolution of its stadium needs.”

    In other words, a team can’t move without showing that it has exhausted all reasonable efforts to stay put.

    So if the Chargers are willing to pay 23 million this coming January they could move to LA for the start of the 2013 season.


  42. How does that language rule out the Raiders again?

  43. 2ounds like the Raiders 2 me, Mike2.

  44. The Raiders lease expires next year, there is no will on the part of the city of Oakland to pay for a $1 billion stadium and the team certainly won’t pay for it. Dublin is a fantasy. So how does this not constitute exhausting all options in their current market? The only wrench I could see thrown in here is sharing the 49ers stadium and nobody is going to force the Raiders to do that.

  45. The article that I posted stated that the only team that could move to LA in the near future is the Chargers. The Raiders will still have to go thru the process of pitting one Califronia city against another to see which deal it could it extort for the team. Sacramento in 1990 and Oakland in 1995 are my two recent examples.

    Also if Forbes is to be trusted it states that the Coliseum loses $10-12 million dollars a year.

  46. Mike, the only team they said that could move in 2013 is the Chargers. 2014 however is another issue. And there’s no guarantees that the Chargers take the offer in 2013, or even if they do that a second team won’t also be picked up to fill in. Since both the Chargers are the defacto team in LA on TV right now, and the Raiders are a former LA team it’s quite conceivable that both could come in at the same time since they’d both cater to different fan bases (not unlike the Niners and Raiders do today).

  47. Much of the LA NFL fanbase wishes that the Chargers will move there, that may be wishful thinking though. San Diego enjoys good attendance at Qualcom park, and the Charger owners must be aware that the Raiders and Rams did poorly in Los Angeles and Anaheim. The San Diego ownership could have second thoughts about moving to Los Angeles because of that market’s poor history of supporting NFL teams, and would possibly prefer to stay in San Diego instead, and could be using LA as leverage for a new stadium in SD. ( One would believe that they would have committed to Farmer’s field by now if they were really interested in LA)

    Jacksonville, Buffalo or St Louis may be more likely to make to move to Los Angeles before the Raiders or Chargers do, they are all small market teams, moving to LA would be an upgrade for those franchises (unlike Oakland or SD)

  48. Does anyone know why the NFL, apparently, doesn’t want Mark Davis to own the team?
    I am not a Raider fan so i haven’t followed the franchise off the field stuff with the team all that much. It would seem significant that the league doesn’t want him to have control of the team if they move (and logic would dictate that they don’t want him to have control of team if they stay put, either). That seems like a pretty significant hurdle to getting anything done anywhere.

  49. Because he’s related to Al? The NFL didn’t exactly like Al Davis.

  50. @ML and.Dublin Jeff
    Amen. I’m with u guys. Besides I feel more LA ppl will want the Raiders than the Chargers or Rams. Easier transition, don’t have to change colors or anything. Will the A’s change theory colors or at least allternate it when they move to sj

  51. @Jeff
    Have to admit, there might be some owners in the NFL that still hold anger told the Davis clan. First off , fuck all them…but to ur point yes maybe there could be a few Raider haters, that want to see ownership change so that they play ball with the league. But of mark is truly Al’s kid he will hold on and successfully get a stadium for these new Raiders…and I know the Raiders are rebuilding but after seeing the chargers choke on Monday night, Phillips rivers time in san Diego could be on the clock, its peyton manning taking the west this year. But raiders will bounce back this season and are in better shape than san Diego.

  52. re: But of mark is truly Al’s kid he will hold on and successfully get a stadium for these new Raiders

    …Al’s modus operandi was to play cities against each other (Irwindale, LA, Oakland) and see which one would give the Raiders the most goodies. It was never about the Raiders pitching in 10 cents for anything. In this case, Oakland apparently wants the Raiders to build their own stadium with their own money. It’s looking like LA, with Farmers Field, has the most goodies to give to the Raiders….

  53. berry, if Mark is truly Al’s son then he’ll never get a new stadium. Al was never able to get a new stadium for his team. In fact only thing he was ever able to do was to move into old stadiums and get cities to pay for modest “improvement” to them. But when it came to new parks the roadside of history is littered with several of his failures. So hopefully Mark isn’t much like his dad at all, for Raiders fans sakes.

  54. If the NFL doesn’t want him as an owner, he won’t get a stadium anywhere because he can’t pay for one without league help.

  55. I think they want the owner of the Oakland Raiders (still a marquee franchise, even with this past decade) to be worth a lot more than what Mark is. He really doesn’t poses the capital most newer owners have. I don’t think the Al bias has crossed to his son. They couldn’t be that petty, right?

  56. That is why it is going to take winning seasons managed by Reggie and Dennis al in order for the Raoders to get it . And as a fan I think they finally headed right direction…cmon u guys remeber the 1998-2003 era. U couldn’t get a ticket and raider merchandise was always restocked. A winning Raoders team effects the bay area better than then the 49ers. But look st the Atlanta game. They caalled ghost holding penalities on the raiders and didn’t even mention the player they called it on. Look at the tape. The ref calls holding #71 and points the wrong way then switches…its obivious that some not all refs can be biased against Oakland especially when there driving on teams

    Sry went to s raider rant…but I beileve of ML says Dublin is a small.possibility, ima hold on too that small as hope for a future stadium

  57. @duffer: I think the NFL likes having Buffalo as a bridge to Toronto (they play games their occasionally). My hunch is that franchise will either get a new stadium in Buffalo, or in Toronto, within 20 years.

    Jacksonville’s lease is iron-clad, I believe…locked in until 2027(?). In 20 years I could see them being in London. The NFL is the one North American league that could feasibly have an overseas team, thanks to a full week between games. Even then it’s a huge longshot.

  58. The Raiders are just in denial. They will be in Santa Clara in the next 2-4 years with the 49ers.

    The 49ers stadium was built with 2 lockers rooms and can digitally flip all of this outside signs for the Raiders like the Giants and Jets do in New York.

    The red seats? So what? The Raiders played with red seats at the Coliseum for years before they moved to LA.

    The Raiders will fail in getting a new stadium for the simple fact they cannot get a free one or even a half of a free one. Their fans do not have the $$ for PSLs and suites and that has been proven.

    They will go in circles for another 2 years and then tuck their heads between their legs and call the 49ers.

    This is what the NFL wants and they do not care what the Raiders want. No way they go back to LA since they would have to prove Santa Clara not being a viable option….not happening.

    The Raiders will be playing in a new shiny stadium soon guys….in Santa Clara.

  59. Well siddy… you do have a good point.. but i still hold hope for Dublin…………….sigh maybe Oakland too. Anybody going to the jacksonville game this sunday??? ill be there with the crew holla at me.

  60. i still wouldn’t rule out the raiders staying at the coliseum for the foreseeable future. the coliseum although not great is a hell of a better football venue than it is a baseball one.

  61. True. And as soon as the A’s leave one of the NFL’s bigger issues with it vanishes since there won’t be dirt half the season anymore.

  62. As I have said before on this topic, there is nothing concrete keeping the Chargers in LA and they have no back up options like the Raiders do in the Bay Area : Oakland , Dublin or Santa Clara etc. Family and friends living down in Southern California have told me that the Chargers are very likely to relocate to LA this time around. If the Chargers move there, any talk of the Raiders moving down there are put to bed. The NFL will not have 2 AFC teams playing in same division sharing a stadium when the Raiders could just share a stadium with the 49ers if push came to shove. The color of the seats could be a neutral green instead of red or black.

    Anyways there is a Raider Fan Discussion Board called raiderfans.net were various Raider related topics are discussed including new stadium possibilities. There is a poster that is very knowledgeable on the subject, having studying it for years. He attends all of the SOS meetings and has stated The county, city and the Raiders are currently making good progress in getting a stadium deal done. Here is a quote and link to his current post on where the process is and how it would be financed.


    The Raiders are not moving back to L.A. folks. Please think for yourselves, and stop listening to these uninformed media idiots. There are those of us who are very close to the situation, and actually can provide little tidbits of info. as we get them.

    First, the 2 Oakland proposals: Rick Tripp Development has a proposal on the table for a new Raiders stadium in Oakland, that is 100% privately financed (through a Saudi-owned investment bank, three private equity funds, a pension fund, in-stadium taxation, etc.) With that being said, his company also just received a 9 figure conditional commitment for naming rights should his project be the chosen one. There is a confidentiality agreement in place until a couple of milestones are reached, but I can tell you that the company is outside of the Bay Area (but in the U.S.), as to not interfere with the Raiders other sponsorship opportunities and ventures, and that it will be the first venture into the sporting world for this company.

    The other Oakland plan is being run by the City of Oakland, County of Alameda, and the JPA (Joint Powers Authority). They have appointed JRDV Urban International (which also includes Dallas-based HKS Sports and Entertainment) and Forest City Real Estate Services LLC for the development, planning, and architecture work. This proposed stadium plan, actually features a retractable room, as they would like it to also be used for large conventions and concerts as well. The city and county cannot justify the cost of a new football stadium for only 10-12 home games a season, plus a Super Bowl. This plan would require a $150-$200 million dollar loan from the NFL (and for all you naysayers who claim that the NFL will not loan the “other” Bay Area team funding, look no further than this article: Oakland Raiders Stadium: NFL Commissioner Sent Eric Grubman To Oakland – Oakland City Buzz | Examiner.com), in-stadium taxation, federal and transportation funding (the Coliseum site is eligible for this because of the close proximity of BART, Amtrak, the 880 and 580 freeways, and the Oakland Airport), and a form of Japanese private investor ship, etc. There may come a point where Rick Tripp’s Development team could become interactive with this plan also. There has been some recent talk of this being a possibility. Remember, voter approval is not needed for a Raiders stadium in Oakland, as the City owns all of the land in and around the site-with the exception of a Denny’s and truck yard. Tax dollars will not be available for this project, as Alameda County taxpayers are still on the hook for the renovations (addition of 10,000 seats-Mt. Davis, the Eastside and Westside clubs, and luxury box suites) done to the Coliseum when the Raiders returned to Oakland in 1995.

    Now on to the L.A. stadium proposals. For 1., the NFL has made it perfectly clear that THEY will play a heavy role on deciding which stadium proposal will move forward, and which existing NFL team will be allowed to relocate. Per the NFL, both L.A. stadium proposals must include the option to house 2 NFL teams as well. The Raiders WILL NOT relocate to a stadium where they “might” have to share it, when they can do just as well in their own market in Santa Clara with the S.F. 49ers. The NFL has also mandated that neither AEG (who currently runs the Oracle Arena and O.co Coliseum in Oakland-and who also has an agreement with the JPA that they cannot speak to the Raiders about relocation-not the no-poaching clause that was originally reported), nor Majestic Realty can speak to any NFL team about relocation until at the conclusion of the 2012 season at the earliest.

    Both L.A. groups (AEG with the Farmers Field proposal in downtown L.A., and Majestic Realty with Los Angeles Football Stadium in the City of Industry) are requiring a certain percentage of ownership in whatever team decides to relocate to Los Angeles. Makes sense, right? Why would they build a stadium for a prospective team unless they had some kind of stake in the future success of the venture? Remember, the NFL has stated that they are not behind the current business models of either of these groups. They have said that they have seen progress, but not enough for them to back either one completely at this point. It is speculated that they prefer AEG’s Farmers Field proposal, but no one has gone on record to verify this. In any account, where this concerns the Raiders franchise, Mark Davis has repeatedly said that the Raiders are not, and will not be up for sale. He will not give up controlling interest (which is a contractually structured 47%) in the franchise, and the silent stake holders, have shown absolutely zero interest in selling their shares. With that being said, things could always change if all of his preferred options go down in flames. Highly doubtful that all of them don’t pan out.

    Not to mention all of the potential lawsuits that AEG is beginning to face in their quest to win the NFL’s approval. See attached article: LegalNewsline | Farmers Field bill challenged in Calif. court

    In the end, what is currently true, is that CEO Amy Trask and General Managing Partner Mark Davis are working extremely hard, and negotiating solely with the City of Oakland, County of Alameda, and the JPA to construct a new stadium on the current Coliseum site in Oakland. There are a lot of moving parts in East Bay politics, and when it comes to the Coliseum Complex, things are quite complicated. That’s why patience is needed. Silence is deafening sometimes, and the B.S. media reports and constant L.A. garbage can certainly wear on the best of us, but trust me, at this current moment in time, another relocation to L.A. by the Raiders franchise is nothing more than a far-fetched delusion. I am not saying that this could never be an alternative, but it isn’t now, and hasn’t seriously been (even with the garbage reports of Mark Davis being seen at a basketball game with Ed Roski-both own season tickets for the L.A. clippers, and Mark spends ½ of his time in L.A. and ½ of his time with his mother in Oakland) in the recent past.”

  63. Having been to a few other NFL stadiums… The Coliseum is not really all that good. It suffers from the same problems it does when it is a baseball venue. But it’s worse because there are more people in the building. The concourses are too narrow. Concession lines back up to make the problem worse.
    The Mt. Davis side is alright, but it’s not anymore than average. I think it’s hilarious the peoe thought a Super Bowl could one day be held in the Coliseum. The biggest strategic blunder in Oakland sports history was half assing a football half stadium onto the Coliseum. If there is a time when Oakland has no sports teams, the timeline of their exodus begins with that ridiculous idea.

  64. @Stanley,
    Please read the article you referenced. Wolff has no problem with an across the board (statewide) hike in the minimum wage, but just doing so in SJ while (say) Santa Clara doesn’t could pose problems for hospitality revenue in SJ. So I’d agree with Wolff that raising it in SJ while our neighbors don’t could pose revenue problems for SJ.
    FWIW, still don’t believe there will be a ballpark referendum in the end, but as always, another topic for a future post…

  65. As if the construction unions that would build the ballpark work for anything close to minimum wage. The construction unions will undoubtedly support the ballpark. SJ’s minimum wage hike would just ensure more layoffs of minimum wage workers, for sure. Struggling small businesses can’t absorb a 25% wage hike without offsetting costs by letting people go. The initiative will almost definitely fail. Even the bleeding-heart Mercury News opposes the measure.

  66. Please spare us all the diatribe on how raising the minimum wage would hurt millionaires like wolff. T

  67. @djr- your like a bad gossip rag- Wolff made it very clear that he has no problem raising the minimum wage- but do it on a statewide basis rather than a city basis-

  68. @GoA’s,Tony D., pjk: If San Jose voters approve this, it’ll be another example of San Jose thinking like a big city– which it is. In a state as diverse as California, minimum wage can not be set at the state level. The cost of living varies too much from county to county. San Francisco’s MW is $10.24. San Jose is the leader of Silicon Valley, so that must lead the charge. Milpitas or Santa Clara still provide plastic bags, while San Jose takes the hit because it’s the responsible thing to do. They need to do the same thing here.

    • @GoA’s,Tony D., pjk: If San Jose voters approve this, it’ll be another example of San Jose thinking like a big city– which it is. In a state as diverse as California, minimum wage can not be set at the state level. The cost of living varies too much from county to county. San Francisco’s MW is $10.24. San Jose is the leader of Silicon Valley, so that must lead the charge. Milpitas or Santa Clara still provide plastic bags, while San Jose takes the hit because it’s the responsible thing to do. They need to do the same thing here.

      Big city thinking? As in the origin of this proposal was from a minimum wage college student? You don’t do things just because you want to act a certain way. You do things based on data, cause and effect analysis, return on investment, etc. Do you realistic think that raising wages ~ 25% from state levels won’t have repercussions in the form of layoffs? With less workers on the same budget, how will that affect customers who demand the same level of service and quality? Will they be willing to live with diminished value on their hard earn dollar? Will the workers be more productive just because they get guaranteed raises? As I said, you don’t do things just because you try to mimic others, you do it because it makes sense to do it.

  69. @Briggs–not here to debate the merits of right or wrong–that is completely OT-was clarifying LW’s comments

  70. @GoA’s: Your completely write. Pardon me for offering a counter-point rather than being a complete jerk and resorting to name calling.

  71. @Briggs–thx for the editorial comments—pretty sure I can make my own decisions without your help–and definetely noticed how you took the high road by avoiding name calling…now back to our regular programing–

  72. Briggs: Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be for young people, people starting out who live with somebody else, people in school training for real jobs, etc.. (I used to earn $2.65 an hour pumping gas way back when while I was in high school.) These jobs were never meant to enable somebody to sustain a house and family in a high-cost place like San Jose. If this minimum wage measure passes, look for lots of minimum wage earners to lose their jobs while the remaining will get a raise and a doubling of their workload. Small businesses (which pay minimum wage) simply cannot absorb a 25% wage hike. Unless we’re all willing to pay 25% more for everything we purchase at minimum wage-paying stores, restaurants, etc….

  73. Well said, Briggs.

  74. Healthy debate…

  75. So ur telling me , Quan and city of Oakland have been playing dumb and actually have a super secret plan to keep the raiders…well I beieve it when I see it

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.