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  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 5813
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2014/06/19/raiders-mark-davis-tentative-10-year-coliseum-lease-extension-make-problem-theres-two-ways/

Kawakami: The Raiders' Mark Davis on the A's tentative 10-year Coliseum lease extension: "It does make a problem, there's no two ways about it"

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/21/mark-davis-lots-of-talk-no-action-on-a-new-oakland-stadium/
_________________
Nodisrespect on building inside out wrote:
teams without highly draft DT's make the playoffs and win the superbowl regularly.

Bonez wrote:
Teams that win Superbowls and make the playoffs aren't picking in the Top 5, clearly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Speed_Wrench


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 4664
Location: Bay area
PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



Wish this would have happened, the A's deserved a new park
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Loveless


Joined: 23 Apr 2013
Posts: 318
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Houston, we have a problem!!!

Oakland A's Finalize 10-Year Lease to Remain at Coliseum

"In the midst of an outstanding 2014 MLB season for the Oakland Athletics, the franchise learned more good news about its future when it finalized a 10-year deal to remain at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, better known as O.co."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2109753-oakland-as-finalize-10-year-lease-to-remain-at-coliseum
By R. Cory Smith , Featured Columnist Jun 25, 2014
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cdUbs14


Joined: 24 Nov 2008
Posts: 886
Location: chicago
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well looks more and more like LA. If it helps us retain our good players though seems like LA would be more a more attractive place to stay.

I hope they can get something done to stay in the Bay Area. Maybe when our lease is up we can share the 9'ers stadium until a new one is built.
_________________



Sig by me PM for one
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RaiderX


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 20507
Location: Crown Town, CA
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oaktown is looking more and more like a bad area. Read a week ago that a reporter got her purse snatched after doing a report where another woman was mugged in the area.

LA has had its share of crime, but it's been a steady decline the past 5 years.
_________________

SaveourSonics wrote:
Yea, RaiderX wins. We can all just top acting like this is a matter of opinion. MY GOD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
daineraider


Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 4372
Location: Salt Lake City
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RaiderX wrote:
Oaktown is looking more and more like a bad area. Read a week ago that a reporter got her purse snatched after doing a report where another woman was mugged in the area.

LA has had its share of crime, but it's been a steady decline the past 5 years.


I dont believe the decision to stay or move will be based on crime. Its going to come down to a stadium. LA looks more likely than Oakland to make that happen
_________________

Sigged by Jamison
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Speed_Wrench


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 4664
Location: Bay area
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's time for bay area/ N Ca raider fans to accept the likelihood that the team is going to move as soon as a legitimate stadium deal happens, of course they are going to need league approval and meet other criteria to see it happen but unless a stadium can be built on some other parcel in the bay area or a long shot Sacramento deal I think this team is leaving Northern CA for the south. However I think one of the biggest sticking points will be who will be willing to fork out 500 million and not have some kind of control of the team. I have little doubt Al instructed Mark under no circumstances do you sell any of the controlling shares of the team.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nightmare


Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 2777
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What does this stadium lease deal for the A's actually mean with regards to the Raiders staying in Oakland (if anything)?

Is the city more likely to simply let the Raiders walk knowing that they have at least one professional sports franchise in town for at least another decade? Well, I don't mean let them walk, as such. Rather, not make them as good an offer to stay in town.
_________________
Quote:
Warren Sapp is a fool. That dude is stupid. He played for the Raiders 20 years ago, no one cares what he says, nobody likes him, heís a joke.
^ ^ ^ Chaz Schilens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Loveless


Joined: 23 Apr 2013
Posts: 318
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nightmare wrote:
What does this stadium lease deal for the A's actually mean with regards to the Raiders staying in Oakland (if anything)?

Is the city more likely to simply let the Raiders walk knowing that they have at least one professional sports franchise in town for at least another decade? Well, I don't mean let them walk, as such. Rather, not make them as good an offer to stay in town.


its complicated, since the A's signed a 10yr lease we cant really rebuild a stadium ontop of the one we have since the A's would be playing their...the A's would have to (or of 'had' to) come to an agreement with the Raiders before they signed that lease so that both teams could come to a conclusion on what they want, to renovate the stadium, build Coliseum City, or relocate both teams...what the A's have just done is completely destroy any leverage the Raiders had...also about the city..lets be honest our team hasnt won anything in a long time, also an NFL season is waaay shorter thus less money and if you have to keep one team you go with the $$...

Quick Quote from article above:

-Q: "If the Aís and Oakland do finalize this extension, does that take Coliseum City off the table, practically?"

-DAVIS: "See, thatís the thing. I donít know how the deals are written up, I really donít. But if they give an extension for 10 years for the Aís to be playing in that Coliseum, how could Colony Capital then build a development there?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nightmare


Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 2777
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Loveless wrote:
Nightmare wrote:
What does this stadium lease deal for the A's actually mean with regards to the Raiders staying in Oakland (if anything)?

Is the city more likely to simply let the Raiders walk knowing that they have at least one professional sports franchise in town for at least another decade? Well, I don't mean let them walk, as such. Rather, not make them as good an offer to stay in town.


its complicated, since the A's signed a 10yr lease we cant really rebuild a stadium ontop of the one we have since the A's would be playing their...the A's would have to (or of 'had' to) come to an agreement with the Raiders before they signed that lease so that both teams could come to a conclusion on what they want, to renovate the stadium, build Coliseum City, or relocate both teams...what the A's have just done is completely destroy any leverage the Raiders had...also about the city..lets be honest our team hasnt won anything in a long time, also an NFL season is waaay shorter thus less money and if you have to keep one team you go with the $$...

Quick Quote from article above:

-Q: "If the Aís and Oakland do finalize this extension, does that take Coliseum City off the table, practically?"

-DAVIS: "See, thatís the thing. I donít know how the deals are written up, I really donít. But if they give an extension for 10 years for the Aís to be playing in that Coliseum, how could Colony Capital then build a development there?"


And seeing as a new stadium seems to be at the top of Mark's list, this creates a massive problem, I see.

I always thought if the city had a choice to keep one of it's 3 teams, they'd go with the Raiders. Yeah, the A's have overachieved and been very successful since the turn of the century, but the Raiders are the team with identity; the team that puts your city on the map, so to speak. Everyone knows the Raiders and what they stand for. Even with their success, the A's are a poorly supported MLB team. If they start to suck, and the Raiders put together a decent team just as they're on the way out the door, it could be a disaster for Oakland.
_________________
Quote:
Warren Sapp is a fool. That dude is stupid. He played for the Raiders 20 years ago, no one cares what he says, nobody likes him, heís a joke.
^ ^ ^ Chaz Schilens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RaidersAreOne


Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Posts: 9243
Location: Canada, but don't worry... i'm not one of those damn dirty french.
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LA, LA, LA.
_________________

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
NickButera


Moderator
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Posts: 6416
Location: Nevada
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So much for the A's 10 yr deal. Oakland didn't even show up to vote on it Laughing

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-boycotts-vote-on-A-s-10-year-coliseum-5584903.php?cmpid=twitter-mobile

Apparently the A's put in so many 'outs' in the deal, giving them a ton of control to break the lease whenever they wanted for various reasons. Leo Wolff is being smart about the situation.
_________________
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: 5813
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NickButera wrote:
So much for the A's 10 yr deal. Oakland didn't even show up to vote on it Laughing

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-boycotts-vote-on-A-s-10-year-coliseum-5584903.php?cmpid=twitter-mobile

Apparently the A's put in so many 'outs' in the deal, giving them a ton of control to break the lease whenever they wanted for various reasons. Leo Wolff is being smart about the situation.


I've been saying for years the Raiders are moving. It's inevitable for one reason and one reason only. The residents of Oakland cannot afford to take on any additional tax burden in addition to California's already oppressive taxation. Imo, eventually three teams are gone.

What I am concerned about is how the NFL is going to build a stadium in LA without public funding? (Because LA doesn't want/ cannot afford additional taxes either) I think it will be the Rams & Raiders which the league doesn't want because both are devoid of starpower (ie-elite teams) and both can make a case that they already own the market hence won't pay a relocation fee.

Ultimately, this will end in litigation and the Rams and Raiders will move and not owe the NFL squat. Fan participation and support for TWO sub-.500 teams will be of extreme concern.
_________________
Nodisrespect on building inside out wrote:
teams without highly draft DT's make the playoffs and win the superbowl regularly.

Bonez wrote:
Teams that win Superbowls and make the playoffs aren't picking in the Top 5, clearly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RaiderX


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 20507
Location: Crown Town, CA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

daineraider wrote:
RaiderX wrote:
Oaktown is looking more and more like a bad area. Read a week ago that a reporter got her purse snatched after doing a report where another woman was mugged in the area.

LA has had its share of crime, but it's been a steady decline the past 5 years.


I dont believe the decision to stay or move will be based on crime. Its going to come down to a stadium. LA looks more likely than Oakland to make that happen


My initial point that I made before was that its not a good destination. Not really accommodating for teams or even to draw a super bowl.
_________________

SaveourSonics wrote:
Yea, RaiderX wins. We can all just top acting like this is a matter of opinion. MY GOD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
RaiderX


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 20507
Location: Crown Town, CA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
NickButera wrote:
So much for the A's 10 yr deal. Oakland didn't even show up to vote on it Laughing

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-boycotts-vote-on-A-s-10-year-coliseum-5584903.php?cmpid=twitter-mobile

Apparently the A's put in so many 'outs' in the deal, giving them a ton of control to break the lease whenever they wanted for various reasons. Leo Wolff is being smart about the situation.


I've been saying for years the Raiders are moving. It's inevitable for one reason and one reason only. The residents of Oakland cannot afford to take on any additional tax burden in addition to California's already oppressive taxation. Imo, eventually three teams are gone.

What I am concerned about is how the NFL is going to build a stadium in LA without public funding? (Because LA doesn't want/ cannot afford additional taxes either) I think it will be the Rams & Raiders which the league doesn't want because both are devoid of starpower (ie-elite teams) and both can make a case that they already own the market hence won't pay a relocation fee.

Ultimately, this will end in litigation and the Rams and Raiders will move and not owe the NFL squat. Fan participation and support for TWO sub-.500 teams will be of extreme concern.


Raiders and Rams are HUGE down in So Cal still. People in LA might feel betrayed because the Rams left for Anaheim in the 80s and the Raiders took over.

I think the joint practices with the Cowboys in Oxnard is a subtle start.
_________________

SaveourSonics wrote:
Yea, RaiderX wins. We can all just top acting like this is a matter of opinion. MY GOD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
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  Next
Page 3 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