SF Bills Fan Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) 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 July 9, 2014 by SF Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris heff Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Goodell Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickedface Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 yeah i don't know about that, the jets and the giants share a stadium and its not even in ny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Right, and The Bills don't play in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted July 9, 2014 Author Share Posted July 9, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurfldurf Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 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] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted July 9, 2014 Author Share Posted July 9, 2014 Dublin would also be a headache to get to and I'm trying to envision where in Dublin a stadium would go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 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. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Mr. Goodell, would you care to explain both of these comments? He's campaigning to get the Lombardi Trophy redesigned and renamed for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) 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 July 9, 2014 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canks Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Could this be the reason why they let their starting QB go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris heff Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 why on earth would the A's sign another lease let alone for 10 years at that dump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted July 9, 2014 Author Share Posted July 9, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Isn't Orchard Park a suburb of Buffalo. What are you saying, that NJ is a suburb of NYC? New Jersey and Connecticut are both suburbs of NYC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Goodell Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Mr. Goodell, would you care to explain both of these comments? How do you think we get the first one built? Isn't Orchard Park a suburb of Buffalo. What are you saying, that NJ is a suburb of NYC? Never been to the NYC area, have you son? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted July 9, 2014 Author Share Posted July 9, 2014 The Raiders can't get a new stadium in Oakland, but they can make one materialize in LA? That would be some trick. There is talk of a stadium in LA. the owner of the Rams bought a bunch of land recently and the speculation is that he will build there. That could be an option for both the Rams and the Raiders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 why on earth would the A's sign another lease let alone for 10 years at that dump? Because nobody else wants them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heitz Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 My favorite quote from that article: "We still owe about $180 million on the stadium," Miley noted, thanks to the mid-1990s makeover that city and county taxpayers paid for to bring the Raiders back from Los Angeles. "This is either smoke and mirrors," Miley said, "or they are on crack." Love when people throw out the "on crack" line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 How do you think we get the first one built? Could you explain your explanation more thoroughly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 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. Not at all. It's actually not a bad drive from the East Bay at all. Just shoot down the 880. And the Raiders have fans all up and down the East Bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badasss Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 why on earth would the A's sign another lease let alone for 10 years at that dump? The A's had to do some fast talking!! -Woody Boyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 My favorite quote from that article: "We still owe about $180 million on the stadium," Miley noted, thanks to the mid-1990s makeover that city and county taxpayers paid for to bring the Raiders back from Los Angeles. "This is either smoke and mirrors," Miley said, "or they are on crack." Love when people throw out the "on crack" line! If you know Oakland then you realize that this is one case where this could actually be true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 If you know Oakland then you realize that this is one case where this could actually be true I'd guess it would make sense talking about the mayor of TO as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 There is talk of a stadium in LA. the owner of the Rams bought a bunch of land recently and the speculation is that he will build there. That could be an option for both the Rams and the Raiders Yes, there is always talk of an LA NFL stadium... But if the Raiders refused to be secondary tenant at the new Levi field in the Bay area, why would they agree to be secondary tenant in LA? ANd why wouldn't Stan Kroenke demand the Raiders owner chip in to the construction of a stadium (which the Raiders obviously won't do)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Not at all. It's actually not a bad drive from the East Bay at all. Just shoot down the 880. And the Raiders have fans all up and down the East Bay. Exactly. The same goes for Niners fans. Take 101 or 280, and your there quickly. Although 101 is more of a hassle. There are lots of Niners fans in the South Bay, and they used travel to Candlestick all the time. Exiting Candlestick Park was a pain in the butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 If you know Oakland then you realize that this is one case where this could actually be true It's true in Toronto. OHHHHHHH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 Yes, there is always talk of an LA NFL stadium... But if the Raiders refused to be secondary tenant at the new Levi field in the Bay area, why would they agree to be secondary tenant in LA? ANd why wouldn't Stan Kroenke demand the Raiders owner chip in to the construction of a stadium (which the Raiders obviously won't do)? They may not get that status there. And who is to say they don't chip in for a stadium? Their value will double if they go south and they will be able to get far more revenue than in Oakland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 They may not get that status there. And who is to say they don't chip in for a stadium? Their value will double if they go south and they will be able to get far more revenue than in Oakland That's possible. The Raiders would probably be more popular than the Rams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 Yep- I think they still have a huge fan base there. The Raiders still technically claim LA as their turf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 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. There is so much money in Santa Clara / Sunnyvale as it SI silicon valley for those who haven't been there. My last two home offices were there so I would fly out to San Jose 6 times a year so several years. That stadium looks awesome. It makes no sense for Davis not to close the deal with the 49ers and share the stadium. They split the private money expended to build it, and keep thei own profits. Too logical eh? I still don't see LA, or CA coming up with money for a new stadium in LA. They are always broke due to too many programs. I doubt Mark Davis is footing the bill for a billion dollar stadium in LA. It's simply a threat to the Bay area. Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devldog131 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) Because nobody else wants them. You're not quite right on this one, Mark. The city of San Jose has been pushing the league very hard to get the A's to move to a new Stadium in SJ. Unfortunately, the Giants somehow claim that they have territorial rights to San Jose (even though the A's current home is 10 miles closer to San Jose) that they refuse to give up. The city of San Jose has even gone as far as filing a lawsuit against the Giants and Major League Baseball to enable the Athletics to make the move. As long as the A's continue to play the way they are playing, the pressure from MLB on the Giants to relinquish their ridiculous claim will continue to mount. It is hugely embarassing for a sports league on the level of Major League Baseball to have one of (if not THE) best team in their ranks playing in the worst stadium currently used for professional baseball. When an ALCS or World Series game is postponed or delayed by a sewage problem, power outage, or whatever else can and will go wrong at that stadium, MLB will be wearing some serious egg on their face for not enabling the team to acquire a brand new stadium in a city that is desperate to have them. I am as big an an A's fan as I am a Bills fan, and have been my entire life, so I am somewhat in tune to the developments around this situation. Edited July 11, 2014 by devldog131 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) Has anyone floated the idea of Las Vegas for the NFL? UNLV is building a stadium that would make Jerruh Jones green with envy. Edited July 11, 2014 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Dublin would also be a headache to get to and I'm trying to envision where in Dublin a stadium would go. Next to the Guinness brewery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts