Raiders withhold Coliseum rent as leverage play vs. Oakland

Mark Davis doesn’t have a ton of cards to play against Oakland, other than the usual “I’ll take my team elsewhere” card, which has half-played by entertaining talks with LA and San Antonio. He pulled one out this week, refusing to play the $400,000 rent bill on the Coliseum for the 2014 season. We covered the lease terms in November 2013, when the last Raiders lease deal was made.

According to Matthew Artz, the Raiders are paying rent on their Alameda training facility, which makes withholding rent a rather petty move. What kinds of concessions could get from Oakland/Alameda County at this point? They’re certainly not going to sign over development rights to the Coliseum over a measly $400k. Though somehow Davis has been depicted as a “more willing partner” for Oakland than Lew Wolff, his actions say differently: meetings in LA/SA, repeatedly talking about how he’s doing his best while not creating his own plan until very recently.

It would be one thing if Davis were angling to move to LA for the 2015 season. The NFL has put the kibosh on such a move for 2015, so what reason would Davis hold out? The answer probably lies in the current lease. Besides the rent for the Coliseum and training facility, there’s also the matter of the parking revenue split between the JPA and the Raiders. At the moment that’s a 50/50 deal, with regular parking prices capped at $35 per car, per game. The opening of Levi’s Stadium has bumped the going rate to $50, so Davis may be eager to up the charge, a move that’s accounted for in the current lease. Even if that were the case, it can’t make much of a difference:

  • $15 hike * 10,000 parking spaces * 10 games = $1.5 million, split 50/50

The Raiders would net less than $750,000 after the City collects its parking tax. It’s truly a piddly amount of money for a pro football team.

If it’s something else, like a cut of concessions revenue, Davis should’ve acted before allowing Wolff to take it off the table for upcoming years. He’ll get a chance to sell ads on the new scoreboards without having to spend a dime on the project. It’s a head scratcher why Davis would do this.

Then again, maybe this is all a bluff to see how the reciprocal and related parties act. Would Oakland and Alameda County start getting ugly with Davis the same way they did with Wolff last year? Would Davis try to see what the NFL might do to back him (or not)? Davis has already said he doesn’t want to have the Raiders play in Santa Clara, and that’s the obvious local Plan B for Roger Goodell if negotiations got tense. He won’t be able to use this issue to force an LA move because that doesn’t fit into the league’s plans. If Davis is trying to score points in order to get a premier spot in LA, it’s an odd way of doing it.

I doubt that this discord will turn into anything protracted. The A’s-Oakland parking dispute turned into a $3 million issue because Wolff preferred to let it fester until the next lease negotiations, three years down the road. Davis doesn’t have time to let anything fester. The Raiders have to play somewhere in 2015, and preferably beyond. There are no indications that public officials want to to stick Davis with a locked-in multiyear lease, as they’ve been perfectly willing to go year-to-year for the time being as the larger Coliseum City deal is worked out.

Oakland, and especially the Coliseum, is a sort of economic paradox for both the Raiders and the A’s at the moment. Deals there are potentially the most frictionless, yet it can most realistically happen if one of them steps aside. Yet each team has its eye on more lucrative markets that they might consider worth the friction. If one of them “wins” Oakland, the other will get to go to the more lucrative alternative. The “winner” will have the challenge of remaking the Coliseum to benefit not only themselves, but also the City and nearby communities. Oakland as both prize and booby prize? Somehow it makes sense.

99 thoughts on “Raiders withhold Coliseum rent as leverage play vs. Oakland

  1. Davis meeting with LA/SA, Wolff (still) meeting with SJ: sounds like both can be categorized as “more willing partner”-s with Oakland (LOL!).

    BTW, Davis says he has “$500 million” to go towards a new stadium in Oakland. Assuming he’s telling the truth (?), wouldn’t it be much easier to use those funds to completely gut the current Coli, leaving a refurbished Mt. Davis intact? Sure would beat still having a $500 million gap for a completely new $1 billion stadium…

    • Totally agree on the Mt. Davis suggestion, Tony. That’s the most appropriate part of the Coliseum for the Raiders! It’s the rest of the configuration that doesn’t work for football.

  2. agreed keeping intact the mount davis part of the coliseum and completely rebuilding a new stadium integrated to it is the best and most logical idea. the mt davis part of the structure isn’t great but you could try to refurnish that too making feel more than what i’ve seen some compare it to which is an airport terminal.

    somebody posted this link a while ago showing what a “rebuilt” coliseum could look like.

    now who knows how it’d truly cost to make such a plan work but it’d definitely be cheaper than spending probably at least a billion dollar on any new football venue that would be built in oakland for the raiders.

    • Pretty cool pics! I know RM presented something similar awhile back re a rebuilt Coli around the current Mt. Davis (MD).

      Personally, I’d remove the top half of the current upper deck of MD (similar to US Cellular Field redo), construct a new western structure of similar height and add Seattle-style roofs over both.

      Including new end zone grandstands/seating, perhaps it could all be done in the neighborhood of $500 million. For sure makes more sense than completely new $1 billion stadium.

    • The facade (as a general feature) is a good idea. I wish the Niners would put some on the outside of Levi’s.

  3. Mark Davis knows all too well that his Raiders are stuck at the Coliseum for at least the next few seasons. This withholding of last season’s rent is being used as a negotiating ploy to get the best short-term lease renewal deal for his team.

  4. Funny thing is, the city of oakland could tell Davis to pound sand. He has zero leverage, and unlike MLB, I don’t think the NFL would play hardball with Oakland. He’s not going anywhere next year. We already know that. This doesn’t affect any future negotiations either, because we already know Davis has tried to get into the LA stadium market to no avail. Let’s be honest, Davis isn’t really negotiating with Oak on anything, because he’s waiting for someone to give him a stadium without doing anything. You really can’t negotiate that. Davis can’t tell oak to give him things or he will leave, because they can’t give him anything. Davis has no good options because he has no leverage and no money. Davis really is in a tough spot.

    • Davis has no money? So are suggesting he’s lying about the $500 million?

      • Meant “are you suggesting…”

      • Davis has the team. Which is only worth alot of money if he sells it. If he wants to sell more shares he can. I assume Davis is counting on the NFL for $200 mil. Where the other sum comes from is anyone’s guess. Also, I still don’t know how the estate works of and when his mom dies. Specifically the tax issue. Like I said, he’s in a tough spot.

    • Davis has already commented about $500 mil. could be applied towards a new stadium (likely more than that) – $200 mil. from the Raiders finances, $200 mil. from the NFL – $100 mil. likely for a naming rights deal.

  5. Oakland offers $0.00 for a new Raiders stadium; Davis turns up the heat by negotiating with LA and San Antonio; Oakland then makes a counter-offer of…$0.00. Can’t draw blood from a rock. Funny stuff.

    • @pjk

      I mentioned this before, but it seems worthy of mention again. As the old song state’s “Nothing from nothing, leaves nothing.”

  6. I say flaten the stadium and bring back the drive-in movies.

  7. Mark Davis absolutely has leverage here. Like it or not, if the NFL gets involved they will do what MLB did….Threaten to have the Raiders play in Santa Clara.

    Difference here is the 49ers would be more than willing to make some extra coin on the deal unlike the Giants who almost shit themselves.

    Davis has no lease, therefore he can do what he wants. To him Santa Clara is a nuclear option and he wants to put as much pressure as possible on the JPA, Oakland, etc….

    This is such a mess, Davis refuses to raise the gap himself the way Jed York did in Santa Clara or even try to hire people to do it.

    Davis will play in Oakland in 2015, lease or no, he knows the JPA would die if went to Santa Clara for next season.

    The NFL will monitor this and will get involved if nothing happens before the schedule comes out. Levi’s Stadium would need to plan accordingly if there are home games for a 2nd NFL team.

    Such BS, if MLB would only allows the A’s to explore SJ it would give them the leverage needed in Oakland…..

    • The A’s and Raiders situations are completely different.

      You’re forgetting that the NFL wants the Raiders in Santa Clara long term. The Raiders are the one’s who don’t want this. The Raiders rent would sky rocket. Raider fans would not have first dibs on tickets and the Raiders would have a problem selling out Levi’s.

      MLB doesn’t want the A’s at AT&T long term. That was just a way for MLB to tell Oakland that the A’s have short term options so you better play nice. If the NFL steps in, they’re probably going to tell the Raiders to move to Levi’s permanently which is arguably more leverage on the Raiders than on Oakland.

    • @Sid
      Yeah, good point. As you mentioned the relationship between the Raiders and 49er, is interlay different then the relationship between the A’s and Giants. (Always has been)
      That fact alone could be a huge determining factor, as to how all this plays out in the end.

    • @Sid
      Come to think of it, the differences in the two relationships have already played a huge role, to this point and both teams still need new venues.

    • @Slacker
      “The A’s and Raiders situations are completely different.”
      Yeah there are vast differences within each of their specific situations, but the fact that the Raiders relationship with the 49ers, is vastly different than that of the A’s and Giants, has had an impact on were we are at this moment, and has the potential to shape where we find ourselves in the future.

      • Yep. While I think it’s pretty clear where the Giants stand in regards to the A’s, honestly I don’t think the 49ers as an organization have a super strong stance one way or the other. They’re not doing anything to actively limit the Raiders options which definitely impacts the dynamics.

      • @ slacker,
        It’s amazing the level of cooperation between the Raiders/Niners, while the Giants continue to be such jerk offs towards the A’s. Niners moving 40 miles south of the Raiders? No problem! It’s not like all us South Bay Raiders fans have converted to Niners just because the teams in SC…

      • @Tony D – It’s shocking that a franchise owner would care about the best interests of the overall parent organization and it’s customers 🙂

      • Is that a joke Slacker? York has totally screwed the Niners from an on-the-field perspective.

      • @SMG – More a comment on the Giants than the 49ers.

        For whatever complaints 49er fans have about the Yorks, they’re at least not actively working to block a market from the NFL. They also haven’t actively tried to limit options in other sports for their fan base like what the Giants tried to do with the Warriors.

  8. Here’s how I’m calling it:
    – Raiders stand around holding their dicks (i.e. doing nothing as per usual) and play at Coliseum for 2015
    – Inglewood referendum passes in a few months and stadium breaks ground before end of year
    – Back room negotiations continue regarding game of musical chairs in LA until Super Bowl
    – Rams and Raiders both end up in LA, and Chargers get extra kickback from relocation fees

    • @SMG
      That makes sense. Davis has always said he doesn’t want to share, but If he can’t make his owns stadium happen in Oakland, and San Antonio isn’t willing to build it (almost exclusively with tax payer money), then what?
      Davis then must chose weather to share with the 49ers, or the Rams. (In LA) if you have to share you might as well share in LA, where your franchise will increase substantially in value.

      • “if you have to share you might as well share in LA, where your franchise will increase substantially in value.”

        Why does everyone keep assuming this? TV and merchandise revenue are all shared equally by NFL teams; gate revenue (except premium seats) are shared with the visiting team 60/40. The main income stream that is not shared is premium seat revenue. This might be incrementally higher in LA than some other markets, but any difference would be a small slice of an NFL team’s overall revenue pie.

        If you look at Forbes’ estimate of NFL franchise values and revenue, you’ll see both curves are surprisingly flat. See (The Cowboys are an outlier, since they have a special deal as a result of litigation that lets them keep a greater share of local revenues than other NFL teams.)

        Beyond the Cowboys, the difference between the top teams and bottom teams is not that much, mostly in the 1.5x – 2x range. And the differences are arguably more about the relevant teams’ stadium deals than market size. The teams at the very top are largely ones that mostly privately financed their own stadiums (e.g. New England, Washington, Jets, Giants, Eagles) and thus I understand either own their own stadiums or have very favorable lease terms.

        If being in LA really translated to a big jump in franchise value, there’d already be a team there. NFL owners are not altruists, and it’s not like there haven’t been any franchise moves. There’s not a team in LA right now because the NFL’s socialized economics makes the specific stadium deal much more important than overall market size.

        I just don’t see a big difference for the Raiders in being a tenant in LA vs. being a tenant in Santa Clara. If someone feels differently, I’d welcome a cogent explanation that gives due consideration to the socialized economics of the NFL.

      • Franchise value has become more and more based on perception. The Clippers just sold for ~$2 billion. If the historically afterthought NBA team in LA can fetch that sum, any NFL franchise in LA could get at least as much if not more.

      • I knew someone was going to say Clippers. It’s a completely false analogy. NBA teams keep their own local TV revenue, so they at least have a chance to strike a Dodgers-like TV contract that leverages the larger market size and justifies the purchase price over time. That possibility doesn’t exist in the NFL.

        You just aren’t going to see a buyer overpay for an NFL team on the same scale based on market size. Especially not for a team that doesn’t own its own stadium and thereby control the revenue streams that do stay local.

      • @bartleby- agree with your assessment- from my perspective the greatest value for the raiders franchise is where they are the sole tenant of a stadium v charging in either Santa Clara or LA. What I can’t figure out is why Mark D hasnt/isn’t doing all he can to make this happen in Oakland. Would have seemed he would have pushed really hard to takeover the Coli-

    • I still don’t think the NFL wants the Raiders in LA. They very well could end up there, but I think it would require Davis to sell off a controlling interest in the team.

      If you were the NFL would you trust Davis with even part of a market as important as LA?

      • @ Slacker
        I think you may be correct about that.

      • The NFL doesn’t need to trust him if he’s just a tag-along in LA. Everyone else is doing the heavy lifting, so there’s not really anything he can screw up down there.

      • @ SMG
        Good counter point, the NFL probably doesn’t want Davis in LA, but if the Rams owner does all the work, then there is nothing for Mark to screw up. It sure fills like Mark is waiting for whomever to make this happen for him.
        I wonder if it even matters to him who that is.

      • When Al tried to build at Hollywood Park in the mid-90s before coming back to Oakland, he was in the driver’s seat and screwed it up by refusing to share the stadium and backing out at the last minute. That’s why I think that as long as a stable force is leading the way, the NFL won’t have a problem with the Raiders in LA.

      • LA supports winners. The NFL TV contract limits games based on the local teams. With a crappy team in LA, the games still have to be broadcast in LA. Broadcasting a crappy team over a big time national game could hurt TV ratings, which is arguably the most important thing the NFL wants out of LA.

        Forget business sense, I’m not sure the NFL would trust Davis to build a winning team. In general, crappy owners produce crappy teams. Look at the difference in the Warriors since Chris Cohan left.

    • “Chargers get extra kickback from relocation fees”

      Why would the Chargers get anything extra in terms of relocation fees? They have no legal entitlement to it, and I don’t think even a very good moral argument for it.

      Putting teams in LA would mostly impact Charger TV viewership, which is equally shared by all 32 teams. While some fans come down to San Diego for games, any impact on overall Charger attendance would be nominal.

      • Because paying them off is more likely to soften their resistance (and ability to get other owners to vote with them) to the prospect of a Rams/Raiders move to LA. Aside from which the extra money might help with getting them their own new venue in SD.

      • I just don’t see it. For one thing, I don’t think the Chargers will resist very hard because in reality the impact on them will be minimal and their arguments weak. For another thing, I don’t think the NFL is going to want to set a precedent for paying off teams in connection with moves – not even to the same market – but to an adjacent market.

        If the Niners didn’t get a payoff when the Raiders moved back to Oakland, why in the world should the Chargers get a payoff if a team moves back to LA?

      • Good points.

  9. I can’t believe fools here are still talking about SJ as a potential home for the a’s!!!

    • Speaking of FOOLS… (welcome back Glenn D.!)

    • @ Glenn D
      As long as the A’s haven’t broke ground in Oakland which I hope they do, San Jose or anywhere outside the Bay Area for that matter (hope not), will remain an option.
      As I often say to my Oakland-Only friends, San Jose may be the only thing standing between the Bay Area and Montreal, Portland, San Antonio, Charrette, Mexico City, or wherever concerning the A’s, but unfortunately some would rather see the A’s in one of these places then San Jose.

    • @GlennD: are you a SC judge? (Let’s wait and see what the SCOTUS determines before making wishful thinking type comments)

      • If the Supreme Court agrees to take the case, then look for the A’s to get the go-ahead to explore San Jose, Giants be damned.

    • “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” Matthew, 5:22

  10. I still believe there’s enough land on the Coliseum property for the Raiders and the A’s to build something together however I always felt the Coliseum was better for the Raiders wall the athletics can play toward downtown either way it’s still a San Francisco Giants Bay Area and a possible Oakland Raiders football Bay Area so the Athletics need to make room

    • You really need to do a lot of reading on the subject.

      “a possible Oakland Raiders football Bay Area”
      No, it’s not even close.

    • Enough room for two stadiums, maybe, but not enough room left over for the ancillary development needed to pay for privately built stadiums.

      • And what about enough spaces for outdoor street level parking? Both Mark Davis and Lew Wolff have stated that they do not want garage parking, or very little of it at most.

    • @Louis: Also your belief that it’s a Giants bay area may be incorrect. Recall, back in ’92, when Lurie gave up on the bay area because of poor attendance at Candlestick, and San Jose voters rejecting a Giants plan to move here, so Lurie sold the Giants to the Tampa Bay group – at that time the A’s had outdrawn the giants 16 out of 25 years. The bay area, at that time, definitely was not owned by the Giants.

      Also, even after moving into ATT park, after a few consecutive losing seasons by the giants in 2007, 2008, etc. the teams’ attendance starting steeply dropping off. If the giants were to continue losing, their attendance would likely be near the A’s 25K average – the Giants as the permanent bay area favorite is not really accurate – that status can change very quickly.

      • It’s a fact that the Giants are the more commercially successful and more popular of the two Bay Area teams and have been for a long time at this point. Everyone here understands that, except you. It seems pretty clear that’s what he meant when he said “it’s a Giants Bay Area”. Ignoring all that does nothing to advance the A’s efforts to get a new home in the Bay Area.

        I’ll await your typical conspiracy theory level response and denial of facts on the basis that they upset you.

      • @SMG – typical spin from a Giants fan. The dominant team doesn’t have to claim that they are – it’s a know fact. For example, not being too familiar with the New York teams – however, it’s a given that the Yankees are the more successful franchise over the Mets, or the NY Giants more successful than the Jets – their fans don’t need to explain to other Jets or Mets fans that they are the favorites of the NY fanbase. SF Giants fans always need to validate (falsely) the giants success for whatever reason though.

        Also, If you are naive if you don’t believe the giants are a few losing seasons away from losing their temporary edge over the A’s. Once the A’s build a new ballpark, and continue with winning baseball, while the giants go through several sub .500 seasons – the A’s will prevail again and outdraw the Giants as they have done previously.

      • Good job proving my point. You came out and acted like a fool, exactly as predicted. You have no ability to operate on the plane of reasonable reality. The entire basis of your existence here seems to be you thinking that whining about the Giants stadium and attendance and marketing helps the A’s situation somehow. It doesn’t. Grow the fuck up and deal with the facts as they ARE, not the facts as you wish them to be.

      • SMG – typical giants fan – now using personal insults to protect your team. The Giants organization (along with some of their fans) are simply annoying. You are making up complete nonsense comments. Personally, I have no interest in the Giants, or obsess about them, if anything, the giants are a source of comic relief – believe what you want though – whatever floats your boat.

      • You continue to prove my point while completely and totally contradicting yourself.

  11. This whole situation is so screwed up that I would not be surprised if the Raiders ended up with a new stadium in St. Louis after the Rams are in LA…..(maybe St. Louis sees M. Davis as easier to negotiate with than Stan kronke).

    • Re: (maybe St. Louis sees M. Davis as easier to negotiate with than Stan kronke).
      Wow, I can’t see how any Davis (father or son), would be easier to negotiate with then just about anyone.

    • If the Rams go to LA, St. Louis won’t get another team for at least a few years, if ever. The NFL is not going to move one team out just to immediately move another team in.

      • yeah how long it did it take for cleveland to get the browns back again? 4 or 5 years and cleveland is a die hard football town while st louis is more known as a baseball town.

      • Exactly.

      • Actually, 4-5 years seems pretty quick when you consider how long it takes to put these things together. The amount of time it would take STL to get another team is probably roughly the same amount of time it would take them to buckle and approve and build a mostly-publicly-funded billion dollar SOTA stadium. This didn’t take very long the last time Cleveland and STL were in this situation.

  12. I heard on 740 a.m. Radio that the $400,000 will be settled when Oakland gets a new lease deal at the Coliseum

    also let me address that it is a San Francisco Giants Bay Area dominated market in 2015 until the Oakland athletics management start Winning on the field and start winning back more fans

  13. One cannot compare the relationship between the Giants and A’s within the Bay Area market to that of the Yankees and Mets within their respective New York market. The comparisons are as different as the letter A is the letter Z. One extremely important difference is the fact that unlike the ongoing contentious relationship between the Giants and A’s; both the Yankees and Mets organizations have great respect for one another, and would in no way attempt to hinder or undermine each others ability to be successful. As for the way the NY media covers its sports teams, the coverage is very balanced between its two MLB teams and its two NFL teams. This is especially true, despite the vast disparity in each teams’ respective on field performance over many years. However, when it comes to the NY media coverage of the NBA and NHL, the Knicks and Rangers respectively are treated as the media darlings. The Nets, Islanders, and Devils are covered as an afterthought. I think the reason for this disparity in media coverage is in the fact that the NY sports fan base favors both MLB and the NFL, and cares much less so about the NBA and NHL. Sadly, it appears that the Bay Area media is allowing themselves to do the bidding for the Giants in order for the favored team to maintain its dominance of the Bay Area MLB market. The New York media would never intentionally put themselves in such a situation.

    • Excellent llpec! You could add the LA and Chicago areas to NYC when it comes to cooperation between the MLB teams. It completely amazes that the Giants are being complete ass holes towards the A’s and MLB is allowing it. No need for it at all; it’s all in the name of the Giants ultra – greed and selfishness. Hopefully Manfred will have the balls that Selig was never able to grow…

      • no doubt the midgets def have the bay area media by the balls. look no further than what happened recently with the csnba “insider” baggarly who had that late season article that pissed off the players/front office in 2014? what happened? he’s now off the beat for csnba and they hire a new guy.

        not like this kind of crap hasn’t happened before. those bastards are ruthless going back to krueger and bruce being “fired” from sports phone 680 when they were deemed too critical. bruce firing was laughable considering they didn’t replace him with another media member but replaced him with flemming as the post game host who did their tv/radio broadcast.

        now that they’ve won 3 ws in the last 5 years makes them even more arrogant with what they can do with controlling and manipulating the media here locally.

      • True – that also applies to the fans, the Dodgers/Angels rivalry appears to be a friendly one. Conversely the Dodgers/Giants rivalry is very similar to the A’s/Giants – very rocky – the teams and many of the fans dislike each other also.

  14. it’s been posted before by so many here but it is indeed laughable the raiders can skate by the media and fans here in the bay area for talking to cities like san antonio or los angeles and you barely hear a peep of outrage.

    but the a’s want to move to sj and actually keep the a’s in the bay area and they’re looked upon as the biggest villains in bay area sports history.

    • @ letsgoas

      Not that it makes any sense, but Mark Davis has done a much better job of convincing people that it’s his preference to stay in Oakland (who knows if that’s actually true), while Wolff has made it painfully obvious that staying in Oakland is not his preference. He has also made some unfortunate comments about the city and fan base, that may not have been meant to come off as offensive, but they did to many. I’m not defending Davis or vilifying Wolff (I don’t fully trust either), but for us to say “Wolff only wants to move San Jose, and look at Davis”, while that’s true, it only looks at the situation in it’s simplest form.

      • yeah how about the tarps reaction too?

        a’s put up tarps on the 3rd deck/mt davis there’s outcry that the a’s ownership is screwing a’s fans over and will use that as a way to point to a reason to leave oakland.

        raiders do the same thing recently and did we hear the criticism from both the fans and media about why the raiders are taking away seats?

      • @letsgoas

        It probably wouldn’t have come off so bad, if Wolff would have not been so obvious about his displeasure of Oakland. (in many people’s eyes) I notice a lot of us like to use the 49ers move to the south bay as a parallel, to make the point that the Oakland-Only folks are overreacting, but there are several differences not only did the 49ers keep the name San Francisco (yes it matters), they made every attempt to stay in San Francisco (or made it appear so), only looking to the south bay as a last resort . Wolff may only be looking at the south bay as a last resort, but there are reasonable people that believe he arrived to such measures far before they were the last resort. And guess what? to some people (weather we think they should fill that way or not), it’s hurtful.

      • @letsgoas

        I’m not disagreeing with you for the most part, I’m giving you reasons why people fill the way they do. that’s a little more thoughtful then the usual “Wolff only wants San Jose, and Davis wants LA/San Antonio”, simplistic statements that we always seem come up with without, looking deeper. I not saying you have to agree with them (I usually don’t), but some of them have legitimate concerns and for us not to see that, we are being as shortsighted as them.

      • If any of our resident Wolff apologist would like to, you may proceed.

      • @Lakeshore/Neil: a few corrections: SF voters approved a new Niner’s stadium and development. When the Yorks took over, they blew off the agreement – and opted for Santa Clara. Also, Wolff does not have a problem with Oakland city or its fanbase – it’s dealing with Oakland officials. Judging by some of the recent JPA decisions (prior to the current Oakland administration)about the A’s, a new ballpark in Oakland, and the Coliseum lease – Wolff appears to be factual.

      • @ duffer

        No need for corrections, Wolff may be factually correct that doesn’t change anything I said. Also the fact that many Oakland-Only people, probably should hold the city and county more responsible then they do doesn’t change anything I said.

      • Am an damn near positive that SF residents never voted on a new stadium for the 49ers. I have looked through the ballots from 2006 and earlier and can’t find anything related to building a new football stadium in SF.

      • Actually, I see that 1997 plan now, but that wouldn’t have actually done much of anything to build the new stadium and it was effectively cancelled because of Eddie D’s legal problems.

      • yep the 97 stadium plan in terms of a design is so much better than the “suite tower” design in santa clara

        …hey looky there there’s some sort of roof on that 97 stadium plan, something many feel levi’s stadium needs now.

      • The only people who feel Levi’s needs a roof are people who have nothing better to do but whine. And being literally attached to a mall is incredibly dumb.

      • the candlestick mall idea was stupid but just like with the surrounding housing/commercial projects that any venue built at the coliseum site that mall at candlestick was supposedly needed to help finance the stadium.

        i still remember many jokes being made of what the candlestick project looked like when the images were released.

        do wonder if the levi’s stadium didn’t have the suite tower, something many feel reflects the sun’s heat off across the fans facing it, and they went to a simplistic design like the candlestick project whether or not the heat would be as big of an issue.

        i do think the niners will build some of sort of roof if the fans complaining continues about the sun/heat at levi’s stadium. i doubt some sort of roof will be built but maybe some sort of shading could be installed to somehow “protect” the the fans from the heat especially during the aug and sep.

      • another thing that the candlestick stadium project in 97 and any kind of “roof” that could be built at levi’s stadium would do is to trap the noise from the fans. that’s something the seahawks stadium does with that roof that was built to protect their fans from the weather, something that that candlestick 97 project probably was created to do too protecting the fans fro the cold damp weather at the candlestick location.

        though sea fans are loud that roof amplifies the noise even more. that’s something that levi’s stadium which some thought the suite tower could capture the fan noise and bounce it back onto the field really doesn’t do.

      • The tower doesn’t reflect the sun back to the other side. The tower is on the west side on the stadium and games are in the afternoon, meaning the sun is always ‘behind’ the tower during games.

    • First, it is questionable whether the Niners really exhausted all options to stay in SF. They had a ready site and the SF taxpayers had voted to contribute $100 million toward the cost (which was a higher percentage of the tab then than it would be now). Their stated reason for leaving (that parking would be dependent on a garage) was never terribly persuasive, even less so given that Levi’s Stadium relies on several large garages.

      Second, the situations of the A’s and Niners aren’t remotely comparable. The economics of their respective leagues are completely different.

      In the NFL, games are mostly on weekends, they are big events to which people don’t mind driving longer distances and attendance is a relatively small percentage of revenue. It just didn’t matter that much where in the Bay Area the Niners located their new stadium. It would have done fine in SF, it’ll do fine in Santa Clara. The same considerations apply to the Raiders.

      MLB is a totally different story. There are a lot more games, attendance (and especially premium seat revenue) is a much bigger piece of the revenue pie, most of the games are on weeknights during which there is rush hour traffic to contend with and games are not events in the same way they are in the NFL (meaning people won’t drive as far to get to a game).

      Wolff would have been crazy not to want to move further away from the competition and closer to a less sports-saturated are that happens to be the primary market for premium seating. No reasonable person would take this personally.

      • @bartleby

        As to weather the 49ers exhausted all options. I believe I mentioned they may not have. My point was that it appeared that they did. ( to many fans) As to the A’s and 49ers not being comparable, yes I agree it’s not comparable weather those reasons are justifiable or not in some people’s minds, was my point. The economic differences between MLB and the NFL have little baring on what I said, if what you said was in response to anything I said, if not I apologize.

      • It doesn’t really matter if the Niners exhausted all option in SF. The Newsom administration was a huge pain in the ass for them to work with, and location wise, neither alternative in SF was very good (parking lot at Candlestick or Hunter’s Point Naval Yard).

      • It also doesn’t really matter if the 49ers actually tired, because my point was that people, or fans “thought” they did.

      • I an a Raiders and SF Giants fan. I understand that football is king and a winning baseball team is icing on the cake… so right now if you are the athletics you might have to play ball with the Raiders and city of Oakland management regarding Coliseum city unless ownership would like to sell cough cough to a local owner Buyer

      • @Louis: Actually MLB commissioner Manfred has already commented that the A’s have other (local) options besides Oakland.

  15. Well now I want to talk about the developments with the Chargers, but I think this thread is probably too old for that. Another time perhaps.

    • @ SMG
      From the most recent news, it sounds like we will be talking about that quite a bit.

      • The City of Oakland the Raiders and the A’s don’t have a advantage over one or the’s best once warriors leave it will have extra room for development to share

      • Yeah, whatever you say Louis. And welcome to the blog…

      • @ Louis
        Even if Oakland was willing to tear down a perfectly good arena, to make more room for the Raiders and A’s to develop a few more acers, the Warriors are not expecting their San Francisco arena to open for another four to five years. (I think) That’s a long wait just to get started, but come to think of it if anything ever gets built at the current site it probably would take that long just to get started.

      • The Warriors SF Arena will be open by fall 2018 for the beginning of the ’18-’19 NBA season.

      • @ SMG


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 )

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.