Jump to content


First step in the Raiders process to move back to LA


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#1 SF Bills Fan

SF Bills Fan

    Can I Play With Madness

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,233 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 11:55 AM

I saw this article in the SF Chronicle today. These are the first official public rumblings from Raiders officials about a new stadium.

http://www.sfgate.co...ite-5607825.php

There is no way that the Raiders will get a new stadium in Oakland and there is no way that they will get the Coliseum torn down in 2 years. The A's just signed a 10 year deal there. They are starting to make the noise so that when they get the official "no", they can use that as a catalyst to move to LA. Why is this relevant to us? Because this will make any LA group they may want to bid think twice. If they overbid on the Bills with the intention to eventually move to LA, they may find that they are beat to the punch. There cannot be two AFC teams in the LA market. I predict the Raiders and Rams will both be there in 3-4 years.

Edited by SF Bills Fan, 09 July 2014 - 11:55 AM.


#2 Mark Vader

Mark Vader

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,737 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 12:03 PM

So will the Raiders continue to sign one year leases with the Oakland Coliseum until they move?

Still don't know why the Raiders did not attempt to share Levi's Stadium with the 49'ers.

#3 chris heff

chris heff

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,760 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 12:10 PM

View PostMark Vader, on 09 July 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

So will the Raiders continue to sign one year leases with the Oakland Coliseum until they move?

Still don't know why the Raiders did not attempt to share Levi's Stadium with the 49'ers.
I don't understand that either.

#4 Roger Goodell

Roger Goodell

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 301 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 12:36 PM

View PostMark Vader, on 09 July 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

So will the Raiders continue to sign one year leases with the Oakland Coliseum until they move?

Still don't know why the Raiders did not attempt to share Levi's Stadium with the 49'ers.

The National Football League thinks it's important for each franchise to have its own home stadium with its own character.   We strongly support the efforts to get a new stadium built in Oakland for the Raiders.

#5 kickedface

kickedface

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 426 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 12:39 PM

yeah i don't know about that, the jets and the giants share a stadium and its not even in ny

#6 Nanker

Nanker

    Blls Nation Unite!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,580 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 12:43 PM

Right, and The Bills don't play in Buffalo.

#7 SF Bills Fan

SF Bills Fan

    Can I Play With Madness

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,233 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 12:49 PM

Getting to Levi would be a burden for Oakland fans. It's already going to be tough enough for Niner fans in San Francisco. A stadium near the current site of Candlestick would have been feasIble to share.

#8 hurfldurf

hurfldurf

    Probation

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 01:22 PM

View PostMark Vader, on 09 July 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

Still don't know why the Raiders did not attempt to share Levi's Stadium with the 49'ers.

I remember hearing rumblings about this a few years ago. Wiki gives it a decent explanation (Link). There are other articles with Mark Davis' quotes about being 'secondary tenants'. Seems like the real issue.

Oakland Raiders as possible co-tenants[edit]

There was a possibility that the 49ers' Bay Area rivals, the Oakland Raiders, might share the stadium, allowing its costs to be split between the two teams.[43] The 49ers[43] and Raiders[44] have publicly said it would be an option if possible, while NFL commissionerRoger Goodell is strongly in favor of the two sharing a stadium.[45] Fans of both teams reacted negatively to the idea. Along with the New York metropolitan area (where the New York Giants and New York Jets shared Giants Stadium from 1984–2009 and currently share its successor, MetLife Stadium, which both teams financed), the Bay Area is one of two NFL markets with two teams.
The 49ers and Raiders sharing a stadium would not be unprecedented, as the two shared Kezar Stadium for part of 1960.[46] It would also fulfill the late Raiders owner Al Davis' elusive goal of a new stadium, something he had strongly desired since moving the teamfrom Los Angeles back to Oakland in 1995.[47] The Raiders, as it stands, play at O.co Coliseum and are the only NFL team still sharing its home field with a Major League Baseball team; the Raiders' lease on the Coliseum expires after the 2013 season.[48]
In the wake of Davis' death, the possibility of the 49ers and Raiders sharing the stadium became a stronger possibility, as the Raiders would be more receptive to the idea. However, by October 2011, the 49ers were far enough along on the stadium to have reportedly already sold over a quarter of the luxury suites, meaning the Raiders would be forced to be secondary tenants.[49] In October 2012, Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis told reporters he had no plans to share the Santa Clara stadium with the 49ers. According to the report, discussions have remained open, although Davis wants to keep the team in Oakland, or a nearby site in Dublin, California.[50]

#9 SF Bills Fan

SF Bills Fan

    Can I Play With Madness

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,233 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 01:31 PM

Dublin would also be a headache to get to and I'm trying to envision where in Dublin a stadium would go.

#10 Rocky Landing

Rocky Landing

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 01:35 PM

View PostSF Bills Fan, on 09 July 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

I saw this article in the SF Chronicle today. These are the first official public rumblings from Raiders officials about a new stadium.

http://www.sfgate.co...ite-5607825.php

There is no way that the Raiders will get a new stadium in Oakland and there is no way that they will get the Coliseum torn down in 2 years. The A's just signed a 10 year deal there. They are starting to make the noise so that when they get the official "no", they can use that as a catalyst to move to LA. Why is this relevant to us? Because this will make any LA group they may want to bid think twice. If they overbid on the Bills with the intention to eventually move to LA, they may find that they are beat to the punch. There cannot be two AFC teams in the LA market. I predict the Raiders and Rams will both be there in 3-4 years.
From what I understand from the article, the A's deal has not yet been ratified, and they could relocate in 2016. But, I think you are making assumptions here. Any deal for the Raiders, or the Bills to move to LA has to be approved by the NFL. I have to believe that any sale of the Bills to a group that was planning on moving them to LA would have that approval ahead of the sale. Otherwise, it would be too risky, and I doubt the NFL would approve the sale, especially if the price were inflated in anticipation of a move to a more lucrative market. If the Raiders have an interest in moving to LA, they could certainly derail that. But, I would think that a group buying the Bills could also derail plans for a Raider move. Either way, it would seem to me that the Bills ownership will be resolved before this Oakland stadium issue is resolved, giving a Bills move the advantage.

#11 Mark Vader

Mark Vader

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,737 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 01:41 PM

View PostRoger Goodell, on 09 July 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

The National Football League thinks it's important for each franchise to have its own home stadium with its own character.   We strongly support the efforts to get a new stadium built in Oakland for the Raiders.

View Posthurfldurf, on 09 July 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

    Oakland Raiders as possible co-tenants[edit]

There was a possibility that the 49ers' Bay Area rivals, the Oakland Raiders, might share the stadium, allowing its costs to be split between the two teams.[43] The 49ers[43] and Raiders[44] have publicly said it would be an option if possible, while NFL commissionerRoger Goodell is strongly in favor of the two sharing a stadium.
Mr. Goodell, would you care to explain both of these comments?

#12 Nanker

Nanker

    Blls Nation Unite!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,580 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 01:45 PM

View PostMark Vader, on 09 July 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:

Mr. Goodell, would you care to explain both of these comments?
He's campaigning to get the Lombardi Trophy redesigned and renamed for him.
Posted Image

#13 Dante

Dante

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,022 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 01:47 PM

View PostSF Bills Fan, on 09 July 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

Getting to Levi would be a burden for Oakland fans. It's already going to be tough enough for Niner fans in San Francisco. A stadium near the current site of Candlestick would have been feasIble to share.
Candlestick is no bargain to get to either. We went once using BART and then had to take a bus from there. Never again. Took forever. A couple years ago when the BIlls played there we drove and it only took us 45minutes to get to the stadium, another 40 minutes or so to actually get into the lot and park and we were 3 hours early. That said, being that I don't live in the city the new stadium in Santa Clara isn't a issue as far as distance. I assume it will have better access for parking as well.
Also, why did the A's sign such a long deal in that stadium? If any team needs new digs it's the A's. Was the lease that cheap?

Edited by Dante, 09 July 2014 - 01:52 PM.


#14 Mark Vader

Mark Vader

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,737 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 01:49 PM

View PostSF Bills Fan, on 09 July 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

Getting to Levi would be a burden for Oakland fans. It's already going to be tough enough for Niner fans in San Francisco. A stadium near the current site of Candlestick would have been feasIble to share.
Yeah, but year after year after year, the city of San Francisco could never get anything together to work that out.

Finally Santa Clara stepped up and did something about it.

#15 Canks

Canks

    Practice Squad

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 02:03 PM

Could this be the reason why they let their starting QB go?

#16 xsoldier54

xsoldier54

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 02:21 PM

View PostNanker, on 09 July 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

Right, and The Bills don't play in Buffalo.
Isn't Orchard Park a suburb of Buffalo.  What are you saying, that NJ is a suburb of NYC?

#17 chris heff

chris heff

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,760 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 02:23 PM

View PostSF Bills Fan, on 09 July 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

Getting to Levi would be a burden for Oakland fans. It's already going to be tough enough for Niner fans in San Francisco. A stadium near the current site of Candlestick would have been feasIble to share.
The Jets fan base is Long Island. You have to drve through Manhattan to get to NJ.

#18 Max997

Max997

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,772 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 02:25 PM

why on earth would the A's sign another lease let alone for 10 years at that dump?

#19 SF Bills Fan

SF Bills Fan

    Can I Play With Madness

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,233 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 02:30 PM

View PostDante, on 09 July 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

Candlestick is no bargain to get to either. We went once using BART and then had to take a bus from there. Never again. Took forever. A couple years ago when the BIlls played there we drove and it only took us 45minutes to get to the stadium, another 40 minutes or so to actually get into the lot and park and we were 3 hours early. That said, being that I don't live in the city the new stadium in Santa Clara isn't a issue as far as distance. I assume it will have better access for parking as well.
Also, why did the A's sign such a long deal in that stadium? If any team needs new digs it's the A's. Was the lease that cheap?
The A's have been talking about moving south to San Jose  for a while, but this lease was a stop gap. I know they got a 500k drop in rent per year. I think the Oakland city council tried to play hardball and then Selig said they could move, if the deal was not done immediately. Suddenly, the deal was done. Oakland has offered land for a stadium, but the A's are not interested. I don't know all the terms, but I would assume the A's can break it if need be.  I don't think there will be a new stadium for either the A's or the Raiders and that is why I see the A's to San Jose someday and the Raiders to LA.

#20 Mr. WEO

Mr. WEO

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,326 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 02:43 PM

View PostSF Bills Fan, on 09 July 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

I saw this article in the SF Chronicle today. These are the first official public rumblings from Raiders officials about a new stadium.

http://www.sfgate.co...ite-5607825.php

There is no way that the Raiders will get a new stadium in Oakland and there is no way that they will get the Coliseum torn down in 2 years. The A's just signed a 10 year deal there. They are starting to make the noise so that when they get the official "no", they can use that as a catalyst to move to LA. Why is this relevant to us? Because this will make any LA group they may want to bid think twice. If they overbid on the Bills with the intention to eventually move to LA, they may find that they are beat to the punch. There cannot be two AFC teams in the LA market. I predict the Raiders and Rams will both be there in 3-4 years.

The Raiders can't get a new stadium in Oakland, but they can make one materialize in LA?

That would be some trick.