We’re nearly one year into Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s tenure, which makes it a fine time for a poll. That led the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce to commission a poll called Pulse of Oakland. As Oakland continues experiences its own kinds of growing pains, the government and voters have tough decisions to make over the future of Oakland. As a city that has been defined by its sports teams for decades, sports will a major role in Oakland’s direction. Or will it? The poll, which asked voters to judge sixteen different issues in terms of importance, showed that pro sports came in last. As expected, crime, jobs, and education were the most important, registering for 93-95% of polled voters.
Pro sports, on the other hand, were quite a different story.
While each of the sports teams were considered important for a majority of voters, they paled in comparison to regular kitchen table issues
The Warriors are practically a moot matter by now, thanks to the progress on their SF arena. The difference in felt import between the A’s and Raiders is fascinating, not because of the percentage difference, but because the Raiders and Raiders fans have spent two years pushing Coliseum City, a project in which the Raiders were considered the feature player. Sure, Mark Davis didn’t exactly participate fully with the project. Nevertheless, Coliseum City had name recognition and media attention, whereas the A’s weren’t (and still aren’t) actively promoting anything. If there ever was any urgency towards keeping the Raiders in Oakland, it didn’t show up in this poll.
More surprising was the indication that Oakland residents may be willing to move from a sports city identity. 83% of respondents favored a Coliseum development plan that didn’t involve any new sports venues, while 60% support new stadia at the Coliseum complex.
Polls like these guide politicians at City Hall, and Schaaf is no different. She has stood firm on her pledge for no public money for any new stadia, and she’s not likely to experience any blowback anytime soon based on these poll numbers. I suspect that has to do with so much of the fanbase being situated outside Oakland city limits, where those fans aren’t Schaaf’s constituents. If there’s any worry, it’s for anyone who might eventually ask for voter approval of public financing.
Next week Schaaf will present Oakland’s case to a NFL stadium committee. She’ll talk about Oakland’s trajectory without actually having a Raiders stadium plan to show. While these poll results shouldn’t push Oakland off a cliff, they won’t bolster Schaaf’s case to the owners. In the end, we’re still talking about a $400 million funding gap for just one venue. There’s no way to talk around it.
newballpark.org 
any guess if and when the a’s could present some kind of plan with some renderings of what their vision for the coliseum could be this offseason?
While the Oakland folks properly rank keeping the sports teams as a much lower priority than real needs, it’s nice that they see keeping the A’s as more important than keeping the Raiders… What is Schaaf going to tell the NFL? How the NFL should be happy to invest in Oakland even if the city isn’t going to spend a dime on a stadium? Good luck with that. The Raiders days are numbered in Oakland. How many more consultants and developers is Oakland going to bring in to swing and miss at this project?
shouldn’t it be stadia not stadiums
Over 12 hours and no spew about how it’s all [Anybody But The Raiders] fault because ‘true’ oakland residents/fans ‘know how important the Raiders are’?
Shocking, simply shocking.
They may be actually facing reality.
Glad to see the good citizens of Oakland have their priorities in order: sports at the bottom and A’s at the top of the sports priority. I hope Mayor Schaaf is listening.
Agreed!
You mean the Warriors, as it should be homie. Too close to call between the 3 but it proves on how billionaire’s have divided a city and a region. Warriors A’s Raiders, Stay in Oakland!
The Warriors are already gone. No sense prioritizing them.
You can say it’s a close ball between the Warriors and A’s, especially since the extremely important bracket for the Warriors is higher than the A’s. There’s a big difference though between the numbers for these two teams and the numbers for the Raiders.
This is especially true when you look at the second chart. 60% of the people said that they support building stadiums on the Coliseum site. Less than 60% of the people said they support the Raiders staying. In other words, not all of the people that want a stadium on the site even want the Raiders to stay. That’s significant.
These numbers mean nothing. Most citizens in any city have the same priorities. And as for all the anti Raiders voters on this blog who get hard off those numbers, you need to realize that you are getting off on what Lew Wolfe has sold you on ; Basically saying two stadiums can not survive on that same site, thus dividing the fan base. Yet three teams and two stadiums have worked out for the last 50 years.
Again, the so called ” numbers girl mayor ” only sees 81 games a year. The real numbers show how baseball ratings have plummeted, nobody cares. Real numbers show that in the Bay Area, the only deep pockets that care about baseball have already shifted the support to Lew’s real and only competitor, the Giants.
With the Warriors leaving Oakland ,the 49ers leaving the city 50 miles away, Oakland has the opportunity to allow a football stadium that could house so much more than just 10 raiders games a year. It could become a stadium that would hold much larger scale events for the entire Bay Area because of its access. It would crush Levi’s Stadium.
Nobody told Lew not to build a stadium, he just does not want to, so he’s selling people on how the NFL decision stands in his way. He still will have his 81 dates a year to compete with the Giants…and fail to get support of the baseball fan base.
All the Raiders are asking for is the land to build on, which I’m sure Wolfe will demand aswell. However Wolfe is playing greedy and wants it all to himself. In the end he and all of the haters will get your wish and have the Warriors and Raiders out your way. The funny part is even when that happens, Lew won’t build nothing, he’ll just remodel the existing Coliseum he has the lease on , to be a baseball only park. I hate him, but he’s not stupid enough to pour 600 million on a new park at a location that still won’t draw shit, so he’ll spend 200 million and give you all your view of the “easy bay hills” again.
Face it, the best chance the Raiders have to get a new stadium in Oakland is for voters to recall Schaaf and install someone else who’s willing to spend money. Because as you keep missing over and over again, there is a FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR GAP in financing that no one wants to pay for, and no one has figured out how to pay for. Keep the dream alive, though.
Which is why as mayor, you give both owners the land they want. It’s not worth shit down there anyways. That’s the deal breaker!! I’m from East Oakland, let me tell you what the real problem is in East Oakland… There’s too much affordable housing to begin with!! It’s the ghetto. That property is worth nothing to no developer. That’s why there’s nothing down there, sports however…?? You’ll get the development for the right projects. ( not housing projects) Smart mayors give multi billion dollar companies land to build in their city. But not Oakland, “let’s clean up north and west Oakland, and just build more and more section 8 housing in the east.” That’s been the story of my life, and I’m know our District Councilman feels the same way. That’s been the demise of Oakland since the after the Korean War.
If the Raiders were smart, they would do what the Warriors and A’s are trying to do, and ditch Oakland, but go elsewhere in the Bay Area., not LA. Thankfully my city of Oakland, is benefiting from a booming SF real estate market, and Silicon Valley moving north… But dont think for a minute Madame Glass Eye will get any respect for her ” booming economy” when she goes back east. She inherited it. She will lose, but I pray not. There’s alot of kids that need these teams in the community, if anything to give pride and hope. All 3 brother
Mark Davis wants it all too himself. too.
They mean nothing because they don’t fit your narrative. That’s rich.
The trolls on this blog have gotten so seemingly dense that they are dedicated to ignoring all facts in favor of shitting on anything ‘positive’ to anyone but themselves, even to the point of ignoring their own earlier statements.
Not true, Davis said it at the owners SF meeting and on ESPN radio, that he would share the site. In poll terms, all three are even.Let’s take the next poll below MacArthur
I guess voters above 580 don’t count (actually they do, and turn out 85% cf. 15% below 580).
http://www.insidebayarea.com/raiders/ci_29098637/nfl-could-give-cold-shoulder-oakland-mayor?source=email
“It seems to me that the competition isn’t really Carson as it is all the other places that seem willing to subsidize a stadium,” [Noll] said.
Exactly.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-s-plan-to-keep-Raiders-No-stadium-no-6617988.php?t=a3b50ab5531210a92f&cmpid=twitter-premium
“Yet if the Raiders’ Los Angeles bid doesn’t pan out, that doesn’t mean the team will stay in Oakland, said Stanford University sports economist Roger Noll, who believes Kroenke will get approval to move the Rams to Los Angeles, leaving a hole in St. Louis — along with $390 million for a new stadium.
“That’s not enough to keep the Rams,” Noll pointed out. “But it is enough to get the Raiders.””
The Raiders are NOT going to L.A. The NFL will not have three So Cal teams. The Rams are going. They have the potential to attract corporate sponsorships. They can sell all the PSLs. Kronke owns the land. Hell, he’s already broken ground, he’s building. The race track is gone. He’s building the parking structures. The NFL is having this vote just to save face. They can’t stop Stan. Unless the Chargers move out of So Cal (granted Chargers to St. Louis is possible) the Raiders are the odd man out of L.A.. The Raiders will not move to St.Louis. So unless Mark does something really crazy like move the team to San Antonio (possible) Raiders are in Oakland indefinitely. I am a Raiders/A’s fan. It makes me sick to read my fellow A’s fans rooting for my raiders to leave.
The London mayor recently commented that they are in serious negotiations to get an NFL franchise fairly soon (that rumor of an NFL team moving there evidently is factual – even though some NFL fans believe it is b.s.)That would be a tempting option for Davis also. No need to pony up cash or sell share of the team to cover the cost of building a new stadium. The fans over there evidently don’t need a new state-of-the-art NFL stadium as an incentive to attend games. The Raiders would likely get huge crowds over there also – that city would also likely prefer the Raiders over a bland franchise such as the Jacksonville Jags – the Raiders’ chances of moving over there are probably better than St Louis ( the Raiders have commented repeatedly that they have no interest in St. Louis)
FWIW (and it may be worth nothing) Steve Hartman who hosts a radio show in San Diego says the Raiders have taken several low key meetings with St. Louis officials.
I’d laugh this off, BUT, Steve was a PR rep for the Los Angeles Raiders. He has ties to the organization and claims to be in regular contact with team officials.
Says, “Davis just wants to know he has a seat when the music stops.” Everyone needs a backup plan. This could still play out 100 different ways. Even in ways some of us scoffed at when we first heard them many months ago.
“FWIW (and it may be worth nothing) Steve Hartman who hosts a radio show in San Diego says the Raiders have taken several low key meetings with St. Louis officials.”
Unless this was done with Kroenke’s permission, I’d be surprised if this were true. St. Louis has an incumbent team, so the Raiders would be opening themselves up to tortious interference (tampering) claims.
@ duffer
You know you may get Bartleby going on this Raiders to St Louis thing again, not that I don’t think the Raiders couldn’t end up there, but we have been down that road.
A really good article that tries to handicap the outcome of the stadium derby in the context of actual NFL economics:
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/is-the-nfl-really-about-to-move-back-to-la-yes-no-and-maybe
I encourage all who are interested in serious discussion of this topic to read. A few takeaways:
– The notion that LA will instantly double or triple a teams franchise value based on market size defies common sense when considered in the context of NFL revenue sharing.
– For the same reasons, a privately financed stadium in LA is a huge risk for any owner, including Kroenke.
As I’ve said before, public money subsidies are by far the biggest factor in determining what constitutes a “good market” for an NFL team; corporate support for non-shared revenue streams (e.g. suites, club seats, naming rights, PSLs) is a strong second; and actual game day attendance a distant third. Nearly all NFL franchise moves in the modern era have been driven by factors #1 and 2, and I believe the LA derby will be no different.
Although Kroenke certainly seems hell-bent on LA, it will not surprise me in the least that if St. Louis comes up with $400 million in public money for a SOTA stadium the Rams end up staying put. For the same reason, if St. Louis comes up with the publicly funded stadium and the Rams move anyway, St. Louis instantly jumps to the top of the list as a probable destination for either the Raiders or Chargers.
Yet another sports economist who supports this view:
“The economics of football leave almost no incentive for any team to stay loyal to a particular city, [University of South Florida sports economist Philip] Porter said. Media and licensing revenues are distributed evenly among 32 clubs, and home teams only keep about 60 percent of their gate revenue.
Teams profit most by selling the things they don’t have to share, such as luxury boxes, personal seat licenses and naming rights, which is why they compete for wealthier markets like Los Angeles and Silicon Valley. Otherwise, they’ll just stick with the city that offers the best subsidy, Porter said.” http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-s-plan-to-keep-Raiders-No-stadium-no-6617988.php?t=a3b50ab5531210a92f&cmpid=twitter-premium
@Lakeshore/Neil “You know you may get Bartleby going on this Raiders to St Louis thing again,”
I don’t remember “getting going” on any “Raiders to St. Louis” thing. I remember asking other posters who were making questionable assertions regarding the potential of the St. Louis market to support those assertions with either factual evidence or logic and coming away sadly disappointed.
@LSN: you nailed that one.
@ bartleby
You forget somthing :
“not that I don’t think the Raiders couldn’t end up there ”
I’m also sadly disappointed, when people confuse their opinions for facts.
“You forget something :
“not that I don’t think the Raiders couldn’t end up there ””
I forget nothing. That wasn’t one of the previously debated points that I was referencing. One was your your assertion that NFL owners wouldn’t want to put an NFL team in a city that had previously lost two teams. (Another was duffer’s persistent and factually inaccurate assertion that St. Louis has not historically supported the Rams, but we can put that one aside for now).
With respect to your assertion I pointed out:
1. There was no factual evidence to support such an assertion.
Although the sample size is small, pretty much all NFL teams that have lost an NFL team in the modern era have gotten another or are in the process of getting another (i.e. Los Angeles). Further, several NFL owners have specifically said if STL ponies up it should have an NFL team. You cited no evidence to the contrary.
2. There was no logical reason this would be true.
The fact an NFL market has lost one, two or thirty NFL teams is unimportant. What is important is the reasons those teams left. In virtually all cases in recent history, it’s had little or nothing to do with fan support and everything to do with getting a better stadium deal elsewhere. You made no logical argument to the contrary.
To make an analogy: Let’s say you’re single and a friend wants to set you up with a woman. He tells you she’s funny, intelligent, and attractive but has been married twice before.
It would be reasonable for you to want to know what happened to her previous husbands before going on a date. It would be idiotic for you to say, “oh, she’s been married twice before, forget it.” If her previous husbands both left because she was a raging meth addict and serial adulteress, that would be relevant. If her previous husbands both died tragically after contracting cancer, that would be irrelevant. The important thing would not be that they’re gone, it would be why they’re gone.
“I’m also sadly disappointed, when people confuse their opinions for facts.”
Show me a single place where I’ve asserted an opinion as fact. I have a pretty firm grasp of the difference between opinion and fact. I do however feel opinions that are supported by facts and logic are more deserving of respect than those that are not.
@ bartleby
To be correct, I originally said they may not want to.
Which you cited several factors as to why you believed that St. Louis losing two separate NFL franchise’s as a small to midsized market would not be a factor in them receiving a third opportunity. (I believe I’m sumarizing correctly) You made a compelling case as to why you thought the NFL would not consider St Louis losing the two separate franchise’s a drow back in there current decisions, using several facts along the way.
You then went on to demand some sort of answer, or prof from me to support my though. The thing is, all I EVER said (or tried to say) was the NFL may not consider St Louis, because they as a small to midsized market (not New York or Los Angeles ), have lost two separate franchise’s.
Let’s see now, what prof could possibly use to say the NFL may not consider St Louis a third time? What could I possibly come up with? I’m at my wit’s end, can someone please help?
Wait, wait just a minute. ..
Could it be that they are a small to midsized market, that has lost two separate NFL franchise’s? No, no, it couldn’t be that, why didn’t everyone hear? Bartleby single handedly confirmed it wasn’t possible.
Just because you cite some decent facts in your argument dosent make your opinion of that argument a fact.
Do you know the NFL will not use St Louis losing two team’s as a factor in there decision making? No you don’t, no more then I know that they will use it as a factor. So it’s nothing but an option on both are parts, somthing one of us was more then happy to admit.
@Lakeshore/Neil
“You then went on to demand some sort of answer, or prof from me to support my though.”
I asked for, not proof, but some kind of evidence supporting what you were saying. Failing that (since evidence is not always readily available), some kind of logic or reasoning supporting what you were saying. You provided neither. Any opinion deserves to be supported by one or the other, ideally both.
“The thing is, all I EVER said (or tried to say) was the NFL may not consider St Louis, because they as a small to midsized market (not New York or Los Angeles ), have lost two separate franchise’s.”
First, Cleveland is a small to midsized market and it lost two NFL teams, but gained another.
Second, when you added the caveat about New York or Los Angeles’ size you implicitly acknowledged that the factors behind a teams’ leaving and the market potential of the abandoned market are more important than the fact of the team leaving. For New York or LA that factor evidencing market potential could be market size. For other cities (e.g. St. Louis). it could be something else (e.g. public subsidies and/or corporate base).
Third, you can call St. Louis a “small to midsized market,” but that is misleading. If the Rams go to LA, St. Louis will be the largest market in the U.S. without an NFL team, with a significantly larger than average corporate base for its size, and a willingness to spend public funds on a stadium.
Fourth, the Cardinals left St. Louis almost 30 years ago, in a completely different economic era. During the 28 years they were in St. Louis, they had exactly 3 playoff appearances, none of which they either hosted or won. Frankly, I don’t think the Cardinals experience in St. Louis is relevant to anything at this point.
“Let’s see now, what prof could possibly use to say the NFL may not consider St Louis a third time? What could I possibly come up with? I’m at my wit’s end, can someone please help?
Wait, wait just a minute. ..
Could it be that they are a small to midsized market, that has lost two separate NFL franchise’s?”
You just keep making the same vapid, circular statement over and over again. What you’re saying here isn’t a reason, you’re just restating your conclusion. Go back and re-read my dating analogy: The fact of losing a franchise is irrelevant; the reasons for losing it are relevant.
“No, no, it couldn’t be that, why didn’t everyone hear? Bartleby single handedly confirmed it wasn’t possible. Just because you cite some decent facts in your argument dosent make your opinion of that argument a fact.”
I never said my opinion was a fact. I simply stated by opinion and tried my best to provide supporting facts and logic. Everyone reading this board (who still cares at this point) can make up their own mind). You will be well served to do likewise. Adding sarcasm to your argument isn’t making it any more persuasive.
“Do you know the NFL will not use St Louis losing two team’s as a factor in there decision making?
I believe, with a high degree of confidence, that the NFL is not going to do such a simpleminded and superficial analysis that they just say “two strikes you’re out, St. Louis” without looking deeper. I believe what they’re going to consider in their decision making is the reason the Rams left St. Louis, not the mere fact the Rams left St. Louis. I doubt they’re going to spend much time thinking about either the fact or reasons why the Cardinals left St. Louis, for the reasons stated above. And when the NFL does consider these reasons, what they are going to see is a very viable market that meets their primary requirements and just lost out to a superior economic offer.
“No you don’t, no more then I know that they will use it as a factor. So it’s nothing but an option on both are parts, somthing one of us was more then happy to admit.”
Not all opinions are created equal. Just saying they’re both opinions doesn’t make them equally likely to be correct. You don’t get off that easy.
Anyway, I’m done with this. If I haven’t been able to make you understand why this “two strikes you’re out” think is vapid and superficial, I doubt I’ll be able to. So I’m going to stop before ML shuts down the thread again.
@ bartleby
Of course not all options are equal, as long as you have I’m sure that will be true.
I did not add New York, or LA you did, go back and read your own argument. You cited New York in an earlier thread.
Your argument comes down to Cleveland? Wow, I would hate to be depending on Cleveland, or do you have any other small to midsized markets that have lost two separate NFL franchise’s, and where awarded a third? Yeah, not a lot of those I’m guessing. BTW, if the Raiders do move to St Louis, it still would not disprove my singular point, that,
“the NFL may not want to return to St Louis because they have lost two separate NFL franchise’s”
The Raiders moving there would only prove that other factors, perhaps over came that one. YOU can’t prove it not a factor, period.
Let’s see you could talk to every owner and the comishoner after they move, and if all of them said it wasn’t a factor then you would have your prof, in till then you have nothing. ..
@Lakeshore/Neil “I did not add New York, or LA you did, go back and read your own argument. You cited New York in an earlier thread.”
The way that argument went was, you said maybe past precedent shows the NFL would not give a city a third chance. I pointed out that although there were few examples of a city losing two NFL teams in NFL history, ALL of those that did eventually received (or in the case of LA is apparently about to receive) a third team. Because there are so few examples in the NFL, I also threw in the New York MLB example.
You then argued, “well those are big markets, that’s a special case.” I pointed out that Cleveland is not a big market, and the fact you’re arguing big markets would get another look based on market size implicitly acknowledges that its the factors behind a move, not a move itself, that is relevant.
“Your argument comes down to Cleveland? Wow, I would hate to be depending on Cleveland, or do you have any other small to midsized markets that have lost two separate NFL franchise’s, and where awarded a third? Yeah, not a lot of those I’m guessing.”
No, as I pointed out before there are not a lot of markets of ANY size that have lost two or more NFL teams. I agree it’s a small sample size and therefore won’t settle the argument. But it’s worth noting that what precedent exists ALL runs counter to your argument and in favor of my argument. 100% of the markets that have lost two or more NFL teams (and in fact, 100% of the markets that have lost even one NFL team since 1937) have gotten another NFL team (or in LA’s case, apparently soon will). Regardless of market size.
My argument was never about Cleveland or historic precedent; it was always about logic:
1. The NFL owners are interested in market potential when locating franchises.
2. In the NFL’s eyes, factors evidencing market potential include available public subsidies, public will to put together a stadium deal, corporate base, fan demographics and historic support for the NFL.
3. The fact an NFL team has moved, by itself and without knowing the cause of the move, tells us nothing about the potential of the abandoned market. This is because it could have occurred due to lack of one or more of the factors listed above, or a completely unrelated reason having nothing to do with the abandoned market (e.g. another market made an over-the-top better offer).
4. Therefore, the NFL will consider the factors that resulted in the departure of prior teams rather than just assigning an arbitrary number to them (“two strikes you’re out.”
Your argument has been, “the NFL may consider losing two teams a strike against a city regardless of the reasons for the departures.” When I first questioned this, I fully expected you to say “No, that’s not what I meant. Of course I meant to say the NFL would dig into the factors that caused the departure, which might or might not give reason for concern.” Instead, to my surprise you doubled and then tripled down on your original flawed argument. You seem to have a tough time distinguishing correlation from causation.
“BTW, if the Raiders do move to St Louis, it still would not disprove my singular point, that, “the NFL may not want to return to St Louis because they have lost two separate NFL franchise’s” The Raiders moving there would only prove that other factors, perhaps over came that one. YOU can’t prove it not a factor, period.”
Undoubtedly you’re right. The NFL’s quick approval of a new team moving to St. Louis would conclusively prove that losing two previous teams was a very serious strike against that city.
Also, whether the NFL approves or disapproves the Rams move to St. Louis will undoubtedly hinge on how much they like the shape of Kroenke’s nose. I mean, admittedly it’s a patently idiotic idea and there’s no evidence or logic to support it. But hey, we can’t prove it one way or the other, right?
“Let’s see you could talk to every owner and the comishoner after they move, and if all of them said it wasn’t a factor then you would have your prof,” till then you have nothing.”
Well, nothing but logic and common sense. I’ll just have to struggle along as best I can with those.
@duffer “The London mayor recently commented that they are in serious negotiations to get an NFL franchise fairly soon”
London may well get an NFL franchise eventually, but it’s not happening anytime soon. That would require major changes not just for the team moving there, but for the entire NFL (e.g. division realignment, scheduling).
As a market with no tradition of American football (let along supporting an NFL team for 8 home games every year), it would also be at a whole other level of risk for a team moving there. That team would likely need financial assurances from the rest of the NFL to make it worthwhile. The NFL might well do this to get a foothold on new TV and merchandising revenue in Europe, but that would be a complicated and protracted negotiation. The Raiders situation will likely be long settled before the NFL figures all of this out.
“No need to pony up cash or sell share of the team to cover the cost of building a new stadium.”
You are making wild assumptions about a theoretical economic deal that would be extremely complicated and hasn’t even begun to take shape. You have no basis whatsover for this statement.
“The fans over there evidently don’t need a new state-of-the-art NFL stadium as an incentive to attend games.”
Another wild, unsupported statement. Showing up for a few “big event” games each year while there’s still a novelty factor is an entirely different matter than supporting a full slate of NFL teams year in and year out. And as I’ve pointed out many times before, actual game dday attendance is a relative afterthought in making a market NFL viable given the NFL’s economic system.
“the Raiders’ chances of moving over there are probably better than St Louis ( the Raiders have commented repeatedly that they have no interest in St. Louis)”
Anyone who is handicapping this thing based on an owner’s public statement of preference at a particular point in time is not a deep thinker. This issue will be decided by economic factors.
In a normal situation, I would tend to think that the NFL would more than likely approve the Raiders to move to LA as the second team in a shared new stadium. That’s of course given the fact that Oakland continues to do practically nothing to assist the Raiders to help them fund the construction of a new or largely rebuilt coliseum. However, given the strong Raiders fan base in the Bay Area and the availability of a new state-of-the-art stadium to share that’s well within their current market, the NFL will very likely not approve the Raiders to move to LA. That said, I would tend to think that the NFL would want for the Raiders to at least try sharing Levi’s Stadium with the 49ers on a trial run basis. However, if this arrangement does not prove to work well for the Raiders, then the NFL would likely approve the Raiders to move to St. Louis, San Antonio, or some other new NFL market. Over time, the NFL wants to do the right thing for all the involved teams, their respective markets, and their respective fans..
A really good article that tries to handicap the outcome of the stadium derby in the context of actual NFL economics:
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/is-the-nfl-really-about-to-move-back-to-la-yes-no-and-maybe
I encourage all who are interested in serious discussion of this topic to read. A few takeaways:
– The notion that LA will instantly double or triple a teams franchise value based on market size defies common sense when considered in the context of NFL revenue sharing.
– For the same reasons, a privately financed stadium in LA is a huge risk for any owner, including Kroenke.
As I’ve said before, public money subsidies are by far the biggest factor in determining what constitutes a “good market” for an NFL team; corporate support for non-shared revenue streams (e.g. suites, club seats, naming rights, PSLs) is a strong second; and actual game day attendance a distant third. Nearly all NFL franchise moves in the modern era have been driven by factors #1 and 2, and I believe the LA derby will be no different.
Although Kroenke certainly seems hell-bent on LA, it will not surprise me in the least that if St. Louis comes up with $400 million in public money for a SOTA stadium the Rams end up staying put. For the same reason, if St. Louis comes up with the publicly funded stadium and the Rams move anyway, St. Louis instantly jumps to the top of the list as a probable destination for either the Raiders or Chargers.
Yet another sports economist who supports this view:
“The economics of football leave almost no incentive for any team to stay loyal to a particular city, [University of South Florida sports economist Philip] Porter said. Media and licensing revenues are distributed evenly among 32 clubs, and home teams only keep about 60 percent of their gate revenue.
Wasn’t Kroenke entitled to $700 million under the arbitration ruling? We’re not even sure Saint Louis will come up with $400 million.
I’m just going on memory, but I don’t think he was entitled to $700 million in cash. My recollection is that he was entitled to stadium renovations to bring the Jones Dome up to snuff that would have cost $700 million (making it more sensible to just build a new stadium, as St. Louis is trying to do).
And no, it’s not certain St. Louis will come up with $400 million. If they don’t, that’s game over for them (at least until they do). But it still looks like there’s a decent chance that will happen. There’s opposition, but also a lot of support from key players.
Sorry for the duplicate posts, above. The system seemed to reject my original post, so I broke it into two parts in case it was too long. Now I see all three have appeared, with the later two duplicating the first.
In case you missed it, Los Angeles News Group sports writer Vincent Bonsignore has reported, as have the L.A. Times, variety.com and others, that Chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney company Robert Iger has been appointed by the Chargers and the Raiders to serve as “Non-Executive Chairman of Carson Holdings, LLC”. Mr Iger will reportedly be paid one dollar per year, but will have the option “to acquire a minority, non-controlling equity ownership interest in one of either the Raiders or Chargers.” While Mr. Iger has a net worth of “only” $100 million and while there is no indication that he or the Disney will make any financial contributions towards a stadium in Carson, he is someone who is well-known in the business field and one wonders how much of an influence he may have on the rest of the NFL owners in January. You may read Mr. Bonsignore’s article (there is two) at http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/. For other sources, please Google “Robert Iger Raiders”
Schaaf to tell NFL how easy it is for football fans in Frisco to get to Raiders games. I’m betting she’ll leave out the part about Frisco’s “Who cares?” attitude about the 49ers (Just 5% of the season ticket base had Frisco addresses when the team played at Candlestick.). Frisco just aint much of a football market – that’s why the 49ers were comfortable leaving while still holding on to the Frisco name. http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-mayor-s-pitch-S-F-fans-will-love-6623241.php