The Raiders apparently are expected to get the stadium they want in Oakland.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...in-oakland

---

Raiders owner hasnt publicly made any commitment to remain in Oakland though.

---

I don't get why so many teams (Chargers & Rams) want to go to L.A. when Raiders left there I thought part of it was due to ticket sales being a problem.


I heard they might have to play in a small soccer stadium while they wait for a stadium to be built how bad was St. Louis to make the owner want to do this & for 30 owners to allow it seems odd to me.

 

San Diego is the oddest because I thought they had no problems with ticket sales. Of course the team has had a hard time winning postseason despite having talent on the team (more of a GM /HC problem if you ask me).

 

NFL teams are not allowed to move unless they have unresolved stadium issues regardless of ticket sales.

 

Who said the Rams have to play in a small soccer stadium? Their temporary home will be the Memorial Coliseum.

 

If the Chargers don't have a talent problem, their GM is fine. They fired some assistant coaches and are losing Malcom Floyd to retirement.

---

Raiders owner hasn't publicly made any commitment to remain in Oakland though.

 

The team withdrew its application for relocation to Los Angeles. Mark Davis does want to stay in Oakland.

---

The Chargers were given the option to move in 2018. That could have swayed Dean Spanos to vote for it.

I don't think Spanos wanted the Inglewood site or to be second fiddle to Kroenke considering LA has been a secondary market for the Chargers for the last 21 years. I'd say it's more probable than not he voted no. There were 2 no votes. I'm pretty positive Mark Davis was one of them.

---

Maybe, maybe not. Mark Davis is probably getting a pile of cash out of this deal to build a stadium wherever he wants to, and Spanos still has the option of moving to LA.

 

Dan Snyder - Patience of a six-month-old

Jimmy Haslam - Felon, patience of a three-month-old

Jim Irsay - cokehead, insane

 

Those are three right off the top of my head that I'd be less interested in having. Kroenke's not really a terrible owner unless you live in SL. One has to sit back tonight and look at how he was able to sneak a team out from under everyone's nose, make a freaking huge land purchase in the center of the LA metroplex without anyone noticing, drag his current city through the mud and, in the process, create a scenario where, if the NFL were to tell him that the Chargers and Raiders were moving and he wasn't, he could hold them hostage with the threat of a book-opening anti-trust suit that would expose the NFL to monopolistic practice laws. He's a Richard, yeah, but from a cold, hard business perspective, he could not possibly have executed this any better than he did.

 

I think there's a pile (or fifty) of cash coming out of the LA relocation fund with Mark Davis' name on it. I read a handful of articles out of Oakland over the last year, and I got the impression that he didn't really want to leave, but the government's complete unwillingness to give the Raiders any form of public money to build a new stadium was forcing his hand. If Davis does, in fact, get what he needs out of the Rams' relocation fee to build the surprisingly modest 55,000-seat stadium he wants, I wouldn't expect to see the Raiders anywhere but Oakland for the rest of his life.

 

Doubt it. One of the underlying messages in the NFL's moves tonight is that the NFL wants itself out of San Diego, where it's potentially competing with itself.

 

"But why would the NFL give the Chargers $100M to figure something out with SD?"

 

Simple. The NFL knows, as does Dean Spanos, as does everyone in San Diego, that a $100M incentive will not get a stadium built without public funds--the same public funds that no one in the municipal government has been willing to talk about for the last decade and a half. I really do hope the Chargers stay in SD, but I think they're ultimately the team that will end up leaving California. If you believe what you read (and the results of the day kind of indicate this), Spanos absolutely does not want to do business with Kroenke, and he doesn't want to put his team in the position of being a tenant in a building owned by a different team. Always-a-bridesmaid San Antonio might end up being the best option for them long-term.

 

  As problematic as the 3 owners you mentioned are,   the combination of what Stan Kroenke did to St. Louis AND that he's yet to even have a .500 season since becoming the majority owner of the Rams is why he's at the bottom of the owner's list on this end.   I'm looking at this from a fan perspective,  not someone who can increase franchise value for his/ her own franchise and the other owners.    

 

 From the sound of it,  the Raiders didn't get as much money from the NFL to apply to a stadium in the Oakland area as expected.    Mark Davis truly seems upset.   Unlike Kroenke,  Davis seems genuine.   Oakland or the surrounding area needs to step up relatively soon or the Raiders are going to move in the next couple of years at the latest. 

 

 Dean Spanos'  worst nightmare became a reality today.    I'm still shocked that most of the owners voted for the Inglewood project after the 5-1 recommendation of the LA Relocation Committee.   That secret ballot vote took away most of Spanos'  leverage.   The question now becomes,  can Spanos get a stadium deal outside California that would truly satisfy him?    I have at least some doubts that Spanos wants to leave Southern California.   

---

The Raiders apparently are expected to get the stadium they want in Oakland.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...in-oakland

 

  Nothing in the current version of this article suggests that the Raiders chances of getting a new stadium in Oakland are good.  

---

Raiders owner hasnt publicly made any commitment to remain in Oakland though.

 

 Exactly.  

 

 Mark Davis is leaving his options open.   

---

The team withdrew its application for relocation to Los Angeles. Mark Davis does want to stay in Oakland.

 

 Wanting to stay in Oakland and getting a stadium in Oakland that Mark Davis considers feasible very well might be two different things. 

---

Nothing in the current version of this article suggests that the Raiders chances of getting a new stadium in Oakland are good.  

 

The Raiders will have to get a stadium solution in Oakland if they are unwilling to play at the Inglewood site.

 

Although I did not see any reports the Oakland Athletics were an issue, it is possible that had something to do with it. What do baseball fans want?

---

The Raiders will have to get a stadium solution in Oakland if they are unwilling to play at the Inglewood site.

 

Although I did not see any reports the Oakland Athletics were an issue, it is possible that had something to do with it. What do baseball fans want?

 

 Why do the Raiders have to take a stadium solution in Oakland?    There's other markets w/o a team in the United States alone that would gladly put together a stadium proposal for the Raiders that the Raiders could seriously consider.   I think the Raiders would get league approval with some potential options outside of Oakland or the Inglewood Site.

 

  Both the A's and the Raiders want separate stadiums.  It's not feasible in today's era to have a stadium for both baseball and football.  

---

Why do the Raiders have to take a stadium solution in Oakland?  There's other markets w/o a team in the United States alone that would gladly put together a stadium proposal for the Raiders that the Raiders could seriously consider. I think the Raiders would get league approval with some potential options outside of Oakland or the Inglewood Site.

 

Both the A's and the Raiders want separate stadiums. It's not feasible in today's era to have a stadium for both baseball and football.  

 

You would think the Althletics were included in the discussion because all other MLB teams got new baseball-only stadiums. I would expect that to become a big topic for baseball fans if a ballot issue materializes.

---

You would think the Althletics were included in the discussion because all other MLB teams got new baseball-only stadiums. I would expect that to become a big topic for baseball fans if a ballot issue materializes.

 

  The following article from a few hours ago talks about the A's stadium situation to some extent from a City of Oakland perspective:

 

  http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matie...754427.php

---

  The following article from a few hours ago talks about the A's stadium situation to some extent from a City of Oakland perspective:

 

I have to register to read the whole story. It seems like all newspapers are requiring that to avoid losing money. Let me know when you find valid reports that will cost me a penny to read.

---

I don't get why another team moved to Cali. Don't the 3 current teams have trouble selling tickets? Great idea to add a 4th. Should of just moved a current Cali team to LA.

I dont expect us to have 4 teams for all that long. I believe the Raiders/Chargers will still move at some point. However my issue is we have a WHOLE other area here in California that isnt populated by a team. Also the fact that Sacramento(the capital) is the second biggest area in the NFL without a team which actually now becomes the biggest without a team. Would sure be nice to have a team closer up here.

 

I mean I know the Raiders(for now) along with the Santa Clara 9ers are a bit more local for me vs the 12 hour drive to LA but still... a whole lot of state up here. Add in Oregon....man so much space for another team.

 

 

eer going back to the post I was replying to, the 9ers have a really solid fanbase even if their owner is an idiot and all the issue they are having.  LA I believe will be able to hold a team now tho.

 

I see Mark moving the raiders and we know Spano is an idiot also and has burned the Charger fan base this past season and now it looks like both of them could move some place still. Plenty of options from new cities like Portland/Sacramento/San Antonio to St Louis and even international spots like Mexico City/London/Toronto(which I believe are far away)

 

I made this post ramble on far too long....

---

:thanks: Extra Life 2016 is 11/05/16 :thanks:

I have to register to read the whole story. It seems like all newspapers are requiring that to avoid losing money. Let me know when you find valid reports that will cost me a penny to read.

 

  The following article is from last week.  It's more from an A's perspective.    It's evident that the A's future is now very much up in the air:

 

  http://swinginas.com/2016/01/05/oakland-...s-angeles/

---

  As problematic as the 3 owners you mentioned are,   the combination of what Stan Kroenke did to St. Louis AND that he's yet to even have a .500 season since becoming the majority owner of the Rams is why he's at the bottom of the owner's list on this end.   I'm looking at this from a fan perspective,  not someone who can increase franchise value for his/ her own franchise and the other owners.    

 

 From the sound of it,  the Raiders didn't get as much money from the NFL to apply to a stadium in the Oakland area as expected.    Mark Davis truly seems upset.   Unlike Kroenke,  Davis seems genuine.   Oakland or the surrounding area needs to step up relatively soon or the Raiders are going to move in the next couple of years at the latest. 

 

 Dean Spanos'  worst nightmare became a reality today.    I'm still shocked that most of the owners voted for the Inglewood project after the 5-1 recommendation of the LA Relocation Committee.   That secret ballot vote took away most of Spanos'  leverage.   The question now becomes,  can Spanos get a stadium deal outside California that would truly satisfy him?    I have at least some doubts that Spanos wants to leave Southern California.   

From a fan perspective, yeah, Kroenke is up there with Irsay (dad and son) and Modell as the most hated owners in sports. From a purely business standpoint, you can't help but admire how he subjugated the plans of an entire league, overcoming the very loud objections of two of the most respected ownership families in football in the process. He made his purchases brilliantly, he chose his words and moves wisely, and one can't help but think that some variation of, "If you stop me from moving to LA, I have everything I need to make the next ten years of your lives a living hell," came out of his mouth.

 

Mark Davis has come just short of apologizing for the fact that he's going to have to move the team, because he knows he has one of the best fan bases in the NFL, but he also knows that he can't keep playing in the antiquated Coliseum. I would guess that as soon as news of the Raiders' being left behind hit the wire, Davis got a call from the mayor of San Antonio just checking in, seeing how he'd been lately, how's the family, etc. Given that Davis has already ruled out moving the Rams to St. Louis (wouldn't surprise me if that was at the strict instruction of Roger Goodell and/or other owners), his options really do seem limited to Oakland, San Antonio or hoping that he can find a satisfactory route to LA. Realistically speaking, the Raiders got screwed more than anyone else in this deal. The fact that they only (only lol) received $100M in the form of an option to help finance a stadium in Oakland had to be an even bigger slap in the face. Either the NFL has two other cities in mind that it would like to give a team to, or Stan really had the owners bent that far backwards over a barrel.

 

Dean Spanos has been saying for years that he doesn't want the Chargers to leave San Diego, and he's been putting his money where his mouth is trying to find a stadium solution. Initially, I thought the $100M NFL package was just a way to further justify San Diego's move to (insert city here) in a year, now I'm not so sure. A vote for $350M in public funding is actually on the ballot. Between the NFL's $100M and San Diego's $350M, there's a chance something could be done. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think the NFL would be ok with the Chargers staying in SD, just as long as the Raiders don't join the Rams in LA.

 

As to what's next for the Raiders and Chargers, Mark Davis has already left the word "Oakland" out of a very unhappy press release following the Rams' move. I think San Antonio is very much in play for him. The Alamodome is more or less ready to go for an NFL team, the city is absolutely dying to get an NFL franchise in town and the biggest obstacle at this point, if Davis really wants to make it happen, appears to be Jerry Jones' concerns about adding a third team in a relatively small area of Texas.

 

The Chargers are 33.3/33.3/33.3, imo. My wild, uneducated guess would be that they're equally likely to get that $350M and build a suitable stadium that lets them stay in SD, suck it up and arrange a deal with Mad Stan to play in Inglewood or surprise everyone by moving to a different city entirely. It'll be interesting to watch how the next 12 months play out, given that the Raiders and Chargers are both guaranteed to be courting suitors from cities that desperately want to lure an NFL team.

 

The Raiders will have to get a stadium solution in Oakland if they are unwilling to play at the Inglewood site.

 

Although I did not see any reports the Oakland Athletics were an issue, it is possible that had something to do with it. What do baseball fans want?

Who says it has to be in Oakland? Who gives a rat's [BLEEP] what baseball fans want?

---

What would a St. Lois market provide that Jacksonville doesn't? Or any other market besides LA and New York for that matter.

Besides maybe a higher national profile and corporate base, nothing.

 

We've outdrawn them 9 out of the last 10 years.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2015

 

Jacksonville has constantly worked with the Jaguars to upgrade the stadium.  St. Louis has always dragged its feet when it has come to providing a viable stadium for the Cardinals and now the Rams, both of which were lost within my adult lifetime.  That's two teams lost in less than 30 years time.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Hard to imagine a greedy billionaire who doesn't mind an entire city hating his guts for a few extra bucks. Wonder how this guy sleeps at night.

Not too hard to imagine really.

 

Most if not all billionaires out there are sociopaths. Do whatever it takes and step over the bodies when its done.

 

It's all about the money yo!

---

60% of the time, It works Everytime...



 

It doesn't have to have anything to do with unresolved stadium issues.

The Rams had a stadium plan on the table and their owner balked in favor of heading west.


San Diego and Oakland are both dealing with expired leases.


The league would only make it difficult for a team with an existing lease to break that agreement and move the team.


The league was determined to put a team back in LA, and they've screwed St. Louis in the process. I feel sorry for any city that loses a team.


This is all about greed in the modern NFL.

But I think that plan was advanced too little too late.

 

I think by the time the current proposal was revealed, Kroenke had already purchased the land in Los Angeles for his stadium.

 

If St. Louis wanted to keep the Rams, they never should have let it get to that point.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!