Raiders, Chargers announce shared stadium plan in Carson – huge leverage/hedge play

The Chargers have expressed real frustration with the City of San Diego over the last several days. So announcing an LA stadium plan seems like the next logical step. But the Raiders? Say it ain’t so, Mark!?!?

It's like the 49ers' digs, only 400 miles south

It’s like the 49ers’ digs, only 400 miles south

The LA Times’ Sam Farmer has the scoop, describing the deal as a Plan B for both teams if they can’t work out “publicly financed” stadium deals in San Diego and Oakland, respectively. The teams quickly followed up with their own joint statement, explaining their plans with a surprising amount of detail – at least at this early stage. The statement:

  • We have both been working in our home markets to find a stadium solution for many years, so far unsuccessfully.
  • We remain committed to continuing to work in our home markets throughout 2015 to try to find publicly acceptable solutions to the long-term stadium issue.
  • We also both understand and respect the NFL’s relocation process, and we intend to adhere strictly to the relocation procedures that the League has set forth for Los Angeles.
  • In particular, we respect the right of the NFL’s owners to decide on all Los Angeles-related relocation issues and understand that any relocation application that is filed for Los Angeles must obtain the approval of three-fourths of the NFL’s owners.
  • Both teams have kept the NFL owners’ committee on Los Angeles, and the Commissioner, fully informed about our joint efforts.
  • We are pursuing this stadium option in Carson for one straightforward reason: If we cannot find a permanent solution in our home markets, we have no alternative but to preserve other options to guarantee the future economic viability of our franchises.
  • In short, for the remainder of 2015, we intend to move down two tracks simultaneously:
    • On track one, we will continue to work in our home markets to find permanent stadium solutions that are publicly acceptable.
    • On track two, we will work in Carson to preserve our options, and the future economic viability of our franchises, in the event that our efforts in our local markets fail.
  • Throughout this process we will respect the rules and procedures set forth by the League and defer completely to the ultimate decision of the NFL’s owners.

There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s start from the top. The first five bullets are meant to curry favor with the true audience for this statement, the NFL and its constituent team owners. It’s Dean Spanos and Mark Davis saying to the owners, Look, if you want someone who’s going to play by the rules, who won’t go rogue *cough*Kroenke*cough, it’s us. Stan Kroenke’s actions have taken much of the leverage over LA away from the NFL despite the league’s protestations, so the play here may be that if Kroenke gets stuck in litigation with the league, Spanos and Davis may benefit by getting the two LA slots. By the time the dust settles, the Chargers and Raiders will already be in LA and the Rams may be stuck in St. Louis. Most importantly, Farmer’s report revealed that the Chargers and Raiders bought the 168-acre plot of land in Carson on which the stadium would sit. That’s more than a mere verbal threat, that’s real action.

Kroenke, who didn’t buy land in Inglewood to sit on it, probably anticipated this, while having talks with Spanos and Davis about partnering up in The Wood. He claims to have a privately financed stadium there. Spanos & Davis claim to have a privately financed stadium in Carson. Let’s be clear, though, TWO privately financed stadia in LA don’t work. Even with a market the size of LA, that’s too many suites to sell, too many sponsorship commitments. Two stadia would compete with each other for Super Bowls, NCAA playoff games and any number of other big events, effectively cutting into each other’s profitability and feasibility. If we want to term this a race to LA, there are at most two teams that can win and one stadium plan that can win.

That’s the hedge part, or so we’re being led to believe. The leverage play from Spanos and Davis is that they’re still working on plans in their hometowns. Spanos has allowed team lawyer Mark Fabiani to be the bulldog, quickly getting into a war of words with San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer. Davis, who appeared to say the right things only a month ago when he said he wanted to pursue his own stadium plan, is now running back to Floyd Kephart and Coliseum City. If Davis wasn’t on board with CC before, what’s going to change now to make him sign on, besides being backed into a corner? Having LA as an option is a hedge against that very possibility. If you look at what’s been happening in both cities, there isn’t much progress. Neither city wants to to provide any public funding. Both cities’ greatest asset is land, which isn’t nearly as good as money. The Chargers are being aggressive, whereas the Raiders are waffling.

The Chargers’ attacks on San Diego can be considered the first blink after Kroenke’s plan was unveiled. This joint-stadium plan is the second blink. Who blinks next? San Diego and/or Oakland, in order to force everyone to the table? Or is it Kroenke, who may want to accelerate his plan in order to keep others from taking his leverage away? Or perhaps it’s Roger Goodell, who is in danger of losing control over the process?

The boldest move would come from either Faulconer or Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf. These cities don’t have to be pawns in the stadium extortion game, one that has gotten exponentially more complex because of the number of factors involved. They could call this bluff. The only winning move is not to play, right? It’s one thing for the teams have land. It’s another to actually assemble a shared stadium deal that works for both teams. While MetLife Stadium can be considered a success for the Giants and Jets financially, in use it’s a lifeless gray mess, terribly lacking in home field advantage and absent either team’s character or signature. Do Spanos and Davis really want to go down that path? The LA stadium renderings, done by Warriors’ SF arena firm Manica Architecture, look like Levi’s Stadium 2.0 – similar caste system bowl layout, red seats, and no façade. At least there’s a partial roof.

In the end, the promise of a huge valuation raise may prove too alluring to dismiss for these teams. It’s easy to give lip service in trying to build at home, but it may be the toughest challenge to stay. Even with things moving as fast as they are in 2015, it’s still too early to predict how this is all going to shake out. There are many, many moves left in this game. It’ll be fascinating to watch, that’s certain.

67 thoughts on “Raiders, Chargers announce shared stadium plan in Carson – huge leverage/hedge play

  1. Follow the money. Mark Davis can’t say no to LA.

  2. re: On track one, we will continue to work in our home markets to find permanent stadium solutions that are publicly acceptable. Does “publicly acceptable” mean the Raiders want public money? Today’s threat to move to LA could be the best thing to happen as far as a new A’s stadium in Oakland in years. Schaaf continues to say there will be no public funds for stadiums so the Raiders are probably going to have to follow through and go to LA.

    • So explain to us how this “development” is the best thing to happen for a new A’s ballpark in Oakland? (This ought to be good).

      BTW, (again) why the assumption that Davis is “running back” to Kephart? It would be interesting to find out the REAL reason that MD is now more amenable to Kephart; perhaps it’s not as negative as is now being portrayed on this site (?).

      Where’s Bartleby when you need him?

      Nice renderings BTW; never a bad time for a good stadium drawing..

      • Because it opens the door to the Raiders leaving, regardless of how you want to spin it. The A’s, Lew Wolff specifically, thinks he can make a baseball only development work. The Raiders are in the way of that. $500M is way less than $1B (some would argue half as much and they wouldn’t be wrong), despite your inability to acknowledge this. Developing the surrounding area will contribute a higher percentage of the revenue needed if the revenue needed is half as much. Do you disagree with that?

        Funny, the Raiders pushed to have their own development without Kephart and are now interested in his potential development at the same time they are publicly announcing a plan to build a stadium somewhere else. I don’t know if it’s running back to anyone, but it is a change in tact and in stark contrast to how you have predetermined that this will all play out (what, like 6 years ago?).

        It could still end up how you think, but I’d advise that you let facts dictate your opinion (all the facts, not just those convenient to your desire) rather than looking for facts to validate your opinion and ignoring those that don’t. It’s the best way to avoid being foolish.

      • Total guess, but I think Davis is “running back” to Kephart because he has to show the NFL he tried in Oakland to get any support in LA. The Chargers and Rams have tried in their respective cities but I don’t think the Raiders can make the same claim.

        Before the city opened up the ENA to allow the Raiders and A’s to make their own bids, Davis could say he was never given a chance to make his own bid.

        While I don’t think this was the intent, by opening up the ENA, in a way Oakland is calling Davis’ bluff. He can’t do anything on his own so what type of presentation is he going to put out there.

        By going back to Kephart he can at least say he tried.

    • Nice opinions all (even if I don’t agree with all of them). In the end it’s obvious that how we think (re what will eventually happen) is influenced by where we are on the sports ledger: love the A’s, hate the Raiders, want the A’s in SJ or Oak, etc. Emphasis on opinion; that is all…

      • Nope. That’s a cop out. I don’t hate the Raiders no matter how many times you say it.

      • I’ll take whatever heat there is on that one. I do hate the Raiders.

      • Well, I’m an Oakland Radiers fan, but have to conclude the team is not really viable in Oakland. Even if they were given a free stadium and started winning, they would have trouble selling the corporate suites and higher priced tickets.

  3. “By the time the dust settles, the Chargers and Raiders will already be in LA and the Rams may be stuck in St. Louis.”

    I doubt it considering Kroenke’s plan is much further along and is being done in partnership with a large developer and development. The Chargers can blow it out their ass. They have by far the least legitimate claim to LA, philosophically speaking.

    • Yeah, this is what I thought when I heard it last night on the radio… If I was a betting man, which I’m not, I’d lay money on this scenario- Chargers and Rams in LA at Hollywood Park, Raiders sold and playing somewhere not in Oakland (Probably Santa Clara). I’m not predicting this, or saying this is exactly how this all ends, that just seems most likely to me based on:

      1. Kroenke already being light years ahead of the Chargers or Raiders.
      2. The Chargers ramping up the public “we have 25% of our business from LA” protestations AND the fact that they can keep a large chunk of the other 75% being an hour and a half away.
      3. The Raiders not having the financial wherewithal to privately finance anything on their own.

  4. Wow, just when things were getting a little slow.

  5. Did not see this particular pairing coming…

  6. This is well down the list of concerns, but IF this scenario played out…can you imagine the media and sales fatigue if teams in the same division shared a stadium? They’d have 14 of 16 common opponents, including DEN and KC twice each. They would play the same four full AFC division teams and same four NFC division teams, though likely scheduled opposite teams at home…still, it’s a week each of ‘Raiders going to Chicago/Bears coming to meet Chargers’. Only the same-place AFC teams would differ. If both teams are in down cycles it would be HARD to sell all those common games. I think the NFL would consider swapping conferences with the Cardinals in order to avoid it.

    • yeah it’d be either sea or az who’d move to the afc west and probably the chargers moving to the nfc west.

      • If Saint Louis comes up with a stadium, I could see the Rams going to the AFC West — it would be a good rivalry with the KC Chiefs.

    • Mark, all correct. If you break it down another way. It doesn’t sound as bad…ie..(media reports of conference changes)…. The Raiders would be playing at the stadium for 9/16 games. The Chargers for 9/16 games. The Chiefs and Broncos would be playing at the stadium twice a year. The two “same place’ teams would each play once a year. Like you said when playing the rotating designated NFC division and the designated AFC division they could stagger it so that all 8 of those teams play at the stadium once a year. Although the formula probably calls for a rotation of the 2 Home and 2 Away teams ie…Packers/Bears one year, Lions/Vikings the next, then Packers/Lions etc.. So some years a team or two from these divisions may play at the stadium twice…but against different opponents, the Chargers and Raiders.
      That doesn’t sound bad to me. Certainly not a justification to move an old school AFL team to the NFC. Some of the magic of the NFL would be gone for me. I cringe at the thought. No AFL team has moved to the NFC. I was OK w/ Seattle moving to the NFC prior to this only because they played there during their first season in 1976. So some precedence.

  7. If the Raider/Chargers moved to LA, one of the teams would move to the NFC. It would be a shame to move either team to the NFC. Both teams are original AFL teams. I think the Chargers are going to end up with the Rams in Inglewood. I think the Chargers and Raiders are blowing smoke

  8. Wow, I never thought I’d see the day where mark davis partnered with another team after he turned down the 49ers in his own market.

    This shows Roger Goodell is a complete moron once again.

    Even if Kroenke didn’t play by the rules there is no way 3 teams can survive in LA.

    Oakland and San Diego are screwed, they have to drop their pants to keep the teams.

    Davis and Spanos are willing to privately split a stadium in LA but want a handout from their current cities? Wow…

    Goodell has a real mess on his hands. It’s like nothing has gone right on his watch.

    At this point no way this gets settled soon. I see lawsuits and more baffoonery from Goodell and Mark Davis.

    Unreal Spanos would cut a deal with Davis……the game just got dirty.

  9. NFC west – 49ers, Seahawks, LA Raiders, LA Rams
    AFC west – Arizona, KC, Denver, LA Chargers

    Is that how it would look? Split the two teams sharing Carson?

    Suite sales: I think it’s possible for this to pencil out financially for all 3 teams. There are 49er fans who fly to Seattle for the annual Seahawks game there…there might be enough West Coast wealth to make this work with 3 teams in LA. I could see a pocket of affluent Bay Area residents and companies having season tickets or suites in Carson and/or Inglewood. It won’t just an entertainment draw for the greater Los Angeles area, but also out-of-town fans throughout the West Coast. These new stadiums will be in use from 2018-2050ish…think about where transportation options are headed for the wealthy class in the next 15 years. A long drive to Carson isn’t a pain in the ass in a self-driven luxury car. As another alternative: the private, 8-person flight, all-you-can-fly-in-one-month-for-one-flat-rate market is also growing. More wealthy people are starting to use this option for weekend flights to LA, Tahoe, Phoenix, Las Vegas. For that class of people – the ones wealthy enough to buy suites or make six-figure down payments on annual renewable seats in the lower bowl – the physical distance between LA and their non-LA home is less daunting.

    Also, the Jets-Giants stadium is panned…but the second two-team NFL stadium that gets built will learn from those critiques. It’ll be better.

    • It will never happen, but I think the fans of St Louis, Oakland, and San Diego need to stop supporting these three teams and don’t go to any games until this stadium mess is resolved.

    • The only way there are three teams in LA is if the NFL can’t stop it. And they will pay the price in the end thanks to product oversaturation and frequent blackouts. The vast majority of the fan base has to be local, not tourists. There is no team that operates mainly in the manner you’re suggesting.

      • It seems the NFL will be able to stop a 3 team scenario, if not by being able to enforce its rules, by virtue of the fact that the Raiders at least are dependent on the NFL for financing any new venue.

      • Yep. What Bartleby said. The key to all of this, from the Raiders perspective, is where they can get a stadium without spending invisible money. The Rams, and to a lessor extent the Chargers, don’t have that consideration. Two of those owners have over a billion clams in net worth ($5.8B and $1.2B) that isn’t tied to the value of their teams, one has half of that and mostly because of the value of the team he inherited.

        I think eventually Davis sells (whether he retains some control or not) because he can’t get this done in Oakland without selling.

  10. This specific stadium sharing plan is a pipe dream, and the NFL would not allow such an arrangement, as it stands. What the Chargers fear most is that the Rams do get their Inglewood stadium project approved, and the NFL would then vote to allow both the Rams and Raiders to move to LA at this shared new facility. The Chargers know that their current San Diego market is geographically limited, and they do not want for two other NFL teams to be located only some 100 miles to the north. The Chargers are using this agreement with the Raiders in order to protect their territorial claims within the Southern California region.
    As for the Raiders, Mark Davis views this project as a win-win for his team. It is to be used both as leverage in his negotiations with Oakland for a new Coliseum; and if that doesn’t work out, the Raiders would have a workable plan to move to LA.

    • The NFL would absolutely allow the Carson stadium sharing arrangement. They’ve been targeting that site for years. They want two teams there.

      • While that may very well be true, I do see the NFL approving both the Rams and Chargers for the move to LA, and that is if two teams are ultimately selected for that market. I don’t believe the NFL would want three teams for the Southern California region. If the Chargers do get their new stadium in San Diego, the LA area would likely get only one team, most likely the Rams.

      • IIpec, you’re right they wouldn’t want 3 teams. But the Rams are going to end up being the odd man out. St. Louis is already bending over backward in a way that neither Oakland or San Diego will be willing to do… which is why the two California teams will be the ones LA bound.

      • Southern California had 3 teams for over a decade (1 in LA, 1 in Anaheim, 1 in SD). The market can handle it. It just can’t handle 3 teams in 1 city.

      • @Dan
        Except for the fact that STL does’t have the money and the state legislature is already making it pretty clear that they aren’t going to give it to them. Plus there are all sorts of problematic land issues involved in the proposed STL site.

      • SMG, the market couldn’t handle it, and that’s why they have one now. The Rams and Raiders played to pathetically small crowds even when they were decent, and the Chargers occasionally sold out. And this was when NFL tickets were exponentially cheaper than they would be under this plan.

      • The NFL of 2015 is not the NFL of 1994. Unless you’ve got some actual evidence, there’s not much more to say.

    • Lincoln Financial and MetLife are 96 miles apart. Granted, those are both larger metro areas than SD and LA respectively, but still.

      In the end, whoever breaks ground first is going to win and every indication so far is that that will be Kroenke in Inglewood.

  11. I really think Mark would prefer to stay in Oakland; the problem is he is not going to do that without Oakland/Alameda County bending over backwards. (taxpayer money)
    Mark Oakland/Alameda County doesn’t have the money to give you; perhaps I should say “publicly expectable” money to give you.
    Even if they had the money, I don’t think the taxpaying public would want to give it to you. If you’re not willing to do the heavy lifting to make it happen (big surprise), then leave. It’s not as if your family hasn’t done it before. It’s too bad, because you have a unique fanbase and situation in Oakland, it would seem you would have learned from your fathers mistake, but if you do move (with the Chargers to LA), you will compound the problem by marginalizing your teams identity by sharing a stadium as a long term solution, an identity and brand, your father stove so hard to promote and protect.
    Mark it’s not going to happen in Oakland unless you truly want it to happen there. Oakland has nothing to give you, as unique a situation as it maybe, it will require a unique individual effort, and if it’s just about the money you should have already moved.

  12. Please don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Good riddance Raiders. You ruined the Coliseum for the A’s when you came back and now, with you gone, maybe the A’s can finally get the stadium they deserve.

    Now if you will get rid of all the Al Davis Worship and extinguish that insipid halftime flame crap, I might be interested in following you again…

  13. I doubt this will happen because I do agree with folks who say that the Coli site isn’t Wolf’s first choice, but this is the perfect opportunity for the A’s to counter the Raiders move on this.

    Wolf should make a public statement about offering to build a baseball only stadium, redevelop the rest of the land and cover the remaining debt.

    Basically force Oakland’s hand to kick the Raiders to the curb unless they’re willing to make the same commitment.

  14. Let me see if I understand this: The Raiders are supposed to exhaust all options in their current market before getting approval to relocate. This is something they have not done because Levi’s is sitting right there for their use but the Raiders don’t want to share a stadium with the 49ers. But they are willing to move 400 miles and share one with the Chargers. How does the league approve a move under these circumstances?

  15. A member of the A’s ownership team commented on an article about this proposed stadium on a Facebook thread:

  16. They can make the argument that Alameda County isn’t their market, either, since based on Facebook likes, the most popular team in the county is the 49ers

  17. Maybe the NFL will propose this: Deny the Raiders request to move anywhere and force them to play at Levis (something that could be prodded along by Oakland giving the Coliseum property to the A’s); Green-light Kroenke’s stadium if he agrees to let the Chargers play in it, too. The NFL has to realize there is little to no chance of getting new stadiums in either SD or Oakland. How many more decades will need to pass to confirm that this is the situation? Will voters in SD or Oakland approve public funding for NFL stadiums or fight it tooth and nail? I think we already the answer.

  18. I’ve got two words for the Raiders and the Chargers…..GET OUT!!!!

  19. The Chargers/San Diego stadium situation looks more doable than the Raiders. The Chargers have previously suggested to San Diego officials to get San Diego county involved with funding a new stadium (which wouldn’t require the difficult 2/3 majority public vote that San Diego city requires for publicly financed projects) San Diego county officials are now making comments that they are willing to get involved with financing a new stadium.. Also, San Diego can fund a new stadium with hotel and car rental taxes only and avoid taxpayer funding because of their large tourist industry economy.- Oakland – not so much.

  20. What I think is interesting is the reaction from Raider fans. At least on talk shows and web sites, overall it seems like the majority of Raider fans don’t care if the team moves.

    I admit I’m an A’s fan and I despise the Raiders (largely because of what they did to the A’s), but isn’t this all just more of a reason for the city of Oakland to try to make something work with the A’s? MLB is a local sport and the NFL is a national sport.

    • Well, the “locals” of Oakland have treated the A’s like $hit for over 20+ years now have they. “Local sport” only if your host city and it’s populace actually give a rats a$$.

      BTW, folks like harping on the fact that Davis “only” has $500 million for a new Coli stadium, and would roughly be $500 million short on said $1 billion stadia. Well…how much would Wolff contribute towards a new stadium at the Coli?

      If he contributes (say) $100 million on a $5-600 million ballpark, that leaves a funding gap of $4-500 million. Maybe $150 million for naming rights? Is that fabulous “Emerald City” development at the Coli supposed to make up for that $250-350 million funding gap, especially in an area with poor corporate support and disposable income? Even with continued revenue sharing (although unlikely), looks like potentially a major debt, funding disaster in the making in Oakland.

      Think about it…

      • This is a complete white wash of the facts because it supports your desire. There IS a report that shows the development potential and what it can fund in terms of debt service/bonds. If you care to know, look it up… There’s even an article on this blog that covers it in detail.

        The highlight is… ancillary development with a single stadium can support over $300M in debt. That left MD with a gap of $600M (if you recall, they originally said a new stadium would cost ~$900M) and LW with a gap of $250M. Development of two stadiums would generate more money, but less would be available per stadium as a result (the total proceeds wouldn’t result in double the money). Yes, this is also an oversimplification so feel free to read the actual report. That does exist. That I have read and you apparently haven’t.

        My “$500M” comment above has nothing to do with funds Mark Davis has specifically to build a new stadium (most of that money you are referencing is from the NFL in the form of a loan, which has not been committed to the raiders). I was talking specifically about what Mark Davis has in net worth, which is a shit ton of money, but also the least of any ownership group in the NFL. It’s why he has to do what the NFL prefers and Stan Kroenke can give them the finger.

        In either scenario, there is much Infrastructure work to be completed and it is on Oakland to figure that out in conjunction with the developer.

      • Ancillary development supporting $300 million stadium on what…800 acres or 120 acres? Look it up? C’mon Jeffrey, you’re better than that…provide a link! I’m not the one arguing in favor of this “Pie in the sky” development!

        BTW, forgot the $100 million in current debt, demolition costs to arena/Coli and infrastructure to my above rant; my bad!!

      • Seriously, look it up. You want to attack people for disagreeing with you. Then you you want to say crap without any knowledge of what has actually been studied? “Coliseum City Study” is a good place to start.

      • Attack people?! C’mon man, how long have we been at this now? You have an opinion, I have an opinion…AND THAT’S IT. You want the A’s to build at the Coli ASAP (can’t blame you after all these years) and I’m still holding out for SJ/feel Oakland isn’t viable long term for the team…THAT’S IT. If some “study” claims that Wolff will make $300 million off of developing 120 Coli acres in East Oakland well…let’s just say I’m skeptical; just as you’re now suspect of the SVLG’s study re the Giants Silicon Valley corporate support. I guess it’s not surprising that after all these frustrating years we’re now ripping each other’s opinion; nothing personal brah. That is all..

      • I want the A’s to build a stadium in the Bay Area ASAP.

        When you say “You hate the Raiders” repeatedly, despite me correcting you repeatedly. That is an attack. It’s an ad hominem attack that refuses the challenge the substance of an argument and instead ignores the argument and attacks the person making it. I am not referencing war when I say “attack” I am referencing a technical term.

        Part of that attack, that you did make, is ignoring information that is plain for all of us to read. You also just made a false equivalency between two reports.

        So, here it is, without any malice: The SVLG report was dismissed by MLB. Not by me. Bring it up as much as you want. Employees of SVLG companies, regardless of whether they directly buy tickets or come as guests of other companies, are a large part of the game going population. I know because I have been there with a whole lot of them. You can dismiss this, MLB didn’t.

        The study on Coliseum City development isn’t new. You can read it. But you can’t dismiss it without having done so. But you just did.

      • Perhaps “hate” was the wrong word (although some here do admit to “hating” the Raiders), but I have sensed from you over the years some negativity towards the Raiders because of their presence in Oakland/at the Coli (if not the case, my bad). Also, I’ve never read anything about MLB dismissing the SVLG study, but I’ll gladly stand corrected if you provide a link on that one. Lastly, re the Coliseum study that shows boat loads of money being made on ancillary development at the Coli; not dismissing it per se, but (based on the current economics of Oakland) I’m highly skeptical of its findings. Heck, aren’t “studies” such as these meant to promote whatever agenda your trying to push through? There are economic impact studies for a downtown San Jose ballpark that folks will gladly slam (I.e. “dismiss”) out of skepticism. Anyhow Jeffrey, done with this thread because I’m liking the latest one. Peace..

    • @Tony D – You’re missing the point on my local comment.

      Football is 8 games a year where the game itself is the event. People don’t care about the stadium location.

      Baseball is 81 dates a year and each game isn’t as important. The location matters. Bars, restaurants and other entertainment venues pop up around stadiums.

      The two help each other. The stadium creates the initial draw but the other options help the area increasing the draw to the stadium. Kind of like Mission Bay and AT&T.

      East Oakland is a cesspool. If they go with the Raiders, they’ll have a stadium (filled with fans who are viewed as a bunch of degenerates) in the middle of a parking lot in the middle of a cesspool. How does that help Oakland?

      For the A’s, I completely agree that SJ is the better option. It doesn’t mean Oakland isn’t viable though as Wolf can build around it.

      For Oakland as a city though, the reaction of Raider fans just shows why they’re stupid for prioritizing the Raiders over the A’s.

      • I stand corrected Slacker, and I apologize.

      • Wait, did you just refer to me as a degenerate!?…

      • No worries and no I didn’t refer to you (or any Raider fan for that matter) as a degenerate.

        I said people “view” Raider fans as degenerates which doesn’t help Oakland’s image problem. I’m not saying they’re right, but perception matters.

        At this point I think Raider fans deserve pity more than anything else. How can you hate anyone who enjoys rooting for a bunch of losers 🙂

      • Hey, at least we were WINNERS over the Niners. (Sorry all, but I just couldn’t resist 🙂

      • raider fans pre move to la were seen as die hard blue collar fans similar to that of the steelers, browns, and etc.

        once they got that “thug” element in la during their decade plus long time down there that image followed them back to oakland and has been stuck with them ever since and likely will always be an image stuck in the minds of most sports fans when they think of the raider fan base.

  21. A fourth team. L.A. needs a fourth team. Thye can play each other. One division.

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.