Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 85
Like Tree76Likes

Thread: So whats the deal with the "new" stadium in Oakland?

  1. #61
    r8derd's Avatar
    r8derd is offline
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Elk Grove, CA
    Posts
    830
    Quote Originally Posted by toobs cruiser View Post
    I wouldn't mind them ending up in Sacramento. It would give me something to do when I'm forced to visit the inlaws
    Quote Originally Posted by JonRaider View Post
    To be honest, I'd be open to Sacramento, if any site for a stadium in the bay area falls through.
    I would not be opposed to Sac., but I just don't see the Corporate backing to adequately support an NFL Team. I know they could sell out a 70K Seat venue and support The Raiders whole heartedly, but Sac. is just too much of a confused City right now (and their City Council has a few "old cow town thinkers). With The Raiders (Al Davis) having used Sac. as leverage for better deal in Oakland years back, and their current fight to keep Kings, just ain't going to happen. Also with no disrespect to Sacramento (I live in Greater Sac. Area), I just feel The Raiders are too "big time," for Sacramento, right now. They just don't have The Major coin and corporate activity that the Bay Area does.
    Just Win Baby

  2. #62
    raiderjohn622 is offline Limited Membership
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidersman321 View Post
    Didn't Roger Goodell say he would help fund for Oakland to get a new stadium? Why the hell isn't he doing this knowing that we are taking MT Davis away?
    It's actually a loan from the NFL. With all loans you need to show that you can eventually pay it back. Given the spotty attendance records and corporate sponsorships, it's a huge risk for Goodell. Right now, Davis has to build up sponsorships and attendance. He's taking the drastic measure of tarping off part of the stadium to at least get free advertising on the air. Davis is fighting the Niners for the corporate dollar right now...not only the fans. The hope Davis is doing by reducing prices and capacity, is to sell to kids, and when they are old enough....they will become diehards. Just like the on field product, it's a long tough process.
    Raidersman321 likes this.

  3. #63
    paul0660's Avatar
    paul0660 is offline Limited Membership
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,412
    Being little brudda to the niners in Santa Clara is the best stadium deal the Raiders would see in the next 15 years. If they can't make that happen, the Big Move II will happen before then.

  4. #64
    Raidersman321's Avatar
    Raidersman321 is offline Limited Membership
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,758
    Quote Originally Posted by raiderjohn622 View Post
    It's actually a loan from the NFL. With all loans you need to show that you can eventually pay it back. Given the spotty attendance records and corporate sponsorships, it's a huge risk for Goodell. Right now, Davis has to build up sponsorships and attendance. He's taking the drastic measure of tarping off part of the stadium to at least get free advertising on the air. Davis is fighting the Niners for the corporate dollar right now...not only the fans. The hope Davis is doing by reducing prices and capacity, is to sell to kids, and when they are old enough....they will become diehards. Just like the on field product, it's a long tough process.
    Thanks for the info

  5. #65
    Raidersman321's Avatar
    Raidersman321 is offline Limited Membership
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,758
    Quote Originally Posted by r8derd View Post
    Sounds like a great idea, except for the fact that the Oakland Coliseum has already been "renovated." It's a dump, and the very footprint and design of it is totally outdated and obsolete. Just keeping it real, the only way the Raiders can have a venue that even comes close to putting "Santa Clara to shame," would be demolishing the Coliseum and starting over. We would still be surrounded by terrible real estate, and crime ridden, neighborhoods. The only hope is the often ridiculed "Coliseum City" Development, and honestly that looks like a pipe dream, right now.
    It will take two people then to win the powerball.....We got this.....

  6. #66
    LaRaider2010's Avatar
    LaRaider2010 is offline
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Venice Beach, Ca
    Posts
    4,629
    Quote Originally Posted by toobs cruiser View Post
    California has the highest population in the country and is currently 162 billion dollars in debt. And all of this with the highest tax rate in the country. Population and wealth mean nothing when morons are running things.
    Unfortunately it's not morons it's very smart Thieves.
    Raider Ran and paul0660 like this.

  7. #67
    toobs cruiser's Avatar
    toobs cruiser is offline Limited Membership
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    San Diego (Poway)
    Posts
    5,341
    Quote Originally Posted by LaRaider2010 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by toobs cruiser View Post
    California has the highest population in the country and is currently 162 billion dollars in debt. And all of this with the highest tax rate in the country. Population and wealth mean nothing when morons are running things.
    Unfortunately it's not morons it's very smart Thieves.
    Good point

  8. #68
    BelongInOakland is offline Limited Membership
    All-Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by Raider187 View Post
    Regarding Roski's attempt at bringing the NFL back to L.A., heís only providing the land in the City of Industry. Any team that would take him up on his offer, would half to finance the stadium themselves. Thatís why his proposal has never been taken very seriously by the NFL. BTW, Roski is currently being sued by the state of CA over $180 million in redevelopment funds that he was planning to use to develop that land.

    As far as moving a current NFL franchise, consider this: it takes a ĺ vote of the owners to gain the NFLís approval. Not only that, but the relocation fee could be more than $500 million if the NFL so chooses. Lastly, if the NFL disapproves of a move by any team, and it goes to court, that owner is going to pay out of his ass to fight the league. When Al did it in the early 80ís, the court costs were nowhere near as exorbitant as they are now. Mark Davis does not have the deep pockets to pursue that fight. It just doesnít add up for the Raiders to attempt a L.A. move.
    L.A. will not break ground on a stadium, the shovel will not hit the dirt until a team first commits to move to L.A., so for those that say L.A. has stadiums currently being constructed, that is not true, the stadiums are shovel-ready though but nothing will be initiated until a team commits to L.A., so if the Raiders want to move back to L.A., it will be like "build it and they will come", it will be "come first and then we will build it"

  9. #69
    raiderjohn622 is offline Limited Membership
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,728
    Quote Originally Posted by BelongInOakland View Post
    L.A. will not break ground on a stadium, the shovel will not hit the dirt until a team first commits to move to L.A., so for those that say L.A. has stadiums currently being constructed, that is not true, the stadiums are shovel-ready though but nothing will be initiated until a team commits to L.A., so if the Raiders want to move back to L.A., it will be like "build it and they will come", it will be "come first and then we will build it"
    Yep, these are now billion dollar buildings and part would be financed by the builder, part by loans from the NFL and part by the NFL tenant. Without that major tenant you won't be getting 2 major sources of possible financing. Makes way too much sense. I can see a scenario where the NFL team calls home in the Rose Bowl or LA Memorial for a couple seasons.

  10. #70
    BelongInOakland is offline Limited Membership
    All-Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by raiderjohn622 View Post
    Yep, these are now billion dollar buildings and part would be financed by the builder, part by loans from the NFL and part by the NFL tenant. Without that major tenant you won't be getting 2 major sources of possible financing. Makes way too much sense. I can see a scenario where the NFL team calls home in the Rose Bowl or LA Memorial for a couple seasons.
    my bad, said it wrong, but i think you get the point, L.A. will not break ground on a stadium until a team commits to move, so "build it and then they will come" is not an option for L.A.

  11. #71
    SLVR&BLK's Avatar
    SLVR&BLK is online now
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3,413
    Quote Originally Posted by BelongInOakland View Post
    L.A. will not break ground on a stadium, the shovel will not hit the dirt until a team first commits to move to L.A., so for those that say L.A. has stadiums currently being constructed, that is not true, the stadiums are shovel-ready though but nothing will be initiated until a team commits to L.A., so if the Raiders want to move back to L.A., it will be like "build it and they will come", it will be "come first and then we will build it"
    This is true, but L.A. still sounds a lot closer to building a stadium than Oakland does.
    Farmers Field has already passed the environmental test and been approved by the board, and has financial backing.
    As far as i can tell Oakland doesn't even have a solid plan in place, much less passed testing and approval votes.
    And that's before you even bring up the money it would take to build anything.

    If the Raiders did happen to move down south, they would probably play in the Rose Bowl while the new stadium is being built.

  12. #72
    BelongInOakland is offline Limited Membership
    All-Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by SLVR&BLK View Post
    This is true, but L.A. still sounds a lot closer to building a stadium than Oakland does.
    Farmers Field has already passed the environmental test and been approved by the board, and has financial backing.
    As far as i can tell Oakland doesn't even have a solid plan in place, much less passed testing and approval votes.
    And that's before you even bring up the money it would take to build anything.

    If the Raiders did happen to move down south, they would probably play in the Rose Bowl while the new stadium is being built.
    and a recent article 2 days ago, it's saying the NFL is once again, looking into Chavez Ravine again, an NFL stadium near Dodger Stadium, it's like they are kinda ignoring the Farmers Field proposel, well you do have to take into account that AEG is still up for sale and that is another cause of delay, and plus if the NFL is intentionally ignoring the Farmers Field proposal and wants Dodger Stadium area again, maybe that is a sign that the NFL is using L.A. as leverage, bargaining-chip again

  13. #73
    raiderjohn622 is offline Limited Membership
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,728
    Quote Originally Posted by BelongInOakland View Post
    and a recent article 2 days ago, it's saying the NFL is once again, looking into Chavez Ravine again, an NFL stadium near Dodger Stadium, it's like they are kinda ignoring the Farmers Field proposel, well you do have to take into account that AEG is still up for sale and that is another cause of delay, and plus if the NFL is intentionally ignoring the Farmers Field proposal and wants Dodger Stadium area again, maybe that is a sign that the NFL is using L.A. as leverage, bargaining-chip again
    Well Dodger owners have deep pockets, adding football to the venue would be a huge revenue stream there. But then you got cross scheduling of events September-October games clashing with NFL games, minor detail....but it does give the league leverage against the Farmer's Field group.

  14. #74
    BelongInOakland is offline Limited Membership
    All-Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    314
    so who believes the LA stadium deal is dead? the Farmers Field plan? honestly, i know it's all speculation, but what do you think will really happen? the Raiders end up sharing a stadium with the 49ers in Santa Clara, they get their own new stadium in the Bay Area, in Oakland, or they moved back to L.A.?

  15. #75
    paul0660's Avatar
    paul0660 is offline Limited Membership
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,412
    Quote Originally Posted by BelongInOakland View Post
    my bad, said it wrong, but i think you get the point, L.A. will not break ground on a stadium until a team commits to move, so "build it and then they will come" is not an option for L.A.
    Makes no sense. If LA builds a stadium, as many as a third of NFL teams will want to go there. Any team that "commits to move" now gets at least 5 years at their current location watching fan interest disappear.

    There are lots of factors, but a new stadium in LA won't be empty for long.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •