Yahoo Sports’ Jeff Passan held a wide ranging interview with MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred, published earlier today. Included in the questions were a couple about the stadium situations for the A’s and Rays:
Two NFL teams are about to move. Baseball is the sport that has gone the longest since a franchise relocated. Are you nearing that situation with Tampa Bay or Oakland?
It remains my strong preference, because I think it’s a policy that has served baseball really well over time, to stay in the markets where we’re located. We’re going to exhaust every possibility to get stadiums done in Tampa Bay and Oakland. But clearly you would think I was sort of la-la if I didn’t recognize at some point in time it may be necessary to consider alternatives.
No one should be terribly encouraged or discouraged by this. Manfred will clearly let this process play out and see where it leads, even if that means a dead end in either market. When that runs its course, we’ll see what (if anything) opens up. San Jose partisans may look at this as good sign for them, but that’s waaaaaaaayyyyyyy down the road.
I’m more encouraged that Manfred is clear about his position. He’s not mincing words like his predecessor, or saying “it’s complicated” or uttering expletives when asked. Manfred’s too early in his tenure to be worn down about the issue as Bud Selig. Check in again in five years. Manfred is happy that the Rays will get to explore all of the Tampa Bay area, even if the financing picture there remains bleak. As for Oakland, there’s this:
OAK Councilman Noel Gallo says @NFL must help build new #Raiders stadium: “If you asked the Council to put a doghouse together, we couldn’t”
— Doug Sovern (@SovernNation) January 25, 2016
Carry on.
newballpark.org 
The Raiders and A’s are going to have to live with the fact that Oakland won’t give them $$. Oakland(and their fans, yours truly included) is going to have to live with the fact that both teams might leave because of it. Its been a war of attrition since day one. Its all a matter of who blinks first. Either could give in or give up.
> The Raiders a̶n̶d̶ ̶A̶’̶s̶ are going to have to live with the fact that Oakland won’t give them $$. O̶a̶k̶l̶a̶n̶d̶ The Raiders (and their fans, yours truly included) is going to have to live with the fact that b̶o̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶e̶a̶m̶s̶ their team might leave because of it.
The A’s aren’t asking for money to build their ballpark.
Sure they are. You think Lew is gonna give fair market value for that land?? He’ll lowball Oakland and JPA, and they’ll give it to him. A’s not asking for money?? Child, please!
| Sure they are. You think Lew is gonna give fair market value for that land?? He’ll lowball Oakland and JPA, and they’ll give it to him. A’s not asking for money?? Child, please!
Have you completely blocked out the facts? The A’s have said for years that they want land to build on and improved infrastructure. They’ve not only not asked the city for money, but said they have the finances to build a ballpark on their own.
And *by state law*, the city cannot dispose of the land for less than fair market value compensation.
Lew Wolff – quite accomplished developer, “credited with the redevelopment and revitalization of downtown San Jose, where for many years he was the largest developer of office, hotel, and parking.” Co-owner of SJ Earthquakes (for whom he’s recently built a stadium). Founder of http://www.maritzwolff.com/, worth billions.
John Fisher – GAP heir, majority owners of A’s, worth billions.
They don’t need outside funding, just for no-liquid-assets-ex-party-school-jock Davis to get out of the way.
But, sure, go ahead and push the “only a guy who no business credentials or assets he can leverage can build at the Coliseum” angle. We’ll see how that works for you.
Manfred claims that he is reluctant to move any current market MLB franchise to another market. How can Manfred equate a possible move of the Oakland A’s to San Jose to a possible move of the Tampa Bay Rays to say Montreal or Charlotte NC? Where Manfred is foolishly wrong is that he is implying that Oakland and San Jose are not in the same market, so a move of the A’s to San Jose would disenfranchise fans of their team in the same manner as the impact on Rays fans of losing their team to another market such as Montreal or Charlotte. I seriously doubt that Manfred would block the Rays from moving to the Tampa side of Tampa Bay, if a stadium deal can be worked out at that location. The same cannot be said about a possible move of the A’s some forty miles south to San Jose.
Our geographical area is different than other metropolitan areas, but I’ve never understood that thinking, either. Have they never driven from Oakland to San Jose? You never leave ‘city’ the entire time!
The Chargers can get public funds in their home market and aren’t that popular in LA. The Raiders can’t get public funds in their home market and are quite popular in LA. Stan Kroenke would be better off and probably wants a tenant instead of partner he wants the lion’s share of rewards.
The NFL really should offer the Chargers a little bit more money to stay in San Diego and encourage the Raiders to be a tenant in LA, they would jump at the opportunity.
Also, both the A’s and Raider franchises are doing more than pulling their own weight about building in Oakland. The A’s are willing to fund 100% of the cost of building a new ballpark. The Raiders will spend $600 mil.(67% of the cost) towards the cost of a $900 mil. stadium (very generous) and Oakland officials still can’t close the deal about either stadium – unreal.
Are you kidding me? “The Raiders offer to accept a public subsidy as low as 50% is very generous.”
Paying 50% of the cost would indeed be a good offer by the Raiders – most cities that host NFL teams typically do much better than that. Hopefully some other city locally will devise a way to generate $300 mil. towards a new Raiders stadium if Oakland can’t.
@duffer, That’s due to the fact that MLB is holding the A’s hostage to Oakland. The A’s are blocked from building their very own privately funded ballpark on the Bay Area site of their own choosing(San Jose). On the other hand, the NFL will allow the Raiders to relocate to either LA or San Diego, depending on the decision by the Charges as to which city they decide to relocate to.
Or in the case of San Diego, the Chargers decide to stay there in a new Stadium
The Raiders want to use 200 million from the NFL G-4 loan program and 100 million offered not to go to LA. The 300 million that Mark Davis has offered consist of stadium naming rights and Personal Seat Licenses. I have seen 0 evidence that Mark Davis is putting up ANY money. If you have proof that Mark Davis is offering up 300 million dollars of his OWN money, I will stand corrected.
Manfred is a Selig crony and we all knew it when he won as the new commish. He will not do the right thing either as Selig before him.
MLB is made of big market teams feeding small market teams. In MLB’s eyes the Giants are huge while the A’s mean nothing.
This is because of revenue sharing and no salary cap. As long as there is no salary cap and revenue sharing exists as it is there is no benefit for MLB (in their own minds) to move the A’s to San Jose.
The A’s are making good money rotting in the Coliseum so no one feels sorry for Lew Wolff. A”s made 20.8M in net profit in 2015 because of revenue sharing.
The Giants made 68,.4M in net profit. That is 81.2M between the teams. In Manfred’s eyes that is a highly profitable market. Even if the A’s got a ton from revenue sharing.
Granted the A’s are at a huge disadvantage payroll wise but so is every small market team and the A’s less so because of the fact they do play in a big market….albeit in a dump.
Only the Dodgers, Blue Jays and Tigers lost money in 2015. MLB is doing fine as a whole. That is the big reason why the A’s are neglected.
Is it right? Hell no, but as long as the game is unfair payroll wise this is how it will always be.
| A”s made 20.8M in net profit in 2015 because of revenue sharing. The Giants made 68,.4M in net profit.
Revenue sharing was between $30-35M for 2015. That means that *before* revenue sharing, the A’s were over $10M in the hole and the Giants were over $100M in the black.
Hey! This is the Internet! You can’t use logic here!
This is because of revenue sharing and no salary cap. As long as there is no salary cap and revenue sharing exists as it is there is no benefit for MLB (in their own minds) to move the A’s to San Jose.
A salary cap makes zero sense in baseball as long as you have farm systems and players reserved to team control for their first six years. In the NFL and NBA, player salaries correlate closely with talent, so a cap makes sense and promotes competitive balance.
In baseball salaries correlate far less with talent. All young players (6 years MLB experience or less) are relatively cheap, even if they are superstars. All veteran players are relatively expensive, even if they are career journeymen.
So rather than distributing talent evenly around the league, a baseball salary cap would effectively limit teams’ use of veteran players.
The team control element exists in the NFL and the NBA as well, keeping salaries for young players down. It varies by the round they’re drafted but this ranges from 3 – 5 years.
Given the differences in career length and time to success in the leagues this is similar to MLB’s 6 years.
Situations like the Royals and the Rays from a few years ago do happen but everything has to go the team’s way and the success isn’t sustainable.
The lack of a salary cap means that the low market teams have to trade away their cheap talent early. If a low revenue team keeps a star for all 6 years, unless they have a chance at winning the World Series in year 6, they end up with nothing at the end. High revenue teams know this which lowers the trade value of players the closer things get to a players free agency. Low revenue teams have to trade away young talent early to get anything in return, shortening their window to win.
Butler and Zito are another example of the difference. A’s fans view Butler’s contract as an albatross. If the A’s were making as much money as the Giants, this would be a complete non-issue. Billy Butler is a steal when compared to Zito’s Giants contract.
The lack of a salary cap gives the high revenue teams a much higher margin of error. If they miss on a few drafts, no big deal, they can sign a veteran at a high price to cover. If they do sign a veteran who doesn’t pain out, they can just sign another. There’s a huge competitive imbalance.
Teams outside the top 15 in team payroll have only won 1 W.S. in the last 25 years. Whether it’s a salary cap alone or some other changes, competitive balance should be restored to make the game more entertaining.
@ Steve
Thank you!
MLB is not the least bit concerned about bringing more competitive balance between and among the teams. The very fact that MLB is blocking the A’s from moving to San Jose from Oakland says it all.
MLB is totally stupid, because they’ve never have had, nor never will have, competitive balance. Revenue sharing is merely lipstick on a pig. Also, the T-rights situation with the Giants is beyond absurd. It’s a good ol’ boys network in the lodge, and the gints are the privileged child.
All that said, I strongly feel the dominoes are starting to fall. LA, part 1, is decided (Rams for sure). LA, part 2, will be decided pretty soon – either the Chargers or Raiders (almost certainly the Chargers).
If the Chargers, who have first dibs, don’t take LA, the Raiders will jump on being Kronke’s tenant in a New York minute.
If the Chargers work out a partnership or tenant deal with the Rams (which they will – they’ve already filed for “LA Chargers” trademark, plus they’ve burt every bridge in SD), the Raiders will most likely jump on San Diego, with the NFL’s blessing, waived relocation fee, and probable 100 mil help, because the NFL absolutely wants to still be in the SD market.
And even before building a new stadium in SD, the Raiders will already get a HUGE upgrade at Qualcom (not a toilet bowl shared with a baseball team). And SD city’s proposal of the Mission valley, and more modest facility, is JUST GREAT FOR the RAIDERS.
San Antonio won’t happen because Jones and McNair have too much power and influence, and more importantly, the Raiders would have to pay the $500 mil relocation fee, plus not get the $100 mil help from NFL. That’s $600 mil more expensive than SD.
So that means the Raiders will be out of the Coliseum, either in 2016 (long shot), 2017 (at the latest). Then the NFL can use Levi’s, which is quite ready and capable of hosting a second team, as leverage against other NFL cities.
And most importantly, that leaves the Coliseum open for the A’s, and it is by far the most economically viable and transportation friendly location in the bay area, by far. Lew Wolf is developer, and can help finance the ballpark with developing the property and adjacent property, and LW and John Fisher have the money.
It’s going to happen.
@jeff-athletic “If the Chargers, who have first dibs, don’t take LA, the Raiders will jump on being Kronke’s tenant in a New York minute.”
I wouldn’t assume that. It’s not obvious to me why being a tenant in Inglewood is that much better than being a tenant in Santa Clara – certainly not $550 million-relocation-fee-better. The market is bigger, sure, but you’d have to assume the Raiders would net at least $550 million more in club seat and suite sales to make it worthwhile because as a tenant they’re probably not getting a cut of stadium revenues, etc. and the rest of the revenue streams are shared. Plus, if the Chargers turn down a deal in LA that’s a pretty big indicator it’s not that financially attractive a deal.
“If the Chargers work out a partnership or tenant deal with the Rams (which they will – they’ve already filed for “LA Chargers” trademark,”
That is completely meaningless, just good lawyering and contingency planning. The cost of filing an intent to use trademark application is virtually nothing (maybe a few hundred dollars), but it acts as a placeholder to prevent opportunists from establishing prior use and then squatting on the mark and holding it for ransom down the road.
“plus they’ve burt every bridge in SD),”
Not true; the city has indicated a willingness to continue to work with Spanos if he gives up on LA. Plus, no mayor is letter a team walk on his watch over hurt feelings – politics and economics always wins out.
“the Raiders will most likely jump on San Diego, with the NFL’s blessing, waived relocation fee, and probable 100 mil help, because the NFL absolutely wants to still be in the SD market.”
That is wild speculation. In fact, you have a lot of people speculating exactly the opposite – that the NFL does not want three teams in Southern California. Of course, either way it is to the NFL’s benefit to play up San Diego as a viable alternative to serve as a stalking horse.
“And even before building a new stadium in SD, the Raiders will already get a HUGE upgrade at Qualcom (not a toilet bowl shared with a baseball team).
Are you kidding me? Qualcomm is a dump as well, and a traffic-challenged one at that. It may not currently have a baseball team, but it did have one and suffers from all the sightline compromises that entails. It’s better than the Coli, but not by much. No way the Raiders move down to SD without a new stadium deal in hand.
“And SD city’s proposal of the Mission valley, and more modest facility, is JUST GREAT FOR the RAIDERS.”
It would potentially be an attractive option for the Raiders – if it gets approved by the voters and becomes a real thing. That hasn’t happened yet, and it’s not at all clear which way that will go. If it doesn’t happen, no way the Raiders move down there on spec and hope they have better luck putting together a deal than the Chargers did over the last 14 years.
Blech – I posted too soon:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/25/report-rams-chargers-at-impasse-over-l-a-move/
I guess we all should have seen that coming. Of course Kroenke wants LA all to himself, and is playing total hardball with Spanos on partnering.
Kroenke is a total snake. Literally everyone hates him. And, even if he does manage to force his way to get LA to himself, he’ll probably manage to completely alienate fans and media there, and be a cellar dweller (all of his teams pretty much suck, except for Arsenal, who he owns as part of a large ownership group).
Also, Spanos is a complete dimwit. For one, he’s already in a strong market (SD is CA’s 2nd biggest city), already has solid, if outdated, stadium, and has public financing in a good location (Mission Valley) for a state of the art stadium (but not in the downtown location he wants). And since he’s playing hardball with the city of SD, and burnt bridges in the process, and now has to pay the big reloc fee, and deal with someone (Kroenke) who is an even bigger dick than he is, he’s really got himself in a pickle. Poor baby.
Mark Davis is ready to pounce on either SD or LA. At this point, I’m guessing he’s hoping for SD – no reloc fee, $100 mil help from NFL, a market to himself, and not have to deal with Kroenke.
And on it goes. Billionaires and their problems. I’m glad I like soccer (Republic FC, Quakes, Bayern, etc) and Golf.
Did you see the followup where it seems the reporting source is a sportsradio jock, and not a journalist, with his claims being denied by the teams and *actual journalists*?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/26/kevin-demoff-chargers-rams-impasse-story-is-completely-false/
The Raiders to San Diego scenario seems plausible. However, judging by Kroenke’s track record of running pro sports franchises, the guy appears be a decent franchise owner. Both The Colorado Avs and Nuggets (both owned by Kroenke) appear to be respectable franchises with decent reputations. One would believe the LA Rams will be run in a similar way. Kroenke appear to be an ok pro sports franchise owner.
@jeff-athletic “I guess we all should have seen that coming. Of course Kroenke wants LA all to himself, and is playing total hardball with Spanos on partnering.”
He may want LA all to himself, but my understanding is the NFL has established basic parameters of a deal that would make it hard for him to get out of it by making unreasonable demands. I believe a big part of the economic case for building the stadium is the assumption it will become a regular part of the Super Bowl rotation, which the NFL controls and can therefore use to assert pressure. And he can’t start marketing PSLs before 2017 unless he makes a deal with a second team.
“Kroenke is a total snake. Literally everyone hates him.”
There is literally no one on the planet that literally everyone hates. Not even Hitler, Not even serial killers.
Funny you reference Hitler and serial killers in regards to Kroenke. 😉
Funny how, in reference to Kroenke, you mention Hitler and serial killers. 😉
@Jeff-athletic “Funny how, in reference to Kroenke, you mention Hitler and serial killers.”
Well, not saying he’s a likable guy. Just saying.
I did not see that. Can’t trust the media, or billionaires. 😉
Oaksterdam Coliseum. Maybe the potheads can finance it.
The Raiders are not going to San Diego if the Chargers leave for the same reason the Chargers are leaving in the first place.
The Chargers and the NFL believe a public funding piece going to a vote will be shot down easily. The Chargers did polls on this in advance and the city/county seem to be in denial for reasons beyond me on this issue.
If the City/County voters won’t approve public funding when they are flush with cash (when I say flush I mean “rolling in dough”) what makes anyone think these same voters will approve the same funding for the Raiders whom most Chargers fans despise??
They will not approve it out of “spite” for the Chargers or anyone else.
If the Chargers leave SD will never get an NFL team again because of this. Unless SD pulls off what Sacramento did siphoning money from parking revenue or something of the nature it will be a cold day in hell when public money will be used for stadia in California.
Mark Davis is stuck in mud, he is too dumb to realize it.
@ Sid
“If the City/County voters won’t approve public funding when they are flush with cash (when I say flush I mean “rolling in dough”) what makes anyone think these same voters will approve the same funding for the Raiders whom most Chargers fans despise??”
Couldn’t agree more. When I say exactly what you just said, the response I get is odd.
People say “The voting public will be more likely to vote to help with a stadium once the Chargers are gone, because they will no longer have a team”
Yeah, sure (even if that were true) but we are talking about a voting public that probable doesn’t want the Raiders.
Previous San Diego measures involving increasing public financing were voted down for that reason. The new plan does not raise taxes. In fact, San Diego officials aren’t required to even hold a vote for the proposed stadium project because it doesn’t require raising public taxes.
That fact, along with the fact the San Diego NFL fans would be minus a team to pull for (if the Chargers bolt for LA) – could create a sense of urgency for a new NFL franchise (the Raiders) in SD, and would likely make passing a San Diego new stadium measure (which technically isn’t required anyhow) more tempting for SD voters.
The Raiders looking to sign a short term lease at the Coliseum allows them to wait and see on what the Chargers decide to do. If the Chargers stay put – the Raiders would likely move to Inglewood. If the Chargers move – then Davis would likely choose San Diego..
It’s also difficult to believe that some local city officials other than Oakland (perhaps in the east bay, SF or San Jose) – wouldn’t attempt to finance $300 mil. towards financing a new Raiders stadium .and build a new stadium in their city (a cheap price for the Raiders If Oakland officials are foolish enough not to close a new stadium deal with the Raiders for that relatively small sum)
If I’m the Chargers, I’m negotiating with the Rams but waiting to see whether a San Diego stadium passes before making a decision either way. They have a year before they have to make a decision. If I can get a tolerable deal with the Rams, maybe I try to use that as leverage to get a better deal out of SD, or at least improve the odds the current proposal passes (“this it it, for real, last chance…”).
It’s not obvious to me that the Chargers will be better off paying $550 million to be the second-banana team in Kroenke-World than they would in a new, partially publicly financed stadium in San Diego (assuming that is possible). In addition to taking on a lot more debt, they’d be in a position of competing with a more established team from the exact same geographic location. They have limited existing fan-base in LA, and San Diego is quite a ways away. This would not be the Jets moving in with the Giants, it would be more like the Ravens moving in with the Giants.
A key question I’ve yet to see answered anywhere:
Are we SURE that the second team in LA has to pay the $500M relocation fee?
That huge relocation fee is a factor in how desirable Los Angeles is to the Rams, and how desirable San Diego would be to the Raiders.
@Jacob Jackson “Are we SURE that the second team in LA has to pay the $500M relocation fee?”
Yes. It has been reported by multiple sources that that is a firm requirement. (In fact, I just read a report that said the Chargers might get a share of naming rights revenue to partially offset this cost even if they were a tenant, which somewhat surprised me). Also, if you’re Kroenke how would you feel about paying $550 million then hosting a team that didn’t?
For San Diego, it’s up in the air. The owners haven’t make a firm decision on that. There are rumors they might waive a relocation fee to facilitate a Raiders move there. Then again, it’s in their interest to create the perception San Diego remains in play just as a stalking horse, whether it’s true or not. Just look at how St. Louis just got played. So I take those rumors with a grain of salt.
chase center name of the new w’s frisco arena.
kings new arena that will open next season to be called the golden one center.
you’d think it’d be the other way around.
Seeing as the Golden One Center is more than halfway done and the “chase center” does not even have a shovel on the ground I would say they are properly named.
Libby is offering Mark Davis 69-70 acres and guaranteed 8000 parking spots if not a bit more..so what is the issue now?
The estimated breakdown:
NFL Grant : $100 million
NFL G4 loan: $200 million
Mark : $100 million
PSL’s: $150-$200 million
Stadium Naming rights: $200-$250 million (estimated going rate)
10% sale of team at current rate: $150 million
$950+ million estimate for new stadium or less needed for renovation of existing stadium
Deal needs to get done!
Here is a better breakdown:
NFL Grant+ Loan- 300M
Mark Davis- 300M
Sale of team- 150M
Naming rights, SBLs, Luxury box sales- 200M
That is 950M if Mark Davis is willing to “raise” money like Jed York did in Santa Clara.
Issue is Mark Davis is a spoiled rich kid who wants a handout.
How he was going to afford LA is beyond me with a 550M relocation fee on top of privately financing a stadium when his fan base in LA is cash poor.
While in Oakland his fans have “some money”
Ridiculous, and now he wants to share with the Rams or Chargers when he can stay in the market and for the fraction of the cost share with the 49ers?
He has 100M in free money from the NFL, throw it at Levi’s, build out a nice locker room, owner’s suite, and replace all the seats for a neutral feel, and build a museum on site.
There is so much room at Levi’s this all can be done for 100M+
So dumb this guy is….he thinks Santa Clara is a different state.
Um, actually, naming rights and PSL’s are what Mark Davis is planning to borrow against to get the $300M. He has no liquid assets worth speaking of.
So:
G4 loan = $200M
LA consolation prize = $100M
MD contribution (PSL’s/naming rights) = $300M
City infrastructure value = $95M (to be repaid by Lease Revenue Bonds secured by team profits, thereby reducing MD’s immediate profits)
so now the raiders are looking at las vegas as an option as a future home.
again yet not a peep from those angry with the a’s wanting to move within the bay area just 30-40 miles south to sj.
this is just unbelievable.
Mark cleary is looking for a hand out, to the extent he wants to stay in Oakland (if he dose) that desire is excided by his desire to get someone to pay for his stadium. I don’t think he cares where he even gets the money.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000630032/article/chargers-announce-they-will-stay-in-san-diego-for-2016
Excellent article outlining the financial terms of the deal available to either the Raiders or Chargers in LA:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-chargers-20160129-20-story.html
As I’ve said before, I’m still not convinced the extra revenue possible through that economic model structure is worth the $550 relocation fee, especially vs. a new stadium in the existing markets, especially for the Chargers if SD comes through with $350 million. So today’s announcement that the Chargers will stay in San Diego and continue to work on a new stadium there does not surprise me a bit.
For the Raiders it might be a closer call, especially if there’s no public money from Oakland. But I still fail to see why paying $550 million to be a tenant in LA would be better than paying nothing to be a tenant in Santa Clara.
It’s not surprising at all, really. It’s deeper strategy:
Approved for LA and with a deal ready to sign, Spanos is both trying to get more from SD *and* make Mark Davis desperate enough to move *now* that he has to go somewhere else besides SoCal, leaving a clearer market for the Rams/Chargers.
“and* make Mark Davis desperate enough to move *now* that he has to go somewhere else besides SoCal, leaving a clearer market for the Rams/Chargers.”
Don’t see this at all. What move is he going to make this year that’s going to put him out of the running for SoCal? He’s staying in Oakland for the coming year regardless, and I don’t see him changing markets without a firm deal for a new stadium in hand, which doesn’t happen over night.
“Vegas, baby”. The UNLV stadium is getting built regardless, Adelson just wants the prestige and slightly lowered cost.
With how gambling is no longer restricted to just Atlantic City and Nevada, and particularly daily fantasy sports, claiming that organized crime is an issue is not the trump card it used to be.
Chargers staying in SD beyond 2016 is no given. Voters will need to agree to the 350 plus million. Not even close to happening. Granted Deano will play nice and bring on the PR machine ….but SD fans are pissed at Deano and his games. Big time!
Spanos is obviously not sold on LA, and appears likely stay put in San Diego (especially after emphasizing that the Charger’s goal now is to secure a long term deal in San Diego) The more the decision drags on – the more (one would think ) that it’s likely the Chargers will stay in SD. A 2nd LA team (including the Raiders) might be a complete flop. Hopefully Davis will get it – as Spanos does evidently – that staying put locally is preferable to being No.2 behind Kroenke and the Rams in Inglewood.
from what i’ve been reading and seeing for the last week if the raiders were to move to la the chargers are screwed. they’d be essentially the 3rd team in the so cal market and not even be in the gold mine that is la.
The Chargers certainly would not be screwed. There is no “SoCal market,” there’s a Los Angeles market and a San Diego market, with plenty of fans and money nearby to support both.
Whatever drop off the Chargers saw in fans driving down from LA would be offset by the natural increase in attendance from having a new stadium. And the biggest benefit of the new stadium would be a boost in corporate premium suite holders; I doubt many of them are driving down from LA anyway.
While LA certainly can support two teams, it has yet to be proven it is a “goldmine,” especially for a second banana tenant team. Kroenke has the whole rest of his project to make money from; his tenant will only have the stadium – and a $550 million buy in for that.
I actually think the Chargers could end up worse off if they move to LA and the Raiders go to San Diego. That’s a situation where they’ve cut off their existing fan base and wedged themselves in between two more popular teams.
I agree to what all of you are saying. The Chargers much prefer to stay in San Diego than to be the second team in LA in a shared Inglewood stadium with the Rams. That is why, with the Chargers getting the approval and bargaining leverage from the NFL to move to LA, the Chargers and San Diego officials will do everything in their respective power to work out a new stadium deal in San Diego. However, in the event that a new stadium deal cannot be worked out, only then will the Chargers take the LA offer. However, under that scenario I don’t see the Raiders moving to San Diego. In no way will the Raiders pay the $550 million relocation fee to play in at best a renovated Qualcomm Stadium. I also don’t see the Raiders paying the $550 million relocation fee to share a stadium in LA, especially when they can share Levi’s Stadium or play in a renovated Coliseum without leaving their current Bay Area market and having to pay the relocation fee. It’s looking more and more likely that the Raiders will have to work out a resolution to their stadium problem in their current Bay Area market. The Raiders do have options there, and the NFL will be nudging the Raiders to work something out.
The relo fee is $550 million for Los Angeles. A fee to relocate to San Diego would be determined by the NFL at the time of the move, and presumably be much less than the LA fee.
If Davis has a choice between LA and Levis, he will pick LA in a heartbeat. No contest. The relocation fee is paid over 10 years out of profits, and it will not hold him back.
Maybe you’re right, although when it’s all said and done why do you abandon the Bay Area when for <$100MM you share Levi's and retrofit it to be more "Raiders" during Sunday home games without the $550MM relo fee and the inevitable pissing off of Nor Cal Raiders fans.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/01/31/oakland-raiders-levis-stadium-santa-clara-san-francisco-49ers-mark-davis/79601796/
Yes, some would 'mumble and groan' at leaving Oakland, but at the end of the day there would be a shiny (almost) new stadium that the Raiders can call "home" and stay in the Bay Area for the next 30 years and end Davis' quest of 'fighting windmills' in San Diego/Las Vegas/San Antonio/etc.
And the A's would finally be "on the clock" to build a new park in Oakland.
Is it really such a ‘slam dunk’ that the Raiders would go to LA? I thought that the $550M relo fee is a pretty big deterrent, even if they have 10 years to pay it.
http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2016/01/30/nfl-sends-memo-to-all-32-teams-about-possible-raiders-move-to-las-vegas/
No NFL ban on team in Vegas, normal relocation process applies.
To put it succinctly the NFL wants to get rid of the Davis family. Spanos signs a deal with Kronke then vows to use it as leverege, thus holding off the Raiders for 2 years a least. Either Mark sells a share to get the funds to build, or move the team(not likely because of the ReLo Fee), or the league holds Mark off long enough for him to inherit the team and then be forced to sell to pay the taxes. In steps a Larry Ellison type to build a new stadium (with extra help from the League?) in the current market.
The NFL is already discussed waiving relations fees for franchises moving to cities affected by franchise relocation (which now is St Louis only) however could be Oakland or SD. Also the NFL would evidently allow the $100 mil. gift that they will award to the Raiders (to build in Oakland) towards financing a new stadium in San Diego. A relocation fee would definitely be charged by the NFL if the Raiders were to move to Vegas, San Antonio, LA, etc. though.
Yes…I can see this happening.
The NFL is not attempting to drive Davis out of the League – they are practically giving the Radiers a welcome mat to San Diego if the Chargers go to Inglewood. Davis is no dummy and not broke either (50% ownership in the Raiders. A pro sports franchise, especially an NFL franchise, is a very hot investment, perhaps the best investment in the market, these days). Also Davis has done a good job, taking over a bad team full of draft choice busts a high payroll and salary cap, and transformed the Raiders into a potential playoff team in a short time. It would be foolish to underestimate Davis – who has demonstrated solid ownerships skills since taking over the Raiders.
“50% ownership in the Raiders. A pro sports franchise, especially an NFL franchise, is a very hot investment”
Davis lacks liquid assets. His only asset is the team. He is “rich” but cash poor.
“Davis has done a good job, taking over a bad team full of draft choice busts a high payroll and salary cap, and transformed the Raiders into a potential playoff team in a short time. ”
Davis himself has said that he is taking a hands off approach to managing the football side of things. This isn’t a knock on Davis as for most owners this is the best option. See Jed York as an example of bad things happening when owners take a different stance. This isn’t a sign though of Davis being responsible for the turnaround.
Davis is responsible for the business aspect of the Raiders. The Raiders are a nationally known franchise in the richest sport in the country (arguably the world), with an economic model that allows teams in cities like Green Bay to be profitable. Despite this, he still hasn’t been able to get a long term home for the team.
I wouldn’t exactly say that Davis is a genius.
Everyone is reading into Spanos staying as an omission he wants to stay in San Diego. That is not what he is doing.
Spanos realizes he has no where to play until 2019 in LA. The LA Coliseum only approved 1 NFL team, meaning the Chargers would be dragging along for 3 seasons in the StubHub Center, or Dodger Stadium or Anaheim Stadium, all three are horrible options.
He cannot stay in San Diego as a lameduck with everyone knowing it, his stadium would be half empty for every game.
Spanos did what was in his best interest as a businessman, he negotiated a deal with Kroenke first, came to an agreement and now can use that agreement as leverage with San Diego.
Not only can he use it as leverage, he is showing the general public in San Diego he is trying again so it guarantees sell outs for 2016 so he won’t lose money for this upcoming season.
At the same time now he bought time for the SD proposal to be amended and just maybe they will not put it to a vote. If they do, he can roll the dice and if it is shot down by the public he can leave with no one hating on him.
It is a smart move by Spanos, he protects his 2016 bottom line. He made according to forbes 64.8M last season while giving San Diego one last chance.
All while protecting his LA rights for one more with a deal in hand.
“Everyone is reading into Spanos staying as an omission he wants to stay in San Diego. That is not what he is doing.”
(assuming you mean, ‘admission’)…
No, I think most posters on here think that he’s hedging his bet. He can try to get something done and ‘own’ San Diego or leave and play massive catch-up vis a vis the Rams in LA. As a friend of mine in SD (and lifelong Bolts fan) said, “if the Chargers leave San Diego, then they are DEAD to me.”
My guess is his sentiment is similar to a lot of current fans. Spanos hasn’t played this well w/most Charger fans up until this point. I think he’s trying to play nice and wants to win back their trust (more for financial reasons) because the ‘LA or bust’ tactic got him ZERO.
But if he cannot get something done in SD, then yes, he’ll be gone after the 2016 season
At least Spanos seems to be trying, vs. “poor Mark Davis” who seems to be whoring himself out to every city he can that has the potential to offer him free money.
I wish Schaaf would just say, “this is what the city can offer, take it or leave it.” More than likely, the Raiders leave it, go to Levi’s/LA/Vegas/etc. and the A’s finally are put into a position to develop the Coliseum site (assuming they actually put their money where their mouth is)…
@ Damon
“At least Spanos seems to be trying, vs. “poor Mark Davis” who seems to be whoring himself out to every city he can that has the potential to offer him free money.”
“I wish Schaaf would just say, “This is what the city can offer, take it or leave it.” More than likely, the Raiders leave it, go to Levi’s/LA/Vegas/etc. and the A’s finally are put into a position to develop the Coliseum site (assuming they actually put their money where their mouth is)…”
I love your points, I couldn’t agree more. I wish we were not talking about two of my favirite franchises, in the Raiders and A’s. (Love the Warriors too)
Only the Raider haters on this board believe Spanos actually wants to stay in SD. A vote needs to pass for 350 mill from the voters. Most think it will not pass down in SD.
@lakeshore
Agree, it is really a shame that due to a set of utterly fantastic (not the good ‘fantastic’ either) that two franchises are currently stuck sharing a 50+ yr old stadium that’s passed its prime for the last 20 years.
I appreciate Schaaf’s optimism, and she continues to tout positive developments w/the A’s and a waterfront/downtown stadium. But many on this site have articulated with great detail the obstacles each alternate site faces.
I’m an A’s fan. I don’t dislike the Raiders, but his constant search for a handout just annoys the crap out of me. This guy isn’t going to build anything on his own, so I am miffed why many in the ‘general public’ lay the blame on the City of Oakland. They are broke (like a lot of large US cities) and outside of tax breaks/land shouldn’t have to give anything in the form of public $$$.
So, I go back to Levi’s. Honestly, what is the BIG DEAL with the Raiders sharing Levi Stadium? Jets and Giants do it and works fine. City of Santa Clara would welcome it as well as the 49ers because of shared costs. The stadium could easily be amended from an aesthetic POV to fit a Raiders color scheme on game day. It is an easy, inexpensive (as far as NFL football’s concerned) way to keep the Raiders in the Bay Area for our collective lifetimes. Is it an ego thing? Is it that Mark cares more now about the idea of LA or Vegas? I don’t believe for a second that it’s because “Mark Davis could only see the Raiders in Oakland” because that’s certainly not how he’s posturing things right now.
So please, sign your one year lease for 2016 in Oakland, then make up your damn mind so we can finally make some ‘effin progress here!!!
Libby is being smart right now. The way to go is for A’s to be a a ballpark closer to DTown since it would revitalize the JLS and DTown area even more. Howard Terminal and Laney College are the best spots along with Brook Basin. People crying about a 1 mile walking distance from Bart to a HT waterfront ballpark near JLS and DTown? Crazy non sense that is. Lazy people.
Yes for us lazy partially-disabled people one mile is nothing. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
@BvS — It isn’t “non sense” if you have osteoarthritis in both knees like I do. I have a difficulty walking 1/4 of a mile because of the pain in my knees, so walking four times that distance will be excruciating for me. Please don’t assume that those of us who complain about walking “only” a mile are all “lazy”. Some of us may actually have legitimate medical reasons for not being reluctant to walk that distance.
Don’t forget that even for a shorter distance like the 1/4 from BART to the Coliseum, the A’s (and I believe Raiders/W’s) have personnel stationed at the elevator by BART to assist those who have difficulty walking. 1 mile is asking a lot esp for the elderly and those with small children. I enjoy walking the 1 mile or so from Embarcadero to AT&T, but it still takes time and I’m in my 20s.
Aman!
Libby, and all Oakland pols, should just STFU about Howard Terminal, or other downtown sites, UNTIL THEY SOLVE THE VARIOUS CHALLENGES AND ADDITIONAL COSTS OF THOSE SITES!!
Howard Terminal – additional costs on toxic clean up and infrastructure (like bridges over the train tracks) – this could be $200-300 mil, costs that A’s ownership (or any sports ownership) will pay for. Then there are the regulatory hurdles – EIR, CEQA / Maritime regs – these could take years. Finally, the inevitable lawsuits from the Port of Oakland and other interests.
Laney College – where are you going to move the College? You can’t just shut it down. And where are people going to park? At least it’s near bart stations.
By far the best site right now, in terms of costs and reg hurdles, is the coliseum. But the freaking Raiders are in the way.
By far the best solution for EVERYONE, is for freaking stupid-a#% Mark Davis to grow a brain and just go to Levi – a no-risk, very low cost, instant revenue and team value increase, choice for the Raiders. And then the A’s can develop the Coli.
I LOVE the concept of a downtown/waterfront ballpark but there needs to be far more ‘meat on the bones’ for anyone to take these ideas as more than interesting ‘what if’ concepts that sound really cool but don’t work in practice.
is it that easier to build at or near the waterfront in frisco where they conceivably could build two sports venues within 20 or so years over the waterfront of oakland which seems like it’s facing massive hurdles, at least the one waterfront site of howard terminal that has been mentioned.
No thanks. Lew Wolff doesn’t deserve the whole Coli Site to himself.
Raiders aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. Deal with it!
If you have not seen it… you really should look up the recent USA Today article about why the Raiders moving to Levi’s is really pretty much a no-brainer. ML tweeted a link to it a few days ago.
The 49’ers want it, the city of Santa Clara wants it… it’s a win-win for everyone involved. It would cut the 49’ers rent IN HALF and the only thing they would really maybe need to sacrifice is the Raiders paying to change half of the seats to a silver color, or black. The 49’er red with Raiders silver either in a checkerboard or alternating sections would look really sharp.
Even all of the LED scoreboards were designed and installed to serve two teams. There is a quote something to the effect… “all we have to do is flip a switch and the Raiders can move in tomorrow.”
Agreed, it’s well-researched and well-written and makes a pretty compelling case that the Raiders would immediately benefit from a financial POV. Can someone slip this article into Marc Davis’ in-box and ensure that he actually reads it???
That would be a nice ‘problem solved’ and to me makes way more sense than moving to San Antonio (probably would be blocked anyway by the Jerry Jones-block of owners) or Vegas (#41 media market, stadium not built until 2020, don’t think it’s a ‘slam dunk’ that the public will want to fund it).
Also of note, yesterday’s interview in the SF Chron w/Amy Trask.
http://www.sfgate.com/raiders/article/Trask-still-sees-potential-for-Raiders-stadium-6799109.php
What I like is that (unlike so many other articles written on this subject) she understands that the Raiders and A’s fate in Oakland are tied at the hip. In sum, for the Coliseum to work for both teams, some level of compromise is necessary, primarily a parking garage vs. a lot. W/the WalMart now closed, why could this not be a source for a parking garage and bridge structure over 880 to get to the Coliseum.
If giving up tailgating at the Coliseum means that both teams have the space to wedge in a stadium (I’m assuming that there could be enough room w/a modified parking scenario), isn’t that worth it???
as a niners fans that interacts with others in the fan base i can tell you the strong majority of niner fans don’t want the niners org to share levi’s stadium with the raiders.
now i doubt fan opinion will matter much if you look at how the niners org has acted both on and off the field in recent years.
if the raiders were to move into levi’s wouldn’t their fans have to pay the same prices in terms of tickets as the niners? i know some niner fans who wouldn’t be happy if raiders fans had to pay significantly less to gain access some of the more luxurious areas of the new stadium.
I don’t get San Antonio either. Why would he want to go to a market where he has ZERO fan base and Cowboys fans are some of the most fiercely loyal fans in all of sports.
Sacramento metro population is the same, it has a MUCH bigger media market-share and it has the advantage of the Raiders KEEPING their existing fan-base and instantly expanding in that metro area.
Not saying Sac is the solution because I think they’ve pretty much put all their eggs in the new Kings arena basket, but just as a point of comparison to similar markets, it really is a head-scratcher why Davis is even considering Texas. I think he’s willing to listen to anyone who will fly him out on their dime and wine-and-dine him.
There are also plans in the works to build a permanent soccer stadium in the railyards just north of the Amtrak station partly as an attempt to get MLS to grant them an expansion club. If this happens, how will Sacramento find the additional funding to build an NFL and/or MLB quality stadium? For moment anyway, any ideas about the A’s and/or the Raiders moving to Sacramento are not worth talking about.
Matt, if an MLS stadium is built in Sacramento Zero money would come from the city of Sacramento. The owners will fully pay for the cost of the stadium. So that should not be part of the conversation… There was recently an article released by the SacBee that said the owners of the Raiders and Sac’s Soccer team should team up and build a stadium for both teams in the railyards. Although they did acknowledge that MLS doesn’t want it’s teams to share stadiums with NFL teams.
Davis is not going to SA. Just as much as some on here actually thought he was going to St L. SD was viable….won’t know on that to next year or by June when SD voters vote down the 350 mill they will have to pay. Its Oakland or LA.
Media market size irrelevant when it comes to the NFL. NFL teams make their media money on the national contracts. Local contracts are meaningless.
The local money that matters is revenue generated by the stadium, (tickets sales, luxury boxes, corporate sponsorship, etc).
With a new stadium, any NFL team in pretty much any of the top 50 metro areas would make money.
Davis would make money in Oakland, San Antonio, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Las Vegas, etc. It’s all a question of what is going to require the least amount of work and money on his part.
If that is the case (least amount of money and work), he should go to Santa Clara ASAP.
1. League would rubber stamp it
2. LA sweeps consolation prize money would pay for any adjustments to make the stadium more Raiders gameday-ready
3. One can never say for sure, but Raiders are probably going to be better on the field over the next 3 – 5 years. They have the potential to win the majority of the ‘hearts and minds’ of the fickle sports fan in the Bay Area
Not so sure it’s that cut and dry, but if it is the Raiders should RUN to make that deal.
I completely agree that they should go to Santa Clara.
Davis is dead set against this, for what I think are completely non-economic reasons.
Al more or less fired Amy Trask over this.
This is either Mark’s allegiance to his dad, plain stupidity, or Mark truly doesn’t want to keep the team in the Bay Area.
The Raiders likely don’t want to play second fiddle to the Niners under any circumstances – Santa Clara would likely be a short term stay for the Raiders only. Also Davis has observed the LA Dodgers sold for $2.2 bil. (a few months after Forbes Magazine valued them at $900 mil.) the Clippers sold for a huge $2 bil. sum – Davis might believe the Raiders value would double or more if moving to Inglewood if the Chargers don’t.
Also San Diego likely wouldn’t require a relocation fee, that market supports the NFL well.The 2015 Chargers filled their stadium at 94% of capacity, (averaging 66K per game) despite going 4-12. And SD officials are willing to contribute some finances towards a new stadium (very unlike Oakland city officials) That could be why the Raiders are tempted by the San Diego and Los Angeles NFL markets.
Why I think MD is resisting playing in Santa Clara is actually a few reasons:
If the Raiders vacate the Coliseum, he may feel that the A’s lease will effectively lock him out permanently, a not-too-outlandish idea given that he’s got no financial advantage over the A’s.
The Raiders are trying to re-up on what can only be called a ‘sweetheart’ $1M/year lease in Oakland; the 49ers pay $26M/year lease in Santa Clara, and the Raiders would pay $27M/yr. (“$26M less profit a year? F%&* THAT!”).
The A’s, per year, still pay more than the Raiders for their lease terms.
@CCCTL – Oakland has presented a credible starting off to the Raiders for a new Coliseum. I can see some tweaks in regards to land for parking but it’s not like Oakland’s proposal is going to get much better. The Raiders have to realize this so unless Davis is willing/able to fork over the cash, they’re not giving up anything in Oakland.
You’re right that the rent at Levi’s will be more than Oakland. If that’s the argument though than why move at all?
A new stadium will produce more revenue, but it will also some with higher costs. There are no free lunches. If Davis doesn’t like this, he should sign a long term lease at the Coli and shut up about wanting a new stadium.
“The Raiders are trying to re-up on what can only be called a ‘sweetheart’ $1M/year lease in Oakland; the 49ers pay $26M/year lease in Santa Clara, and the Raiders would pay $27M/yr. (“$26M less profit a year? F%&* THAT!”).”
I don’t get this–an increase in rent is not the only factor in profit. Certainly the *potential* game-day revenue in Santa Clara is a lot more than the $2.6 million/game extra in rent.
Whether that potential could be realized is another matter, Santa Clara may have too many seats/suites/club seats for the Raiders present needs. PSLs may not be an easy sell to Raider Nation the second time around.
From looking at Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/teams/oakland-raiders/), that $26 million would be about a sixth of the team net profit for 2015. Not insignificant.
But that’s not true…. go read the USA Today article. The rent does NOT double if the Raiders move in. It only goes up A FEW MILLION PER YEAR which is why it is so attractive to the 49ers… their rent would be effectively CUT IN HALF…
Not to mention the 100 mil gift from the NFL to keep the Raiders in the Bay Area would still be on the table. Davis could take 50 mil, move into Levis for the 1st 4 years virtually rent free, and then take the othe 50 mil and put it towards making Levis more Raider friendly. The guy is a clown really, because his argument about tailgating and parking in Oakland certainly doesnt apply to LA or Vegas, yet he keeps flirting with them while saying SC is a no go.
@The Gooch
Yes, everything you say is spot on. From a “logical” POV what you’ve articulated makes sense. He essentially shares in the cost of the rent w/the 49ers and he could take the $100MM relo fan, tweak the stadium and pocket the rest while putting it towards whatever he so desires. All while increasing the overall value of the team as a whole.
I can only guess that this is some sort of ego trip that prevents him from looking at this. Or, maybe it’s ‘in play’ but he doesn’t want to show any interest in the idea as a negotiating tactic (or maybe I’m giving the guy too much credit!).
What I don’t really know is how much additional value/revenue a potential 2017 move to LA could bring to Mark Davis and the Raiders.Obviously, the relo fee is a big chunk of change but can be paid back over a 10 yr period. The Inglewood stadium would seat 80K and traditionally, the Raiders have owned LA County and the Rams were kings of Orange County.
At this point, I can only surmise that Oakland, Santa Clara, Vegas, San Antonio, SD etc. are ALL simply ‘plan B’ and that he will have his bags packed if LA opens up unless a better offer presents itself in the next 12 months (not likely to come from Oakland). Like most on this site, I thought the Chargers would leave almost ASAP, but they run the very real risk of destroying their fanbase if they leave and it seems as if there’s more momentum to find a solution in SD now that Spanos seems to be playing ball w/the city.
Officially, the NFL has ruled in favor of either he possibility of the Raiders moving to LA in a shared stadium with the Rams, or in a renovated Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego. However, I believe the NFL is publicly stating these ideas in the hope of providing more leverage for the Raiders in their negotiations with Oakland to get a favorable stadium deal worked out at the Coliseum site. That said, the NFL is all too well aware that the Raiders can get a stadium sharing deal done with the 49ers in Santa Clara, or they can work out a Coliseum rebuild/renovation deal done with Oakland officials. By so doing a stadium solution in the Bay Area, the Oakland Raiders fan base will be able to keep their team in their current market.
Another angle on this as it relates to the A’s.
It’s pretty obvious at this point that the Raiders are gone. Oakland has to be at best 5th on their list behind LA, San Diego, Vegas and San Antonio.
The Raiders have shown 0 interest in putting together a reasonable offer to stay in Oakland.
Despite this, Oakland is still discussing a 1 year lease with the Raiders that gives no benefit to the city.
Oakland definitely might be delusional in thinking it can keep the Raiders, but the other possibility is that they’re trying to keep the Raiders around as long as possible, to put pressure on the A’s to go with Howard Terminal, Laney College, etc as these other sites are more beneficial to Oakland overall.
@Slacker, Oakland officials are not at all worried about losing the Raiders, since they know all too well that MLB is committed to holding the A’s hostage to their city. The worse case scenario is that the A’s will be staying indefinitely at the Coliseum, as is. Oakland officials also know that their city will likely only be able to retain one team, anyway.
Correct. I’m not saying Oakland is doing this to pressure the A’s into staying. Unless MLB somehow opens up San Jose, I think that’s a given.
I’m saying Oakland is potentially using the Raiders to get the A’s to look at sites like Howard Terminal that are more beneficial to the city than the Coliseum site.
The A’s need to stop being part of the problem, and start becoming part of the solution. Sitting on their hands pouting over losing SJ didn’t do their franchise any service, considering the fact their contemporaries the Giants have been winning championships, and establishing generational fans by raising and rewarding their farm system players and picks.
Its hard to take them serious on and off the field right now.
SD County taxpayers ready to fork over 400k or more when it comes to potential cost I overruns to keep Chargers? Doubt it….
http://teamstre.am/20JfuXu
Insider Buzz: Chargers Could Ask City of San Diego for $400M in New Stadium Deal | Bleacher Report
via ble.ac/teamstream-
SD County taxpayers ready to fork over 400mill or more when it comes to potential cost overruns to keep Chargers? Doubt it….if the won’t do it here for Raiders than how can they do that bad deal for Chargers in SD?
http://teamstre.am/20JfuXu
Insider Buzz: Chargers Could Ask City of San Diego for $400M in New Stadium Deal | Bleacher Report
via ble.ac/teamstream-
so seeing a lot of things during super bowl week involving frisco and the south bay? see nothing of oakland or the east bay getting any kind of benefits? maybe some are coming to oakland for hotel usage but that’s about it.
does make me wonder about oakland ever hosting a super bowl before levi’s stadium was built or when there was even the slimmest of chances the niners and raiders were build at the current coliseum site sharing a stadium how much benefits that the city of oakland and east bay would’ve gotten other than hosting the game itself that super bowl sunday.
heck i found it funny those who thought oakland would actually build a new stadium that could handle a super bowl, a stadium with a capacity of over 70k instead of what we’ve heard the raiders themselves wanted which was a smaller venue, that the city of oakland could’ve hosted a super bowl itself. the nfl already has a super bowl venue here locally with levi’s stadium so i never saw the chance of an new stadium for the raiders built in oakland ever hosting a super bowl.
I noticed that too. Not one word about Oakland, which is of course closer to the actual game than Frisco.