Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

"Raiders Stadium Talks in 11th Hour" lol
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Speed_Wrench


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 4622
Location: Bay area
PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OakleyCap wrote:
I don't ever want to see the Raiders leave California. If they moved the team to Portland or Las Vegas I'd be super mad. We need to be in Oakland or Los Angeles.


I think a move to LA would probably happen but the 2 stadium projects there are privately funded and will stipulate some ownership of whatever team decides to locate there, at least that's what I think I remember.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RaidersAreOne


Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Posts: 9025
Location: Canada, but don't worry... i'm not one of those damn dirty french.
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/report-raiders-in-talks-to-tear-down-coliseum-070914?cmpid=tsmfb%3Afscom%3Afoxsports

Quote:
Raiders in talks to demolish Coliseum, despite A's lease

Despite the Oakland Athletics closing in on a 10-year lease to stay at the O.co Coliseum, the Raiders are in talks to have the stadium demolished in 2015 to pave the way for a new home, according to a San Francisco Chronicle report.

A memo to Oakland city leaders details a plan that “stunned officials of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority,” who are working on an agreement to keep the A’s in the ballpark for another decade.

"It will be critical to demolish the existing stadium in 2015" if the project is to be finished on time, Coliseum City attorney Zachary Wasserman said in a July 2 memo. Wasserman also noted that the Raiders “are making arrangements to play elsewhere,” according to the report, without any other specifics.

_________________

First jersey purchased: Jamarcus Russell.
Second jersey purchased: Rolando McClain.
Next purchases: Every Chiefs, Chargers and Broncos player.
JTagg7754 on the sig.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Speed_Wrench


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 4622
Location: Bay area
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="RaidersAreOne"]http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/report-raiders-in-talks-to-tear-down-coliseum-070914?cmpid=tsmfb%3Afscom%3Afoxsports

Quote:
Raiders in talks to demolish Coliseum, despite A's lease

Despite the Oakland Athletics closing in on a 10-year lease to stay at the O.co Coliseum, the Raiders are in talks to have the stadium demolished in 2015 to pave the way for a new home, according to a San Francisco Chronicle report.

A memo to Oakland city leaders details a plan that “stunned officials of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority,” who are working on an agreement to keep the A’s in the ballpark for another decade.

"It will be critical to demolish the existing stadium in 2015" if the project is to be finished on time, Coliseum City attorney Zachary Wasserman said in a July 2 memo. Wasserman also noted that the Raiders “are making arrangements to play elsewhere,” according to the report, without any other specifics.


WTH????

Under whose authority? Obviously pressure is being applied but to what end? All this tells me is that the likelihood of a stadium in Oakland is nil or none.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chali21


Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 2925
Location: Cali
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I call bs on this. There's no way the raiders could just demolish the stadium in 2015 and build on top of it. Where are they going to play in 2015? What are the plans for a new stadium? This just sounds like "News" during the slow part of the offseason to me. It doesn't even say that anyone from the raiders said this.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NickButera


Moderator
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Posts: 6340
Location: Nevada
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chali21 wrote:
I call bs on this. There's no way the raiders could just demolish the stadium in 2015 and build on top of it. Where are they going to play in 2015? What are the plans for a new stadium? This just sounds like "News" during the slow part of the offseason to me. It doesn't even say that anyone from the raiders said this.


It's legitimate. Mark Davis has had other places lined up already where the Raiders could play. (One that I know of being the Cal Berkeley stadium) They've been planning for this all along as they're #1 option. The coliseum site is the place where they are looking to get a new stadium, meaning from the very beginning, they knew they'd have to tear down O.co in order to build a new one. Playing somewhere else until it gets completed. There's been a plethora of news and interviews about this subject/idea dating back years ago.
_________________
Bah-Weep-Granah-Weep-Nini-Bong

My short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be.
Also, my short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Speed_Wrench


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 4622
Location: Bay area
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NickButera wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
I call bs on this. There's no way the raiders could just demolish the stadium in 2015 and build on top of it. Where are they going to play in 2015? What are the plans for a new stadium? This just sounds like "News" during the slow part of the offseason to me. It doesn't even say that anyone from the raiders said this.


It's legitimate. Mark Davis has had other places lined up already where the Raiders could play. (One that I know of being the Cal Berkeley stadium) They've been planning for this all along as they're #1 option. The coliseum site is the place where they are looking to get a new stadium, meaning from the very beginning, they knew they'd have to tear down O.co in order to build a new one. Playing somewhere else until it gets completed. There's been a plethora of news and interviews about this subject/idea dating back years ago.


My question about all of this is who has the say on wether the coliseum gets torn down or not? The raiders don't own it but it almost sounds like they are doing this on their own to some degree. Sounds like the A's and Raiders are at loggerheads over what should happen and it sounds as if Davis is fed up with the lack of cooperation that he feels he should have. This could get real ugly in a hurry if sides don't sit down and get a deal worked out bottom line is both teams need new facilities.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 5643
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NickButera wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
I call bs on this. There's no way the raiders could just demolish the stadium in 2015 and build on top of it. Where are they going to play in 2015? What are the plans for a new stadium? This just sounds like "News" during the slow part of the offseason to me. It doesn't even say that anyone from the raiders said this.


It's legitimate. Mark Davis has had other places lined up already where the Raiders could play. (One that I know of being the Cal Berkeley stadium) They've been planning for this all along as they're #1 option. The coliseum site is the place where they are looking to get a new stadium, meaning from the very beginning, they knew they'd have to tear down O.co in order to build a new one. Playing somewhere else until it gets completed. There's been a plethora of news and interviews about this subject/idea dating back years ago.


Who's going to pay the $180M shortfall that must be taken care of before you can build something new?

Imo, this a battle between the Coliseum Authority that wants the bird in the hand, which is the 81 home games of baseball vs the 10 of football including preseason, and Oakland City leaders that want the two birds in a bush. If the Coliseum Authority must choose they will choose baseball every time for obvious financial reasons.

I'm not a conspiracy guy but I would keep an eye on where the Raiders play while they settle the dispute. It could be the backdoor way to ease into the LA market and then stay because they don't have any where to go.

None of these conversations/articles have swayed me in the least. I just don't see a financial way for the Raiders to remain in Oakland. I'll leave you with the same question I began with: Who's going to pay the $180M shortfall that must be taken care of before you can build something new?
_________________
Raiders 2014 Draft (check out my draft review tell me what you think)
Mancrush 2014: DE Clowney, WR Watkins, OT Robinson, LB Shazier, FS Brooks, TE ASJ, OG Jackson, WR Janis, OT Lucas, OT Tiny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raiiiiidersssss


Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 5166
Location: The Black Hole
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
NickButera wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
I call bs on this. There's no way the raiders could just demolish the stadium in 2015 and build on top of it. Where are they going to play in 2015? What are the plans for a new stadium? This just sounds like "News" during the slow part of the offseason to me. It doesn't even say that anyone from the raiders said this.


It's legitimate. Mark Davis has had other places lined up already where the Raiders could play. (One that I know of being the Cal Berkeley stadium) They've been planning for this all along as they're #1 option. The coliseum site is the place where they are looking to get a new stadium, meaning from the very beginning, they knew they'd have to tear down O.co in order to build a new one. Playing somewhere else until it gets completed. There's been a plethora of news and interviews about this subject/idea dating back years ago.


Who's going to pay the $180M shortfall that must be taken care of before you can build something new?

Imo, this a battle between the Coliseum Authority that wants the bird in the hand, which is the 81 home games of baseball vs the 10 of football including preseason, and Oakland City leaders that want the two birds in a bush. If the Coliseum Authority must choose they will choose baseball every time for obvious financial reasons.

I'm not a conspiracy guy but I would keep an eye on where the Raiders play while they settle the dispute. It could be the backdoor way to ease into the LA market and then stay because they don't have any where to go.

None of these conversations/articles have swayed me in the least. I just don't see a financial way for the Raiders to remain in Oakland. I'll leave you with the same question I began with: Who's going to pay the $180M shortfall that must be taken care of before you can build something new?


Who owes the $180M, and to who? Pardon my ignorance.
_________________
MACKiavelli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NickButera


Moderator
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Posts: 6340
Location: Nevada
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
NickButera wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
I call bs on this. There's no way the raiders could just demolish the stadium in 2015 and build on top of it. Where are they going to play in 2015? What are the plans for a new stadium? This just sounds like "News" during the slow part of the offseason to me. It doesn't even say that anyone from the raiders said this.


It's legitimate. Mark Davis has had other places lined up already where the Raiders could play. (One that I know of being the Cal Berkeley stadium) They've been planning for this all along as they're #1 option. The coliseum site is the place where they are looking to get a new stadium, meaning from the very beginning, they knew they'd have to tear down O.co in order to build a new one. Playing somewhere else until it gets completed. There's been a plethora of news and interviews about this subject/idea dating back years ago.


Who's going to pay the $180M shortfall that must be taken care of before you can build something new?

Imo, this a battle between the Coliseum Authority that wants the bird in the hand, which is the 81 home games of baseball vs the 10 of football including preseason, and Oakland City leaders that want the two birds in a bush. If the Coliseum Authority must choose they will choose baseball every time for obvious financial reasons.

I'm not a conspiracy guy but I would keep an eye on where the Raiders play while they settle the dispute. It could be the backdoor way to ease into the LA market and then stay because they don't have any where to go.

None of these conversations/articles have swayed me in the least. I just don't see a financial way for the Raiders to remain in Oakland. I'll leave you with the same question I began with: Who's going to pay the $180M shortfall that must be taken care of before you can build something new?


That's the big question. The questions raised in what I responded to largely have answers already. But yes, the biggest question is would the city of Oakland (who owes the money Raiiiiiderssss) allow the coliseum to be demolished and be apart of forking over extra money for a new stadium when they owe on the last.

Oakland needs to realize though, they're going to get stuck with a large sum of dead money in this ordeal anyway. The Raiders will move away and the A's will find a new stadium deal in the next few years outside of the coliseum site.

So they only have 2 options:

1-Either Oakland can be apart of the solution, eat some dead money and get a new stadium started with some revenue for one or maybe both professional sports teams through the next 10-20 years or...

2-Be a fussy brat and cry over spilled milk, lose (probably) both teams by refusing to knock down the stadium (essentially refusing any of the two teams to build on the current site) and then still get stuck with a bunch of dead money for a stadium and now have no team to play there.

Oakland is screwed either way (a bit). Both teams want new stadiums 5 years ago. So if they don't get something done this year or next, both teams will leave. Unfortunately for Oakland, building on the existing site is really the only viable option that exists right now. It needs to come down, they need to eat that money.
_________________
Bah-Weep-Granah-Weep-Nini-Bong

My short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be.
Also, my short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 5643
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent question, Raiiiiidersssss. This is an extremely complicated issue but this article somewhat explains the issue:
Quote:
In 1995, to help lure the Raiders back, the Alameda County Coliseum Authority agreed to sell bonds to finance the $200 million expansion and renovation of the stadium now known as McAfee Coliseum. Authority officials thought they would repay the bonds by selling personal seat licenses that would cost between $250 and $4,000 and give fans the right to buy season tickets for a decade. Under the terms of the deal, the ticketing and marketing would be handled by the Oakland Football Marketing Association, an entity separate from the team and Coliseum Authority.

But too few fans were willing to buy the licenses, and with the Raiders failing to sell out home games, they found themselves paying thousands of dollars for season tickets when others were buying game-day tickets for less than $100.

With the PSLs failing to sell, the city and county had to dip into their general funds to pay the interest and principal on the bonds, which have been refinanced several times, costing taxpayers from $11 million to $20 million or so a year. Most of that money went to pay off the interest, so most of the debt remains. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/OAKLAND-Raiders-deal-stops-bleeding-won-t-end-2562155.php


In short, the City of Oakland/Alameda County took out a $200M (the $180M is the difference referred to in the original post) loan to refurbish the stadium and pay the Raiders relocation costs in order to entice them back to Oakland. They were going to repay the loan with PSLs and 50% of parking, concessions, etc but the Raiders lost money and the city had to make up the difference. The City has been making up the difference through budget cuts like cutting the police force in one of the most crime ridden cities in America (brilliant).

Oakland didn't have the money to afford the Raiders and they don't have the money now. When you buy something that you ultimately realize that you can't afford the responsible thing to do is voluntary repossession. If (read: WHEN) the Raiders leave Oakland can recoup SOME of the money by selling the Raider's practice facilities near the airport. Imo, Oakland would need 100% financing of the new stadium but would STILL have to pay back all that money on it's own without the benefit of stadium revenue or the sell of practice facilities.

In Summary, because of the logistics of the stadium the Raiders can't make enough money to pay back the loan the city took out and they can't afford to build a new one. Any way you cut it hard times are coming to Oakland. Eventually Oakland will have to pay back this loan without the benefit of professional sports to attract tourism at the expense of education and the police force.
_________________
Raiders 2014 Draft (check out my draft review tell me what you think)
Mancrush 2014: DE Clowney, WR Watkins, OT Robinson, LB Shazier, FS Brooks, TE ASJ, OG Jackson, WR Janis, OT Lucas, OT Tiny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raiiiiidersssss


Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 5166
Location: The Black Hole
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for the answers guys. That is somewhat of a depressing situation though haha.
_________________
MACKiavelli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
exodusone


Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 519
Location: Los Angeles, California
PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/pro-sports/article/Oakland-Raiders-owner-in-talks-with-SA-to-5654812.php

Quote:
SAN ANTONIO — Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis and two top lieutenants met recently with several San Antonio officials to discuss the potential of moving his NFL team from the Bay Area to the Alamo City, sources familiar with the matter have confirmed.


Hope this is smoke and mirrors on Davis is part.
_________________

Props to JaguarsFan28329 for the sig.
"Great! Now I don't have any money for booze. I'm jobless and sober, there's no excuse for that!" - Andy French (Mission Hill)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BABPITT


Joined: 14 Jan 2014
Posts: 58
PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

exodusone wrote:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/pro-sports/article/Oakland-Raiders-owner-in-talks-with-SA-to-5654812.php

Quote:
SAN ANTONIO — Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis and two top lieutenants met recently with several San Antonio officials to discuss the potential of moving his NFL team from the Bay Area to the Alamo City, sources familiar with the matter have confirmed.


Hope this is smoke and mirrors on Davis is part.
I think i'm gonna be sick.I'm from new jersey and i'm a die heart raiders fan and i wouldn't even want them in NJ....THE RAIDERS BELONGS IN CALIFORNIA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Speed_Wrench


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 4622
Location: Bay area
PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
NickButera wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
I call bs on this. There's no way the raiders could just demolish the stadium in 2015 and build on top of it. Where are they going to play in 2015? What are the plans for a new stadium? This just sounds like "News" during the slow part of the offseason to me. It doesn't even say that anyone from the raiders said this.


It's legitimate. Mark Davis has had other places lined up already where the Raiders could play. (One that I know of being the Cal Berkeley stadium) They've been planning for this all along as they're #1 option. The coliseum site is the place where they are looking to get a new stadium, meaning from the very beginning, they knew they'd have to tear down O.co in order to build a new one. Playing somewhere else until it gets completed. There's been a plethora of news and interviews about this subject/idea dating back years ago.


Who's going to pay the $180M shortfall that must be taken care of before you can build something new?

Imo, this a battle between the Coliseum Authority that wants the bird in the hand, which is the 81 home games of baseball vs the 10 of football including preseason, and Oakland City leaders that want the two birds in a bush. If the Coliseum Authority must choose they will choose baseball every time for obvious financial reasons.

I'm not a conspiracy guy but I would keep an eye on where the Raiders play while they settle the dispute. It could be the backdoor way to ease into the LA market and then stay because they don't have any where to go.

None of these conversations/articles have swayed me in the least. I just don't see a financial way for the Raiders to remain in Oakland. I'll leave you with the same question I began with: Who's going to pay the $180M shortfall that must be taken care of before you can build something new?


It's either the taxpayers or the city declares bankruptcy. Who knows maybe that loan had a no BK protection clause in it, anyways yes the situation is downright putrid with raw sewage of course. Right now it's anyones guess, the SA meeting is not surprising but the article said that town though has enough population for a major sports team it still lacks fortune 500 companies that we all know buy luxury suites and is a big part of revenue, that alone could be a reason for the other franchises voting against a move. I think private investors is going to have to have a big hand in this because Oaklands hands are tied no official is going to do something that will take away more police or firefighters away from an already depleted force for a sports stadium.[/b]
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RaisinBran


Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 9722
Location: 925/805
PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark better not screw up the A's future here. Let the A's keep the coliseum (or re-build in same spot if it comes to that which is doubtful).
_________________

(NFL)=Raiders, (MLB)=A's, (NBA)= Warriors
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group