| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Baggabonez
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 8036
Location: RaiderNation
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Speed_Wrench
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 5427
Location: Bay area
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:53 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Wish this would have happened, the A's deserved a new park |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Loveless
Joined: 23 Apr 2013
Posts: 457
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
cdUbs14
Joined: 24 Nov 2008
Posts: 991
Location: chicago
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
RaiderX
Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 23304
Location: Crown Town, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
daineraider
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 5801
Location: Salt Lake City
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Speed_Wrench
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 5427
Location: Bay area
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Nightmare
Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Loveless
Joined: 23 Apr 2013
Posts: 457
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 $$...
Quick Quote from article above:
-Q: "If the A’s and Oakland do finalize this extension, does that take Coliseum City off the table, practically?"
-DAVIS: "See, that’s the thing. I don’t know how the deals are written up, I really don’t. But if they give an extension for 10 years for the A’s to be playing in that Coliseum, how could Colony Capital then build a development there?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nightmare
Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Loveless wrote: | | Nightmare wrote: | What does this stadium lease deal for the A's actually mean with regards to the Raiders staying in Oakland (if anything)?
Is the city more likely to simply let the Raiders walk knowing that they have at least one professional sports franchise in town for at least another decade? Well, I don't mean let them walk, as such. Rather, not make them as good an offer to stay in town. |
its complicated, since the A's signed a 10yr lease we cant really rebuild a stadium ontop of the one we have since the A's would be playing their...the A's would have to (or of 'had' to) come to an agreement with the Raiders before they signed that lease so that both teams could come to a conclusion on what they want, to renovate the stadium, build Coliseum City, or relocate both teams...what the A's have just done is completely destroy any leverage the Raiders had...also about the city..lets be honest our team hasnt won anything in a long time, also an NFL season is waaay shorter thus less money and if you have to keep one team you go with the $$...
Quick Quote from article above:
-Q: "If the A’s and Oakland do finalize this extension, does that take Coliseum City off the table, practically?"
-DAVIS: "See, that’s the thing. I don’t know how the deals are written up, I really don’t. But if they give an extension for 10 years for the A’s 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RaidersAreOne
Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Posts: 15418
Location: Canada, but don't worry... i'm not one of those damn dirty french.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
LA, LA, LA.
_________________
#JihadWard
First jersey purchased: Jamarcus Russell.
Second jersey purchased: Rolando McClain.
Next purchases: Every Chiefs, Chargers and Broncos player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NickButera
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Posts: 7106
Location: Nevada
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
So much for the A's 10 yr deal. Oakland didn't even show up to vote on it 
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 |
|
|
Baggabonez
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 8036
Location: RaiderNation
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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 wrote: | | (on building inside out) 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 |
|
|
RaiderX
Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 23304
Location: Crown Town, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
RaiderX
Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 23304
Location: Crown Town, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Baggabonez wrote: |
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 |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
