Sometimes it’s easier to ramble on a podcast than to write and edit a couple thousand words on a topic. Actually it’s a lot easier. If you’re wondering how all the stadium business with the A’s and Raiders is going to work out, head over to today’s Swingin’ A’s Podcast at Hardly Serious. I talked for nearly an hour with host Tony Frye about the fallout from the SCOTUS decision, how the Raiders are holding everything up, and what I think is going to happen over the next few months. I even explain how a ballpark deal could get done. Take a listen, and try not to focus on how many times I pause while delivering an answer. It’s a podcast, I’m allowed.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
newballpark.org 
Haven’t had the chance to listen to the podcast, but this looks interesting.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nfls-3-team-race-los-174300493.html Feel free to delete, ML.
Yeah, I listened to your interview and agreed so much. I think in 20 years the A’s will be playing in a 15 year old ballpark in the Malibu/Homebase area, with an “airport” hotel and convention center near the BART and airport extension. Probably that stuff would just be opening, 3-5 years old at most. I imagine between the stadium and the BART station there will be a “village” like they have in STL and Philadelphia (think a sports bar with adjacent restaurants set up like self contained mall food court). If the stadium is 15 years old, the village is 12ish.
Or, not.
I also believe the Malibu/Home base parcels are the most likely place the A’s will build a new ballpark in the Bay Area. That is if it actually happened in the at all. Of course there are several places I think most of us A’s fans would rather see it built (in the Bay Area), but with all the various hurdles that make it almost impossible to build anything, I’m sure a new ballpark at the location will be just fine.
Please Lew let’s just get the thing built. Please…
Sorry: as usual I can’t write.
That is if it actually happened in the “Bay Area” at all.
Looks like Raiders chances of be staying here in the Bay Area are growing by the day. Rumblings are that the NFL wants Rams and Chargers will get Inglewood. More delays for you Raider hating A’s fans. If this happens….Raiders build a new stadium on the North lot, while A’s get the Homebase plot of land or Raiders renovate existing O.Co.
MLB will look very unfavorably on Oakland letting the Raiders build a stadium right next to where the A’s want to go, with both competing for the same luxury suite customers, advertisers, etc. MLB would probably tell San Jose to call off the auction of its ballpark properties instead. Nobody has answered the question of who pays the $400 million that the NFL wants from Oakland but won’t get. The Raiders best chance to stay in the Bay Area – if they even want to – is Levi’s Stadium
Manfred might be leaving the door to San Jose open if Wolff Can’t get a deal done with Oakland. Manfred’s backing Oakland is definitely not pro Giants – he may also make another anti Giants move by giving the ok to San Jose if Oakland and the A’s can’t work out a deal.
@ cisco007
The Raiders building new or remolding the existing stadium, with the A’s Malibu/Homebase? Wow, you know you can’t suggest that. It doesn’t “pencil out”, can’t happen utterly an impossibility to even think there is an outside chance of that happening no matter how remote. (Sarcasm)
You do realize that just as some Oakland-Only folks would rather see the A’s leave the Bay Area then be in San Jose, there are others that don’t want Oakland to retain either or both teams, and simply because they fill Oakland doesn’t deserve them.
Oh and I thought ML and others here suggested it?? I am just playing along with the rest of the crazy specualtion.
@ jcpardell
What can I say, if they can’t be in Oakland, or the Bay Area (San Jose), then they might as well be in the indirect Bay Area. (Sacramento)
I have no problem with your augment or the Sacramento Area. I think if it didn’t have the Bay Area just south of it, they would probable already have a second major professional sports franchise.
a new park could cost the A’s 600 million or more. 9 years ago a new park in Fremont would cost 450 million. Factor in whatever revenue they would have made in a new Fremont park over these past two or three years.
Wolff’s indecision has cost the A’s hundreds of millions of dollars.
People keep saying, oh the A’s have a long lease and they can just wait out the Raiders no big deal. If thats the plan it could cost the A’s hundreds of millions more dollars.
I don’t think this is that big of a deal. $450 million in 2006 is basically $600 million in 2015 dollars if adjusted for inflation at three and a quarter percent a year. $450m x (1.0325)^9 = $600,099,212.30.
they wouldn’t have paid cash for the stadium. they wouldve borrowed, and today their payments would be locked in at 2006 dollars.
To add on to Chris’ comment, the A’s have also turned a profit over those years.
The A’s absolutely would have driven more revenue in Fremont, but their costs would have been higher and they wouldn’t have received a revenue sharing check. While the team would be worth more, it’s likely their annual profit over these years would have been lower.
Half of the Bay Area market is worth more then all of the Sacramento area. Of course half of the Bay Area market in theory since the Giants are presently kicking the A’s ass not only in the Bay Area but Sacramento as well. Sorry man I know it dosent always look good, but the Oakland/East Bay (as well as a portion of the rest of the Bay Area), market is supiriour to the Sacramento area market.
Superior in what way? If you took the East Bay as a sole media market, it would rank far below Sacramento (which is 20th in the nation). In addition, if your theory were correct, how come an East Bay corporation isn’t the title sponsor for the Oakland Coliseum? At least Raley Field, and the new Kings Arena, have local naming rights.
It’s supiriour in population, as well as total market size which effects the amount of local households you can reach. (TV and radio)
It also has access to more larger and mid sized business. The A’s are also centrally located in the Bay Area (7.5 million), not that the A’s are capitalizing on these advantages, since like I said the Giants are kicking our ass on and especially off the field. If done correctly the A’s in Oakland could cocistantly do better then 8-10 other MLB markets, as well as several markets that don’t have a MLB team including Sacramento. (IMHO ) One advantage Sacramento dose have over a Portland, or San Antonio is that they are located close to the A’s current fan base, which of course means that a certain amount of fans would drive up to catch a game.
You’re signaling out the east bay, which if it were not surrounded by eight other bay area counties would be a reasonable point.
Illogical. Sacramento, Solano, San Joaquin and Yolo counties combined would give the A’s market share greater than Orange County. While the Bay Area market, regardless of the A’s strategy, would still be dominated by the Giants.
@ jcpardell
Re: “Illogical. Sacramento, Solano, San Joaquin and Yolo counties combined would give the A’s market share greater than Orange County.”
Again my friend, you are being selective to produce the answer you would like to see. (IMHO) Are those four Counties combined larger then Orange County?
Even if they were your point would only be relevant, if the Angles drew there fan base from no other portion of Southern California then Orange County.
I respect your point of view, but we see it differently and that’s ok.
Five counties. I forgot to include Stanislaus. In addition, should the A’s move to Sacramento, there is no way to dismiss baseball fans from Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. As you stated, they will venture north to watch the A’s. Furthemore, you can throw in the counties of Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Placer and Yuba into the equation of sports fan who will likely support the A’s in Sacramento. That is more than enough baseball fans to provide the owners with enough profitability to enjoy.
I understand your point of view. However, given the future abdication of the Warriors, in addition to the A’s and Raiders weighing their options, I conclude that Oakland is no longer looked at as a favorable sports town. For that particular industry, the business model for that city no longer works.
@ jcpardell
I believe Oakland is more than capable of supporting one to two sports teams, if done correctly. I will say this, if the A’s can’t be in Oakland or San Jose, I would not mind going to Sacramento to catch a game. (It’s pretty much an extension of the Bay Area anyway IMHO) It certainly would beat Portland, San Antonio, Montreal, or Mexico City.
@ jcpardell
Sorry posted this on the wrong comment just above:
What can I say, if they can’t be in Oakland, or the Bay Area (San Jose), then they might as well be in the indirect Bay Area. (Sacramento) I have no problem with your augment or the Sacramento Area. I think if it didn’t have the Bay Area just south of it, they would probable already have a second major professional sports franchise
Well, that is the catch phrase. “If done correctly.” How many things in Oakland have been done correctly? Frankly, that city has far too many problems which need immediated fixing, and should be considered greater priorities over keeping professional sports teams. What Sacramento is capable of doing is creating greater synergy at a lower cost. The Kings new downtown arena will debut next year. The Sacramento Republic, will likely become an MLS franchise with their new stadium built in downtown Sacramento. The success of Raley Field presents a tremendous opportunity for a team like the A’s to tap into a large baseball fan base. In addition, the Cal Expo site is probably one of the best logistical locations for a possible new venue for the Raiders.
@ jcpardell
Re: “Well, that is the catch phrase. “If done correctly.” How many things in Oakland have been done correctly? Frankly, that city has far too many problems which need immediate fixing, and should be considered greater priorities over keeping professional sports teams”
I could make the case that it hasn’t been done correctly, but I don’t want to draw this out more than it has to be.
I could also make the case that ANY city in America has far too many problems which need immediate fixing, and should be considered greater priorities over keeping professional sports teams.
I was trying to respect your augment, but as you say “Frankly” the Kings, the Republic, the A’s, and the Raiders, you need to curb your enthusiasm. Sacramento is a nice city with a nice surrounding area, which you clearly think more of the Oakland and the East Bay, but whatever the Sacramento area ever accomplishes (sports wise), Oakland and the East Bay have already done it.
Anyway nice talk, catch you next comment section. And no, I won’t check for any response.
It understood. No one ever wants to talk about the real problems of Oakland. I’m not stating its 100% bad. However, I don’t believe most cities experience certain acts to the same extent of what occurs in a city of approximately 400,000 residents. This being the case, I think professional sports shouldn’t be considered a priority for their elected officials.
The A’s can move to Sacramento and buy Raley Field for about $65 million and upgrade it for about $200 million.
Wolff has already commented that Sacto is not an option. The A’s are better off in Oakland anyhow – than moving to small-market Sac.
Raley cannot be upgraded to MLB-spec. It would require removal and replacement of the main bowl structure.
If a $65 million stadium could be upgraded to major league standards for $200 million, why do new parks cost $500 million? Why don’t they just build a $65 million AAA park and sprinkle the $200 million worth of magic dust to get a major league park for $265 mil?
Source?
Oakland is not a small market? I read that Raley Field can be expanded. However, it would be expensive. I believe it would still be more cost effective than building a new stadium.
@Juan Pardell: The whole bay area region is much larger than metropolitan Sac. (7.5 mil. compared to 2.2 mil. residents in Sacto) The east bay itself is a much larger fanbase than Sacramento – the A’s chances of moving to Sacramento are 0%. Wolff has previously said that it is not under consideration as a possible site for the A’s.
Raley Field, ‘Home of the RiverCats’, who switched affiliations from A’s to Giants last offseason. Raley Field is therefore in Giants territorial area, and off-limits to the A’s without paying through the nose to the Giants.
Hardly the case. The Rivercats are the AAA affiliate of the Giants. MLB has not designated the territorial rights of Sacramento to the Giants.
Duffer: There are quite a few midpoints in your argument which can go either way. For example, many areas of Alameda, Contra Costa and Solano counties are just as accessible to Sacramento. If you incorporate those areas with Sacramento, and add San Joaquin county, along with anything north of the area, you would have approximately 6.5 million people.
@Juan Pardell: Here is a quote direct from the horses’ mouth (Lew Wolff) ” Sacramento is a very nice city, but not for major-league baseball, as far as our ownership is concerned,”
As others have called out Sac doesn’t make any sense.
More importantly though, Sacramento is the 2nd largest TV market (behind Orlando) without an MLB team:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/12703617/5/5-biggest-tv-markets-without-major-league-baseball-teams.html
This is why the A’s are in such a tough spot, with SJ off the table they really have no other legitimate options outside of Oakland.
duffer: Lew Wolff is eighty years old and he can’t hold onto the A’s forever. The reality is Oakland is no longer a capable sports city. Can the Sacramento market work? The data shows that it can.
Slacker: Not only does the population in Sacramento show it can work, the fact the media market is 20th in the nation, is additional evidence that city will become an economic benefit for the A’s. If anything, the networks will merge the audience of MLB supporters and push it into the media top ten. That give the A’s a huge amount of leverage when negotiating their TV contracts.
Homebase/Malibu has a huge sewer line that can’t be moved or built on top of.
There is no way a ballpark fits unless the line is moved.
A’s are stuck with no way out. Raiders aren’t going anywhere as pjk’s link pointed out
Mark Davis is the most junior owner of the three vying for a spot.
Now it is all about if Spanos is willing to be a tenant to Kroenke but be able to co brand the stadium.
I agree that it’s looking like the Raiders and A’s will be stuck at the Coliseum together for a while. In that case, what would the NFL do about the Raiders’ situation – if anything? Does the NFL orphan the Raiders and let them just rot in Oakland, like MLB and the A’s?
There is a way to fit a ballpark on the combined Malibu/Homebase lot without having to move the inteceptor. ML covered that very recently.
Also, minor point:
“Interceptors” are storm drains, not sewer lines as some keep insisting on saying.
There is no room, the sewer line needs clearance as well. That spot if it was possible would have been looked years ago by dare I say it the “BRC”
That spot is a non-starter, the bigger issue is you cannot build around it in a radius of some sort. Since it is a straight line that radius is huge.
Just because ML says it “might be possible” does not mean it is. ML is no civil engineer, he is a blogger. Albeit a smart blogger.
I will also say Kephart did not even take into account in his drawings this sewer line that cannot be moved.
You think EBMUD wants to service that thing during a ballgame happening 100 feet away?
They will fight it to the end,
Wolff needs the Raiders to leave…..Not happening
@ ML, is there anything to what Sid is asserting here? Perhaps you’re not a civil engineer, but I would think that if it were possible that the Malibu/Homebase lot could be built on (for baseball), you would have a pretty good handle on it.
Again, not a sewer line.
EBMUD doesn’t deal with wastewater.
“the bigger issue is you cannot build around it in a radius of some sort. Since it is a straight line that radius is huge.”
The easement line is the edge of the easement. The beneficiary of an easement has no rights outside of the easement other than access to the easement itself.
@ CCCTL
Thanks, not that anything would be easy to build, but it does sound possible.
This should clear things up. From the EIR:
The City of Oakland is responsible for operation and maintenance of the local sanitary sewer collection system within the Plan Area, while East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) is responsible for operation and maintenance of interceptor lines and the treatment of sewage. The nearest EBMUD interceptor line to the Plan Area runs south to north through it. The South Interceptor is a 63” RCP line within a 25’ easement. It enters the east side of the Plan Area from the Oakland Airport near the intersection of Swan and Doolittle. Then traveling northeast, it enters Hegenberger near the intersection with Leet. It then follows Hegenberger Road across I-880, then turns north, transecting the Coliseum property where it leaves the Plan Area at the 66th Avenue entrance to the Coliseum District. (See Figure 6.4)
This South Interceptor line will need to remain in place and in operation at all times. Roads, surface parking, pedestrian areas and landscape elements can be constructed within this easement, but building structures will be prohibited. EBMUD has indicated there is sufficient dry-weather capacity to serve the future development within the Plan Area. Existing wet weather capacity is currently not sufficient and is under review by EBMUD.
The City’s sewer collection system collects wastewater and conveys it to the EBMUD interceptor lines. Within the City, this system is separated into basins and sub-basins with over 1,000 miles of pipes ranging in size from 6-inches to 72-inches, 31,000 structures and seven pump stations. The majority of the City’s sewer infrastructure is over 60 years old. Thus, these systems are susceptible to Inflow & Infiltration (I&I). I&I is primarily the result of storm water and/or groundwater entering the sanitary sewer system through fractured sewer pipes, defective pipe joints, manholes and unpermitted storm drain connections, and it contributes to sewer pipes exceeding capacity during wet weather events. The City’s policy for new development within the Plan Area will be for all existing sewer mains to be replaced with new infrastructure to alle- viate the I&I problem.
@ ML
Thanks, I really do appreciate it. (Really) I hate to sound stupid, but what was the line in Philadelphia? “Explain it to me like I’m a 6 year old”
So, I take it that it can be done but it will be difficult?
LS/N – That depends on what you’re asking to be done. If you want the interceptor to be relocated, that probably won’t happen unless it comes with a major overhaul or replacement of the interceptor system. Otherwise it’s not worth EBMUD’s while.
Second, the interceptor only runs through a part of the Malibu triangle. It doesn’t go through the HomeBase site at all.
Third, you guys are also forgetting the power transmission lines, which have to be rerouted. That’s the part that most definitely has to happen for a ballpark to be built at Malibu/HomeBase. The interceptor can be left alone.
@ ML
Thanks.
If by chance the Raiders do get a new or remodeled stadium built on the Coliseum property, the A’s will more than likely have to seek an all together different locate for their own new ballpark. For that reason, the A’s will not yet give up on the San Jose Diridon Station property as a future ballpark site. As a result, nothing really can be done regarding the A’s future home, until the Raiders future is permanently settled.
I love your logic man.
But with MLB it is like dealing with women…..No logic and expect the opposite.
San Jose is dead, but if the Warriors fail in SF rumor is they will build jointly with the Sharks in SJ at the A’s site.
ML is right….RIP Cisco Field.
A’s are in Oakland forever, unless the Raiders come thru with a new Oakland stadium as you pointed out it is over for SJ.
Hope is Raiders make it happen and A’s sit on the Giants heads at ATT Park and make them scream “uncle”.
SF A’s??? Make Larry Baer and Charles Johnson cry like babies
Wouldn’t that be a riot if SF fails and the Warriors end up in San Jose, instead of Oakland?. But the Warriors have completed the purchase of that property in Mission Bay. It’s full speed ahead. Any talk of the Warriors and Sharks building a new arena in San Jose is wild speculation.
@Side “Hope is Raiders make it happen and A’s sit on the Giants heads at ATT Park and make them scream “uncle”.
SF A’s??? Make Larry Baer and Charles Johnson cry like babies.”
These comments make no sense. First, MLB has ZERO ability to force the Giants to accept the A’s as a tenant if the Giants don’t want them there. Second, the Giants have publicly stated they would willingly accept the A’s as a tenant, at least on a temporary basis.
From the Giant’s perspective, having the A’s in San Jose competing for their most lucrative customers is very different than having them in San Francisco as a tenant generating a sizable and entirely new revenue stream. Aside from the scheduling challenges, the Giants would LOVE to have the A’s as a tenant. It would represent a huge financial windfall for them.
@ bartleby
Thank you. You are absolutely correct not only would the Giants welcome the new rent money, as you said they have already publicly stated they would welcome the A’s as tenets provided they were building in there currently defined territory. (A/C counties)
We all know the Giants would love to see the A’s out of the Bay Area altogether, but if the A’s have to be in the Bay Area the Giants are going to make damn sure it’s in Oakland and not San Jose.
The Giants have no say if its Sacramento.
That’s true, but the A’s stuck in Oakland is (most economic evidence suggests), more profitable then being in Sacramento.
Profitable in what way? How can a team that has averaged approximately 20,000 attendees per game remain profitable? I am trying to understand the logic behind why some would believe staying in Oakland is more profitable than moving to Sacramento.
20K fans per game playing at an obsolete football stadium (the worst in major pro sports) with a last place team is respectable. It’s debatable if San Jose is really a better location for the A’s because Oakland is a more central location. With a new baseball-only stadium in Oakland, even the 2015 last place A’s would have likely averaged over 25K per game, which is at least mid-sized MLB market support. Besides, the A’s media rights deals are way more lucrative in Oakland than they would be at Sacto. For example, the A’s make $45 mil. with their tv rights deal, at Sacramento, they would make under $20 mil. annually for tv rights compensation.
The A’s media rights have been diminished by remaining in the Bay Area market. In fact, they are contracted with ComcastSports secondary channel. In fact, they don’t have a network carrier. Its cable or nothing, That wouldn’t happen in Sacramento. The likelihood is they would increase their revenues through a renewed cable deal, in addition to having one of the Sacramento major network affiliated wanting to broadcast A’s baseball games.
It makes no sense that the NFL, MLB or either team would object to having a football stadium next to or near a ballpark. I can think of two cities off the top of my head, Seattle and Philadelphia, where the baseball and football stadiums are very close, just across the street from each other. My guess is there are others. And while there may be some competition in a very broad sense, they really are two different sports played in different seasons. By locating them close to each other, there is economy of scale in perms of parking and other infrastructure.
It certainly may not work out that the A’s and Raiders will share the site, but it won’t be because the two can’t function near each other, especially if the Homebase site is added to the site. Parking can be put above the sewer line if it can’t be moved, using other existing parking area for the ballpark.
Nice interview on the podcast, Marine Layer!
Those cities you mentioned, and others too, have one big differentiator between themselves and Oakland: they all got lots of big-time public money to pay for their ballparks and football stadiums. As opposed to the $0.00 in public money the A’s and Raiders are getting. Thus, private financing is needed. And it’s not even certain a single privately financed facility can pencil out in Oakland, never mind two. We’re talking, as I said, two teams competing for the same limited amount of luxury suite money, advertising, sponsorships, PSLs, etc. Oakland, which already has to compete with Frisco and San Jose for sports dollars, is not a good candidate as a locale to try something like this. Just how much is left after ATT Park, SAP Center, Levi’s, Avaya Stadium, etc snag a share of those dollars? And coming soon: the Warriors arena in more-glamorous Frisco, to also compete with what, if anything, that gets built in Oakland.
Pjk nailed it- when Oakland brings buckets of public dollars to the dance is when you will see 2 new stadiums at the coli site
pjk This is what you said: “MLB will look very unfavorably on Oakland letting the Raiders build a stadium right next to where the A’s want to go, with both competing for the same luxury suite customers, advertisers, etc. MLB would probably tell San Jose to call off the auction of its ballpark properties instead.”
You stated that it is a question of location and competition, to which I responded by citing counter examples.
I did not assume two new stadiums: The Raiders can use whatever money they have to remodel and improve the existing o.co stadium while the A’s build a new ballpark on Homebase or wherever on the site.
I just don’t buy that a football team and baseball team can’t co-exist near each other. You have given no rational reason other than your own opinion, whereas i have cited counter examples of where it actually works. The fact that other situations have involved public money to build the stadiums has no bearing on the teams’ ability to co-exist after the stadiums are built. They are different sub-markets, often with different fan bases.
Re: financing, which has been discussed many times here, Davis is short hundreds of millions and that is a problem no matter if he builds by himself or on the same site as the A’s. The only thing he can do is share with the Chargers, Rams or 49’ers, or sell an interest in the team (which he doesn’t want to do). Wolff has said he’d build with private financing wherever he builds. Wolff is a developer and has access to construction money/loans. Fisher is one of the richest men is baseball. Schaaf has said the city would help with infrastructure costs. As I said, if both stayed at the Coliseum, there would be some economies of scale so they may save some money.
Everyone knows, especially Wolff and Manfred, that there is no public money in Oakland for the actual stadium. Yet he has said that is MLB’s preference, and apparently Wolff and Fisher are moving ahead with plans in Oakland, knowing they will have to finance it themselves.
I would be happy if the Raiders moved to Levi’s — it was stupid of them not to be involved in that from the beginning. Now if they go there, it will be very reluctantly.
I think we should face the facts that San Jose is not an option for the A’s right now — maybe it will be in the future, but it’s hard to imagine MLB wanting to do business with San Jose after they filed a law suit seeking to overturn the anti-trust exemption, a major issue for them.
Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincinatti, Kansas City… I’m sure there are more.
All of which got Big Time Public $$, as I’ve said. Cincinnati – specifically the county they are in – is having trouble paying off the Bengals stadium and still providing the services the county is supposed to provide. Serving as a test case for not spending public money on stadiums.
…serving as a poster boy, not a test case.
I was just stating everywhere that has a football and baseball stadium within close proximity. Nobody said a word about financing, and I agree it’s not happening that two brand new stadiums will be built in the parking lot, but it’s not a question of MLB not wanting NFL stadiums near theirs or vice versa.
California has reintroduced redevelopment funding; the governor just signed three new laws into effect, it remains to be seen exactly how these funds will be reintroduced or allocated, but this is a revenue source Oakland/Alameda County may be able to tap into regarding new homes for the Raiders and (or), the A’s.
When you consider the recently passed transportation tax in Alameda County (transportation hub), along with the fact that there are already funding sources set aside for a new BART station, you begin to see there is tax money already available. (I know pjk it’s not enough)
These are only three examples, two of witch (transportation tax, BART funding for new station), don’t cover a whole lot of money for massive projects like we are talking about, and in the long run it will undoubtable take a lot more, but we do have a start here.
So one thing we should all be aware of at this point… There will be multiple funding sources for anything that gets built at the coliseum. TOD, even residential towers in between the current coliseum complex and the BART station could be part of the mix, developing down Hegenberger, between AirBART and the Malibu lot could be part of the mix, etc. Building retail, a hotel and other similar types of buildings is probably a good idea with the proximity to the Airport (sort of like how
But with those things, timing will also be an issue/question. St. Louis opened their “Ballpark Village” in Downtown St. Louis 8 years after the park was completed and it is just a single structure with restaurants adjacent a massive sports bar.
(sort of like how Atlanta has Airport hotels located off the airport train system)
And if I’m not mistaken St. Louis ultimately threw additional tax dollars to finally get the ballpark village going. But yes- agree that there will need to be multiple funding sources- aka public dollars to make anything happen in Oaklnad-,what I fail to see is residential towers as part of this-
Rams to LA…followed by a few more years of the Raiders playing St. Louis and San Antonio off each other. One of those two cities will give Davis what he wants, and that which Oakland city and county will not – a new stadium without him having to sell controlling interest in the team.
Nothing will be built for the A’s until all of that plays out, unfortunately. I think the A’s will be in the current Coliseum for the entirety of that ten-year lease.
MLB can keep them there until some city steps up to the plate with a publicly financed new ballpark.
Again…Davis and Raiders are NOT going to St Louis. Get it out of your head. If a team is going to actually move to St Louis….it will be the Jags.
That’s a nice opinion but there is absolutely 0 evidence to back this up.
Mark Davis has publicly said he wants a stadium and he wants someone to build it for him. He can’t manage the project. This is not an option in Oakland with Davis as the owner.
This leaves four options for the Raiders:
1. Continue to play at the Coliseum as is
2. Move to Levi’s
3. Davis sells the team
4. Move out of the area
Personally I think option 1 is the most likely. If the A’s get something done at the Home Base site, I could easily see the Raiders continuing to play at the existing Coli for a long time. Plus the NFL, the Raiders and raw sewage seem like a logical combination 🙂
If however Davis doesn’t want options 2 and 3 (I think these are the least likely) and he wants a new stadium, he has no choice but to find someone to build him a stadium out of the area.
If St Louis agrees to provide significant public financing to a new stadium, St Louis all of a sudden meets Davis’ criteria. Plus with the Raiders on a year to year lease, St Louis is one of the few cities in the country that has a temporary option ready. It’s definitely a serious risk.
The Jags are destined for London, when their lease finally expires in a dozen years.
Salcker,
“Plus the NFL, the Raiders and raw sewage seem like a logical combination”
^^^^^
Nice hate there…we know what where you base your opinions from. Eye Roll.
Anyways…your opinions regarding the Raiders going to St louis are dumbfounded….especially since MARK HAS Mark has publicly stated the team is not moving to St Louis and I will believe him on that. That speculation is non sense at this point and it should stiop being talked about. It’s a waste of time. Davis will sell before that ever happens.
http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2015/10/15/9546261/stadium-talk-who-is-the-raiders-mystery-investor
Out if these candidates….my guess is Leiweke, Magic, Ovitz or Ellison as the possible Raiders investors.
Some good information here in this video regarding the Raiders and Oakland stadium talks with Suncal involved. Once again….Raiders are NOT going to St Louis.
“Raiders are NOT going to St Louis”
Right, because Mark said they wouldn’t. And if he were out of other options and St. Louis were dangling $400 million in free public money for a state of the art stadium, he certainly wouldn’t reconsider.
There are two problems with an NFL franchise moving to St. Louis.
A: It has demonstrated to be a poor NFL market. There are several other teams that have been less successful than St. Louis NFL teams have yet draw much better attendance. When has the Browns or Buffalo even had a winning season, for example (let alone make the playoffs or win a Superbowl) Cincinnati and Chicago are generally so-so teams that have made infrequent trips to the Superbowl, Washington has sucked for two decades – all these teams draw excellent attendance, despite their less than stellar performance on the field. Meanwhile, St. Louis will lose two NFL franchises in 29 years. NFL owners are typically shrewd (that’s likely why they can afford to own NFL franchises) They would be likely reluctant moving to an NFL market that has lost two franchises in 29 years.
B: Furthermore, many Missouri politicians are against public funding for a new NFL stadium (who can blame them, considering the dismal support that NFL teams have received at that location) Also the 22 year old, taxpayer funded Edward Jones dome has been a complete bust. Those Missouri politicians would likely wish to avoid another Edward Jones dome debacle, that’s why St. Louis building a new NFL stadium appears unlikely.
If the Raiders were to move out of town – San Antonio would be the likely target, Davis evidently has had several amiable discussions with San Antonio officials about relocating there – and totally dismissed St. Louis as a possibility. Texas appears to be a good football state also.( A huge percent of NFL players are native to that state) If the Raiders would to decide to bolt elsewhere, LA or San Antonio would likely be their destination – not St Louis.
I’ll also include Detroit, when have they ever been an NFL powerhouse? they’ve always sucked – and yet achieve sellouts and good consistent attendance.
@duffer “I’ll also include Detroit, when have they ever been an NFL powerhouse? they’ve always sucked – and yet achieve sellouts and good consistent attendance.”
Another lousy example: Detroit is consistently toward the bottom of the league in attendance and has had plenty of problems selling out their building at times over the years; they were dead last in attendance in 2008 and second to last in 2009.
I’ll say it again ANY team in the NFL suffers attendance problems when they hit an extended rough stretch. Plenty of empty seats visible at Candlestick and the Meadowlands in years the Niners and Giants were struggling. No NFL team has had a five year period as bad as the one Rams fans had to recently endure. The Rams attendance in St. Louis relative to their performance on the field has been very respectable, certainly relative to the other teams you named.
@duffer “There are two problems with an NFL franchise moving to St. Louis.
A: It has demonstrated to be a poor NFL market.”
St. Louis has demonstrated itself to be a very good NFL market. The Rams sold out every single game they played in St. Louis from 1995 until an 0-8 start in 2007. The fan base continued to show up in respectable numbers after that despite witnessing the worst five-year stretch in the history of the NFL, a stretch in which the team won seven home games in five years. St. Louis has a sizable corporate base and has shown a willingness to spend public money on NFL football.
“There are several other teams that have been less successful than St. Louis NFL teams have yet draw much better attendance. When has the Browns or Buffalo even had a winning season, for example (let alone make the playoffs or win a Superbowl) Cincinnati and Chicago are generally so-so teams that have made infrequent trips to the Superbowl, Washington has sucked for two decades – all these teams draw excellent attendance, despite their less than stellar performance on the field.”
What are you smoking? Cincinnati has notoriously struggled to sell out their stadium for years despite fielding very strong teams. They have sold out only one of their three home games so far this year despite being 6-0. They’ve been to the playoffs 5 out of the last 6 years, yet only sold out 3 games last year and failed to sell out the one playoff game they hosted.
Cleveland is pretty much middle of the pack in terms of attendance. Chicago is a top 3 market that plays in one of the smaller stadiums in the NFL (capacity at Soldier Field is not much more than the Rams have drawn over their history in St. Louis) – it ranks only 24th in attendance. Washington also plays in one of the larger markets in the country, yet its attendance percentage is approximately the same as the Rams this year despite the Rams having one foot out the door. Buffalo was also struggling with blackouts for many recent years until they eliminated the blackout rule.
“Meanwhile, St. Louis will lose two NFL franchises in 29 years. NFL owners are typically shrewd (that’s likely why they can afford to own NFL franchises) They would be likely reluctant moving to an NFL market that has lost two franchises in 29 years.”
St. Louis hasn’t lost two teams yet, and if it does it will have nothing to do with the merits of the market and everything to do with an owner seeing a richer opportunity elsewhere. LA may or may not be a better opportunity than St. Louis, but even if it is that doesn’t make St. Louis a bad market.
Los Angeles has lost three NFL teams, Cleveland has lost two NFL teams, Boston, Houston, Dallas and Baltimore have each lost an NFL team, and New York City has lost two major league baseball teams. Are these bad markets? Fundamentally, this is a really stupid argument.
“Meanwhile, St. Louis will lose two NFL franchises in 29 years. NFL owners are typically shrewd (that’s likely why they can afford to own NFL franchises) They would be likely reluctant moving to an NFL market that has lost two franchises in 29 years.”
Several NFL owners have already said that if St. Louis ponies up, it will have an NFL team. This is how the NFL works – it’s pay to play.
“B: Furthermore, many Missouri politicians are against public funding for a new NFL stadium (who can blame them, considering the dismal support that NFL teams have received at that location) Also the 22 year old, taxpayer funded Edward Jones dome has been a complete bust. Those Missouri politicians would likely wish to avoid another Edward Jones dome debacle, that’s why St. Louis building a new NFL stadium appears unlikely.”
They may not, and if they don’t they probably won’t have an NFL team. But it will have nothing to do with “they lost two teams therefore it’s a bad market.”
“If the Raiders were to move out of town – San Antonio would be the likely target, Davis evidently has had several amiable discussions with San Antonio officials about relocating there – and totally dismissed St. Louis as a possibility.”
That’s right, and since then San Antonio has done – exactly nothing. If St. Louis is offering a free stadium and San Antonio is not, who do you think wins? Oh, I see, ownership said differently at a certain point in time. Well that settles it then (rolling my eyes).
“Texas appears to be a good football state also.( A huge percent of NFL players are native to that state)”
A good football state that already has two NFL teams, one of which is fairly entrenched in the San Antonio market.
@ duffer/ bartleby
I have argued many of the same points, regarding the Raiders to St. Louis with bartleby I do think there is merit to the fact that St Lois has lost two separate NFL franchises, and that Davis has said flat out he won’t go there.
But one possible overriding factor in bartleby augment is free, free, and free.
If the state, county, and city are willing to pay for most or all of a new stadium, that would change a lot of minds. There is also a real possibility that Davis may not even be in control of the team by the time the NFL would make that decision, it’s no secret that he is baely holding on to the team as it stands.
This really could go a number of different ways.
@Lakeshore/Neil
“I do think there is merit to the fact that St Lois has lost two separate NFL franchises,”
Both you and duffer keep repeating this as a mantra and never scratch below surface level to justify your position. Again – Los Angeles itself has lost 3 NFL franchises, 2 within the same year. Does this mean it’s not a good NFL market? Clearly it doesn’t. Does the fact New York City lost two MLB teams mean it’s a bad baseball market? Again, no. You can’t just look at whether a team left, you need to look at the reasons.
The fact is there’s only a very loose correlation between fan support and whether a professional sports team leaves. This is especially true in the NFL, where the bulk of the revenue is shared (both TV and gate) and local attendance is relatively unimportant to a team’s bottom line. Most of the time, when a team leaves it’s not because it’s existing market is bad but it’s because it got a better economic offer elsewhere (e.g. new publicly funded stadium and in some cases cash, attendance guarantees or other incentives).
Characterizing any franchise move as a “failure” on the part of the incumbent market or saying “two strikes you’re out” is way too simplistic and, as you can see from the examples I’ve provided, demonstrably not true. In St. Louis’ case in particular, if the Rams leave it will have virtually nothing to do with the city’s support of the team and everything to do with Kroenke’s perception that LA represents a better economic opportunity.
“and that Davis has said flat out he won’t go there.”
It continues to amaze me how much weight people put on organizational PR statements. The narrative is Wolff’s a bad guy because he’s candid about the Oakland market’s shortcomings, while Davis is a great guy because he says how much he wants to stay (all the while working hard to move to Carson). Cigarettes are good for you; we know this to be true because tobacco company executives told us it was.
Look, businesses lie, but more importantly they change their minds based on evolving circumstances. I actually do believe Davis would rather not move to St. Louis, but right now he hasn’t exhausted his other options. Once he does, and IF St. Louis is offering a big pot of public money, that’s going to look very attractive as an option. And anyone who actually believes he’d choose San Antonio if his choices turned out to be San Antonio plus $0 public money or St. Louis plus $400 million public money is not a deep thinker.
@ bartleby
As you know there are a number of variables in play. You just happened to use New York, and LA. To prove your point, but they are the number one and two media markets in the country, so if they lose two franchises they are much more likely to get another one, or two then any midsized market in the country.
So, yes I do think the fact that St. Louis losing two NFL franchises is a factor, it may not be a deciding one but it is one. You don’t see it as a factor, ok its fine.
I don’t get it man, I pretty much agree with what you’re saying.
None of those teams I referred to has won a super bowl in 30 years – some haven’t even been there. The Rams won a super bowl even more recently than the Niners and Raiders. Their attendance – considering the team’s performance, and they play at a 22 yr old football only stadium – sucks.
@duffer “None of those teams I referred to has won a super bowl in 30 years – some haven’t even been there. The Rams won a super bowl even more recently than the Niners and Raiders.”
Team performance is clearly relevant to attendance, but there is no evidence that “whether or not you’ve ever won a Super Bowl” is a significant factor. Your apparent premise that if you win one Super Bowl you should have sellouts forever is patently idiotic. The Rams won the Super Bowl in 1999 – sixteen years ago. Since then their fans had to endure the worst five year stretch in NFL history and their owner has basically announced he’s leaving even if the city builds him a new state of the art stadium. Which factors do you think are more important to attendance?
The Niners won five Super Bowls, and their season ticket waiting list basically evaporated and people stopped showing up for games in droves when they hit a rough patch a few years ago that was not as bad as the one Rams fans endured.
“Their attendance – considering the team’s performance, and they play at a 22 yr old football only stadium – sucks.”
As I’ve pointed out before – using, y’know, actual facts in support – their attendance has been very good relative to performance. 12 years of consistent sellouts, beginning before they even sniffed a Super Bowl. You’ve responded with made up attendance figures for the Rams and with an argument that the Bengals have had good attendance for bad teams when the clear reality is they’ve had bad attendance for good teams.
The age of the stadium is irrelevant – Edward Jones Dome sucks, and is not an attendance driver.
And as I’ve also pointed out before, because of the NFL’s
@duffer Here’s another tidbit for you. In 2013, Steelers had a record of 8-8 and attendance of 57,311 per game. Rams had a record of 7-9 and an ALMOST IDENTICAL attendance of 56,957 per game.
Steelers won the Super Bowl in 2008 and appeared in the Super Bowl in 2010. Clearly, Pittsburgh is not a viable NFL city, what with their shitty attendance and all.’
@Lakeshore/Neil
“As you know there are a number of variables in play. You just happened to use New York, and LA. To prove your point, but they are the number one and two media markets in the country, so if they lose two franchises they are much more likely to get another one, or two then any midsized market in the country.”
I used New York and LA as examples to make it blindingly obvious that the premise “loss of two teams means you’re a bad NFL or MLB market” is wrong. The fact of a team leaving, by itself, is basically meaningless. You have to look at the reasons the team left in each case.
You’ll notice I also cited Cleveland, Houston, Baltimore and Dallas as examples of cities that lost NFL teams but can clearly support an NFL team.
“So, yes I do think the fact that St. Louis losing two NFL franchises is a factor, it may not be a deciding one but it is one. You don’t see it as a factor, ok its fine.”
Again, the fact of a team leaving once, twice, or even three times (as in LA) by itself is almost meaningless. You have to look at the reasons each team left. In almost all cases, it’s about getting a new stadium or better economic deal. In cases where cities that have lost an NFL team have gotten another team they have all proven to be perfectly viable as NFL markets.
I’d also point out your inconsistency in believing Davis when he says he doesn’t want to go to St. Louis but refusing to believe the multiple NFL owners who have basically said if St. Louis ponies up it will have an NFL team. I believe those owners. Why? Because the NFL’s business model is based on shaking down cities for giant stadium subsidies.
When someone makes a statement that goes against their economic interest, you should question it. When someone makes a statement that’s consistent with their economic interest, you can generally believe it.
@ bartleby
I believe I acknowledged your points, and largely agreed with you. There really is very little right or wrong in this, or should I say absolutes. We are only talking about onions, as I said anything could happen, or would you like to refute that as well?
I can see it now bartleby stats that “anything can’t happen”
Why do we care about St Louis attendance? I think the example of the Pittsburgh attendance was great. Meanwhile in our own backyard … Oakland! ..,The Raiders have not had a winning season in 13yrs and yet have consistently had decent attendance. In 2007 the Raiders were 2-14 and sold out every single home game. Mind you this was before the tarps. In 2011 the season Al Davis passed away, every game sold out. Again the tarps did not come up until 3 yrs ago. This team that can not win 5 games & still manages to sell out. The “silver and blackouts” we’re a result of the OFMA that poorly handled the tickets and marketing of what was then a very competitive Raiders teams. But just like everything else the City of Oakland tries to manage, they failed. Selling out the Coliseum since the Raiders took over their own marketing has not been a problem. The problem is all the haters and anti Raider media combined with the pop-eye mayors this city keeps putting in office.
Sorry:
Meant to say, “We are only talking about opinions”, for as much as it matter it may as well be onions.
@ oaktowngreek
We keep talking about St. Louis, because bartleby thinks there is as good a chance that they end up there as in LA. or anywhere else. (I believe I have it correct)
Anyway, while I believe there is a chance that could happen, and I believe duffer doesn’t think it will happen at all, bartleby continues to give us the reasons why he thinks it will (or likely will), happen.
As he counties to explain, why he thinks our reasons won’t happen, or full of sh*t. (even if they may be reasonable) (- ;
@Lakeshore/Neil It’s not clear to me which points exactly you’ve acknowledged and/or agreed with. I put forth a fairly simple, logical and I think obvious proposition: Namely, the mere fact of having lost one or more NFL teams tells us almost nothing about the viability or worth of an NFL market, the important thing is the reasons for the moves. As I understand your argument, you’re saying “two strikes you’re out, no matter what the reason.”
duffer on the other hand is at least arguing that the underlying factors why St. Louis might lose a second team indicate it’s not a good market. The problem is he’s consistently wrong on the facts, seeming to make things up at some times and citing examples that run counter to to his argument at other times.
@Lakeshore/Neil “We keep talking about St. Louis, because bartleby thinks there is as good a chance that they end up there as in LA. or anywhere else. (I believe I have it correct)”
To be clear, I said I think there is as good a chance they end up there as in LA or anywhere else IF they put together a publicly financed stadium deal.
“As he counties to explain, why he thinks our reasons won’t happen, or full of sh*t. (even if they may be reasonable) (- ;”
If your argument is “two strikes you’re out, no matter what the reason,” I think that’s a superficial view and not reasonable. If I’m misunderstanding your argument, feel free to correct me. With respect to duffer’s arguments, I find it irritating that he persistently misstates or misrepresents facts, either intentionally or because he doesn’t respect our time enough to do five minutes of fact checking before posting something.
@bartleby: Also please explain the fact that Kroenke or Davis (the 2 supposed potential teams that would play at a new St Louis NFL stadium) have had zero discussions with St Louis city officials about playing there. Kroenke evidently doesn’t even bother returning their phone calls.
@ bartleby
I never said two stakes you’re out. I said and continue to maintain that the NFL may not want to go back to a market that has already lost two separate franchises. A market that is midsized, and not New York or LA. As those two may be exceptions to the rule being that they are the two biggest markets in the country.
Back then you rattled off city’s that have lost one franchise, and got a second shot (you never came up with a mid-sized makes that lost two)
“@Lakeshore/Neil it’s not clear to me which points exactly you’ve acknowledged and/or agreed with”
“But one possible overriding factor in bartleby augment is free, free, and free.
If the state, county, and city are willing to pay for most or all of a new stadium, that would change a lot of minds. There is also a real possibility that Davis may not even be in control of the team by the time the NFL would make that decision, it’s no secret that he is barley holding on to the team as it stands.
This really could go a number of different ways.”
WOW, that paragraph makes it should like I agreed with you, perhaps you did not read it in your rush to prove your opinion is a fact next time.
Not only did I agree with your “IF they put together a publicly financed stadium deal.” Before you restated it again “free, free, and free”, thank you very much. I also went on to say that the finical situation that Davis is in could play a role in the Raiders being in St. Louis.
I have acknowledged you’re well thought out points (when I thought they were), several times. That what you do when your considering the other persons point of view.
@ duffer “Also please explain the fact that Kroenke or Davis (the 2 supposed potential teams that would play at a new St Louis NFL stadium) have had zero discussions with St Louis city officials about playing there. Kroenke evidently doesn’t even bother returning their phone calls.”
That’s an easy one. Kroenke apparently has his heart set on LA matter what. Davis can’t have discussions with St. Louis until the Rams destiny is determined – they are the incumbent, and that would be tampering. Even if it wasn’t, St. Louis would prefer to keep the Rams and wouldn’t engage in such discussions until they are gone, and Davis prefers to go to LA or stay in Oakland, so probably wouldn’t be trying to initiate such discussions until those possibilities are ruled out.
So again, the scenario I’m worried about is where St. Louis gets a stadium package together, the Rams leave anyway, and the Raiders are odd man out on LA. Lots of variables, but there’s a decent chance that could happen and if it does it’s hard for me to imagine Davis won’t at least be talking to St. Louis at that point.
@Lakeshore/Neil “I never said two stakes you’re out. I said and continue to maintain that the NFL may not want to go back to a market that has already lost two separate franchises”
Unless you are looking at the reasons why the teams moved (which you apparently continue to refuse to do), that is a distinction without a difference. You also continue to ignore the fact that several NFL owners have specifically said they would want to go back to a market that has already lost two separate franchises, provided it ponies up.
“A market that is midsized, and not New York or LA. As those two may be exceptions to the rule being that they are the two biggest markets in the country. Back then you rattled off city’s that have lost one franchise, and got a second shot (you never came up with a mid-sized makes that lost two).”
I also mentioned Cleveland, which is midsized. And the fact New York are the biggest markets in the country in fact suggests they are NOT exceptions to the rule – it pretty convincingly suggests that the rule is that inadequate market potential of the incumbent market is generally not the reason franchises move. Remember, the Rams left LA for St. Louis in the first place because they got an unbelievable sweetheart stadium deal. Had nothing to do with LA’s potential as a market and everything to do with its unwillingness to throw public money at a new stadium.
As far as rattling off a list of cities that lost one team and did well with a second one, part of that is because there are only a limited number of cities that have lost multiple franchises. However, it’s very telling that the one’s that did did fine with another team.
The other part of this is – wait for it – unless the reason for any given movement was lack of the population, demographics, and economic fundamentals to support the team, the fact of such movement is completely irrelevant. If New York/New Jersey loses the Giants, the Jets, and 3 future expansion teams because other markets were willing to offer deals like “brand new stadium plus $1 billion cash,” it will prove nothing about the viability or desirability of New York as a market. All it will show is that New York/New Jersey taxpayers are smarter than those in those other markets.
It should also be pointed out that if the Rams move to LA, St. Louis would be the largest market in the country without an NFL team, and that it has a very large corporate base for a city its size.
“That what you do when your considering the other persons point of view.”
I have considered your point of view, but given that it apparently continues to include the idea that the mere fact of a move is important regardless of the reasons for it, I continue to believe that part of it is illogical. I’m not going to pretend otherwise just to make nice.
@ bartleby
You have conceded my point? Really, really… I guess you did if your view of considering a person’s point of view is solely to disprove it, even if there are so many variables none of us can prove anything. It’s not provable, it’s all conjecture. As I said (again) “anything can happen”, that includes YOUR THEORY that the Raiders moving to St. Louis. (See how I nicely put that in there)
What part of-
“But one possible overriding factor in bartleby augment is free, free, and free”
Or
“I pretty much agree with what you’re saying.”
Don’t you understand?
Damn man, I agree with most of what you’re saying.
Ok I get it St. Louis is a grate market it doesn’t matter that the lost two NFL franchises, because bartleby said so, and we know he has all the facts on his side even if his (mine either. See included myself as well.) Opinion doesn’t mean damn thing.
GO St. Louis Raiders, go…
@Lakeshore/Neil “You have conceded my point?”
No, I have considered your point.
“Really, really… I guess you did if your view of considering a person’s point of view is solely to disprove it,”
No, my view of considering a person’s point of view is to, y’know, consider it and decide whether I agree with it or not. Sometimes I’ll agree and sometimes I’ll disagree. It can go either way. If I disagree I’ll always have reasons and be able to articulate them, though I may or may not choose to do so. Don’t get all huffy and sensitive just because I don’t agree with you about this.
“even if there are so many variables none of us can prove anything. It’s not provable, it’s all conjecture.”
What’s actually going to happen in the future is conjecture. But all of us can have opinions about the factors that will influence what happens, and use them to handicap what we think will happen. However, not all opinions are created equal. Opinions can be logical or illogical, supported or unsupported. Usually if people have different opinions it’s because they are starting from different premises. However, you can always test whether the conclusion follows logically from a premise. That part is NOT a matter of opinion.
In this case, you have not bothered to state a premise for the conclusion “losing two NFL teams is a death knell for an NFL market regardless of the reasons it occurred,” let alone reasoned logically from that premise. To the contrary, you have disregarded evidence to the contrary (e.g. NFL owner statements that flatly contradict that point of view) without explanation. When someone does that in a discussion, I’m going to test their assumptions. That’s just how I’m wired.
So let’s come at it a different way. As much as we’ve gone round on this you have yet to explain the reasons (e.g. premises for your conclusion). So let me ask you directly:
1. WHY do you think the NFL would not want to return to an NFL market, SOLELY because it has lost two teams?
2. Do you not think it makes a big difference whether either or both of the departures was due to poor support by or economic fundamentals of the incumbent as opposed to simply a superior economic offer from the poaching city?
“As I said (again) “anything can happen”
That’s an insipid aphorism. It’s patently not true. NOT anything can happen, and some outcomes are far more likely than others. Saying “anything can happen” is just a way to short-circuit debate and avoid having to justify your conclusions.
“that includes YOUR THEORY that the Raiders moving to St. Louis. (See how I nicely put that in there)”
It is not my theory that the Raiders are moving to St. Louis. It is my belief that that is at least as likely as any of the other possibilities currently being publicly speculated on. Because there are a number of possibilities, that still translates to no more than a 20-25% chance.
“Ok I get it St. Louis is a grate market it doesn’t matter that the lost two NFL franchises, because bartleby said so,”
I don’t expect anyone to accept anything just because I said so. I try to support my opinions by stating my basic premises, trying to support them factually where I can, and reasoning logically to a conclusion. Everyone who reads my posts can decide for themselves if what I’m saying makes sense to them or not.
The whole argument about St Louis losing two teams is idiotic. St Louis and Oakland are in the same situation. Both are potentially going to be losing a team for the 2nd time. If you’re saying St Louis is not a viable market because of losing 2 teams you have to say Oakland is not a viable market either.
I don’t think anyone is saying the Raiders will most likely end up in St Louis, but it’s absolutely a viable option and a threat to Oakland.
Look at it this way, if Davis loses out on LA (very likely) and no one steps up to help him fund a stadium in Oakland (very likely), what are his options:
1. Stadium at the crumbling Coliseum
2. Move to Levi’s
3. Sell the team (may result in a move out of market as well)
4. Move the team
Option 1 isn’t good for anyone. Most folks seem to think option 2 isn’t likely. That leaves option 3 or 4. They may not be anyone’s first choice, but beggers can’t be choosers. In both option 3 and 4, St Louis is a serious threat.
@Slacker Well put.
@ bartleby
Damn dude all I said was it a factor, a dame FACTORT. Get over yourself.
“You have conceded my point?”
Are you kidding? Please we probable both need to get a life, and by both of us I do mean you.
You win; sure dude anything to get you to move on. I think real life is calling…
@ Slacker
Thanks for your input.
@Lakeshore/Neil “Damn dude all I said was it a factor, a dame FACTOR. Get over yourself.”
We’ve gone round and round and round and you still haven’t explained WHY you believe it’s even a factor. Again:
Me: A franchise move is only relevant to the viability of an incumbent market if it’s due to some flaw in that market (e.g. poor attendance, inadequate corporate base, bad demographics, shrinking population, refusal to spend public funds).
You: A franchise move is relevant to the viability of an incumbent market and the NFL will hold it against that market even if it has nothing to do with any flaw in that market, and notwithstanding the fact several NFL owners have said otherwise.
The question is, why? It’s a straightforward question. Instead of dodging the question with weak stuff like “it’s an opinion,” “it’s conjecture,” “no one can prove anything,” “it’s a factor,” “anything can happen,” and acting all sensitive and aggrieved because someone asked you to explain yourself, why don’t you just answer the question?
““You have conceded my point?” Are you kidding?”
I didn’t write that, you did. I responded to you writing it. Perhaps it was a typo.
“Please we probable both need to get a life, and by both of us I do mean you.”
Dude, I’m not the one who just responded to about 87 of your posts without answering a basic question you posed. I’m pretty content with my life; you might want to do some self-examination. If you’re getting this worked up and frustrated over a simple question, debating on the internet might not be for you.
“You win; sure dude anything to get you to move on. I think real life is calling…”
I’m not trying to win, I’m trying (and failing) to have a reasoned debate. Nothing is forcing you to continue to reply, and if you’re not actually going to answer the question, there’s probably not a lot of point in doing so.
I believe it’s a factor, because it’s extremely rare for a midsized market to lose two team’s and get a third chance. Has it even happened befor? It may have but I don’t think so. If it has happened it’s pretty rare. So, the fact that it hasn’t (or rarely ), happened is why I am saying it may be a factor, thats all I’m saying. You can’t prove it may not be a factor, so let’s leave it at that. Of course just because somthing has not happened dosent mean it won’t happen, the Raiders did return to Oakland which I don’t think many people thought would happen. I think it’s the only time an NFL team returned to a city it left. Ok, your it’s bone. Go get it.
Wheres the mayor, ‘ the ever so attractive and everyone thinks she’s brilliant mayor Libby. The so called ” I’m a numbers girl”. Everyone gave her such high praises, but have you heard her talk about this subject…she has no f—ing what she’s talking about. Mayor Libby will blow the deal both teams. She already lost one team.
And before all the Raider haters and Lew/Libby supporters get all bent out of shape for me blaming them, just realize reading all these comments that what I feared happening has indeed happened. They divided city and county, just like they divided a fan base. When the smoke clears I’m afraid all teams are gone and we will be stuck with another brain dead mayor like Quan and Libby. They both have glass eyes too.