Davis clarifies stadium wish list through Papa

Greg Papa had a lengthy conversation with Mark Davis after the owners meetings, during which Davis clarified what he wants out of Oakland. Papa related the discussion on The Wheelhouse earlier today (about 14 minutes into the recording). There are some different criteria and some flexibility shown by Davis, which could make the process easier if that pesky funding issue could be figured out. Davis’s wish list:

  • Davis could provide $200 million of his own (Raiders) money
  • $200 million would come from the NFL’s G-4 program.
  • Davis wants a stadium with a 60,000-seat capacity and would like a Super Bowl, which requires a 70,000-seat capacity.
  • Davis also said that he (or rather his mother) owns 51% of the team, and can retain controlling interest with only a 20% share. Davis will never give up controlling interest.
  • Davis has met/lunched with and likes Lew Wolff.
  • Davis continues to prefer that the old stadium be torn down and replaced with a new one. A lengthy lease with the A’s would interfere with those plans.
  • Papa hinted that the JPA could provide $100 million in public funding.
  • Davis would be comfortable with temporarily moving elsewhere for 2-3 years while a new stadium was being built.

So we have Davis’s 60,000, AECOM’s 50,000, and BayIG’s number, which may be 65,000 or more based on their optimism about the East Bay as a market. Someone’s going to have to put everyone on the same page. I’m at a loss as to who does that or how it gets done. Coliseum City is a complex project to put it mildly. So many different stakeholders make for more variables.

48 thoughts on “Davis clarifies stadium wish list through Papa

  1. Holy hell, he’s more delusional than I had even imagined.

  2. Although they won’t say it publicly for political reasons, I think the Raiders are satisfied with the status quo.

    There is a reason that we have never seen a firm stadium proposal from the Raiders. Unlike Wolff’s Cisco Field, we have never seen a fancy computer-generated stadium illustration released by Davis’ team (all of the Coliseum City football stadium illustrations to date have been commissioned by other parties).

    The Raiders probably turn a reasonable profit, and that is likely why they seem to have no sense of urgency regarding their stadium situation. Maybe the bean counters have figured out that there may be little benefit in taking out a massive loan (between private loans and the G-4 program) for marginal increases in revenue. And does anyone seriously believe that they can build a new NFL stadium for only $500 million?

    Contrast that with Wolff, who probably has shovel-ready blueprints for a site that he cannot access.

  3. One thing seems abundantly clear, If Mark Davis can get a CC deal done for his Raiders, it will force MLB to finally make a decision on the A’s getting their new ballpark. San Jose is the easiest and most logical solution. Before he leaves office, Selig should do the only right thing for both the A’s and MLB by recommending approval for the A’s to move to San Jose. Also, if Mark Davis has that good of a relationship with Wolff, he could delay stadium construction for a couple of years for the benefit of the A’s with their new ballpark plans.

  4. So it’s not $400 million, it’s $200 million plus fingers crossed that the NFL would chip in $200 million. We’re talking about a potential gap of $800 million gap here, with the city itself staring at $2 billion in unfunded pension liabilities (translation: Oakland has no money for stadiums). It really looks like Davis doesn’t want to read the writing on the wall: There is no money for a stadium in Oakland.

  5. Ok so he’s got $500 million locked up in his mind… never mind that $300 mil of that may be wishful thinking. Where’s the other $400-$500 million come from?

  6. Lets do some math here to make this interesting:

    Lets assume Davis sells 25% stake in his team as a round number. That means he still has controlling interest at 26%.

    According to Forbes the Raiders are worth 825M. Lets assume 1B in a new stadium in Oakland.


    Davis- 200M
    25% share sold: 250M (25% x 1B)
    JPA -100M
    Total: 750M

    The shortfall is somewhere around 150M assuming the stadium would cost 900M.

    That is a pretty big gap and I am not sure where that delta comes from.

    Perhaps Davis is able to sell the 25% for a higher number say 300M there is still 100M gap and who pays for cost overruns?

    This is sad we are at this point; no wonder Amy Trask left Davis….She saw this clearly years ago.

  7. I think its obvious that Oakland has no money to give to any of its pro sports teams. That is why the Warriors are leaving for SFO, and the A’s should leave for San Jose. The Raiders need to go back to L.A. pjk is right all along and now I have seen it too. OAKLAND SUCKS!!!

  8. @sid

    Is there a large enough Raiders fan base in the Bay Area where the 100M will come from ticket sales, seat licenses, parking, merchandise rights etc?…say over 10-125 years

    If the Raiders move to Santa Clara…I assume they would be on the hook for half the cost of the stadium…that may be a bit cheaper…but not much…than a new stadium in Oakland or LA.

    I assume the Raiders have been told that if they are willing to give up part of their stake in the team….a stadium would be built for them in LA. But no indication if that is what they want to do.

  9. @ sid

    Sorry…typo… 10-15 years. But for Oakland and the Raiders might as well be 125 years.

  10. Sid, you can’t sell based on future value, you have to sell on current value. So that 25% is only worth $200 million.

    • @dmoas – The Raiders wouldn’t sell based on Forbes’ figures. The NFL and an appraisal would determine the price for the stake Colony/HayaH is seeking. Chances are the full valuation would start at $1 billion.

      @Silver & Black – The Raiders would simply be tenants at Levi’s. That would limit their exposure, but also limit their revenue opportunities. For instance, the 49ers would probably get a huge chunk of concessions & parking.

  11. If we get to the end of 2014 and we can safely say the funding gap for the Raiders is in the neighborhood of $100 million, I’d actually feel pretty optimistic about the project for the Raiders. I think that could be overcome. But AECOM’s $1 billion estimate for 50,000 seats and the insistence that two new venues be built I’m not sure the gap will get that close.

    With only one venue and gap of around $100 million, the would be footprint of the second venue could be developed to produce the revenue necessary over the long term, which could help secure funds for the short term. It could be worked out.

    Also, I don’t think any NFL team, including the Raiders, would be sold for anything under a billion. That could (would?) affect the ownership stake sold to develop. But we’ll see. I just hope the JPA makes it clear to Colony/BayIG they have to keep at least one team if they get to purchase and develop the land. I sometimes worry Colony/BayIG are just waiting everyone out. If Oakland and AL-CO are going to develop the area regardless of sports (they should) why should Colony/BayIG be trusted to help keep the teams if they are going to be the developers of the area regardless? Their bottom line might be much better off without investing hundreds of millions in sports projects.

  12. @muppet: What are these hilariously low funding gaps you’re throwing around?

  13. ML, well sure. My point was simply that it wouldn’t be based on a perceived future value based on team having a new stadium. *IF* the team is currently valued at 825M, that would be the basis of any sale. Hell, for all we know the Raiders and a prospective buyer may see that current value at 1.5B, but the future stadium would have zero impact on that price.

  14. A big problem for the Davis Family is the Capital Gains and California Taxes that must be paid when the Raiders are sold and one day they will be (see the Sterling situation in the NBA), which is why they are trying to hold on to the Raiders. I am certainly no Attorney or Financial Planner, nor do I want to bring Politics into this, but I wonder if the possibility of a change in the Senate (Republican from Democrat) could see a lowering of the Capital Gains Taxes in exchange for something that Obama might be looking for (I know he has talked about building Roads and Bridges)? No matter what happens, there are a lot of questions that will be answered quite shortly that will have BOTH a Direct & Indirect effect on BOTH the Raiders & A’s including: 1: Do the Raiders stay? 2: Will Quan be reelected? 3: Control of Congress? 4: Who will be the next Baseball Commissioner? 5: The Court Case involving San Jose?
    Personally speaking I have long thought the logical solution is to give the Coliseum Site to Davis in return for the Raiders building a Privately Funded Stadium, taking on the Mount Davis Debt and staying for at least 30 years, with the A’s being allowed to go to San Jose. This is the one way that everyone (except the Giants) get something. I think when all is said and done, something like this will happen. The only question is what about the A’s? San Jose or out of the Bay Area?

  15. @ David Brown – I wanna answer some the apparent questions that you have raised here. Will the Raiders stay in Oakland??? NO – perhaps leaving for L.A. or Santa Clara if the 49ers have a say or NFL. Will Mayor Quan be reelected in Oakland??? NO – She’ll be probably remembered, like Mayor Lionel Wilson when the Raiders left for L.A. in 1982, as the mayor who lost ALL three pro teams in Oakland. Control of Congress??? NO – never will happen. Who will be the next Commissioner of baseball??? Either Larry Baer or Sandy Alderson. The Court case of San Jose??? If MLB has any sense, settle with the Giants and give San Jose the A’s.

    Like pjk once said, OAKLAND HAS NO MONEY!!!

  16. @ Silver and Black – I think Mark Davis WANTS to go to L.A. The money is there and the backing is there as well, unlike Oakland who has no clue what it wants.

  17. John Marx, I do not see anyone remembering Lionel Wilson in a good or bad way. As far as LA is concerned, it is interesting that teams like the Rams, Raiders and the Chargers are NOT using the threat of moving there in order to secure New Stadiums. Nor is the NFL using the threat of LA against Jean Quan and the Mayors of San Diego & St Louis, and finally I do not believe it is the “Difficulty In Building In California” Issue. See the Kings and Warriors as the latest examples of that, they are not going anywhere, they will still be playing in the State of California. I do think a big problem was (and still remains) the Coliseum Commission in LA (basically the JPA on steroids). That is WHY Houston got the Expansion Team instead of LA, and why it was so much trouble for USC to secure Title to the LA Coliseum. Maybe IF the Raiders, Rams & Chargers get New Buildings, and LA gets nothing, will People and Government wake up and make the changes necessary to bring the NFL back? Or maybe “Laid Back California Cool” attitudes in Sunny Southern California will prevent that? I strongly suspect that it will be the OAKLAND Raiders, not the Los Angeles Raiders in say 2020. My questions are: 1: Will LA have an NFL Team? 2: What about the A’s?

  18. For a zillion reasons, no NFL team is going to L.A. any time soon (and that includes the Raiders). And just for shitts and giggles, here’s some links to a couple of articles from L.A. politicians who feel the same way:



  19. Off topic comments deleted.

  20. @David Brown

    Eventually, an NFL team will end up in LA.

    What’s interesting is that the Rams owner Stan Kroenke is the only person to have taken any kind of “legitimate action” with the intention of moving to LA. (he purchased a a 60 acre piece of land which could hold an NFL stadium, although there are some issues with that site).

    Everyone else…with an intention or threat to move there… including the Chargers, the Raiders & even the Buffalo Bills are just talking hot air.

  21. Silver & Black, I agree with you that one day a team will end up in LA, it just will not be the Raiders, Chargers, Bills or even the Rams. The NFL is not stupid, they will put a team (or two) there when it is time for the next TV Contract. That was EXACTLY what the Big 10 did when they added Maryland and Rutgers. The reason for Rutgers (despite their awful Football & Basketball History), is so the Big Ten could get the Big Ten Network carriage on all of the local Cable Systems in the New York/New Jersey area, which is what happened last week. I have been hearing numbers of $45m for the existing Schools per year with the next TV Contract. I might guess an Expansion Team (Expansion $$$$$$$$ for the owners?) But if it is an existing Team, I could see the Jacksonville Jaguars as a real possibility for LA in the future.

  22. @David Brown: True, the NFL commissioner has ruled out an expansion team for LA though, however also said that Los Angeles could be getting a team or teams(s) soon. There’s complaints that LA fans wouldn’t be interested in a retread team like Jacksonville or Buffalo. However, that wouldn’t be a problem. A new LA team could do what other relocated NFL franchises have done – the Houston Oilers converted into the Tennessee Titans (a virtual expansion team with its own new team records and stats) – the Cleveland Browns became the Baltimore Ravens the same way.

    The Jacksonville owner owns a European soccer franchise – it’s suggested that Jacksonville would be the prime candidate for NFL expansion into Europe, Jacksonville’s owner could also easily choose LA though.

  23. The NFL will NEVER expand to Europe. And I seriously doubt they would expand beyond the current 32 teams. I agree that Jacksonville seems like a prime candidate for relocation. I’d say that the Raiders are the second most likely candidate for relocation.

  24. @SMG – why do you think that the NFL now schedules two games a year at London – in 2014, there were three NFL games played there, and there’s talk of playing a Superbowl there also. The NFL is definitely planning expansion to Europe, with London being the first candidate.

  25. @dmaos- That is negotiation 101, Davis will set the price high as a new stadium automatically increases everyone share in the team. Therefore why would Davis negotiate a piece at the Forbes value? No one would….

    @Silver and Black- The Rams will move back to LA barring Missouri pouring in 700M for renovations or a new stadium in St. Louis. To your point Stan Kroenke controls his own fate in LA. He has the land and he can easily privately finance a new stadium without having to “partner” with anyone like AEG or Roski. I for one believe the Rams are heading back to LA, they have some “old school” fans out there still and I think would do quite well at Hollywood Park and they can stay in the NFC West and travel far less for division games.

    @David Brown- Expansion will not work in LA, because it means re-alignment as right now the NFL has 8 divisions of 4 teams each. Adding two teams screws it up big time. Only way LA gets a team is through relocation and the Rams look like the target.

    Also, the Chargers would be hit hard if a team moved to LA and their owner has come out and said it publicly as a lot of their sponsors are from Orange County/LA.

    If the Rams get it done, look for the Chargers to jump and share with the Rams. The Chargers have a good fan base in LA as they have TV rights not the Raiders to the area.

  26. I take back my comment on the Chargers being hit hard if the Rams move to LA. That is just posturing by their owner and there are more than enough sponsors to go around.

    It is just more convenient for OC/LA people to head to Hollywood Park vs. San Diego.

  27. Duffer, the problem with London is it would do NOTHING for the next TV Contract, and I wonder how the attendance would do for eight games compared to only one? I note, that even Toronto and the Buffalo Bills have not been an attendance success.
    I happen to detest the idea of eliminating Records like they did in Baltimore. Why? I wonder would anyone want to see the erasing of Willie Mays numbers from when he played for the New York Giants? Or the Championships of the Philadelphia A’s? Or gulp, the Raiders Title in Los Angeles? I think the answer is obvious. One more point, I watched the end of Josh Beckett’s No-Hitter yesterday, and the LA Announcers broke down the All-Time Dodger No-Hitters and those thrown in LA (21 Total and 11 in LA), and there were no complaints about Brooklyn being included, so I have little doubt LA would accept the All-Time Records of the Jacksonville Jaguars or any other team.

  28. Aside from simply not being popular in Europe (the 1-2 games per year in London are novelties that don’t appeal to a wide fanbase like football does in the US), having a team/teams in Europe is like throwing a hand grenade into the gears of a clock in terms of scheduling. Not to mention there are massive issues with how payroll would work because of currency and taxation differences. It simply will not happen. Period. There are markets here without NFL teams that would be massively simpler to enter as well as having a much higher chance of commercial success.

  29. @David Brown, true, Jacksonville (or whatever franchise) won’t likely move to England soon. However starting 2019, or soon afterwards, it will likely occur. Concerning a virtual franchise team in Los Angeles, (the Raiders or San Diego wouldn’t be included in the mix, because both teams have fairly strong fan bases in LA) – the argument that LA fans would’t be interested in a retread (Buffalo, Jacksonville, etc.) franchise is a frequent objection. The virtual expansion franchise idea is a way to address it – it worked well with the Tennessee and Ravens franchises.

  30. I don’t understand at all on what you’re basing your claim of “likely after 2019”.

  31. @that’s what the NFL sources have claimed – in 2012 they said that Europe will be receiving an NFL franchise in 6-10 years.

  32. The NFL isn’t putting a team in London, regardless of the puff pieces that pop up every week there’s a game there. Even if you get creative enough to find ways around most of the logistical headaches of one team playing eight games on one continent and eight on another, there’s the issue of the playoffs – you can’t rig a playoff schedule to have an off week before or after going to London. Super Bowl won’t happen either. A London Super Bowl would be a hyped up version of the regular season games: a curiosity. The high spending, detached corporate crowd Super Bowls get now would look like Seattle on a Sunday night compared to neutral European fans who understandably aren’t going to be emotionally invested in a foreign championship being contested on their soil. As to why the NFL continues to pump up the idea of expansion/relocation/Super Bowls to London, it’s simple really. 1) it gives another stalking horse for lazy writers to throw out as a relocation candidate 2) it builds the idea of football as a global game, when it’s obviously the most isolated and non-international of any major American sports, and 3) it dangles the carrot for European fans that the league wants to keep paying to watch one shot regular season games. “You might just get a team or a Super Bowl if you support these games” makes for better marketing than “Of course we’re not putting a team a half a world a way, but come watch some Jags and Bucs games for the next 5 years anyway”

  33. Please provide citation of concrete facts. Passing statements that have in no way been worked towards or brought to the league as a whole don’t exactly constitute a formal plan.

  34. The real substance to this Davis story are in the percentages listed. The last know Davis family share was 47%, from about five years ago. If the story is right, it would seem to confirm the reports that Mark’s been looking to buy more of the team, although 4% isn’t a great deal, so maybe there was just a limited partner who wanted out and the family grabbed it. Also, the 20% is important – as of a few years ago, the managing partner had to own at least 30% (although that number could be as low as 10% if another 20% was owned by family and a succession plan was in place.) If the numbers quoted are true, the Davis family can sell 31% of the team and keep control, whereas under the old rules, and with their former stake in the team, they could only have spared 17%.

  35. @SMG it’s a topic on the sports talk shows, the NFL sources are not named specifically though.

  36. Whatever you say…

  37. @SMG – we’ll see. In this case, the NFL’s actions are talking larger than their words though. Three NFL games are scheduled over there in 2014, Four will be playing in 2015.

  38. “We’ll see”.

    EXACTLY. We don’t know, which is what you’ve claimed. I say the Raiders are going back to LA. That doesn’t make it true. It’s called conjecture.

  39. And with that, I’m done with this line of discussion. It’s become an exercise in futility.

  40. @SMG – have you been making too many trips to the local medicinal marijuana clinic? My comments were about a possible NFL expansion to Europe – and have nothing to do with a possible Raiders move to Los Angeles – arguing with you is indeed an exercise in futility.

  41. Nice start to the Tiger’s series. My brother was there. I was sitting on a beach in Sonoma, listening to a Giants game to get my updates. That’s the extent of A’s coverage up there.

    That John Miller guy, whatever his name is, he was cool, kept us up to speed. Read our scoreboard with his binoculars, even.

    Sonoma is pretty cool.

  42. The NFL will not expand in London unless they have at least two 4-team divisions (1 NFC and 1 AFC) ready to go.

    Only way it works is if teams travel out there for a 3 game road trip including a bye before the 3 week stretch to account for jet lag.

    On the reverse side teams from Europe would have to do the same thing when coming to the US to play.

    The schedule would have to expand not by games but by additional byes to account for the travel.

    By adding only 1 team in London it screws up the eight 4-team divisions the NFL enjoys now…..forget the travel.

    Same reasons London will not get a team is the same reason LA will not. It unbalances the conferences.

  43. *Same reasons London will not get EXPANSION teams is the same reason LA will not. It unbalances the conferences.

  44. Interesting quote on whether or not the raiders might join the ‘9ers at Levi’s….

    Asked if the Oakland Raiders, who play in the dilapidated O.co Coliseum and are seemingly always looking for a new stadium, will ever play at Levi’s — similar to how the Jets and Giants share MetLife Stadium — Marathe answered facetiously.

    “Uh … let’s see … in 2018, I believe we host the AFC West teams, so the Raiders will be coming,” he said.

  45. OT I know… but WTH is Ray Fosse? This other guy is driving me nuts!

  46. @DP: It’s Shooty Babitt. He was hired as a secondary TV color analyst. He’ll be doing a series or two each month for the rest of the season. He’s awkward, but I think he’ll be fine once he finds his groove. The A’s TV crew needs some new blood. It’s 2014 and Fosse still talks up A’s games as being “in beautiful HD.” I’ve been wanting Roxy Bernstein to get a shot at the play-by-play role to further mix things up.

  47. Thanks Briggs. I know people either love Fosse or can’t stand him. Personally, I really like him. Been listening to him for a LONG time.

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.