The Inglewood Compromise

“Inglewood Compromise” sounds more like a Cold War era weapons treaty than a pact between football teams, yet the latter is what we’re facing. Now that it’s clear that Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has pushed for such a concept and that it may be gaining momentum, it’s time to start thinking about what it could mean for the teams at the center of the debate, and of course, our beloved Oakland Athletics.

Of the two Los Angeles stadium plans, Stan Kroenke’s vision at Hollywood Park (next to the Forum in Inglewood) is furthest along. Most of the land there has been cleared, including the area set aside for stadium construction. The same can’t be said for the land in Carson, which needs a final round of remediation before any construction can begin there. Inglewood is encountering some resistance in the form of FAA objections over the height of the stadium and the materials used for it, but these issues can be mitigated. Besides, other stadia have been built beneath airport landing approaches before, including SAP Center and Levi’s Stadium.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

While the NFL is pushing for 50/50 partnerships regardless of site, it’s clear that Kroenke would run the show in Inglewood whereas Dean Spanos would do the same in Carson. That goes for stadium design to some level of revenue control. If Mark Davis could find a way in he’d be happy with the arrangement, if only because his team’s revenue-generating capacity would be so much more than the abysmal figures he’s been pulling down in Oakland. The thinking is that under the Inglewood Compromise, Kroenke would provide concessions that Spanos needs to ditch the Carson plan, whatever that entails.

That would leave Davis as the odd man out, locked out of the LA market perhaps forever. The Raiders would be stuck with Bay Area, namely Oakland, as its best local hope for a new stadium. Oakland has been largely consistent in saying it would provide no public money, though it has gone a little softer in opening the doors for infrastructure financing.

Assuming the Inglewood Compromise moves forward and crystallizes, the options the NFL could provide to the Raiders could come in a number of forms, even taken separately or together.

  1. The simplest option would be an extension of current talks between the Raiders and Oakland. At the moment there remains a $400-500 million funding gap on a $900 million stadium that would be the smallest in the league while not having the amenities or cachet necessary to host a Super Bowl. Raider fans are holding out hope that some of the potential $1.1 Billion in relocation fees paid by the Rams and Chargers could be rerouted to Oakland. Given that Roger Goodell shot down a similar idea floated by St. Louis stadium principals, it seems unlikely at this stage or Oakland. Goodell also dismissed the initial framework of Oakland’s proposal for the Raiders, calling it insufficient. More fleshed out proposals from St. Louis and San Diego were also considered insufficient as well. If it wanted, the NFL could create a new funding mechanism outside the existing G-4 loan program to help bridge the gap. However, I suspect that the NFL won’t consider loosening the purse strings unless the City of Oakland at least matches that extra money. By that I don’t mean land rights or sales, since land is considered table stakes for any stadium deal. I mean cold hard cash. So if Davis comes up with $200 million and the NFL matches it, the league could provide another $100 million or more but only if Oakland also matches that piece, $100+ million. Without that, I can’t see how the NFL could take Oakland’s overtures seriously.
  2. When the 49ers’ stadium project in Santa Clara started to come to fruition, the NFL tried to lean on Davis to partner up to allow for two teams at what would eventually be named Levi’s Stadium. Davis considered Santa Clara too far from Oakland so the talks never went anywhere. The NFL left Davis to work with Oakland, and we all know how that worked out. With a reset in talks coming for those two, the NFL could introduce Santa Clara again as a short term or long term play. The NFL remains concerned about revenue for the Raiders. Levi’s would be the most direct way to provide a boost. If Davis is more concerned about the atmosphere and experience in Oakland, then talks would prove fruitless again. But with the league bringing in those relocation fees, it could take $100 million, build out the second home team locker room in Levi’s, and provide enough money to make the stadium more Raiders-friendly through new flexible signage and other elements. Previously there was talk that the Raiders would be a mere tenant with the 49ers getting most of the revenue including for Raiders games. The NFL could grant a partial renovation G-4 loan to the Raiders for the renovations, making them more of a partner for the stadium. The NFL could also lean on the 49ers to provide more revenue to the Raiders, since the 49ers wouldn’t be on the hook for the renovation project. The 49ers had sought a minimum 10-year lease term to make the second team scenario work financially. If the NFL and the Raiders are footing the bill that’s no longer an issue. The Raiders could stay for a 5-10 year lease, with the ability to leave if an Oakland stadium opens during that time frame. Or the Raiders could find out over time that the arrangement actually works the best for them and forgo an Oakland stadium completely, as the Jets eventually did after they moved to New Jersey.
  3. Then there are the other relocation alternatives. San Antonio continues to be the city that tries to get noticed in all of this. That all seems in vain, though who knows what could happen when LA shakes out? Davis has friends in San Antonio, and he could use them to either bargain a stadium deal out of Oakland or to move to the Alamo City in earnest. There has been talk that St. Louis could try to attract the Raiders after being spurned by the Rams, but the NFL seems unwilling to accept their proposal regardless of which team the city tries to attract.

After trying to piece through all of that, Davis may decide that the status quo is the best plan at least for the short term. He could go back to Alameda to consider what he’ll truly need to commit to get a stadium deal done, and whether it’s worth it. As a man who has never built anything significant on his own, it has to be at the very least a somewhat appealing (and comforting) option. As I noted in the previous post, Davis hasn’t burned all his bridges yet as his counterparts Kroenke and Spanos have.

81 thoughts on “The Inglewood Compromise

  1. It seems that the Sports Gods have spoken: The Raiders will remain in Oakland because the East Bay stadium situation MUST remain a complicated one.

  2. Your last line is key: the Raiders are the only team that can go back to their home market now without a really ugly situation for the NFL. That’s why Rams/Chargers in LA makes the most sense for the League.

    I just don’t see the Raiders at Levi’s as a long term solution, or anyone from the NFL pushing it. They want a deal at the Coliseum site. Short of that, they will look to other markets.

  3. Depending on what’s in the relication documents for the raiders, I wonder how many bridges will be burned. That document has to surface.

  4. If it is to be the Raiders don’t get the LA vote, I see a lot of things speeding(comparatively)up with regards to them AND the A’s. Any threats the Raiders make about relocation after LA turns them down, would be considered laughable. Many think Lew wants the Raiders gone, but I think its quite the opposite. He wants the Raiders to stay, he wants them to take over the whole damn Coli site. Its really his only leverage to force MLB to let him move to SJ. Actually, its the precice leverage MLB needs to tell the Giants to go f%#k themselves.

    • I totally agree that the A’s ownership (Wolff AND Fisher) want exactly that… but I don’t see it happening. The team moving to silicon valley will be the Raiders because the A’s are the only ones who can finance their stadium without public help.

      Which is a shame, because it is my opinion that no pro sports team can thrive in Oakland. Never has been and never will be a major league city. It has always existed in the shadow of SF and now it also exists in the shadow of SV. I know that there are people who live there and love it, but this is just an outsider’s viewpoint and I am not alone in those feelings.

      Talk about all it’s techie-startup influx all you want… speaking as a victim of the dot-com bubble burst of 15 years ago, venture-capital growth is just not sustainable. There are going to be a lot of unemployed techies in SF and Oakland who can’t afford to live there anymore when their VC money dries up.

      • The Raiders will continue to pressure Oakland for taxpayer money that’s not there. Not even $100 million. All while keeping the A’s and their plans for a privately funded stadium in limbo. The solution is obvious: Let the A’s build a stadium and pay for it while getting development rights to the rest of the site. But Oakland refuses to make a choice. I still see Howard Terminal mentioned as a great site for the A’s no matter how much the A’s don’t want that site….Are techie startups the kind of ventures that lease luxury boxes at stadiums? I’ll bet they’re not. And we’re talking hundreds of luxury suites that would have to be leased at two large stadiums in Oakland.

      • Oakland officials evidently must be willing to boot the A’s out of the Coliseum to keep the Raiders in Oakland. That’s possibly why they offered the A’s several other possible sites for a new ballpark. Considering the way the Yorks have been running the Niners (possibly not much competition for the Raiders), perhaps Davis would be wise to invest the franchise’s $300 mil. cash to convert the Coliseum into more of a football stadium and stay there rather than relocate to LA, etc.

      • I disagree. Oakland can’t support THREE pro teams, but it can definitely support ONE pro team, and that team will own the East Bay.

    • If the Raiders do not get LA they will remain a very credible relocation threat. The process has already resulted in the NFL formally determining that the Raiders are eligible under league rules to relocate because Oakland’s stadium efforts have been unsatisfactory and unacceptable. They are free to go, and if they get a good deal from San Antonio, San Diego, Sacramento or anywhere else, NFL approval will be a rubber stamp.

  5. I have paid a lot of attention to this NFL to LA situation and every single article that I have read over the past two months has painted the same picture; Dean Spanos is very popular among NFL owners, the Carson Stadium has about 18-20 votes already, he isn’t interested in Inglewood. As much as the other owners could care less about/dislike Mark Davis he is Dean Spanos’ date to the prom at this point and the two have said that going forward. Dean won’t break it off unless Mark Davis gets to see something out of this.

    • Carson is a site that needs remediation, backed by two under-financed owners (not sure how much money Spanos has but we know Davis is probably the poorest of the NFL’s 32 owners). Inglewood appears to be close to construction-ready, backed by a Big $$ owner. Seems like a clear choice to go with Inglewood – Kroenke gets his stadium as long as he makes room for the Chargers. Raiders get Levi’s or can continue fruitless efforts to pry public money out of Oakland for a second Bay Area pro football stadium. If built, Levi’s would continue to get Taylor Swift concerts, monster truck races, NHL Stadium Series games, while the Raiders stadium has open dates 355 days a year.

      • Carson is more popular. I don’t disagree that Inglewood is more shovel ready, Inglewood might make more sense, it still isn’t as popular as Carson and Spanos. That isn’t my personal opinion it’s the current majority opinion of the NFL owners. The most likely outcomes are;

        1. Carson is approved for the Raiders and Chargers.

        2. The Raiders and Chargers stick together and the stalemate rolls on till next year.

        3. Dean Spanos has more votes than Kroenke. The 9-10 Inglewood backers stick together and force a Rams-Chargers compromise (and they could).

        If it is option 3 then Spanos will get Davis some help to get him out of the partnership that to this point hasn’t wavered. The extra help could be something the like Davis agrees to go to Levi’s (something the NFL wants), however he could be exempt from ever having to pay a relocation fee if he ever leaves the Bay Area. Or he could get an extra one time bonus of $200 million for backing out of the partnership. I don’t know what Davis would get from the NFL, but the NFL has to give Davis something.

      • Nope….not if that stadium looks waaay nicer than Levis and is at a better location in the middle of transport hub like the Coli site is.

    • Problem for Spanos is 18-20 votes is not enough to win. He needs 24 for the Carson joint venture and does not have a likely path to get there.

      Also by most accounts support for Carson among ownership is more about sympathy for Spanos than the site itself. If anything, the partnership with the Raiders has become an obstacle to reaching 24 votes. Plenty of owners remember the image of the Los Angeles Raiders, and it wasn’t good for the Shield.

      So yes it is still possible that Raiders-Chargers in Carson could win, but it is looking less and less likely. And if they don’t have 24 votes, the only realistic solution is Chargers-Rams in either location.

      • You are correct, it seems like you have been paying a lot of attention too. Spanos is much more well liked than Kroenke, but if you just judge the venues themselves Inglewood might win or at least tie with Carson. The question is would Davis take a buyout?

        Perhaps he gets extra financial help from the owners and/or they agree to waive any relocation fee if he decides to move elsewhere. But if Davis and Spanos decide to run with this all the way they could get Carson outright.

        On the six person committee Jerry Richardson (Panthers) and Bob McNair (Texans) both support Carson. I believe the Giants owner Mara does too. Kraft supports Inglewood. So three committee members support Carson, one for Inglewood, two uncertain.

        Remember Jones and the Inglewood guys are in the minority. They could be using a gambit to try and get included in a deal and get their story into the media. Maybe they fear an outright Carson endorsement. If things press on and Carson is very close Inglewood backers could peel off just to get this over with.

  6. The Oakland Raiders belong at the coliseum. The Oakland A’s would be better at the Howard terminal at Jack London Square or Uptown Oakland. Uptown is changing with startups Tech companies moving in. The game atmosphere and power spending tech fans, would match the one at AT&TT Park.

    • Uptown would be great for a ballpark, except for the whole part about having no available land.

    • Someone I’ve never seen post before on this blog pushes for Raiders at Coliseum, A’s at Howard Terminal, *which has been examined and rehashed many times and was ruled out by A’s and MLB long ago*.

      This is a blog about getting the A’s a new ballpark, not keeping the Raiders.

  7. Well written article by ML

    The owners gotta be morons to favor Carson over inglewood.

    The Rams cannot go back to St. Louis period. If you read their 30 page paper to the NFL it is obvious why

    St. Louis reneged on their original agreement and have shown to be disengenious where they cannot be trusted.

    I get why Kroenke won’t sit down with them after trying for 12 years.

    If the NFL forces Kroenke to stay he has no leverage and it will kill the team long run.

    Plus these owners have to realign divisions and pay either Seattle or Arizona to move to the afc west….moving part here these owners have to take into account

    Jerry Jones is right on…..Rams and chargers make the most sense. Raiders shot themselves in the foot not sharing with the niners or at least trying.

    Plus Mark Davis doesn’t have 550m for a relocation fee and money to build a stadium privately even with Spanos on board.

    The owners need to get real here and go with shovel ready inglewood that has a developement under way while Carson is not shovel ready

    Raiders are stuck. Sucks for the A’s big time

    • Disagree on all your points about St. Louis. How did St. Louis reneg on the original agreement? Just because the Dome lease was poorly written to include the top tier opt out for Kroenke doesn’t mean St. Louis can’t be trusted. If anything they’ve bent over backward to try to get Kroenke to negotiate and he’s taken a scorched earth approach.

      Kroenke would still have a TON of leverage in St. Louis. The city is willing to work with him and figure out a long term solution, he just wants to move the team regardless of what they offer.

      • The Dome lease was not “poorly written”. St Louis made that outlandish perpetual First Tier Stadium promise to the Rams to induce the NFL to abandon a mega market of 15 million people for a market one fifth the size of LA.

        That promise was the basis for the Rams moving to St Louis. Having broken it, I do not understand how St Louis fans can complain now that the Rams want to return home.

  8. Interesting that in #2, “Davis considered Santa Clara too far from Oakland…” but did not consider Carson too far from Oakland. I don’t know how far Carson is from Oakland, but certainly farther than the 32.6 miles Santa Clara is from Oakland (per Mapquest).

    • No kidding. Like just about everything else Davis has said about this whole situation, it’s BS. He talks out of both sides of his mouth because he has no real plan, money or other capability to get a stadium deal done. He has to keep all options open as he is dependent on others to make it happen. That’s why I don’t see him staying in Oakland long term, since Oakland doesn’t have the wherewithal (funding) to put together a stadium deal either. After the LA shakeout, I believe someone will dangle enough in front of his nose to get him to move.

    • Totally agree. I don’t get why Raider fans give Davis a pass on this.

      He has a credible option on the table in Oakland. The option in Oakland will cost him the same as Carson. He also has a credible backup option in Santa Clara.

      Davis has spent infinitely more time and money on LA and San Antonio than he has on the Bay Area. Despite this, Raider fans still think he wants to stay in Oakland.

  9. When all this is said and done, the NFL will find an acceptable solution for all three teams. The Rams and Chargers will likely get their shared new stadium at Inglewood, and the Raiders will be either playing at a new Bay Area facility or moved within a few years to another market with a new stadium. This action by the NFL is a far cry from MLB who will most probably continue to keep the A’s at limbo, in order to protect the selfish nterests of the powerful members of the Lodge.

    • Frankly given the result this “action” by the NFL will have for St. Louis, San Diego, and likely Oakland long term it could be worse than being stuck in MLB’s limbo. Given the alternative of being stuck in the Coliseum indefinitely or being moved out of market is the Coliseum really THAT bad?

    • He could open up talks with the San Antonio folks and move there to the AlamoDome in time for next season. Better than wasting more time trying to squeeze public money out of Oakland, I guess.

    • The other possibility is that this is just a ploy to get votes to move to LA.

      Jerry Jones likely doesn’t want the Raiders in San Antonio. Jerry Jones also favors Kroenke’s plan.

      Davis could just be saying if you don’t help me in getting to LA, I’m going to move into your area.

      Of course I may be giving Davis way too much credit here. He also may have heard rumors of a new PF Chang’s opening up in San Antonio.

    • Bleacher Report? Now that’s a trustworthy source

  10. Maybe it’s just my cold, hateful heart, but I would love for this whole situation to be put off for a year, and force the Raiders, Chargers and Rams to remain in their respective cities for another season – if for no other reason then just to see the fanbase reactions. Probably not much different in SD or OAK, but the home games in STL would be fun as hell to watch in that scenario.

    On another note – did we just hear the grave of Cisco Field just start rumbling again?

  11. Sending Davis back to Oakland empty-handed (with a hint-hint, nudge-nudge about Levi’s) means the A’s need to get moving on their own plans for Coliseum site. Several years of negotiations with the Raiders have produced a stalemate – a $400 million gap no one wants to fill. Time for the A’s to offer a different plan.

  12. Regarding Davis moving to San Antonio- rely fees will keep him from doing that also unless SA pays the $550M which I doubt- feel like 10 years from now I will be sitting in retired. Rocking chair and still wondering when the A’s and Raiders will get new stadiums. And to think that this has been going on and on and on since 2004- crazy

    • Unless of course not having to pay the relocation fees (or at least a portion) is a concession the NFL gives to the loser of the LA sweepstakes.

  13. re: “Oakland should not be an NFL city,” news article. Well, if the NFL way of doing business is local taxpayers pony up hundreds of millions of dollars for stadiums, then yes, Oakland can’t get it done. But if/when the Raiders are rejected for LA, they could be in a worst-case scenario: stuck in a low-revenue city that can’t help with a new stadium, while being pressured to play at the Cathedral of the “San Francisco” 49ers. What to do? Saint Louis? San Antonio? No good options for this storied franchise. Meanwhile, the boring, legacy-less Atlanta Falcons are getting their second brand new stadium in about 22 years. That’s the way it is.

  14. Mark Davis blasts Oakland- thought it was lew that lied- at least the city admitted to MD they lied- hopefully manfred read that article-

  15. San Antonio could be a bluff – playing at what the NFL would consider a sub-standard NFL stadium? San Antonio officials may be able to offer the Raiders a sweet lease deal at the Alamo Dome – that’s about all it though. San Antonio already has warned that they have zero dollars available for funding a replacement NFL stadium, one would believe they would’t pay a hefty $550 mil. relocation fee also.

    Clearly Davis’s wisest choice would be to use the teams $300 mil. cash towards financing a plan to upgrade the Coliseum into a more football friendly NFL stadium and staying put (Oakland officials appear willing to kick the A’s out of there to keep Davis satisfied also – Davis would prefer avoiding sharing the Coliseum with the A’s if possible anyhow – and avoid that goofy looking baseball IF in the middle of a football field)

    • P.S : San Diego could be a choice also. Unlike San Antonio, San Diego city officials are willing to partially finance a new stadium – possibly an amount that suits Davis. Also, the NFL may be willing to waive a relocation fee if the the Raiders to decide to do that (or help finance a new Raiders stadium in Oakland)

    • And, Wolff appears to want to get kicked out.

    • I’ve never figured out why the Alamo Dome is an improvement over the Coliseum. It’s the Arco Arena of football stadiums.

      • “I’ve never figured out why the Alamo Dome is an improvement over the Coliseum. It’s the Arco Arena of football stadiums.”

        It may be an improvement, but not by much. Regardless, there’s no way Mark Davis moves to San Antonio without a firm deal for a new stadium in hand. The Alamo Dome is only relevant in that it provides a temporary venue for the Raiders to play in while a new stadium was built, assuming that were to happen.

  16. As part of a negotiated agreement for the Chargers to agree to share the Inglewood stadium with the Rams, I would tend to think that the NFL would allow the Chargers to retain territorial rights to San Diego. In effect, prohibiting another team from moving to San Diego. This would also expand the Chargers territory from LA to San Diego,while limiting the Rams territory to no further south beyond Orange County.

    • @ llpec
      Good, point as that would limit the Raiders possibilities even further.
      If the owners do approve a so called “Oakland fund”, I’m guessing it won’t be for Oakland at all. It will be for Davis to use wherever he builds, weather that be Oakland, St Louis, San Antonio. Or wherever The Owners will probable wave a relocation fee for Davis if he moves to another market as part of the compromise, they will not want to remove all leverage from Davis in regards to Oakland.
      All of this is hypostatical, but there is a real chance that Oakland could be one of biggest winner in all of this, after LA, and Mark Davis of course.

    • The NFL has evidently already discussed waiving relocation fees for a city that needs a new franchise because of the LA move (Those cities would be Oakland and San Diego – with St Louis likely out of the loop.) The NFL has questioned if St Louis could provide enough of a revenue stream to adequately support the Rams

      • “(Those cities would be Oakland and San Diego – with St Louis likely out of the loop.) The NFL has questioned if St Louis could provide enough of a revenue stream to adequately support the Rams.”

        Don’t be naive. The NFL stated that the STL proposal was presently inadequate because of its contingencies and because Kroenke wasn’t interested in it. The sole purpose for the NFL report is to provide legal cover for it to make whatever decision it wants with respect to relocation. It tells us nothing whatsoever about the actual viability of STL’s proposal. At the following article makes clear, STL’s proposal is actually more generous than the one the Vikings found acceptable in Minnesota: http://www.ksdk.com/story/sports/2016/01/10/nfl-guilty-bait-and-switch-st-louis/78598864/

      • Frankly, if you think Oakland is more likely to get another NFL team if the Raiders leave than STL you’re out of your mind.

    • Without baseball’s antitrust exemption, the NFL does not really have enforceable territorial rights.

      Vincent Bonsignore and other reporters covering the NFL-to-LA story have said the Dean Spanos has acknowledged that when the Chargers move another NFL team may backfill the San Diego market.

      And for good measure, the NFL’s relocation application required each team to surrender any claims over its current market as a condition to be approved for LA.

      So Spanos and the Chargers will not be an obstacle to the Raiders, Jaguars, etc. moving to San Diego.

    • As it came out, if the Chargers join the Rams in LA, they give up the rights to SD and the Raiders can move there without paying the relocation fee of $550M.

  17. Of course Mark Davis is saying San Antonio as he must hate Jerry jones for proposing Rams-Chargers officially.

    Problem with SA is the Cowboys and Texans own Tv rights to the city and general area.

    The Raiders would have the smallest Tv base in the league which would hurt them getting fans.

    At least now they share with the 49ers a much larger market

    The NFL should kick back to Davis extra money to build in Oakland for getting locked out of LA forever

    200M for free towards a Oakland stadium. Now the funding gap is 200m

    Oakland get creative….go!

    • The NFL is not like MLB. There aren’t really local TV rights. The TV rights only impact the games shown in a specific market but the revenue is national.

      While I get that TV viewership can generate interest in a team for things like merchandise sales, the impact for that is more national as well. This is especially true for an existing team with an established identity like the Raiders.

      Local money comes from direct stadium revenue.

    • @ letsgoas
      Believe me I’m not sticking up for Mark Davis (because he has not put a plan together either), but I think most people will look at his harsh words regarding Oakland as mostly about the politicians, which is true and not against the fan base. Wolff on the other hand is viewed (write or wrong), as saying things detrimental about the fan base. Also they will view it as something Davis had to say (weather he believed all of it or not), since he was in competition with others for the LA market.

      As far as your ending comment:
      “while the a’s and wolff get the cold shoulder yet again.”
      You can only get a cold shoulder when a cold shoulder is all you give.

    • I saw this and I am also wondering why nobody is talking about it. Mark Davis can bash Oakland all he wants and it’ll just get swept under the rug.

      I’m also guessing Davis will receive a standing ovation when the Raiders reluctantly play their first 2016 Oakland home game (just like he did at the “NFL Oakland Town Hall” at the Paramount Theater).

  18. It sounds like Rams and Chargers to Inglewood will get approved. It will be interesting to see what they do about the Raiders. Direct them to Santa Clara? Waive their relocation fee and open the door to SD, STL or somewhere else? Help them fund something here? I find the last option the least likely. It just doesn’t seem logical to reward the one city that put absolutely no effort or money into keeping their team after rebuking two other cities that at least offered something. One way or another, we’re one step closer to shaking something loose for the A’s.

  19. It’s official. Glad you’re staying put, Raiders.

  20. @ML Reports are that Raiders get $100 million if they stay in Oakland, which you point out via Twitter is enough to “neutralize” Levi’s Stadium. Do they still get that money if they move to Santa Clara?

  21. It’s official….Rams/Chargers get the nod, Raiders officially withdraw their relocation bid. Now, someone call Lew and tell him to call the commish. SJ A’s are the future reality.

    • I don’t see how the Raiders staying makes San Jose any more likely for the A’s. MLB has sided with the Giants on that battle. It does increase the chance that the Raiders will force the A’s out.

  22. ESPN’s Nick Wagoner reports the Raiders get an option to go to Inglewood if the Chargers don’t exercise theirs.

  23. Find it ironic the the NFL’s equivalent of a blue ribbon committee recommended Carson 5-1 and the other owners yanked and voted the opposite- that committee has got to be pretty embarrassed that they had that little respect from their peers-

    • The Committee’s support for “Carson” was always about giving Spanos negotiating leverage, not so much about the Carson project itself.

      In the secret ballot that followed, Chargers/Raiders to Carson only got 12 votes out of 32.

  24. The Raiders aren’t back in Oakland. The Raiders are homeless.

    If Oakland was smart, they would do the following:

    1. Go back to the Raiders with the same offer they just presented. Davis has an extra $100M from the NFL, plus he claimed he had $500M from investors in his propaganda piece trashing Oakland

    2. To cover the immediate term, give Davis a lease similar to the A’s. Somewhere between 5 – 10 years with out clauses if the Raiders strike an agreement to build a stadium in Oakland or if the A’s do, kicking the Raiders out

    This forces Davis to show that he’s truly committed to Oakland. If he’s not move on, as a deal ain’t happening.

    The worst thing Oakland can do at this point would be to give Davis another 1 year lease.

  25. Minor thought before sleeping:

    if the Raiders stay in Oakland this year, they get $100M;

    if they move to LA this year, they pay the $550M relocation fee (over many years);

    if the Chargers move to LA and the Raiders then move to SD, they don’t get the $100M but pay a relocation fee of $0;

    if the Chargers move to LA and the Raiders move to SD *next* year, they get the $100M and still don’t pay the relocation fee

    … place your bets.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s