Early during the Board of Supervisors meeting, President Scott Haggerty hinted that the assembled gallery could see how the Supes were going to vote, as they all had roughly the same comments during their part of the discussion. Nate Miley said he was going to vote for the ENA, but didn’t support “wholesale” use of public resources (land, money) for the project. Richard Valle called the project an “opportunity for private investment” before affirming his long-held no public funding stance. Wilma Chan felt the same while talking about community benefits. And Keith Carson considered the ENA a prudent step so that they could find out if the project had legs.
That sentiment of limited public support didn’t begin yesterday. It was brought up in public in December 2013, at the joint discussion between the Supes and Oakland City Council. It’s a topic that City and County haven’t been able to reconcile when County wasn’t part of the ENA. Now that they are equal partners, they’ll have no choice. It’s impossible to undersell the impact of this. County has taken a hard line on this, and it’s hard to see how City or Floyd Kephart’s New City will be able to reconcile it. In other words, it’s a potential showstopper.
The public contribution issue is big enough for the County that at the same meeting they commissioned a $200,000 study by CB Richard Ellis to appraise value of the Coliseum complex, land and buildings. Even that proved divisive:
Why would the County want the appraisal so badly? If the County wants to work from the notion that it could sell the complex at fair market value, it would help to understand what that FMV is. That doesn’t mean that they’d actually sell it at FMV. They could do a deal like San Jose, offering land at a discount provided that there was a certain price based on use. If County trends towards FMV pricing, that may be to force a decision on preventing a land giveaway by the City. While there are no deal terms yet, Coliseum City has long operated from the idea that the value of the land would offset sunk cost items like new infrastructure or writing off the Coliseum’s debt. The money saved by not spending it on land could be funneled towards the football stadium’s funding gap.
ENA covers ~140 acres of Coliseum area land
But if FMV was sought for the land, there’s no redirection of money to the funding gap. How, then, does that gap get addressed? If all three parties are going to have even a rough framework of a deal by the June deadline, they’ll have to come to some serious compromises that satisfy all three. That problem is one of those proverbial above my pay grade type of problem.
Miley made sure to mention his contingency plan of retrofitting the Coliseum instead of building new. While all five Supes approved the ENA, they didn’t express a ton of confidence in the project coming together. Left unsaid was another even more radical option that may prove more viable in time, one that was briefly mentioned in the adult conversation 16 months ago.
What if the City bought out the County?
If the County were leaning in that direction, an appraisal would make even more sense. Then they could start to figure out how to split the property, the remaining debt, and the JPA itself. Divorces are always messy, so don’t expect anything like this to happen as long as talks with Kephart continued. It’s not hard to see Coliseum City’s demise leading to a divorce. After all, if the sports teams are the JPA’s kids, and the kids have all grown up and moved away, what’s left?
Yet another possibility is that the County, which has a good relationship with Lew Wolff, is waiting just like Wolff for Coliseum City to die. Then they can work with the City on ballpark plan at the Coliseum. The no public funding demand would arise yet again, which would scare off many developers – but not Lew Wolff, who is not thinking about developing the Coliseum extensively right now. But that would be at odds with the City, which has grander visions for the Coliseum area than a stadium surrounded by parking.
Going back to the next-six-months-narrative, Friday’s City Council approval had optics that were designed to look good in reporting progress to the NFL. However, the NFL’s LA point man, Eric Grubman, continues to maintain that Oakland is neither “aggressive” nor “specific” about its plans. It’s easy to figure out what he means by “aggressive,” but “specific” appears to be a vaguely coded term. Is that just about Oakland’s desire for a 80,000 dome? That appears to have been put aside in recent weeks, especially by Mayor Schaaf. Does it mean something else? Coliseum City continues to be this amoeba that could contain anywhere from three to zero teams. The next three months are meant to provide some specificity, and the following two months even more fine tuning. The NFL signaled that it may announce or authorize moves during the fall, before the 2015 season ends. That puts Oakland, San Diego, and St. Louis under the gun to resolve their stadium problems, or else become abandoned. Even as it seemed the NFL had lost control of this game of musical chairs, they may have regained it.
Are we having fun yet?
newballpark.org 
So if you replace a hypothetical dead Coliseum City project with a new ballpark “parking lot city!” project, all of a sudden all will go well? The County/City will then gladly give away 200 acres to Wolff? The issues now confronting the Raiders will all magically disappear? No problem building a $600 million ballpark, with no ancillary development in a 120 acre sea of asphalt, located in a corporate/disposable income poor section of the Bay? You’re right RM! This is getting fun!
“no ancillary development” is hyperbole. Surface parking is required, with one team/stadium there will still be ancillary development, just not the dense sort of development you see in drawings. This will be the case with either the A’s or Raiders.
If they are to build a football stadium (which, let’s be honest, is unlikely), the mayor should be pushing for an indoor facility. She needs to learn the lesson of Soldier Field: building an outdoor football stadium will severely restrict the venue’s uses, especially with a new outdoor Levi’s Stadium on the other side of the bay.
Mayor Schaaf is short-sighted about the dome concept. If the financing otherwise comes together for a new Raiders’ stadium, the JPA should invest in an ETFE roof structure. It would be worth the investment.
The idea of a roof goes directly against what I read to be the point of this post: the huge funding gap.
If the Raiders face such a large funding gap with a cheaper, outdoor stadium, how praytell would they manage to cover the gap of a stadium with a roof? I believe the roof has been estimated to cost an additional $200M
https://newballpark.org/2015/03/02/no-dome-smaller-stadium-thats-a-start/
A retractable roof for a Raider stadium would be a major negative for football in the glorious Bay Area climate and is unlikely to justify its cost. Yes, it theoretically increases the number of events that could be held in the stadium, but not enough to make a big difference unless Coliseum City were able to remake itself into a convention destination.
East Oakland is hardly a destination of any kind right at the moment, so to make this even remotely feasible would require a major transformation of the entire area. Even then Coliseum City would have to compete with far more glamorous San Francisco (with it’s brand new showpiece arena) for convention business.
Maybe you could talk yourself into thinking this were possible if the original 800 acre vision for Coliseum City were realized. No way in hell this makes sense based on the scaled back versions currently under discussion.
It’s the Raiders who have said NO to the dome not the city. The Oakland Raiders sent out a survey today to all the season ticket holders in the Eastbay asking about how much your would pay for season tickets and PSL in Oakland & also asking about other events you would be interested in attending.. I don’t want to post the survey because that could mess up the results. Here is the cover letter to the survey:
“We Need Your Feedback
Open-Air Stadium in Oakland
Dear Oakland Raiders Fan:
As you know, the Raiders organization has conducted several studies the past four years in an effort to understand potential support for a new stadium. The National Football League (NFL) is now involved in the process to resolve the Raiders’ lingering stadium issues so that the franchise can provide an enhanced game day experience for fans and increase its long-term viability in Oakland.
O.co Coliseum, in its 50th year of operations, has served as the home of the Raiders for 37 years, but has undergone minimal capital improvements since the team returned to Oakland in 1995 and has since become one of the oldest and most outdated facilities in the NFL. The NFL and each of its franchises are putting an increased emphasis on enhancing the in-stadium experience for its fans and the corporate community.
Conventions, Sports & Leisure International, a sports facility planning and advisory firm located in Plano, Texas, has been retained by the NFL to conduct a market feasibility study to assess interest in seating options in a new stadium in the Oakland area. As part of the study efforts, your participation in an online survey is very important to us so that informed decisions can be made regarding a potential new stadium.
CLICK HERE TO TAKE THE SURVEY
Thank you in advance for your participation!
If you have any issues accessing the survey, please contact us here.
Conventions, Sports & Leisure International”
Build something like this:
I don’t know if the blustery talk by the county is for real or simply for public consummation, but it seems like there is a real problem between the city and county that is not going to be an easy fix. One solution as ML mentioned, is for the city to purchase the acers that the county owns and negotiate alone, but how would that even happen?
The city can’t afford to pay the county, and a big part of how this was supposed to work was a land transfer, it’s the only real value the city/county can bring to the table.
I realize the idea of coliseum city at full build out is not realistic, but I had held out hope that some modified version could be realized, but if the division’s between the city and county are truly this deep, the Raiders may as well have started packing for LA, yesterday.
Just my opinion, but a partially built out Coliseum City is most likely what will happen on the site but with only one team. It’ll be interesting to see how it all shakes out, but there are pros and cons for either the A’s or Raiders. I think the calculus favors the A’s, but it certainly isn’t a slam dunk for either team.
I still can’t get it to pencil out for either without some significant public contribution. Even with entitlements and development rights I can’t see that covering the $600M just to build a ballpark let alone complete infrastructure upgrades. Competition for corporate dollars is high with another baseball team 7 miles away- and we were already starting at a low level of corporate support in the EB to begin with-
GoA’s nailed it! Something else to consider: ballpark price tag $600 million. New football stadium $1 billion, but with Davis/NFL kicking in $400 million… $600 million! Yes, Wolff could put a substantial amount of his own money towards an East Oakland ballpark ($1-200 million? ) but!…just re read GoA’s excellent thought above (don’t feel like getting slammed today).
You guys are forgetting that this is a real estate transaction. No matter what they’re financing the stadium.
The key question isn’t whether there’s enough up front money to cover the costs, it’s whether the long term value (ticket sales, land value, potential development down the road, team value, etc.) out weigh the stadium costs and the financing.
@Slacker,
Huhh? So if (say) the 200 acres is worth $1 billion in 40-50 years AND somehow the skyscraper dream of the 800 acre Coli City comes true, then throwing tons of private money NOW towards an East Oakland stadium is worth it?
Reading between the lines the county appears not willing to simply give away the Coli land for free. Even selling it for a discount would add millions to a stadium price tag. Add in no major ancillary development on the 200 acres and the rest of the 600 acres “not happening in our lifetime”…damn this situation is screwed up! (For both teams)
Who said “40-50 years?”
The A’s have the equity to build a stadium in Oakland. They have plenty of it. Look at the Forbes info published today.
MLB has already spoken directly about San Jose. I know that’s what you prefer, but MLB won’t let that happen unless the situation is extremely dire/unprecedented.
MLB has determined that it is better for the league to not have the A’s in SJ. They also have determined it is possible for the team to stay in Oakland at the Coliseum. Until that second one becomes untrue, the first one remains as it is.
@jeffrey- just because I have the equity to build my own ballpark doesn’t mean I will do it if it is not a financially sound decision. If ALCo is serious about no public subsidies, including the transfer of land at a significant discount, then I have no idea how this pencils out for the A’s. Given a baseball stadium alone with 10,000 surface level parking spaces would take up approximately 120-130 acres. Leaving the arena takes up another 15 or so acres. Any additional streets etc to support ancillary development means you probably have less than 40 acres to develop for retail, commercial, residential. So if Oakland/ALCo sell the land at an east oakland industrial site price and discount that significantly than sure rezoning the property for retail, commercial and residential will increase its value- but I don’t see it increasing it enough to build at this location. If ML is right the rezoning of 76 acres in SJ for LW/earthquakes only netted him $10M. Oakland is going to have to put other properties in play to make this pencil out-
Jeffrey,
I was questioning Slackers opinion above re the “40-50 year statement. Read Slackers comment again and get back to me. I have no doubt Wolff has the money (equity) to privately finance a ballpark in Oakland, BUT!…
Also, please cite your sources on what MLB has said re San Jose. I’ve followed this saga to a tee and haven’t read anything of what you suggested MLB “said” re SJ. Thanks and have a great day.
Damn GoA’s! You’re on fire today my friend 😉
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24367444/mlb-tells-federal-court-it-rejected-as-move-to-san-jose-in-june
Re read slacker’s post… nobody but you said anything about 40-50 years. As usual.
Jeffrey,
That’s right! Forgot about 2013 (sarcasm), when MLB rejected the A’s relocation proposal because it wasn’t satisfied with the “financials” of the proposal. The one Slusser herself (per MLB’s sources) said WASN’T an outright rejection of San Jose itself. Sarcasm aside, remember that “rejection” very well my friend 😉
Sorry brah, should have clarified from the get go that the “40-50 year” stuff was a hypothetical countering Slacker’s opinion above. Feel free to read what Slacker wrote again if you wish. Peace..
@Tony D – Where did I say 40 – 50 years. My point is that you have look at the valuation of the team before and immediately after the stadium as well the increased revenue the stadium brings. It’s not just about up front money to build a stadium.
Besides if we are talking about up front money, I would put my bet on Wolff and Fisher every day of the week and twice on Sunday over Mark Davis.
Slacker,
IT. WAS. AN. EXAMPLE. TO. COUNTER. YOUR. OPINION. ABOVE. Why is that so hard to understand? In the future I’ll make my counter arguments easier to understand. Re upfront money; again, Davis has stated he has $400 million for a Coli football stadium. Wolff to date has pledged $0 for a Coli ballpark. Yes, he most likely has the means to contribute a substantial amount towards a new ballpark in Oakland, but!…(again see what GoA’s wrote so eloquently above). That is all…
a rejection is not a rejection. Your hypothetical is the fault of someone else… I think it is you who needs to re read something, not sure what.
Nice Boombox Jeffrey. Until the next thread…
In terms of additional reading, here’s my recommendation for Tony D to understand the problem with his example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
slacker,
Classic pot calling kettle black…Love it! (tip for yah; a little reading comprehension skills can go a long way)
Without some sufficient public funding assistance, Coliseum City would most probably be dead. Then, the likely only way for the Raiders to still get a Coliseum site deal done is if it takes the form of a partially rebuilt/renovated Coliseum(Miley proposal). Ultimately, what the NFL does about LA could decide the future home market for the Raiders. The Raiders could very well be forced to remain within their current Bay Area market. If that happens, the Raiders may have to choose between staying at the Coliseum as is, building a rebuilt/renovated Coliseum, or sharing Levi’s Stadium with the 49ers.
@IIpec
I agree what the NFL does in LA will in all likelihood shape what the Raiders do, I don’t think the NFL really wants the Davis family back in LA, but with the team being so poor (by NFL standers) the league may have to drag them along. It’s easier to have Davis share with the Rams, or Chargers then having to help him build his own new stadium. Davis wouldn’t share with the 49ers in the first place, and in the end sharing may be the only way he gets a new stadium.
@LSN- Only reason why Davis didn’t share with the 49ers is because he thought they would fall on their face and come groveling back to him and share in Oakland.
When the 49ers succeeded on their own it hit him and Oakland like a freight train.
Now Davis does not have the luxury of having a 2nd team help fund a stadium on his terms.
When the Rams announced their LA move it put Davis and Dean Spanos behind the 8-ball.
Spanos more than Davis is desperate not have a team come to LA, hence you see their unlikely partnership.
Your right on the NFL not wanting the Raiders in LA, it will draw the wrong crowd immediately.
My thinking is the NFL approves the Rams move, lets them stay in LA for 3-5 years on their own and when SD fails lets the Chargers return to LA.
Raiders are stuck……They blew a golden opportunity to share with the 49ers in the Bay Area.
To add on to Sid’s comment, I think Oakland played a large part in this as well. If Oakland took a realistic look at the situation, rather than pushing for the Coliseum City pipe dream, they could have focused on the Raiders and the 49ers and tried to get a shared football stadium at the Coliseum site.
While the Coliseum site is less than ideal for baseball, it’s a great location for football and much better than Santa Clara.
By being completely unrealistic about their options, Oakland and the Raiders likely will lose out.
I wish I could be as confident as others that the Raiders will land either in the Bay Area or LA, but I’m very nervous about the St. Louis situation. St. Louis seems to be headed in the direction offering of a mostly-publicly-financed, state of the art stadium that would be highly attractive to most NFL teams – except maybe Kroenke, who has the financial wherewithal and is well on his way to building not only a football stadium but a massive, profitable multi-use project in LA.
You now have NFL owners publicly saying that if St. Louis ponies up public funds the NFL has an obligation to make sure an NFL team – not necessarily the Rams – ends up in St. Louis. If the Rams leave despite St. Louis anteing up (a highly possible scenario), which team do you think that is likely to be? Perhaps the one that has run out of other options and does not have the money to build a stadium on its own?
I agree. The NFL wants publicly funded stadiums. It’s leverage owners can use on their current cities for upgrades or even new facilities in their current market.
If given a choice between having to throw $200M at the Raiders to build a privately financed stadium in Oakland with Levi’s down the road vs. a partially/largely publicly finance stadium in St Louis, I think St Louis is the easy answer for the NFL.
@ bartleby
I’m with you, as odd as it sounds St. Louis may have a better shot at the Raiders then Oakland, it’s all about the public money Oakland, Alameda County, and the state of California, simply are not coming off of a lot of it. Most Raider fans in California will pull for the team weather they play in Oakland, or LA, after all if they did move back to LA it would make two stints in each city, for this reason I think many Raider fans view the team as a California team more or less.
The idea of them moving to St. Louis would be devastating for many, Davis may not want to do that, but this situation may have finally gotten far beyond what Davis wants, as I’m sure the other owners are quite tired of it.
It is always possible that if LA is not available, the Raiders could move to St Louis instead of Santa Clara( we know he does not want to go there), or remain in Oakland. Another thing we know is Jerry Jones does not want them ( or anyone) in San Antonio). Maybe $200m in NFL money plus St Louis and the State of Missouri pitching in to upgrade the Edward Jones dome. I suspect ( coupled with the Chargers remaining in San Diego), is exactly what the NFL would like
I’m not worried about the Raiders getting lured to STL by a remodel of the Jones dome. If the Raiders were open to a remodel, I think they’d just accept a remodel of the Coliseum and stay in the Bay Area, is a superior market where their historic fan base is located.
A brand new, state of the art, mostly publicly funded stadium in STL is another matter altogether, and STL seems close to making that happen. It may not be good enough for Kroenke, but it would be hard for Davis to turn down if his options for a new stadium in Oakland or LA fall apart.
As far as San Antonio goes, Jerry Jone’s preferences are mostly irrelevant. First of all, a new NFL team in San Antonio would barely make a dent in Cowboys revenue (the bigger risk to the NFL is that the new team wouldn’t be able to win over enough Cowboy fans in the San Antonio area to thrive there). Second of all, Jones only has one vote. The reason I’m less worried about San Antonio is that they don’t seem be be actively working on a new stadium, whereas STL is and seems to be getting quite close.
The below is from InsideBayArea.
“The Raiders will be on board,” Oakland Councilman Larry Reid said when asked about the team’s continued silence. “They say they are 96 percent of the way there with Mr. Kephart.”
Really? The other 4 percent must be a lot, considering the Raiders have not made a commitment to Oakland. Mr. Kephart, respectfully where is the money?
Interesting point made in an article I read the other day:
– NFL owners may prefer Kroenke’s Inglewood plan and let him have it to himself for a while because that still maintains LA as a stalking horse. You’d have a brand new stadium designed for 2 teams, but with only one team occupying it. That allows LA to remains a leverage point whereas the Carson plan lakes LA off the table in that regard.
@ SMG
I could really see the NFL pulling that sort of th*t!
It’s not really shit when the Kroenke plan happens to be more realistic and have far fewer financial concerns surrounding it compared to the Carson plan.
@ SMG
I was referring to, “NFL owners may prefer Kroenke’s Inglewood plan and let him have it to himself for a while because that still maintains LA as a stalking horse.” of what you said.
This would allow the NFL to extort maximum public subsidies out of a municipality, with the threat of LA looming over them. That’s the sh*t part of what I was referring to, the tax payer always seems to be holding the bag in the end.
Not sure how well “possible 2nd team in Kroenke’s stadium” works as a stalking horse once it actually gets built. Kroenke will have taken all the risk and made all the investment so will not just hand over a 50% ownership stake.
Let’s assume a scenario where the Chargers have built a new stadium in San Diego, Kroenke has built a new stadium in LA and the Raiders are still twisting in the wind. Don’t see any particular advantage for the Raiders in being a tenant in LA rather than a tenant in Santa Clara. You don’t get much of the benefit of being in a larger market if you’re only a tenant. Mark Davis has already made the judgment’s he’s better off being the only NFL team in a crumbling, outdated stadium in Oakland rather than a tenant in a SOTA stadium in Santa Clara.
Now if St. Louis pulls together a plan for a publicly financed stadium in St. Louis, THAT’s your stalking horse right there. Remember, publicly financed stadium in St. Louis has beaten out privately financed stadium in LA once before.
@ bartleby
I hear what you’re saying, and as you mentioned before St Louis (oddly enough), may be a bigger stalking horse to the Raiders remaining in Oakland, as they seem to be willing to come off of public subsidy’s in a way, that no city in California is willing to do and while that may not be enough to save the Rams, it can lure the finically challenged Raiders.
While you are correct Kroenke is doing all the heavy lifting, he may have to concede building a stadium for two if he wants the NFL to go along peaceable. Sorry lots of conjecture on my part, but let’s say he goes along with it, and gets assurances that he would not have to rent to another NFL team for a five year grace period, or he would allow an expansion team no latter then ten-fifteen years down the line. I’m sure he would want some assurances, after all as you rightly point out he is the one taking the risk, but to the point I think SMG is making all Kroenke has to do is build a stadium that can accommodate two teams even if two teams never play in it, all has to do is constitute a reasonable option to be a stalking horse to Oakland.
@Neil What I’m saying is that they be able to pressure Kroenke into building a stadium that can accommodate two teams, but they can’t make him hand over 1/2 of the deed to or control of that stadium. He’s just not going to do that unless the second team is in at the beginning (and quite possibly not even then).
roenke’s probably more than happy to build a second locker room and host a tenant; it’s an incremental cost and free additional money if a second team comes along and wants to be that tenant. But without an equity stake, that theoretical tenant is going to pay rent and get little of the revenue streams that come with stadium ownership (which are the only revenue streams that are not shared equally with the NFL).
If this were at all an attractive proposition, the Raiders would be in Santa Clara right now. At least one NFL owner said at this week’s meeting that the Jets tenancy in old Meadowlands was a mistake and not good for the NFL. If the situation becomes the Rams starting solo in a Kroenke-owned stadium, LA will not be a very effective stalking horse and you will likely not see a second team there for a long time (if ever).
@bartleby
I totally get what you’re saying. I guess my point was Oakland would need to perceive it as a threat, to perhaps do something about it, but your point about Kroenke putting his own money on the line is well taken, because he may not be willing to go along with any of this. (I would not blame him)
I do not see the NFL approving two teams to LA at the same time. For one thing, I do not see both the LA Coliseum, Rose Bowl, or Dodger Stadium being used simultaneously as temporary NFL facilities. As of now, it appears that the Rams are the likeliest choice to relocate to LA, with their proposed Inglewood Stadium. This facility would be designed to accommodate a second NFL teams at some future point after said stadium is completed. This approach would also give both the Chargers and Raiders some additional years time to come up with respective new stadium deals in their current markets..
Finding temporary venues for two teams in LA is a surmountable challenge. That’s 20 games, so assuming only the three venues you mentioned were used it could be done with a maximum 7 games in each venue, which is very doable. 10 games at each of Dodger Stadium and the LA Coliseum could be doable as well.
If Kroenke gets there first a second team could still come at a later date, but that becomes signficantly less likely because the economics become much less favorable. The best chance for two teams in LA will be if both arrive simultaeously as equity partners.
To bartleby’s point, you also have to factor in PSL’s.
This is the problem the Raiders have at Levi’s. If the Rams do this completely on their own they’re going to lock up all of the PSL money and their PSL holders would have first dibs on tickets for a second team. The second isn’t going to go for this.
The NFL could ask Kroenke to word the PSL’s in a way that wouldn’t give the holders first dibs on another NFL team’s tickets, but that lowers the value of the PSL’s and Kroenke isn’t going to go for that.
Everybody here feels that “the raiders are gone” without realizing the variables required to make this happen.
1) The Raiders are now tied to the San Diego Chargers moving.
2) The Raiders or Chargers will have to change divisions.
3) The Chargers will not allow two teams in LA if they stay in San Diego.
4) The Rams have a plan already
One team is out, its the Raiders. Lets Go Oakland.
@ Mark Davis
I don’t think everyone here thinks the Raiders are gone (necessarily), but I believe most of us would like to know exactly how it is they propose to stay.
BTW, one team being out in LA even if it were the Raiders, doesn’t constitute a plan in Oakland.
That sounds like some A’s fans, “Well the A’s can’t build in San Jose, so they will stay in Oakland”, the A’s or Raiders not succeeding in LA, or San Jose (for whatever reason), is not plan in Oakland.
@ Mark Davis
I should say, most of us would like to know exactly how the city, county, and Raiders propose they stay.
“Everybody here feels that “the raiders are gone” without realizing the variables required to make this happen.”
I think most of us have a pretty good handle on the variables required to make this happen, thanks.
“1) The Raiders are now tied to the San Diego Chargers moving.”
Not necessarily. The Raiders currently have an arrangement with the Chargers, but nothing’s set in stone. If the Chargers don’t move the Raiders could try to partner with Kroenke, go in on the Farmer’s Field or City of Industry projects, or move to someplace like San Antonio or St. Louis. St. Louis is the one I fear the most.
“2) The Raiders or Chargers will have to change divisions.”
So what? I wouldn’t like this, but it’s certainly not going to prevent either team or the NFL from doing what makes economic sense.
“3) The Chargers will not allow two teams in LA if they stay in San Diego.”
The Chargers have one vote out of thirty-two and have absolutely nothing to say about the matter beyond that.
“4) The Rams have a plan already”
Yes, and they seem quite likely to move to LA. However, they could still stay in St. Louis if St. Louis makes its stadium deal sweet enough, and they could still partner with the Raiders if the Chargers stay in San Diego.
Let me put it another way: If you drew up a decision tree showing all the variables and mapping a path to their respective results, you’d find only one branch leading to the Raiders staying in Oakland (i.e. Coliseum City succeeds in a fashion that’s acceptable to Mark Davis) and a lot of branches leading to moving vans heading out of Oakland.
As a long time, die hard Raider fan, I personally am very nervous. And I could live with the Raiders going back to LA; I’m worried about them leaving the state. This is not at all the same situation as exists with the A’s having limited options.
re: SunCal Could this be just another in a line of developers that have looked at Coliseum City and will end up deciding “Thanks but no thanks”? The developers are tasked with trying to earn a profit developing a property that has to include a $1 billion money-pit football stadium.
pjk,
You might as well include a $600 million debt-ridden ballpark to your last sentence as well..
Yep. It’s more of the dog and pony show – Oakland/Alameda County keep parading all these so-called rescuers who will supposedly save the 3 teams for Oakland. But there’s never any money. CC has been on the agenda for years now and there’s no commitments from anyone to anything. If CC could get built without public funds, construction would already be under way on at least one of the venues.
From SF Business Times
“Kephart met recently with SunCal leaders, including CEO Bruce Elieff, COO Marc Magstadt and executive vice president Frank Faye. The meeting, assembled at the request of the Raiders, was designed to brief SunCal on the status of negotiations and describe specific plan requirements and the layout of the Coliseum City site”
It’s interesting that the article says that the meeting was at the “request of the Raiders.” If anything actually got done at the coliseum site, it would take a developer like Sun Cal to pull it off.
Why does SunCal need Kephardt- seems as if they are no different than LW in that they could develop the site themselves- seems strange that raiders didn’t submit independent of flyod as the ENA supposedly would allow-
GoA’s
As we know (have seen), Mark is not going to do any work that he can’t get someone else to do. It’s fairly apparent that weather it’s Oakland, LA, St. Louis, or San Antonio, Mark will wait for someone to give him a plan that works for him. No surprise there…
SunCal is doing a feasibility study for all intents and purposes. Mark Davis can’t do that. Floyd Kephart can’t do that. Someone needs to, and SunCal is well versed on pre-development activities. Good on all of them in figuring out a way to get this going – without having to squeeze more money out of Oakland in the process.
I figured it out! NFL charges Kronke one Billllllllllllllionnnnn dollars for relocation. He gets the LA market to himself….Then you take $500M, give it to San Diego at 0.00001% interest rate….give the other $500M to Mark at 0.000001%…Voila! Everyone is happy… except St. Louis (hehe)