Raiders unlikely to do Chargers 10/6 home game swap, could reschedule to Sunday Night or Monday

Word came yesterday that the Raiders and Chargers were probably not going to accommodate the A’s and MLB by facilitating a swap of divisional home games. The current schedule has the Chargers visiting Oakland on Sunday, October 6. That’s an off day during the planned ALDS, but the schedule is still tight because of the time required to do the baseball-to-football-to-baseball conversion.


American League 2013 Postseason Schedule

Complicating matters is the still TBD seeding of the postseason. If the A’s clinch either the #1 or #2, they’ll open with two games at home (unlike last year) on October 4 & 5. If they get the #3 seed or win the wild card playoff, they’d get Games 3 & 4 at home on October 7 & 8. Until that’s determined, the Raiders and the Coliseum are in a tough spot because they don’t know when they’d have to build in the football seats or tear them back down for baseball.

Apparently the Raiders can opt to play the game the night of October 6, which would allow for some extra time to do the baseball-to-football switch (bet on a daytime A’s slot to help), or a move to October 7, which would work only if the A’s got the #1 or #2 seed. If the A’s clinched a lower seed they could do what was done last week, where a Sunday afternoon Raiders game was immediately followed by the conversion in time for a Monday night A’s game.

The Raiders have been earnest about wanting to sellout the entire season in the new, smaller capacity Coliseum, so they must feel that a swap could jeopardize sales. It would be even worse for the Chargers, who’d have to figure out how many remaining tickets would have to be sold to ensure that there isn’t a blackout for the moved up game. The Chargers are somewhat dependent on Raider fans invading the stadium to get the sellout.

There’s a little flexibility for the NFL, and even though they don’t have to grant any since MLB and the Orioles didn’t do the Ravens any favors for Week 1, it’s nice to see that the Raiders can make some changes to make the switch relatively painless. The condition of the field will be another story, as is always the case in September and October.

58 thoughts on “Raiders unlikely to do Chargers 10/6 home game swap, could reschedule to Sunday Night or Monday

  1. Great game, great season. We love our players and they love their fans.

    From the Trib:

    Next up for the A’s is the chance to nail down home field advantage for the first round of the playoffs. Oakland is likely to play Detroit in the first round. The A’s head into the final week of the season with two more wins than the Tigers after Detroit, the AL Central winner, lost to the White Sox, 6-3.

    The A’s magic number to clinch home field advantage against Detroit is four. If the two teams tie, the A’s own the tiebreaker advantage. The A’s finish on the road with the Angels and the Mariners, two sub-.500 teams, although the Angels are the only team to win a series from the A’s this month and are making a push to finish with a winning record. The Tigers also finish on the road with two sub-.500 teams, the Twins and the Marlins.

    The first round of the playoffs is due to start Friday, Oct. 4.

  2. What a mess. Thanks, Bud.

  3. Wait the Raiders aren’t going to do the A’s any favors… Color me shocked. Shocked I tell you!

  4. The Raiders and the A’s are most definitely on the same page, and that fact will ultimately lead to the benefit of both teams.

  5. As long as the Coliseum conversion team can complete the job in time for each team’s game, there isn’t an issue. If both the A’s and Raiders’ lease with the JPA is honored, this is just business as usual.

    No one is forcing the A’s or Raiders to play at the Coliseum. They are willingly signed their leases. Each team can complain as much as they want, but they knew the deal when each signed their current lease.

  6. @Briggs–I dont hear either the A’s or Raiders complaining about honoring their lease–both are saying they don’t want the situation to carry forward into the future and therefore are assessing whether to renew their leases. Bottom line what folks are pointing out is the frustration/embarassement towards MLB/bs that he doesn’t have a plan in place to resolve the current situation of sharing a ballpark with a football team.

  7. @GoA’s: I don’t get what you’re trying to say. Mark Davis went on the record to say that playing on a dirt infield is a travesty. That’s complaining. See the 8/15 article here for reference. I didn’t say anything about the teams complaining about their leases, rather the inconveniences of sharing the Coliseum, which they each were aware of when signing their current leases.

  8. @briggs- not sure what your point is- yes MD said its a travesty and it is- leases are up- he’s setting the stage for next steps- so I go back- what was the point of your original post other than to tell us the obvious.

  9. Paying in a multipurpose park is a travesty (coliseum last of the dinosaurs), no doubt and we all want to see that changed (especially where the A’s are concerned), but Briggs has a point (folks don’t take this the wrong way), but it does seem like both the A’s and Raiders (violins please) have played this up, as if a baseball and football team have never shared a stadium, for about two months out of the year.
    Don’t get me wrong, something needs to be done, and done yesterday (10-20 years ago with the A’s), but both of them are going to get as much mileage out of this (baseball-to-football-to-baseball conversion CONTROVERSEY!!), as they can, then they will come up with a workable solution, to avert deserter, as long as they both can continue to prove their point, that each needs a new venues.

  10. “ so I go back- what was the point of your original post other than to tell us the obvious.”

    @ GoA’s: I’m pointing out the unnecessary anxiety that’s created when teams go public with frustrations—the same frustrations each team accepted when they signed their leases. As you reminded us, the A’s and Raiders are working towards new leases that might conflict with one another. While each team has their frustrations with the Coliseum, no forced them to play there. Both the NFL and MLB choose to play there. That’s the operative word: choose. While an NFL game will likely disrupt the playing field for the ALDS, MLB is choosing that option. If you think my comment is pointless, that’s fine. If you have a counter-point, shoot away.

  11. …Both the NFL and MLB have chosen to put franchises there but I suspect both leagues are reconsidering their choices. How long can they keep teams in an obsolete, deteriorating stadium with no plans ironed out and no money put forth for replacement facilities? It’s kind of sad to look at old videos of NFL and MLB games from the 70s, done at stadiums such as Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh, and realize the A’s are the only MLB team still playing in a multipurpose stadium built in that era. Why? Because as I’ve said, Oakland can’t afford to replace the stadium.

  12. I just don’t see how the A’s can sign a lease, before the Raiders have figured out what they will be doing. Last time around both teams extended their leases about a year before they were actually up. Both teams are well past that mark this time. The way I see it is (1) If Raiders move to Santa Clara or L.A., the A’s will have the Coliseum to themselves and perhaps get their 5 year lease, the team has requested. (2)If Oakland builds the Raiders a brand new stadium adjacent to the Coliseum, then both will share for a couple of years, until the Raiders move to new digs and the Coliseum is imploded.
    (3) If Oakland renovates the Coliseum on the current site then, depending on when construction begins, both may have one more year at the Coliseum,or if the renovation starts immediately, the A’s are homeless next season, while the Raiders play at Berkeley or Santa Clara for a few seasons. It’s probably safe to say that no.2 is out as Oakland does not have the funding for a brand new stadium. The A’s need a new lease much sooner than the Raiders. It sucks that so much hinges on the Raiders situation.

  13. Woot! Our magic number for second seed in the ALDS is down to 2! And we’re one game behind Boston Sucks for the best record in the entire MLB!

    So all this stadium conflict stuff shouldn’t be a major problem. Barring something stupid, it’s just one game and affect only the Raiders, not the A’s.

    A’s at home Fri 4 & Sat 5. Raiders at home on the Sun 6 or Mon 7, who cares. A’s back in town on Thur 10 (if necessary).

    Sat 12 – Sun 20. Raiders on the road on Sun 13, bye week on Sun 20. No conflict.

    A’s have home field advantage. Games on Wed 23 Thur 24 Wed 30 Thur 31 (last 2 if necessary). Raiders at home on Sun 27. Easy change-over (if necessary).

    So they flip the field once and it’s pretty much smooth sailing from there. Stop being so grumpy. You’re missing a good game over here!

  14. @freddy
    Your correct freddy the time line plays out almost without a hitch, we are making too big a deal of the scheduling, and I believe the Raiders, and A’s will pound their collective chest about it, because with the A’s being in the post season, and the Raiders at the begging of another football season, it gives both teams the best stage they could have to beat the point home that each needs a new home. Both teams would argue this, for the larger point. Imagine for a moment its 2016, and the Raiders are begging there last season at the, as a new stadium being erected right next door to the old girl, or they have finely reached an agreement with Oakland on renovating/partial reconstruct of the current coliseum, and they will be playing with the 49ers in South Bay while the work gets done, at the same time the A’s have reached an agreement with San Jose (Giants droop their territorial claim), or HT works out ( I know it’s hard to believe), and they need one more seasons at the coliseum , point is both the Raiders, and the A’s have resolved there venue problems, do you really think this hole scheduling thing is going to be an issue in that case, well of course not, as ridicules as the situation is (and should not be allowed to continue ), the least of my concerns regarding it is a scheduling snafu.

  15. I’m not sure why the Raiders should be the ones to move, as their schedule has been set since April. Seems like the ALDS could be made to work around the Raiders. If MLB can’t explain that to the TV networks, too bad for them.

  16. The A’s are not the only team with this issue either. Supposedly the Orioles and Ravens can’t play at the same time because there isn’t enough parking for both games (I would imagine that some other cities like Philly, Cincinnati, Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, St. Louis, KC, etc. may have similar problems, although they might just be a “let the fans deal with it” attitude). Are the Ravens going to have to move their October 13 game if the O’s make the ALCS?

  17. / / I guess the O’s would be the wild card and not be home for that day, but what if they were the #1 seed?

  18. The 9/15 Raider game followed by the 9/16 A’s game didn’t interfere with each game’s start time. An Aug 2011 KQED article said that 16 hours was their quickest football to baseball conversion. In a worst case scenario, the conversion team will have at least that much time for a 10/6 to 10/7 conversion.

    I’d love to see alternate designs for Mount Davis and what those projected conversion times where. I can’t image Mt. Davis being any worse for baseball than the one we got.

  19. I read that, if they’d had until the ’97 football season to build Mount Davis, they could have put in a fully retractable seating section in the first deck (presumably seats that roll back like a major-league version of high school gym seats such as they have at the Metrodome). However, because the whole structure had to be built in a spring and a summer, they had to put in seats that need to be craned in, costing untold millions over the life of the section (and that life will probably, at best, be much shorter than would’ve been predicted at the time of the deal to move the Raiders back. Who would have thought that the Coliseum would be considered obsolete within 5-10 years of the renovation?).

  20. You’d think that with the high-school-gym conversion that they could have pushed in the upper rows of the first deck rather than the lower rows, so it would enable the bleachers to be lower and thus less obstructed than they are now (instead of taking out the first 26 rows you could take out 1-10 and 31-46, leaving better seats for baseball).

  21. That’s at least interesting. I keep looking and saying “that’s not so bad” and then I see something bad.

    But I thought Jack Murphy was OK after the second set of Super Bowl renovations as well (it just made right field more or less match the rest of the place, and was better than the Coliseum or Candlestick) so what do I know?

  22. This Super Bowl proposal Coliseum renovation looks like they added about 10 rows to the 300 deck. Currently, the top deck has 17 rows per section. If the Coliseum had 27-30 rows per section in the upper deck… well, then they’d need a lot more tarp.

  23. Brian, having been to all 3 California NFL stadiums (all of which are the oldest in the league without major facelifts), Qualcomm isn’t that bad. It has better sight lines than either Bay Area stadium, it’s been kept up better overall despite its own issues, and it has better people flow IMO in part due to having multiple concourses for the first deck and dedicated concourses for the second and third unlike the Coliseum.

    That said if it has one failing it is the expansion they did in the late 90’s for the Super Bowl. They went to all that trouble for one lousy bowl game and ended up with a 70,000+ stadium that is about 8,000 seats too big for the market. Which unsurpringly is about how many seats short the Chargers are when they’re blacked out. They had hit the sweet spot at Jack Murphy before the expansion with a capacity close to the current tarpless Coliseum and should have kept it that way.

  24. OT: I’ve been pondering Xoot’s point about LW/JF waiting out the CBA, because there is some merit to that theory. Question than becomes, who made that specific clause in the present CBA exempting the A’s from MLB welfare if they get a stadium? Couldn’t of been MLBPA or MLB, as it serves neither at the negotiations (MLBPA wouldn’t want the A’s to spend less because they don’t have revenue and MLB wouldn’t put in the provision only for the A’s, unless they were allowed to SJ, which they weren’t). Could of it been something from the Gnats management? If so, why would the A’s agree to it, especially if they’re forbidden to explore other territories beyond their own? Something doesn’t make sense here….

  25. @Dan
    I love the area around Qualcomm really nice place, but you fill like you’re viewing a game, from on top of a cliff. I would much rather view a game at the Coliseum, then Candlestick, or Qualcomm. Candlesticks parking alone are enough, to cannel out whatever positives can be derived from the game experience.
    You know Anon, I have been wondering the same thing, for some time myself. If the A’s continue to be stuck at the Coliseum, by the time the CBA expires, then I would imagine they would move forward with the same language in the next one, but what does it all mean. I am sure if Wolff ever built in Oakland he would get assurances from MLB, that the A’s would continue to receive an exception concerning revenue sharing, if and when it’s ever needed. How can MLB define the A’s as large market, when they confine them to only two of the nine Bay Area counties?
    If Lew does not get what he really wants, which of course is San Jose, he will get MLB to give him a really nice settlement package, to stay in Oakland which will include this stipulation, in any CBA going forward, that the A’s remain as a potatal recipient of revenue sharing.
    The CBA, also makes me wonder about the potential of Fremont, I understand why Wolff would be glad to take San Jose if it meant giving up revenue sharing, and perhaps other assurances from MLB, if he stayed in Oakland, I am not so sure if that would be the case with Fremont.
    Well as always lets go Oakland, San Jose, Fremont A’s

  26. Always good to go OT, especially when it’s really ON TOPIC as it concerns a new A’s ballpark.
    Just my opinion of course, but IF somehow Wolff was forced to stay in Alameda/CoCo they would still be eligible for revenue sharing; wouldn’t matter if the ballpark was in Oakland, Fremont or Concord. Of course, playing in Fremont would be nearly equivalent of playing in downtown SJ as it relates to tapping Silicon Valley wealth; would still be eligible but probably won’t need it.
    So if the CBA is the true culprit holding up Wolff, why would SJ file a lawsuit. I’m sure Wolff would keep SJ pols abreast of his intentions and workings of MLB. If in fact (gulp!) Xoot is right about this, then a whole lot of stuff wouldn’t make sense now..

  27. One would think that it would serve MLB’s interests to have fewer franchises as revenue sharing recipients. By allowing the A’s to move to San Jose, the A’s will automatically have equal footing with the Giants within the Bay Area market, and thus no longer will be considered as a revenue sharing recipient small market franchise.

    Since each of the franchises in MLB retain their own individual local broadcasting revenues, the disparity in these revenue streams between the large and small market franchises has gotten wider and wider, especially in more recent years. Unfortunately, giving revenue sharing handouts to small market MLB franchises does not come close to narrowing the revenue disparity problem within MLB. At least by allowing the A’s to move to San Jose, MLB will have one less franchise on the revenue sharing dependent list.

  28. “some merit”! Now that’s high praise coming from you guys. 😉

    I think I heard Lew Wolff, during one of the spate of recent interviews he has given, refer to the A’s as a “small market team.” Maybe it was the interviewer who used that term. In any event, as a matter of fact, that characterizaion sounds right to me. It certainly makes no sense to divide the Bay Area territorially but to treat it as one huge undivided market economically. The mlb constitution is not in sync with the revenue-sharing scheme in the CBA. How will mlb reconcile all of it? Who knows. There’s a lot going on behind the scenes that’ll never get disclosed–unless, perhaps, San Jose survives the pending motion to dismiss and digs into discovery. (“Mr. Wolff, is this document, Exhibit 25, a print-out of the 2010 email message from Bud Selig that you’ve just described, in which Mr. Selig set forth the so-called ‘San Jose agreement in principle’ between the A’s, the Giants and the other mlb owners?”) But does anyone think mlb will let that happen? I don’t.

  29. bs on the Coli–its a pit…goes on to say he’s had a committee looking at situation for 2-3 years–been over 4 bud–claims situation will be resolved before he leaves—not sure if he meant leaves the commish job or leaves this earth–me thinks the later–

  30. So Xoot, in your opinion: IF such an exhibit/document existed, why would SJ file a lawsuit?
    Prior to June so much appeared to be pointing in SJ’s favor. And MLB wouldn’t hold up Wolff with 4 years of “study” just to say you’ve got to remain in Alameda/CoCo. I’m sure behind closed doors Wolff has told Reed/Liccardo what going on within MLB, even sharing “secret” documents and information. Yet they still filed a lawsuit…

  31. @tony d–my theory is that the kings ransom to buy TR to SCC doesn’t make economic sense for the A’s to move from their defined territory. Two ways to approach this–lawsuit that forces mlb hand and requires a more equitable settlement to avoid discovery or in the event that fails, A’s stay in their currently defined territory (not necessarily Oakland), change CBA to identify them as a small market team forever allowing them to get $40 or so million a year in revenue sharing. A third factor that has come into play now is that they may be homeless if Oakland moves forward with Raiders—which means they would have to play at ATT until the ballpark issue is figured out—would love to celebrate an A’s WS win on the gints home field 🙂 anyway–world according to me–

  32. @Tony D.
    Yeah man, I fill sort of stupid if Lew was to build in Fremont, he would be within the two county (Alameda/CC.), territory that the A’s currently have the right to build in, keep the security of revenue sharing, if ever needed, be in (or near enough to), silicon valley, and (my personal favorite), not have to pay the Giants a dime.
    I for one have given you high praise, on more than on occasion (-:
    It makes sense on the surface, but I am not so sure how much it matters to MLB, if they have to help say 9 teams, and the A’s become finically in depended, or simply drow even, the money that’s needed to support the other 8 remains (not quite sure), remains the same. I think the only difference would be one less team pulling from that pot. There will always be big markets, that have to support small markets, the NFL, and NBA, and I believe the NHL already understand this, MLB is coming to that conclusion, there just being a little stubborn about it.
    I really think you’re on to something there.

  33. @GoA’s,
    Pretty good theory. Thanks. (BTW, haven’t watched any America’s Cup till now…WOW!)

  34. @GoA’s–I also agree that you’re on to something. The lawsuit could be an effort to exert leverage in the bargaining–which would mean that the monetary payoff numbers in the mythical agreement in principle either weren’t specified and are still being negotiated, or perhaps were to be set by some third party evaluator, and the A’s didn’t like the result, or, . . . again, who knows?

    @Lakeshore–I appreciate the welcome you and others offer here. Many A’s sites would simply banish a Giants fan. Can’t learn a damn thing with a closed mind, and you guys definitely are not closed-minded.

  35. I have always thought that the fremont proposal was an attempt to gain leverage with the gints–look–we can build in our territory, have better access to SV than you do, and we dont have to pay you a dime (and we can still call ourselves San Jose A’s). Or you could allow us to go all the way to SJ for some reasonable amount of money (Roger Noll had estimated TR value at $30M back then). I know others don’t believe it but I for one think that Fremont would go back on table if things don’t work out in SJ–lets be honest–if you owned the A’s and given the choice would you pick Fremont or the parking lot of the Coli assuming SJ is off the table? HT in my mind is too cost prohibitive and will never happen-

  36. @GoA’s,
    Agree with you 100%. FWIW, Wolff wouldn’t necessarily have to own a plot of land to build a ballpark on it (see land lease).

  37. @GoA’s
    I agree with you, if the A’s don’t get San Jose, I believe it is right back to Fremont. The Only way I could see it working in Oakland, is well it would first of all have to be true that MLB likes the HT site (who knows if that’s true or not), but if they really want the A’s in a downtown area (San Jose or Oakland), I could see them trying to convince Lew to build there (HT), but of course they would have to sweeten the pot, with many more finical assurances to Lew, I don’t think MLB is willing to do that much about it, so it probably won’t happen, and my dream of the A’s staying in Oakland will be over, but my secondary deem is the San Jose A’s, or San Jose A’s @Fremont, or Silicon Valley A’s @Fremont, let’s just get it done.

  38. So Selig thinks the Coli is a “pit.” Great; now, if only he’d do something about it. Four years of “study” isn’t enough because its $&@#% “complicated”? The A’s want to move but the Giants don’t want them two? WTF!? You know, I respect the man for what he’s trying to accomplish, but its times like this that I wish Wolff were more like Al Davis. Mr. Davis (RIP) would have never allowed this bull shit to linger this long and would’ve probably had a team in SJ in a heartbeat. Vent for today…

  39. Interesting theories, but it still doesn’t make sense to add this A’s stadium situation to the CBA. The key is to find out who stipulated it. If it was the Gnats, well we all know they’re greedy, conniving bastards, so who cares. If it is LW/JF themselves, maybe the did it to help influence the rest of MLB? If it was BS, was he doing this as a way to setup a move to SJ for LW?

  40. @Anon Yeah man I here you, thats the key, who set it up?, who pushed for it? We may never know. @Tony D. I think Lew may just go big Al on someones ass after a little more time

  41. Interesting anon. Today must be vent Wednesday. You know, having been on this site since 2005 and perhaps the biggest San Jose proponent of them all, I sometimes wish Wolff would end all this drama and frustration amongst all of us and state the following:

    “Today I announce I will cease attempting to relocate the A’s to San Jose proper and instead remain in our designated territory and build at Fremont/Warm Springs. Our partners across the Bay have been completely unwilling to work with us in our endeavor to build a privately financed ballpark in the Bay Area and remain intent on keeping the city of San Jose hostage with their ridiculous territorial claim. The city of San Jose has acted admirably over the past four years in their attempt at becoming a Major League city and I thank them dearly for their efforts. However, our team and fans deserve a new ballpark sooner rather than later and Fremont represents the only viable option remaining for privately financing a new facility in our current designated territory. As a commenter stated so eloquently over at the new A’s ballpark blog, let’s just get it done!”

  42. Stick a fork in Fremont. It’s done

  43. @Tony D. Love you for that one.

  44. @pjk come on pjk most of us think Fremont can be done.

  45. Where in Fremont? Hasn’t Wolff sold off the Fremont property? And the land directly south of the old Nummi plant is being developed. That leaves the Warm Springs site, the mere consideration of which spontaneously brought out 700 protestors a night and the formation of an active NIMBY group.

  46. @pjk,
    FWIW, there are more than 700 folks who live in Fremont, and packed town hall meetings are almost never representative of the greater populace. As I stated long ago, former tax preparer lived across 680 in Mission San Jose and was all for a ballpark; felt it would be economically good for Fremont. He could not at the time understand what all the negative fuss was about. If it ever came down to it, I’m sure there are a lot more like him. Lastly, Wolff doesn’t have to own the land to build on it (again see land lease).

  47. The Warm Springs folks made it very clear they are not going to stand for a ballpark. Unfortunate, since it would be a wonderful idea to put it right next to the new BART stop. But it’s not going to happen. Think Wolff wants to deal with rapid-fire lawsuits from the neighbors if he tries to go to Warm Springs? I don’t think so. Remember the Fremont Citizens Network proclaiming a ballpark would bring “crime and chaos” to Fremont? Complete, utter nonsense but that’s what Wolff and MLB would be up against. Fremont is dead.

  48. @pjk Well there are issues to get past, thats for sure. Do we know who Lew sold the land to? I think Tony D. said somthing about Lew may still be able to build on the land even though he sold it. I may be incorrect about that, but its true that you dont have to own land to build on it.

  49. Tony, no one cares about the silent majority. If they’re not vocal one way or the other, they’re seen as not caring either way. In that case, those that are vocal stand out. Fremont’s done. Not going to happen.

  50. @Tony D. Thanks you brought up that point again, as I was writing

  51. Bud Selig in his fantasy world thinks MLB holds all the cards – all it needs to do is even think about moving a city’s precious team and a new ballpark will be coming shortly, courtesy of local taxpayers. He doesn’t quite comprehend a place like Oakland, which has been proud to do nothing for its winning ball team, or folks in Fremont who will fight tooth and nail any attempt to locate an MLB team there. Remember when he tried to prod Fremont to act faster by sending Lew Wolff a letter telling him to consider other places if Fremont didn’t start moving toward approval? That really got Fremont shaking in its boots, didn’t it?

  52. I know it wont be easy, but Fremont seems like the best place if they cant get SJ

  53. @pjk So do you fill that its SJ, or out of the Bay Area?

  54. …As long as Oakland maintains the stance that it’s not going to pay for a ballpark, there will be no new ballpark there. Should that ever change – highly unlikely – then Oakland can keep the A’s. Given the current situation, it’s San Jose or bust.

  55. I think the Raiders should play a morning game and then A’s should play an evening game.

  56. I feel like the chargers raiders game should remain on CBS despite the late start
    NFL network can air it but with the CBS broadcast

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.