Davis affirms desire to tear down Coliseum

As the NFL owners meetings get underway at the Ritz Carlton in SF, KTVU reporter Noelle Walker caught up with Raiders owner Mark Davis, who made it abundantly clear that he wants the Coliseum complex for himself:

Davis confirmed that if a Coliseum City plan goes forward at the current Coliseum site, he wants the old stadium demolished before a new one is built.

‘If we’re going to build on that 120 acre site, we would have to tear down one stadium to build another one in that same place,’ Davis said. ‘I don’t want to build a brand new stadium and then have it be in a construction zone for next two, three, four years.’

Davis doesn’t want a construction zone around a new stadium. Wolff put in the A’s lease terms that would give the team an out if their operations were impacted by the Raiders’ stadium (construction taking out parking). If by now you haven’t come to terms with the need for Oakland to make a choice (or else have a choice made for them), make yourself a pot of coffee in the morning and breathe in its aroma deeply.

In her report Walker termed the dilemma Oakland’s “Sophie’s Choice.” Call it that, a Catch-22, Kobayashi Maru, Hail Mary. whatever construct you like that doesn’t exactly fit but helps explain the dilemma. Oakland has chosen to try to juggle both teams. In the process it has looked indecisive. The NFL disapproves. And so Oakland’s best hope is in that very same NFL keeping the Raiders from moving because it deems Oakland’s proposal at least compelling, if not altogether sufficient. Might need to throw in an Act of Contrition on top of that Hail Mary.

177 thoughts on “Davis affirms desire to tear down Coliseum

  1. Kephart better tell his buddy Davis, that the area is kind of going to be a construction zone when they need to build things to pay for his stadium. Oh, and maybe send him a few pictures of the A’s playing actual baseball games while his dad had that tarped monstrosity being built.
    By the way Davis sure is good at the, “we really want to be here” thing. Maybe he is finally snapping.

  2. Davis is making Oakland choose between the A’s or Raiders. The kind of thing that would get Lew Wolff demonized. Looks like it won’t happen anyway and the Raiders will be leaving

    • pjk just stop with your anti-Raiders, they’re leaving nonsense already! You (like others here) simply feel that the Raiders leaving the Coli guarantees the A’s will stay and build in Oakland…and that’s far from the truth!

      If all this Oakland crap is proving difficult for the Raiders/NFL to navigate, GUESS WHAT?!…..

      • Your state of utter denial knows no bounds.

      • Utter denial? Huh?! So if the Raiders leave Oakland (which IS a possibility), then all will be smooth sailing for Wolff/A’s at the Coli?

      • No, but if the A’s leave the Coliseum it’s not smooth sailing for the Raiders either.

        The Raiders can move easier than the A’s and the Raiders have less ability to build a stadium on their own.

        There are no guarantees for Oakland here. They have to determine which team is in their best interest from an economic perspective, factoring in the odds of that team actually being able to build at the site.

      • Slacker nailed it.

      • Excellent points Slacker, though I’d question whether it’s actually easier to build one venue ($600 million +) over the other ($1 billion +) in Oakland at all.

      • Don’t disagree with you there Tony. Because of the differences between the economics of baseball and football, I would argue that a football stadium (even with the higher cost) is likely more feasible. The equalizing factor though is Davis vs. Wolf.

        Regardless of what you think of the two, Wolf is a rich developer who has shown an ability to get projects like this done. Davis has himself said he can’t do something like this on his own. Plus he’s not exactly rolling in dough.

    • Agreed. Positioning the narrative this way Davis is making a case to bail since he knows there’s no way Oakland will simply demolish the Coliseum any time in the next 5 years for him with the A’s still in it. Which puts his new football stadium closer to a decade away than not.

  3. It’s now apparent that both Davis and Wolff are forcing Oakland officials to decide on which team they want to put their entire effort to try and retain. For all too long, Oakland was playing both teams into an unrealistic situation. The Raiders are now forcing Oakland to come up with a Coliseum deal within the next few months, otherwise the Raiders will be as good as gone. Even with a Raiders move from Oakland, there will be no guarantee that the A’s will be able to get a coliseum site ballpark deal done. While the current A’s lease allows more time for the A’s and Oakland to work out a new Coliseum ballpark deal, MLB could lose patience if there is no progress on that front. The A’s could ultimately be granted approval by MLB to move to San Jose. At that point, Oakland could be in a position to wind up void of all its major professional sports teams. For the City of Oakland, it will be making crucial decisions within the coming months that, at the very least, could greatly impact its economic future, not to mention its future identity.

    • Excellent llpec! Couldn’t have said it better myself 😉

    • Building a multi use 55k-60k stadium is more important for the economic future of the area. Especially since Wolff just wants the land to himself so he can make the major profits. The multi use stadium will being more year round revenue….especially with the Oracle Arena do be a ghost arena in 5-10 years anyways. Wolff or Davis should try and build on the West Side water area of 880 across from existing Coliseum where they have Circus Vargas shows.

      • That has no realistic chance of happening. There are so many different land owners involved in that area and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

  4. BTW, Good to hear actual news from the horses mouth rather than from those two clowns at the Chronicle…

    • Davis didn’t even say anything. “We want to be in Oakland” is 100% meaningless when ZERO progress has been made on CC and he is actively pursuing the Caron option while also having other avenues to pursue outside the Bay Area. Those are just the facts. It’s on you if you want to cover your ears, close your eyes, and pretend they don’t exist.

      • Tony’s become his worst nightmare

      • So what comes out of Davis’ mouth has no credence YET M&R “inside sources” about blood gurgling should be treated as gospel…RIGHT?! You know SMG, rather than lob childish insults all the time why not man up and just agree to disagree on this matter…

        @ Dan, you disappoint my friend. You get your Quakes SSS and all of a sudden want to throw this A’s to SJ supporter under the bus. Thanks brah (sarcasm)

      • Nothing I said can be construed by a reasonable individual to be an insult. Your problem is that you ignore virtually all available evidence and circumstances and then when someone (me in this case) calls you out for doing so, you whine and claim that you’re being insulted. That’s YOUR hangup and is completely and totally on you.

        There is mountains of evidence that CC is struggling severely and Davis saying “but we want to be in Oakland” while doing nothing to work towards that end doesn’t alleviate those struggles a single iota. Until you have something to point to that bodes well for CC, don’t bitch and moan that the media (not just the Chronicle) has almost universally expressed worry and doubt over the project.

      • You’re awesome SMG!! Have a great day…

  5. Oakland’s choice, go with the Raiders plan (do they have a plan for Oakland?) which may not even be viable unless they give away free (reduced), land which Alameda County doesn’t seem willing to do yet. They would also have to figure out how to come up with some public money to make it work, and again that’s if it’s even viable.
    Or they can wait on Wolff, who is clearly waiting for Davis to fail (among other things) in hopes that he will be willing to build at the site, even though he hasn’t given any indication that he is actually willing to do that.
    Oakland gets to choose, whoever and whenever someone choses them unless they want to throw loads of public money at the A’s or Raiders in hopes of making one or both teams choices easier.
    Oakland choice as it stands right now, is to see if something can actually be workout with the Raiders (even if unlikely), once that’s determined Oakland may or may not have a choice, if Wolff at that point still hasn’t come up with a proposal, then whatever choices Oakland may have, or may have had before then, will not include a choice between the Raiders or A’s because that choice will have been made for them. If Oakland would have made real choices before now, then they would not be in the position of other people making them for the city.

  6. Warriors are gone. The A’s WILL get SJ. Lew will poo poo every idea Oakland throws at him. Not because they’re bad ideas, but because he simply doesn’t want to be in Oakland. It might take the duration of that ten year lease to justify his cause to move to SJ, but it will happen. The Raiders are the only option. If they lose all 3 teams, Coli City will be shelved, and Oakland will be the same old ghetto its always been. I take no pleasure in saying any of this, but I’ve been watching Oakland politics since the 70’s, and they’ve always been a disaster down at city hall. Call it incompetence, corruption, or both. When it came to improving Oakland, the politicians never could get out of their own way.

    • Yup and it fall all on the City and County “leaders”. Sad if your scenario happens or they will build low income housing on existing site. What a waste!

  7. Seems like Oakland is being backed into a Sophie’s Choice all right if the Raiders are serious. I mean the A’s would have to complete their ballpark before anything happens to the current Coliseum, which means if the Oakland plans go as they want, no work on a football venue from about 3 years after construction starts on the baseball venue. And we all know how close they are to starting construction on a new baseball venue. At the earliest the Raiders would be playing in a new football stadium about 6 years after the baseball stadium starts going up in the north lot… Which means the Raiders would be looking at what? 2022 opening day in a new Oakland venue under ideal circumstances (ie: construction started in the next 12 months).

    And we all know ideal isn’t what this situation is given the never addressed funding gap and lack of political and team will. Or the Raiders can bail and join the stadium in Inglewood which will likely have shovels in the ground before the year is out.

    • Right. Davis has, by my estimation, 3 options that are more advanced/concrete than CC is currently:

      a) Carson with the Chargers
      b) Inglewood with the Rams
      c) St. Louis if the Rams leave and a new stadium is built anyway

      St. Louis is definitely the least likely of those 3 scenarios for the Raiders, but the planning process is still further along than CC and the city has publicly mentioned the notion that another team could play in a new stadium if the Rams were to leave.

    • Still don’t understan why one of the teams doesn’t wan to build on the West Bay Side of the 880 near the water. If it’s only a zoning thing than that cane be fixed quick. Or are City/County “leaders” worried about upsetting Circus Vargas?? SMH

  8. didn’t the new oakland mayor say basically that if it were a choice between the a’s and raiders, the city would choose the a’s because financially it makes more sense to build a sports venue that will be usedfor 81+ times rather than 10+ times at best during their respective league’s seasons?

    • Yes, but she doesn’t dictate what happens. There are lots of other actors who would have to get on board with that.

    • She did say that but given that both want a stadium surrounded by parking basically means 81 games v 10 doesn’t matter- neither of these stadiums will be a revenue generator for Oakland- it’s really the one that provides a higher profile which may make more sense to go with Raiders-

      • Agree GoA’s. As Bartleby stated himself, would make more sense if the venue was being proposed for downtown Oakland. But being that both want a venue in a sea of asphalt, doesn’t matter if there are 10 games per year or 100…

  9. Here we go again…

    Go right ahead Oakland… make a choice.

    Now we can all make our pots of coffee and smell that sweet aroma of the status-quo for another decade or more.

    Can’t build a football stadium with Monopoly Money folks.

    • Read beyond the headline… The two teams bought 11 toxic contaminated acres. Not enough to build a stadium on just yet.

      • Read beyond the headline… it’s also fully funded.

      • The Carson stadium plan is absolutely not fully funded. They have a framework/outline of how they want to fund it, but that’s it. Saying “this is how I want to get money” and “I actually have the money right now” are totally different things.

      • Are we reading the same article?

        “Carson officials earlier this month secured $1.7-billion in financing from Goldman Sachs, which also financed Levi’s Stadium. The NFL would provide $400 million from a special new stadium fund.”

        Hard to tell if that’s $1.7 billion + $400 million or just a total of $1.7 billion. Either way, sounds pretty well funded to me.

      • I am pretty sure that Goldman Sachs did not offer $1.7 billion in funding. That’s the entire cost of the stadium. If they offered that much, the Raiders/Chargers wouldn’t be talking about other funding mechanisms for the stadium.

        There are conflicting statements in articles. This one and others make the claim that Goldman has offered $1.7 billion in funding.

        Others, including from ESPN and some NBC outlets among others, characterize the Goldman funding differently:


      • The way I read that is Goldman-Sachs will provide the money needed because there are all these various revenue streams that will allow a low-risk repayment of the loan. It also looks like that $1.7 billion “financing package” they are providing includes the $400 mil from the NFL.

        I dunno, I think most people on this board are not able to look at this objectively because they are too emotionally invested in the Raiders.

        I don’t give a rat’s hiney what they do… I’m a Steeler’s fan. 😉

        My business sense says… Carson has the money (financing), I already have an existing fan base there, Carson is making WAY more than a half-haerted effort to bring me there… it’s a no-brainer. As soon as the NFL says it’s ok, I’m ordering new stationary with our new home address.

  10. The San Diego plan appears to be solid (even though the author of that story claimed otherwise) It does not require a public vote (SD officials will do one anyhow) However it won’t likely require a 2/3 voter majority such as previous Charger proposed stadium measures did – and would be much easier for SD voters to ok (especially since much less public funding is involved with the plan than previous Charger stadium plans) The $225 mil. for the sale of 75 acres of Qualcomm land (even before it is zoned for other uses) is plausible. That author of that story evidently isn’t aware of ancillary ballpark developments or the concept of them. A $300 mil. contribution required by the Chargers for the SD stadium is much more economical than funding most of a $1.7 bil. Carson stadium project. (the Raiders certainly won’t be funding most of $1.7 bil.) The Carson project may soon be history. Then Davis’s other option is to move into Kroenke’s Inglewood stadium (Davis (worth $500 mil), in partnership with an owner worth $13 bil? – that does not appear to be an equal partnership and advantageous to the Raiders. That’s why the Raiders staying in Oakland appears to be more likely, especially since the Niners move to Levi’s stadium, the Raiders will keep the whole north bay for themselves.

    • How are the Raiders likely to stay in Oakland if they can’t get a stadium deal there? Also, the 49ers are the most popular team in entire Bay Area, north bay, peninsula, East Bay, South Bay, Santa Cruz. I don’t see the Raiders taking any territory “for themselves” around here. The only place where they are #1 in popularity, according to Facebook likes, is LA.

      • An ESPN poll (likely more accurate than Facebook) placed the Rams as the LA fanbase favorite, with the Raiders a distant second. Also the Raiders still somehow manage to achieve some sellouts, even after playing 12 years of 4-12 W-L (.293 pct) football. In LA, the Raiders averaged 35-40K fans per game, even with a winning team – they likely have not forgotten that fact.

      • Remember the concept of compromise? With basically $500M available, Davis’ best bet would be to re-build the Coliseum for about 55-60K seats. LA is a pipe dream, SD will get a new stadium, and Kroenke has no interest in sharing in Inglewood. He needs to wake up to the reality of his situation!

      • Niners most “popular” team in Bay Area is utter BS….if they were….it’s because of bandwagon jumpers when they were winning.

      • ^ Is there a reason you insist on denying basic facts? The 49ers have had a larger following in the Bay Area for decades. Just like the Giants have a larger following than the A’s. Just like the Yankees have a larger following in New York than the Mets. Just like the Lakers have a larger following in LA than the Clippers. You don’t have to like it, but that’s just the way it is. In the case of the 49ers, they have existed for longer than the Raiders and have never existed outside the Bay Area, while the Raiders both started play in the Bay Area later and spent over a decade in Los Angeles. It shouldn’t be surprising or controversial to any rational person that those facts would lend themselves to the 49ers having a larger following.

      • There was a whole generation of people in the East Bay in the 1980s who grew up as kids and young adults as Niners fans. Call them Bandwagon fans all you want but the Raiders LEFT. They quit the Bay. To hell with them. Why keep pining for what’s walked out the door? And when they came back in the 1990’s, too bad. You don’t get to have back what you threw away in the first place. Of course the Niners are more popular, they’ll still be here long after the Raiders run off again.

  11. Newballpark, what do you think Wolff’s end game is here? Is it to want the Raiders to leave so he can have exclusive negs with city for new CC ballpark OR to desire the city to make a deal with Raiders the would effect their 10 year lease and then they can go to MLB and ask to get permission for SJ? what is your gut feel on this? to me, IMO, it’s the latter, ultimately he still wants to move to SJ, am i right??

  12. re:”We’re not going to participate in any transaction that will cause the Coliseum to be taken away from the A’s” – Floyd Kephart …So what does that mean? Bye bye Raiders?

    • It means he’s not going to follow Davis’ plan of leveling the Coliseum to build the new Raiders stadium. Which may be exactly the response Davis wanted at the owners meetings.

  13. Time for political CYA- “We’re not going to participate in any transaction that will cause the Coliseum to be taken away from the A’s” – Floyd Kephart
    Retweeted by newballpark- looks like Oakland has made their decision. And as Tony D has suggested- still doesn’t mean the A’s and Oakland will strike a deal- still lots of money needed for infrastructure improvements and somehow LW has got to be made whole- he’s not offering a free ballpark to Oakland- he will expect that his investment/risk is recovered. June 21st can’t happen soon enough- time for Floyd to get out of the way- it’s just delaying the negotiations with the A’s

  14. What the hell. I can’t believe Floyd Kephart, said:
    “We’re not going to participate in any transaction that will cause the Coliseum to be taken away from the A’s”
    This has got to mean he doesn’t have the private money lined up right? He has been having face to face meeting with Davis all this time, and not a mention that Davis was not willing to compromise on a coliseum teardown, before building new?

  15. I don’t know how Davis can consider Oakland his top option, when it seems like Oak/AC will not consider a teardown of the coliseum to be the first step.

  16. The solution to this quite simple…but as always there seem to be lame excuses. The West Side of 880 Coli Site should be where the Raiders should be allowed to build the stadium closer to the water. That area is pretty much empty. All they have is Circus Vargus occupying every now and than..basically should be re zoned for the stadium if Davis doesn’t want to deal with the existing site while construction is ongoing.

    • @ cisco007
      The problem (among other things), is Davis doesn’t want to build by the water

    • Davis/Oakland doesn’t have the money to build on the existing site. How can they afford the added infrastructure costs of building across 880? The sole reason he wants to build on the existing footprint is that no/very little new water/electric/sewer lines (well maybe sewer… lol) need to be run there, there is an existing parking lot, there doesn’t NEED to be a new BART station there, there are existing entry/exit roads, etc, etc.

    • Well first that site is really small. Look at google for a size comparison. So there’s no way that circus meets the Raiders needs. You might fit a high school field there but nothing more. Second, a lot of it appears to be wetlands and that’s not a good place to put a stadium and rezoning wetlands for commercial uses is not even close to being a quick process. And it wouldn’t just need city permission but at least county and state.

      If it were really “quite simple” it would’ve been proposed by now. The fact that it hasn’t, after 10+ years should tell you something.

  17. Davis did not explain how he could reasonable see his below quote happening…
    “We’d like for the A’s to stay,” said Davis, who said he will not sell the Raiders. “Selfishly, we’d like to have that land all to ourselves. But we’d like the A’s to stay. We’d like the Raiders to stay. We’d like to build a baseball and a football stadium, maintain the parking we have to maintain the game-day experience . . . tailgating.

  18. The solution to this quite simple…but as always there seem to be lame excuses. The West Side of 880 Coli Site should be where the Raiders should be allowed to build the stadium closer to the water. That area is pretty much empty. All they have is Circus Vargus occupying every now and than..basically should be re zoned for the stadium if Davis doesn’t want to deal with the existing site while construction is ongoing. If anything …Davis shares Inglewood with Kroenke. 900 million for a new stadoim for Raiders here is actually pretty damn good price. Let’s see who Kepharts other investors are next month to try and fill that 400 mill gap. Otherwise add an airport, car rental and hotel tax to help with that funding gap. Citizens of Alameda County should not have a problem with a slight increase in airport, car rental, hotel and maybe BART increase.

    • Considering that the Raiders have already left the city and county holding a bunch of debt, why would the voters agree to give them more?

      Also, you can’t vote for just a BART increase in Alameda County. There’s no way in hell anyone supports a BART increase specific for the Raiders.

      • To keep NFL football here of course and use some of those added airport, car rental, hotels, and perhaps BART taxes/fees to include paying the cops or toward schools? Most of the time tourists or out of towners or commuters will be paying the Oakland Airport, car rental and new hotel tax. People will have to travel regardless of an extra slight tax increase. This would be a different deal than the one old man Al and older city and county leaders approved back in mid 90’s.

      • Yeah and guess what? Old City and County signed off on that deal in the 90’s. People blaming Raiders on that is a mistake. The problem is if Raiders leave….than City and County still owe 110 mill while no team remains. Embarrassing!

  19. It’s looking more and more apparent that if the Raiders are to remain in Oakland, a partial rebuild/renovation of the Coliseum is the only doable solution. Such a facility will not only meet Mark Davis’ specifications to what he is looking for in a stadium and its environs for his team, but is most importantly within his financial wherewithal to get built. However, before Mark Davis takes a serious look at this realistic stadium solution, the NFL will first have to reject the Raiders as a candidate to move to LA, St. Louis, or any other proposed market seeking a NFL team.

    • I agree but the unknown is whether the $400 million loan from the NFL still applies for a remodel. That may be why Davis won’t consider this option because if that money is not there, he’s likely looking at an EVEN GREATER funding gap than a totally new venue.

      • As I have stated before. A remodel of existing site would be a waste because the problem is the actual foundation which is below sea level, sewage and old piping and structure. If someone wants to remodel existing site or needs be done from ground up anyways. Not just something cosmetic. Waste of time and money IMO.

      • Pretty sure the NFL stadium loan fund would NOT include a remodel.

    • Raiders are not going to St Louis. Enough of that non sense please!

  20. Cost to build here the compact 55k-60k stadium will be 900 mill. Between Mark and NFL stadium loan 500 mill. Need investors to finance the other 400 mill. That is where Kephart comes in or maybe Clorox, Tesla or Oracle?

    • Tesla, Oracle, Apple, Yahoo, Facebook, Google etc….all may want a piece of Raiders and get in on the NFL.

  21. Just read a report on BR stream quoting Davis as saying he would sell a minority percentage of the team to close funding gap.

    • A lot of big time….big money corporations here that may want to get it on the Raiders and a piece of NFL action.

      Clorox, Tesla, Oracle, Apple, Yahoo, Facebook, Google etc….all may want a piece of the Raiders and get in on the NFL. Be a good investment for only 400 mill and they may eventually just buy out Davis in the future.

      • How much sports sponsorships/ownerships have Apple, Clorox, Yahoo, Facebook been involved in? I believe the answer is none at all. What value does owning a football team bring to their stockholders? Little to none. i’m not sure the NFL even allows corporate ownership. Larry Ellison tried to buy two NBA teams and lost both times.

    • Davis said he didn’t want to build the new stadium in Oakland next to existing site and worry about a “construction zone” while the existing site is torn down which will ” inconvenience fans”. Sounds like a lame azz excuse. Putting it on the “fans”. Come on now Mark! SMH

  22. People who have obscene amounts of money, don’t want to give $400 million dollars and not have controlling interest of a team. For them it’s about power, and decision making. I can’t see Davis selling another bunch of pieces of the team off either. There are already a ton of minority owners.
    Davis just better not get left with no chair to sit on. I just wonder how the NFL is going to figure out what to do with the raiders. I bet they don’t even know

    • Al Davis (RIP) was all about power and decision making. Mark?…not so much. Probably doesn’t make a big difference re “power and control” if you’re a Raiders majority or minority owner.

      A $400 million minority stake in the team probably isn’t such a bad idea as well for someone with gobs of money, who wants a good return on their investment (see how much values of sports teams can skyrocket with new venues or, in the A’s case, with time).

      Larry Ellison anyone?….

      • Larry would want to run the team, not be a “minority owner.” The chances of him buying minority ownership are slim and none.

      • Exactly! 400 million investment to get into the NFL with a new stadium sounds like a damn good investment actually. Better than paying a billion. As I mentioned earlier, they can also potentially buy out Davis in the future. 400 mill is a good way for one of these big time Bay Area companies to get a foot in the door of the NFL.

      • Or even the man…Elon Musk!

      • @cisco – While you can make big money owning sports teams, CEO’s don’t buy sports teams as an investment. They buy them for ego. No one with enough case to own a team outright, like Ellison is going to want to play second fiddle to Mark Davis.

  23. Oakland city officials can take credit for this mess. Recall recently that after the kings were sold to the Seattle group and the team was 100 percent bolting to Seattle, johnson, with only a two month window, somehow snatched victory from the jaws of defeat and organised a local owners group and plans for a new arena. San Diego officials, in a three month window, put together an impressive financial package that will likely keep the chargers in SD.
    Meanwhile, ex mayor Quans CC plan (almost unfeasible) is the only attempt to keep teams in Oakland in twenty years, and wish to keep the coliseum intact even after committing to build a new Raiders stadium, against Davis’s wishes (Wolff also would enjoy seeing it demolished ) Very indecisive dississon making by Oakland officials.

    • I like the idea of the Raiders keeping the Coliseum and having the A’s build a temporary ballpark

    • Interesting thoughts Dave. Here’s one: perhaps the Raiders pursuit of a new stadium is also the A’s pursuit of an Oakland ballpark as well (in the eyes of MLB). Think about it…I could see and hear Wolff talking to Manfred now “See all the crap the city of Oakland is putting the Raiders through?! It’s not going to be any different for us there either!” Stay tuned…

      • What’s up with Kephart and is his interested investors he needs to have lined up buy June 21st? If SD stays…than Carson is effectively dead. Davis doesn’t want to be team #2 with Kroenke does he? Unless he splits partnership like he wanted with Bolts in Carson.

    • http://m.ocregister.com/articles/million-662290-nfl-chargers.html

      Bolts will actually be paying more money out of pocket in this deal than the Carson deal.

      It’s going to be quite interesting to see how the City winds up after losing both the Dubs and Raiders for a second time economically. Than the City will be stuck dealing with the greedy Lew Wolff and actual selling him the Coli City land so he can develop as he pleases and than have him and Beane still be cheap when running the team? Same thing happened in SD when Moores was owner of Pads. Promises they would spend if a new ballpark built and when ballpark comes….no spending and a slap in the face to fans and SD turned upside down economically. Moored than sells and makes his profit. SMH

      • All this while Oakland will still be in the same economic situation if not worse if Dubs and Raiders leave as far the excuses that they can’t afford to keep sports teams here compared to other financial problems.

      • @cisco- you can thank Doug Boxer when both the W’s and Raiders are gone- and he paints a picture of an Oakland advocate…..ah yeah- exactly then why did he lead the effort for the W’s move to SF? And his advice to Oakland pols to keep on stalling is what will be responsible for the Raiders ending up in
        LA- relative to the A’s- if Oakland wants to keep them they better be willing to deal- land, infrastructure etc- bottom line is LW is not going to give Oakland a free ballpark- no different than Marc D won’t give them one. Gap for the Raiders- about $500M- just so happens to be the same gap for a ballpark for the A’s- if they couldn’t make it happen for the Raiders than why will they make it happen for the A’s- if I was a Raiders fan I would be all over Doug Boxer and Oakland politicians- but seems like the Raider fans accept that there is nothing they can do to change this outcome.

      • “All this while Oakland will still be in the same economic situation if not worse if Dubs and Raiders leave”

        There is absolutely zero evidence that points to this. While not necessarily specific to Oakland, you can find a ton of articles that show that the economic impact of a sports team is trivial to negative.

        This is especially true for the Raiders. 8 games a year does not bring in a lot of side business. Bars, restaurants, hotels, etc can’t build a business around 8 dates a year.

        You don’t have neighborhoods like Wrigleyville associated with football stadiums for exactly these reasons.

      • @cisco007:The economics of the Carson plan are off. If the Raiders/Chargers don’t finance the project themselves, how is the investor of that stadium going to make profits charging the teams $1.2 mil rent each annually? – for a $1.7 bil. cost stadium – that would take awhile to recoup the investment.

        If the San Diego owner reallly desired to move the team to LA, and finance a $1.7 bil. stadium – they could have done so years ago. The Chargers assumed plan( for over 10 years) has been to stay put in SD, however get San Diego city officials to commit to building a new stadium, and finance most of its cost. The new San Diego stadium plan appears to solve that. Also the costs and rent of the San Diego plan aren’t written in stone -however they appear to be a good starting point for negotiating.

        Also,why can’t Oakland officials do some creating financing such as San Diego politicos did, and sell parcels of land, for example to fund a Raiders and/or A’s stadium? Oakland’s effort to finance the Raiders or A’s has been dismal when compared to the efforts of other city officials efforts to keep or retain sports franchises in their cities.

      • “Also,why can’t Oakland officials do some creating financing such as San Diego politicos did”

        Because Oakland is not San Diego.

        San Diego is a much larger city than Oakland. San Diego has a significantly higher tourism base that it can tax than Oakland. Most importantly San Diego county has a reported $700M general fund surplus whereas Oakland is in debt.

        This is not a knock on Oakland, it’s just the facts. To build a stadium in Oakland the team is going to have to foot the bill. If the team can’t, they’ll leave. It’s as simple as that.

  24. re: the greedy Lew Wolff ….”the “greedy Lew Wolff” has asked for a total of $0.00 for ballpark construction from Oakland, San Jose and Fremont. Some think he is greedy because he is not willing to flat-out donate a ballpark to Oakland with no return on his investment, because, after all, he’s rich and can afford it, right? There’s still plenty of pining for the Haas ownership, which was willing to lose many millions of dollars running the A’s until the red ink got too deep. Those days are over, folks. They are not coming back…FWIW, when we look at Oakland, a struggling midsize city, it simply cannot afford to pay for major pro sports facilities at today’s prices and the state of California is not going to help with this. It might be more practical for Oakland to let the teams go and have the Coliseum site redeveloped for commercial-office-residential development. But I hope the A’s can figure out a way to stay.

    • Perhaps someone could remind me…how much did Avaya Stadium directly cost the city of San Jose? “Greedy”, indeed…

      • The city got Avaya Stadium for free from “greedy Lew Wolff.”

      • Of course, Avaya Stadium costs about $120 million and, although it’s very nice, it cuts corners – no nice facade outside the building, just steel beams, stuff like that. and it’s in the heart of Big $$ Silicon Valley A state-of-the-art A’s stadium in struggling Oakland will cost $500 million to $600 million. No comparison.

    • The greedy Wolff wants the surrounding Coli City land to himself. If A’s get a new stadium…will be finally open up check book or still be cheap and sell the to make his profit? Just like Moores in SD did with the Pads?

  25. The best option for Oakland is granting control of the land to the A’s/Lew Wolff, who can do all the commercial development, pay off the Mt Davis debt, and be able to fully finance the ballpark on their own, with revenues from the commercial development covering the stadium financing. Lew Wolff has proposed this, but only if he has complete control of the site. He has not drawn out a specific plan yet, only because he has to wait for how the current CC/Kephart/Raiders plays out. But if anyone can do it, it’s Lew Wolff, a deep pocketed developer with a substantial track record of large scale projects.

    Plus, of course, 81+ dates a year for baseball, 10+ for football. And I don’t buy the “Marquee NFL” argument (previously mentioned on this thread). MLB is just as marquee as the NFL.

    And now, with Carson/Chargers/Raiders option looking much much more of a solid possibility (with 1.7 billion in Goldman Sachs and NFL loan financing apparently sewn up), and the still existing $400 mil gap at Raiders CC, and Mark Davis saying himself that time is almost up, Oakland making the A’s their choice for the site is increasingly looking like a no-brainer.

    • J-A,
      Lew Wolff has proposed nothing but 120 acres of surface parking around a hypothetical Coli ballpark and wants nothing to do with the rest of the 800 acress. There will be no commercial development to finance a $600 million + Oakland ballpark under the aforementioned scenario. Lastly, if Oakland isn’t granting full control of the Coli land to the Raiders (which has been rumored), it’s not going to happen for Wolff either.

      Respectfully, just my opinion..

      • Coli ballpark – $600 million
        Existing debt- $100+ million

        So $700 million + for Wolff to spend in an area void of decent corporate support and high disposable incomes WITH little to no ancillary development to boot.

        Not saying it isn’t possible, BUT WOW! Wolff would become the greatest civic philanthropist on the planet if it does happen…

      • J-A
        That June 2014 article was before the recent FACTS about Wolff wanting surface parking on the 120 acres and nothing to do with land (800 acres) he’ll never see developed in his lifetime. Respectfully.

    • @j-a- only problem with your assessment is LW has said the 120 acres would primarily be the ballpark surrounded by parking- I.e- assume 150 parking spaces per acre and 20 acres for the ballpark- you get a maximum of 15000 parking spots for 36k fans- and that assumes the arena is gone. Today the o.co has about 10000 spaces. I realize a portion of fans take Bart but reality is tht there isn’t going to be a lot of property left for commercial development. Two things from this- more than likely Oakland will need to give development rights to other land in the city beyond the Coli and second there is little to no economic impact for Oakland wirh a ballpark or stadium surrounded by parking. People drive in for the event and leave.

    • “MLB is just as marquee as the NFL.”

      Just not true. MLB teams play their games before mostly local TV audiences; NFL teams before national ones. NFL games are events in the way MLB games are not. And if your team actually makes it to the Super Bowl, you’ve basically got a five hour commercial for your city on the most watched television program on the planet.

      • Except many NFL broadcasts are seen on a local-only level too. Obviously things like SNF, MNF, and the Thursday games are seen on a truly national level (i.e. everyone in every market sees the same game on the same network), but the morning and afternoon games are often local, just broadcast on the national networks (Fox and CBS). Sunday morning and afternoon national broadcasts simply fill in the gaps when a given market’s team isn’t playing. For example: Say the default national afternoon broadcast for CBS is Giants-Cowboys, but at the same time there is a 49ers-Rams game going on. Both the Bay Area and St. Louis are going to see the latter on CBS, not the national game. And the same goes for all other markets whose teams are playing during that same time slot on that same network.

      • I agree that the NFL draws more attention overall than MLB, but I’m not sure that really makes a difference in this case.

        Jeff was talking about the economic impact that a sports team has on an area. While it’s true that more people nationally watch Raider games than A’s games how does that impact businesses in Oakland?

        The Raiders could have millions of fans around the world, but if they only draw 55K a game for 8 games local businesses only have the chance to benefit from 55K fans 8 days a year.

        The A’s could have 0 fans outside of the Bay Area, but if they draw 20K a game for 81 dates, that’s a lot more opportunity for local businesses to benefit.

        This is why you have MLB teams in out of the way places like the Meadowlands, Orchard Park, Foxborough, etc. The sport doesn’t lend itself to support ancillary development.

    • Sorry but the NFL is King for a reason. The 81 home dates is not seeing the big picture. If new Raiders stadium is built here and it looks much better than that half ass rush job in Santa Clara…they will get more year round events also.

      The greedy Wolff wants the surrounding Coli City land to himself. If A’s get a new stadium…will he be finally open up the check book spend money on players or still be cheap and sell the to make his profit? Just like Moores in SD did with the Pads?

  26. re: Coli ballpark – $600 million
    Existing debt- $100+ million

    So $700 million + for Wolff to spend in an area void of decent corporate support and high disposable incomes WITH little to no ancillary development to boot.

    Not saying it isn’t possible, BUT WOW! Wolff would become the greatest civic philanthropist on the planet if it does happen…

    …All good points. All of which enable Wolff to argue for permanent revenue-sharing. He has presented MLB with a viable option for building a ballpark in San Jose and MLB has turned down that request. Now MLB has an obligation to help him get it done in Oakland if that is where MLB wants the ballpark. MLB and Manfred have to know by now that the public contribution to the ballpark will be $0.00. So continued revenue-sharing will be needed to keep the A’s in their current small market, corporate $$-lacking territory.

  27. What’s amazing to me is that Mark Davis said he really hasn’t talked to Kephardt, Schaaf said she is waiting for him to propose something, and Roger G said Oakland is missing in action in terms of a concrete proposal. And you have Haggerty and Miley working on political CYA win their public comments. All of this with 1 month to go before deliverables are due. The level of dysfunctional bs in Oakland is beyond belief- now Raider fans know what us A’s fans have been dealing with for years-

    • It’s very simple, actually. Oakland doesn’t want to lose the teams but it can’t do what it takes to keep them: Pay for stadiums. So it’s about stalling, stalling, stalling, press conferences, development proposals that never go anywhere (Coliseum City), etc. Lots of talk, lots of show, but no action, no commitment, no deliverables.

      • Yes- but what is so unfortunate is if Oakland had been more strategic they would have pushed the Raiders to partner with the ‘9ers in SC- the Raiders would have stayed in the region and still would have been called the Oakland Raiders- And then they could have focused on putting their best foot forward with the A’s. If I am MLB watching this Raiders debacle I’ve gotta be shaking my head wondering wtf is on first in Oakland. Their inability to see the big picture and make appropriate decisions is pretty unbelievable

      • The failure to partner with the 49ers is really the key mistake here that could lead to the Raiders leaving.

        To be honest though, I think this is more on the Raiders than it is on the city of Oakland.

        The NFL was pushing for this as well as sane members of the Raiders organization like Amy Trask. Ultimately though Al was dead set against this and I doubt anything Oakland could have done would have helped.

      • @ Slacker
        I agree with you, not that Oakland/AC don’t hold plenty of blame for not making serious decisions before today, but this has got to be more on the Raiders then anyone, after all they are the ones that want/wanted a new stadium. Oakland has messed up more times (ways) than I can count, but Mark Davis is basically saying I will wait until someone builds me a new stadium without doing much of the heavy lifting.
        He will get it done on the backs of efforts by the Rams owner, going half with the family that owns the Chargers, LA or a city in the LA area, the NFL, San Antonio, St Louis, or Oakland, someone somewhere will pay.

    • @GoA’s – Kephardt, Goodell and Davis all have their own motivations here and making Oakland look like the bad guy is an easy way to accomplish their goal.

      It’s Kephardt’s job to get something done for New City. He knows if this fails New City is out. The only way to stay in the game is to get an extension and that only happens if he can paint the city leaders as the bad guys (not a hard thing to do) forcing them to agree to an extension so it doesn’t look like they forced the Raiders out.

      Goodell wants public money. While he may realize he’s never getting this from Oakland, by trashing the city he’s putting pressure on other cities who have teams threatening to leave.

      Davis isn’t capable of doing anything so his best option is to sit back and hope that something falls in his lap, which is largely leading to the chaos.

      Oakland has screwed up the whole situation no doubt, but if you put all of the historical bad decisions that were made under previous leadership teams in the past, their only option in the short term is to kick the Raiders to the curb and work with the A’s. That’s not popular so I understand why they’re just waiting things out.

      • Oakland and County leaders are a joke for losing both the Dubs and than Raiders for a 2nd time?? Unreal….

  28. I just read the San Diego proposal and it involves 240M from the general funds of San Diego County and the City of San Diego.

    The rest would come from the NFL/Chargers and a land sale.

    I am shocked and impressed at the same time, The county/city putting in 240M was not expected.

    The Raiders cannot move to Carson without the Chargers involved period. It looks like San Diego stepped up and will keep their team. This proposal looks solid and I believe for the first time in a long time they will actually stay put once they figure out the land sale portion.

    Mark Davis is at the mercy of the Chargers, could the Raiders be a 2nd team to the Rams?

    Yes, but not immediately, the Rams will get 5 years of runway after the stadium is built to re-coup their costs.

    The Raiders could call the Rams and split the stadium, the irony as that was what the NFL wanted in Inglewood in 1995, Raiders/Rams sharing there.

    In the case of the Rams, why would they want the Raiders involved when they can make it happen on their own and reap all the profits??

    This just got interesting, Spanos has stated publicly he wants to stay in San Diego and this proposal looks really good.

    • So what happens when the Raiders can’t get a new stadium in Oakland and can’t move to LA?

      • Seriously consider rebuild of Coli around Mt. Davis, move to Santa Clara or status quo..

      • Contraction?…just kidding!

      • St Louis.

        It sounds like the NFL may get it’s way in San Diego with public funding. If St Louis comes up with a similar deal there’s no way the NFL helps the Raiders out in Oakland with no public funding.

    • “Yes, but not immediately, the Rams will get 5 years of runway after the stadium is built to re-coup their costs.
      In the case of the Rams, why would they want the Raiders involved when they can make it happen on their own and reap all the profits??”

      The Rams can recoup their costs more quickly and reap even more profit by having a tenant. Kroenke is not going to let the Raiders buy in, but he will certainly let them rent his stadium. Davis might not want to be a tenant in Santa Clara, but that doesn’t mean he is unwilling to be one in LA.

      • Notice all the home renovations going on in the Bay Area? This is rational and realistic people building within their means. Mark Davis should seriously consider doing the same…a re-do of the Coliseum is his best shot, and maybe his only shot!

      • ^ But Davis has backed himself into a corner even on the renovation idea. He has explicitly stated he won’t see the Raiders in Lev’s at all. So if the Coliseum were to be ripped apart for a remodel or totally demolished to build new on the same spot (neither of which I see happening), the Raiders would be homeless. California Memorial Stadium is off limits because of event restrictions and I doubt anyone views Stanford Stadium as a temp venue and doubt even more that Stanford would agree to that anyway. So that would leave the Raiders with nowhere to play in either a remodel or new build on the same footprint.

      • “Davis might not want to be a tenant in Santa Clara, but that doesn’t mean he is unwilling to be one in LA.”

        It completely defies logic to think Davis would want to be a tenant in LA. All the reasons he doesn’t want to be a tenant in Santa Clara would still apply. I see no realistic scenario where the economics for him would be any more favorable. And he seems to have a genuine interest in preserving the legacy and history of the Oakland Raiders, which he could accomplish to a much greater degree in Santa Clara than LA.

      • “He has explicitly stated he won’t see the Raiders in Lev’s at all.”

        I don’t remember him ever specifically saying he wouldn’t go to Santa Clara for two years or so while they built him a new stadium in Oakland if Coli City somehow panned out. But even if he did, I don’t believe it for a second. He’s not going to crater the deal he’s consistently said he wants over a temporary relocation, and I don’t think he would find much sympathy from the NFL if he did.

      • His “consistency” on wanting to stay in Oakland means absolutely nothing when he hasn’t taken a single concrete step to make it happen. Words cost $0 and require essentially zero time commitment.

      • bartleby – the Davis’ have shown a willingness to partner on a stadium in LA that they did not show up here. I find it entirely logical that they might extend that willingness to being a tenant as well. It’s a far larger, more glamorous market and from the renderings Kroenke’s stadium looks less Rams-specific than Levi’s is 49ers-specific. Being second fiddle in LA gives them access to a lot more money than being second fiddle in the Bay Area.

        And talk of an Oakland legacy is for Raiders fans. The Davis’ have shown no loyalty to any particular geographical fanbase at all.

      • “All the reasons he doesn’t want to be a tenant in Santa Clara would still apply.”

        Yes and no. The problem with Santa Clara now is that the 49ers own the stadium. The 49ers fans control the PSL’s. The Raiders will always be the red headed step child at Levi’s, similar to the Jets situation at the old Meadowlands.

        If Al would have done the smart thing up front and partnered with the 49ers on the stadium, these issues could have been resolved similar to the deal between the Giants and the Jets at their new stadium.

        If the Raiders were purely a tenant in LA (whether Carson or Inglewood), the same issues might apply. If the Raiders are part of the deal up front, I’m sure these things could be worked out. The NFL might even try to force this upon Kroenke as a condition for the Rams moving to LA.

  29. As an aside, I just got back from a trip to St Louis (saw a game in the last MLB ballpark I had not yet done so). Several locals I spoke to were of the view that the new stadium there will go through, the Rams will leave anyway, and they’ll end up with the Raiders.

    • Davis also commented that he has no interest in St Louis and the rumor of the Raiders to St Louis is false, those St Louis fans are guilty of wishful thinking or full of B.S.

      • Davis has also said he wants to stay in Oakland yet from the action perspective he’s spent more time on Carson and arguably San Antonio than Oakland. He’s yet to even draw a pretty picture of what an Oakland stadium would look like.

        Davis has no ability to do something on his own. He’s not going to get any public money (nor should he) in Oakland. It’s been years and private money has yet to come forward for a new stadium at the Coliseum site.

        As SMG said, talk is cheap. It’s actions that matter.

        I hate to say this, but it’s wishful thinking on the part of Raiders fans to think that St Louis isn’t a serious threat here.

      • @Slacker: Perhaps Los Angeles or San Antonio – not St Louis (that city will lose 2 NFL franchises in 29 years) Even Kroenke is from that area and wants to get the eff out of there,. NFL owners generally are not stupid, St Louis likely won’t be hosting an NFL team for quite a while.

      • @duffer – I don’t disagree that St Louis is a baseball market first but keep in mind that Oakland is just as at risk as St Louis of losing two teams.

        LA has lost two teams as well.

        Don’t disagree about San Antonio and LA. Just pointing out the fact that St Louis is a serious threat to Oakland in regards to the Raiders.

  30. The Chargers owners latest quote is that he has aalways liked the San Diego market (fan base) and now it’s just a question of finances, which could be negotiated fairly soon with San Diego officials, the Chargers now,appear interested in staying,in San Diego, leaving Davis holding the bag

    • Davis might find himself with just one option that he hates: Bunking up with the 49ers at Levis.

  31. Baltimore can get new ballpark and a new stadium…..but they are not a worse city than Oakland are they? Noooooo…..SMH

    • How much state assistance did Baltimore get? Oakland will get $0.00. Oakland is committed to not contributing taxpayer money toward stadiums. If the NFL wants public funds, it might just want to declare the game over now in Oakland. Now if the Chargers end up staying in San Diego and the Rams don’t want to share with the Raiders (who can’t get a stadium in LA on their own), I’m seeing 3 options: Move to a new Saint Louis stadium if the Rams go to LA, move to San Antonio (which has not committed to building a new NFL stadium), or the option the NFL probably has preferred all along: Levi’s for the long term. At some point, if Oakland and the Raiders agree to disagree, then it’ll be time to move on and work toward a new A’s stadium at the Coliseum site. That’ll leave the Raiders on the outside looking in.

      • @pjk nailed it. The Ravens stadium was funded at the state level through state bonds and the state lottery.

        Baltimore is without question the largest, most recognizable and most important city in Maryland. Oakland is the 8th largest and likely around the same standing in terms of importance and name recognition in the state of California.

        The Ravens might be important to the state of Maryland but the Raiders simply aren’t important to the state of California.

        This has more to do with Maryland and California than it does Oakland and Baltimore.

      • St Louis is not happening for Raiders…period! SA has a better shot.

  32. @ Floyd Kephart

    It’s June 21, what’s up?

    Am I wrong or weren’t we supposed to hear significant news today?

    • @ Floyd Kephart

      Sorry I fill so stupid, it’s still May. It still would be nice to hear something, anything at all.

    • It’s May 21st…

      • @SMG
        Thanks, I caught myself. I was hoping to post the second comment before someone let me know I was a month early. I see both of our comments were at the same time.

      • Be in May or June 21 it would be nice to have Floyd tell us why the raiders and the nfl aren’t happy with his work-

  33. i’d be surprised at this point if a new sports venue is built in oakland by the end of this decade with all the mess and bull**** that is this entire soap opera.

    • @ letsgoas
      I’m so with you. At this point in may take to the end of the decade, just to have an agreement in place to build something.

    • Exactly! The City of Oak and County leaders are at fault also.

  34. Raiders going to LA not yet a foregone conclusion if SD stays in SD. Due to MD’s own comments, he will need to be a partner with Kronke in Inglewood and does not want to be “team #2 and a tenant. So him and Kronke will need to work out a partnership as MD is doing with Bolts in Carson.

    If the Raiders are in a non-winnable fight as it relates to the current plan being considered, they are as vulnerable as the Chargers and that creates a huge problem for the NFL, as it seems Rams owner Stan Kroenke has his heart set on Los Angeles. Kronke believes he has strong justification for relocation even if state leaders in Missouri come up with a plan to build him a new stadium in downtown St. Louis. He doesn’t want to stay in St Louie and he will not be forced to. He wants LA.

    If Kroenke truly wants Los Angeles, no matter what Missouri offers, and the Raiders and Chargers have no viable stadium plans on the table from Oakland and San Diego, how does the NFL sort out the dilemma of two teams needing Los Angeles and one team wanting Los Angeles? There will NOT be three teams in LA….the market is NOT that big and I don’t care what anybody says. 80k and divided by 3 teams is 240K fans with divided loyaties to sell out 2 stadiums consistently in LA? NOPE!

    What happens to the hopes of Los Angeles NFL fans for the return
    of pro football if the entire situation devolves into a standoff, with the Chargers and Raiders mustering the votes of seven other owners to prevent Kroenke from achieving the three-fourths majority he needs to relocate?

    At the risk of being an alarmist, that almost seems bound to happen fellas!

    It just leaves fans, analysts and even people involved coming up with ideas to piece together a complicated puzzle.

    • Not sure the owners could stop Kroenke from moving the Rams- at least one influential owner Jerry Jones says they can’t. What they could do is withhold G4 funds which may or may not matter to a guy this rich. And of course if he does this the raiders choices are to hang in Oakland where nothing will be done, move to SA or move to ST. Louis- – later 2 would do something for them-

      • Davis isn’t moving to St Louis….with a new stadium or no new stadium there. That is not a Raider market…not even close. SA would still have an outside chance though.

    • Isn’t Kroenke entitled to $700 million for stadium improvements, as per an arbitration he won against the state? I don’t believe Missouri?Saint Louise are offering him anywhere close to that figure. $300-$400 million, if it sustains an almost-certain fight against it, no?

      • I have the same question. St. Louis was stupid enough to give the Rams that ultra one-sided contract when the team moved there. From what I’ve read, the possible public offering doesn’t even approach $700 million, and that’s assuming there isn’t a vote and/or court battle over how/if to allocate any public money in the first place.

  35. Just watched an interview with Carmen Policy… it shows right after the one ML just linked from CSN about selling minority stake in Raiders.

    Carmen Policy states Goldman Sachs considers “one team at the Carson site can be financed.” Interviewer asked to clarify… “even if that one team is the Raider organization…” Policy: “That’s correct.”

    • Well that’s new. And based on literally everything else we’ve heard so far, it seems pretty dubious.

      • Yeah he goes on to even state timelines so the site can host the 2020 Super Bowl… a team needs to play there for the 2018 season.

  36. Interesting tweet with article that Libby Schaaf that ML just retweeted- obviously beginning to prepare Oakland fans for not providing any public dollars for the Raiders and letting the chips fall where they may-

    • The writings on,the wall, Schaffer is clearly slamming the door on the Raiders and is instead opting for the A’s, a bold considering Oakland officials have consistently favored the Raiders over the As. What’s also puzzling is why Davis hasn’t considered other east bay sites or even SF as a possible site.

      • Show us where you can build a football stadium in SF. Spoiler: there’s not enough available land anywhere.

      • Nor does building in SF or anywhere else in the East Bay solve the money issue- I am surprised that the Raider nation seems to be along for the ride- wherever that may take them. Expected to see Schaaf and other Oakland/AC leaders shredded over this. Assume Schaaf has polling info to back her up and is now feeling comfortable that her position is supported by her constituents-

  37. ML needs to write a post on the San Diego proposal,

    Chargers are staying in SD, they only need to put in 300M upfront and there are major public subsidies from the City and County, unlike Oakland/Alameda, SD/SD County are flush with a surplus.

    Granted the Chargers would pay a higher rent of 10M per year, but in Carson the project is 100% privately financed.

    Meaning each team is on the hook for 850M each, why would the Chargers leave SD for this?

    Forget the fact if they partner with the Raiders, each team would cannibalize each other for suite/PSL sales since neither team plays in LA currently.

    Raiders to Carson is dead, they are just to stupid to know it. San Diego dropped their pants and are putting public money in.

    The City already is paying out of their general fund for Qualcomm Stadium, so for them its a wash, the cash plush county stepped their game up with 120M.

    All the NFL is hesitant about is a land sale that is included as a funding mechanism….not a big part of the overall deal, this will get solved quickly.

    Spanos won’t leave SD, he is a true San Diegan and so are his kids. Unlike Stan Kroenke he won’t break the hearts of his fans and home city/state.

    Mark Davis is screwed, he has to share with the Rams, the irony as the NFL wanted a shared Rams/Raiders stadium in Inglewood in 1994 only to have Al Davis shoot it down…..Wow.

    If I am Stan Kroenke, why would I share? Why have competition for fans if you can do it on your own and capture larger market share?

    Raiders are stuck in Oakland guys……indefinitely.

    • one can only hope you are wrong Sid–because Raiders stuck in Oakland means the A’s are stuck in the Coli—heres’ to the next decade of what could have, should have happened for the A;s new ballpark. I still think another wildcard in all of this is the health of Mrs. Davis—estate taxes will kill MD and me thinks he will have to sell at that point to pay uncle sam. So assuming Rams move to LA (and I agree Kroenke doesn’t want to share), then Raiders might hang in Oakland for a bit before selling and then heading to St. Louis. MD can claim he did what he could to keep the team in Oakland and there is nothing else he can do—t

    • Interesting theory, however Carmen Policy (who is in charge of the Chargers/Raiders deal) commented that the Carson project could fund the Raiders only if needed. Evidently San Diego could be staying in SD. If that’s true – welcome to the Carson Raiders.

      • You kind of answered this though in your response, “Carmen Policy (who is in charge of the Chargers/Raiders deal) “. Carmen Policy has been brought on to push a deal for the Carson site through similar to Kephardt being brought on for Coli City. He’s not going to publicly say that the deal is screwed.

      • @Slacker
        Thank you. Carmen Policy is as much of a used car salesman as the rest of them (perhaps not as much as Kephart), not saying it can’t be done in Carson, but what in the hell ells is the guy going to say?

      • Have you guys watched the interview? The one I linked yesterday?

        The difference between Policy and Kephart is that K. doesn’t have any money behind his pitch.

        Policy has $1.7 Billion – with a “B” folks – behind him from Goldman-Sachs and the NFL and stated it was good even if the stadium was for the Raiders only. He wouldn’t say that if it were not true and presented to the NFL as such – that would be shooting himself and the deal in the foot.

        Kephart isn’t a used-car salesman… he’s a Craigslist advertiser trying to dump a salvage-titled junker in the Wal Mart parking lot.

        Policy is selling a brand new Lexus.

      • Uh, DTP…saying stuff like Raiders can go it alone and we have “$1.7 billion with a B!” behind us is called creating LEVERAGE. And don’t always believe what folks like Carmen say to the media.

        Raiders aren’t going to Carson…

  38. Keep NFL football in Oakland in an ideal public transportation hub near the water where they are at instead of and logistical traffic nightmare on a toxic waste landfill in Carson where they won’t sell 80k consistently with Bolts and Rams also. LA market is not that big…sorry. Tear down existing Coli Site and let A’s go to San Jose where Wolff wants or Wolff needs to build somewhere else…JLS/Howard Terminal, Fremont/Warm Springs or in Dublin/Camp Parks. Building a multipurpose stadium that can be used year round instead of a 30k single use ballpark when Wolff and Beane will not spend the money to keep good players around anyways and tear it up every 3 years is a waste. Or Wolff will just sell after ballpark is built to make his money anyway. Screw Lew Wolff…he hates Oakland anyway!

  39. Yeah..it’s why Levis is poorly rated and is in a terrible location for fan access….on top of the piss poor design. Plus it doesn’t get loud at all. Yeah…Levis turned out “perfect”….for York and Goldman Sachs. Everyone else….not so much. Plus the cherry on top with York blowing it all up it made his thievery even worse for Niner fans. SMH ha

  40. You guys act like Carson is a forgone conclusion. It only happens if Bolts are in and SD is stepping up to keep them. If Bolts stay in SD than Mark will have to try and partner up with Kroenke….and Mark said he will not be a team #2 or tenant. It has to be a true partnership (like what he is doing with Bolts and Carson) or he gets his own stadium.

  41. Studies showed money will only be made of two teams were in Carson. Not one…unless they reduce to the seating capacity in Carson from 80k to 60k?

  42. Wolff doesn’t want any part of the Coliseum site, while Mark Davis is willing to have his stadium there, if he gets the right deal. For that scenario to happen, both the NFL and MLB will have to each respectively make decisions that will both retain the Raiders to its current Bay Area market indefinitely and MLB has to eventually relent to allow the A’s to move out of its current East Bay territory. However, this scenario could take a few more years in the making before it can work its way to fruition. I can see the Raiders playing in Santa Clara on a year to year short-term lease basis until MLB eventually relents and gives the A’s the approval to move to San Jose. Once the A’s are vacated from the Coliseum site, the Raiders will then have the leverage over Oakland to get a replacement stadium deal done on the Coliseum footprint. We shall see!

  43. Ah yes, the point of the thread where it’s devolved into bitchy conspiracy theories and nonsensical spewing of emotional “arguments”.

    • And of course you’ve been the model here for class and mature debate (sarcasm). Until the next thread…

Comments are closed.