Raiders to Texas?
- Thread starter RU1977
- Start date
Hope not, they represent Oakland and belong there
Could they play in Santa Clara,Berkeley, or Palo Alto until the City of Oakland raise the money for a new stadium ?
They should play in El Paso, it would make Oakland feel like Beverly Hills.
While I agree I think the city of Oakland need to put up or shut up . They are playing in a stadium that was built in 1964 and has barely been touched since that time.
I've been there and it is a dump.
Like worse than old Philly Vet dump.
What do you mean? El Paso is a fairly safe and has a relatively low violent crime rate compared to other cities of similar size or larger.
I doubt it. It might have been a part of last nights deal. Which Jones was spearheading.
They won't. The A's have been trying to get a new stadium built all throughout the bay area and Oakland won't spend the money, and the Giants are blocking their best locations.
The three most populous states are California (4 teams), Texas (2 teams) and Florida (4 teams), so the Raiders going to San Antonio would make sense. The ironic downside is that the Alamodome is two years older than Edward Jones Dome, which the Rams are leaving for a new stadium in LA. Then again anything is better than the dump the Raiders play in now. I drove by that place a couple years ago and even from the 5, the Black Hole is a revolting sight.
Why couldn't the Raiders share Levis Stadium with the 49ers? Why can't the NFL make them share? Cal and Stanford aren't bad places to play, but an Al Davis eternal flame probably would not go over well in the People's Republic of Berkeley. Is the "House of York" that runs the Niners that exclusionary or that powerful of an ownership?
Why couldn't the Raiders share Levis Stadium with the 49ers? Why can't the NFL make them share? Cal and Stanford aren't bad places to play, but an Al Davis eternal flame probably would not go over well in the People's Republic of Berkeley. Is the "House of York" that runs the Niners that exclusionary or that powerful of an ownership?
As the resident Raiders/A's fan born & bred growing up and down CA, Go sit and spin comparing the Coli to the Vet.
You wanna trot out the spray painted cement and compare it to a place that can actually grow real grass for both a field and to roll? **this is meant as good natured ribbing**
Davis will threaten with San Antonio, but anyone who has seen his haircut knows he demands ZERO respect. He has no balls, and was the leech trying to tag along with the Chargers bid for L.A. You think Jerry is gonna let some punk move into his state?
Mayor Schaff is repping Oakland the way it should be, and we're not bending over like St Louis or San Diego. If the Raiders don't want to build in a market that is doing nothing except turning up economic development to 11, they're free to leave. We're not footing the bill so Marky Mark can order a second platter of wings at Hooters. We'll throw them a bone with land + infrastructure repairs, but the stadium is on them.
"Oakland has to play ball" Ah, hell no they don't. The Raiders (and the A's) have to play ball with us. MLB and the NFL have both told the owners to quit their sad-sack story and deal with the fact that the Bay Area is a freaking gold mine. Davis & Fisher will actually have to do some work (see Giants & '9ers) if they want to get out of the Coli.
Even Lew Wolff signaled that they were looking at the Laney College site. This would be the twin killing giving the A's a downtown/urban site, and the Raiders the coliseum complex to develop. As soon as these owners are done with their temper tantrum, they can join the grownups at the development table.
I was listening to talk about the Inglewood Complex to be built for the Rams. Convinced the owners by pitching itself as a facility to celebrate all the NFL and build the brand, opposed to just a home for one (or two) teams. Got me thinking - why doesn't the NFL just select LA as a venue, opposed to locating a team there? Every week two teams play a neutral site game in LA. NFL can hand select sexy matchups. Front-running, casual fans in LA might be attracted to the variety and novelty of it. LA has proven repeatedly that it won't support a team long term.
The Coli is an amenities-free facility. Take your seat/stand and watch the game. Forget cell service. The East Side club is almost as dangerous as the West. But it gets loud when we want it to. This place weeds out casual fans who prefer to Instagram instead of drink.
Memorial Stadium (Cal) has it in their charter that they will not host any NFL games.
I have no idea how you saw into the south endzone of the stadium (only that section is the Black Hole) while driving on the 5, unless you've had the most amazing Lasic surgery that allows you to see with the eyes of your pet hawk, Tiresius. But nobody in Oakland actually cares that it's rough, cold, and something of a monster.
As for sharing with the '9ers, that's up to Davis. He had a chance to go in with Jed York on the new stadium, but declined because he wants his own place. However, this is the guy too poor to afford his own office and sets up shop each day at P.F. Changs. With the '9ers stadium completely done red, Davis would be the little tenant.
I will say that the stadium in Santa Clara has been a disaster. All those Googling companies paid for primo seats, but none of them actually want to sit out and bake in the sun for 4 hours - so the stadium sits pretty empty at field level.
No public funds for LA's stadium, btw. Hope the Raiders and Chargers stay out of LA. Don't need or want them.
My son goes to law school in San Antonio, Texas........Be careful....Dallas is 290 miles away and Houston is 200........outside the NFL protected territorial zones.......and San Antonio has been listed as high as the 5th largest City in the country driven by tourism and the San Antonio Walk
San Antonio would pay handily to get an NFL tream
San Antonio would pay handily to get an NFL tream
Because they really want to become London's team.
It was long ago but when we went to play out at Cal I spent a week in SF. Lots of local comment in the media was discussing what would follow when they took down Candlestick. In chatting with a local one morning I asked would they ever think about sharing a stadium like the Jets/Giants, as that topic didn't seem to come up in the press? He explained "Someone from Oakland would never come to San Francisco for a football game, and someone from San Francisco would never go to Oakland for ANY reason."
Does the Santa Clara location count as neutral territory to them?
You may have driven by the stadium in Oakland but you weren't anywhere on the 5 when you did so. That interstate is maybe 50 miles inland, running through the Central Valley, making it physically impossible to see any of Oakland from there. You were most likely on the 880 Nimitz Freeway.
Or more realistically, they should just let the billionaire owner of the team build his own stadium in Oakland or wherever. They increase in TV contracts (and the concurrent reduction in interest in being at live sporting events) has made the economics of funding a stadium even worse than they were before.
I wouldnt exactly expect lavish spending from Texas to get them though - not with oil prices crashing.
I don't think Mark Davis is that rich. He inherited to the team from his father who himself was just a coach/gm of the team back in the 60s and wrestled away control from other owners. He's not like other owners who made their fortunes in some other industry and an NFL team is like a toy for them. If he gets a stadium he's going to need significant help from somewhere. This isn't Stan Kroenke married to Walmart money.
Supposedly they renewed conversation with potentially sharing Levi's Stadium with the 49ers. The location may make sense if you're an Oakland fan and want the Raiders to stay in town, but as a 49ers fan I just don't think Levi's Stadium is appealing or has personality at all and multiple players have gone on record saying that it definitely lacks the feel of Candlestick. That says a lot since Candlestick Park was pretty much falling apart even before they demolished it.
Based on its success with tourism, why would they feel the need to plow a bunch of money into a football stadium? Seems like that city knows better.
The Oakland Coliseum is falling apart. There were problesm with sewage leaks in the locker rooms. The A's need a place to play as well. Oakland could end up losing both teams.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...nate-headlines-Oakland-scouts-for-6754427.php
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...nate-headlines-Oakland-scouts-for-6754427.php
Heard an interview this morning with Raiders former President. She said Raiders will never share with 49ers. She has an interesting thought -- build a new stadium for Raiders but make it far more intimate. She suggested 45k. Said that it's the third deck that drives up costs. If you don't build one she thinks it can get done for $700-800 million.
Downside - too small to ever host a Super Bowl
I'm guessing you're talking about Amy Trask. She's part of the old guard with Al (when I actually paid attention), is she as clued in now though? If Al still owned the team I could see that but I think Mark might be more pragmatic frankly because I don't know how much of a choice he was without some help from somewhere.
The smaller stadium idea is an interesting one though. Does the NFL have any rule on that with regards to a permanent stadium being that size?
Only one I'm aware of was from the merger with the AFL -- had to seat 50K. At the time, Buffalo, New England and KC built there stadia to get to that minimum.
Honestly, I don't have any idea but it's something I could envision the NFL having. I didn't even know about the old rule you're mentioning. If they had it back then, it seems possible they may have a rule now as well.
No tax payer money ever. Its the NFL. They need YOU, more than you need them.
Like Bitnez said. Build a 45k stadium that is STEEP, no 3rd level. A concrete box with some character; intimidating. Put some boxes on top for the well to do.
Keep Oakland in Oakland.
(Does the NFL need another monstrosity?)
Like Bitnez said. Build a 45k stadium that is STEEP, no 3rd level. A concrete box with some character; intimidating. Put some boxes on top for the well to do.
Keep Oakland in Oakland.
(Does the NFL need another monstrosity?)
You're basically describing Stanford Stadium. Which was a seriously great way to get it done.
Limit amenities, few boxes for corps, but did the job and seats 50K. Construction cost was an astonishingly minimal $90M.
You're right I was driving from the airport on 880 heading towards Berkeley. Shoulda checked a map first.
