Aaron Donald retires

[mikecubs]

2. Vincent Bonsignore ‏@dailynewsvinny 32m32 minutes ago

And Dean Spanos isn't the bad guy in that situation. On other hand, hopefully it works out in SD Vincent Bonsignore added,

1.Rich @noid_Rich
@dailynewsvinny and if vote fails, they're off the hook in SD and maybe keep some fans there


Vincent Bonsignore ‏@dailynewsvinny 34m34 minutes ago
2/2 They'll make more money in SD than playing at Coliseum in '16. They don't have to cut a big check to get out of lease at Qualcomm


Vincent Bonsignore ‏@dailynewsvinny 35m35 minutes ago
Even if it doesn't work out in SD for #Chargers, this move makes some sense 1/2

[mikecubs]

Won't post the whole article but this tidbit is interesting.

The Chargers have until Jan. 15, 2017, to exercise their option to move, almost an entire year for elected officials and business leaders to negotiate the right deal with team owner Dean Spanos. (If the Chargers get a stadium initiative approved by voters this year, the deadline could be extended another year to 2018 to allow for legal challenges or a potential second election.)

www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jan/29/san-diego-chargers-stadium-staying/

[mikecubs]

It was reported 2 days ago by the LA times that if the Chargers move to LA they will be a tenant not an equal partner. Fred Roggin has been reporting the same thing. None of the news articles said yesterday for sure what the deal was.

[mikecubs]

Vegas? London? Uranus? Just sell, baby

So Mark Davis was in Las Vegas, a city with four of his beloved P.F. Chang’s hangouts. At the same time, Dean Spanos was in San Diego, announcing the Chargers will play there next season while trying one last time to leverage a new stadium in a town that has fought the idea for decades. This while Stan Kroenke was in Los Angeles, with a deal in place to share his $3 billion colossus with Spanos if the San Diego talks collapse, and where the mayor, Eric Garcetti, prefers no other NFL team join the Rams in Inglewood, especially if that team is the Raiders.

“Crime has gone down every single year since the Raiders left L.A.,” said Garcetti, who was only sorta kidding.

And through this tragicomic, multi-market taffy pull — one that has painted the NFL as a greedy cartel of sharks that pillage and plunder cities until Roger Goodell and the owners wrangle what they want — I’m probably the only one caring about Raiders fans. Is it not the height of arrogance to think 48,000 people, or whatever seating capacity the upper-deck tarp configures these days, should continue paying top prices next season in a third-world stadium that requires two showers and an immunization when you get home? Shouldn’t the poor fans be incentivized with discounted seats, free beer, spike-helmet giveaways?

The decision by Spanos to prioritize San Diego, where a stadium referendum awaits, only throws Davis’ diaper mess into deeper limbo. Now, there’s a chance the Raiders could join the Rams in Kroenke’s stadium in 2019, yet all that possibility does is enrage local silver-and-black devotees who thought the L.A. door had been shut. Pollyannas hope that Spanos’ 12-month negotiating window gives Davis enough time to cut a deal with Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, but realistically, what can get done in 2016 that hasn’t gotten done in 2015, 2014, 2013 and every other year since they started talking? She isn’t interested in funding Davis’ venture with public money, which is the correct stance in a city trying to make a comeback but still plagued by crime and urban blight. He still doesn’t have the financing connections, as one of the league’s least-heeled owners, to build his own stadium in the East Bay.

And this thought of easily transforming the Coliseum area into a gleaming, 21st-century sports hub — it’s a filthy industrial site that probably needs a complete sandblasting, with men in Hazmat suits, before anyone could think about plunging a shovel. It probably would take most of the league’s pledge for a new project, $100 million, just to exorcise the lurking evil spirits of Al Davis.

Which explains why Davis accepted the very public invitation of Sheldon Adelson, billionaire owner of the Las Vegas Sands casino company, to tour the city Friday and learn about Adelson’s whim: a $1 billion, 65,000-seat domed stadium that the Raiders would share with UNLV’s teams. Unless Goodell and the owners want to be attacked as hypocritical shams, they wouldn’t possibly approve a Vegas franchise with a decidedly anti-gambling bent through time. That hasn’t stopped Goodell from supporting fantasy football, cutting deals with data sites connected to offshore gambling and doing sponsorship business with the DraftKings and FanDuel betting sites — but a team in Vegas?

It’s not going to happen, even if it makes raw cultural sense to meld Son of Al and the Raiders with Sin City. Goodell has exhausted his supply of tone-deaf mulligans after the Ray Rice catastrophe and other disturbing oversights. Putting a team in Vegas would be another, and enough old-guard, hard-line owners remain to quash any attempt by Davis to push it through.

Still reeling after his distant last-place finish in the L.A. derby, which exposed him as an eccentric outcast in a league of cool-cat billionaires, Davis has no choice but to visit every city that courts him. The option most logical is San Antonio/Austin, where Davis controls a plot of land between the cities and has a ready-made temporary stadium, the Alamodome, before a permanent home is built. Red McCombs, former owner of the NFL’s Minnesota Vikings and NBA’s San Antonio Spurs and Denver Nuggets, has offered his financial assistance and local clout. But the concept isn’t problem-free. The area is Dallas Cowboys’ country, and the Raiders might have trouble winning over the locals. Too, there is the powerful presence of Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who might not want to complete against a third Texas-based team.

Sacramento? What, Stockton isn’t available?

Portland? Football, particularly the Raiders, would be a tough sell in a Patagonia-and-vegan town.

Oklahoma City — Two words: Bible belt.

St. Louis — If they didn’t support the Rams, who not long ago were the Greatest Show On Turf, the locals would boycott the Raiders.

In truth, no one really wants the Raiders. The NFL doesn’t want Davis and his bowl haircut anywhere near their shiny Hollywood operation, still perceiving the Raiders as a gangland franchise. L.A. doesn’t want the Raiders, either, with influential Los Angeles Times columnist Bill Plaschke writing, “The NFL won’t say it, but it doesn’t want them here. Sponsors won’t admit it, but they wouldn’t embrace them here. Fans might be screaming for them but, face it, any new team is going to sell out any new stadium here. Los Angeles may be a Raiders town, but that works for Los Angeles only as long as the Raiders aren’t in town. The team is far more attractive as the other end of a Sunday morning Southwest flight out of Burbank. While covering the hearts of many Angelenos, silver and black is better admired at a distance.”

And if the Chargers whiff in San Diego and do move to Inglewood as Kroenke’s tenant, the thought of the rival Raiders moving there makes some physically ill. “That one can get me a little nauseated, to be honest with you,” said Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers, a city icon, when the possibility was mentioned on a radio show. “The thought of that one is a little sickening. That one’s hard to stomach.”

So, where to? London? Uranus?

Jed York did something thoroughly unexpected the other day. He did not vomit or even sneer when asked on a TV show, hosted by Rich Eisen, if he’d entertain the idea of the Raiders playing home games in Santa Clara at Levi’s Stadium.

“It’s up to the Raiders where they want to go with things. I know they’ve been focused on Oakland. I don’t want to speak for Mark Davis,” York said. “We obviously built the stadium in Santa Clara for potentially two teams. But the NFL certainly isn’t forcing that. We sort of approached that at the very outset before we got a vote from the people of Santa Clara.

“It’s really up to the Raiders to decide what they want to do. If they want to sit down, we’re always happy to sit down and try to figure something out. But we’re not trying to put pressure on them. I know the league isn’t. And Mark needs to figure out what he wants to do, and we’ll be supportive of that, whatever that means.”

Chances are, Davis would sell the Raiders before ever allowing them to play in a stadium coated in red and metallic gold. Come to think of it, rather than drag fans through relocation hell, he should just sell right now, put us all out of our misery and head to the nearest P.F. Chang’s, where he can spend the rest of his days without pretending to be a serious owner of an NFL franchise.

www.sfexaminer.com/vegas-london-uranus-davis-should-just-sell/

[mikecubs]

NFL sends memo to all 32 teams about possible Raiders move to Las Vegas
Posted on January 30, 2016 by Vincent Bonsignore
The National Football League on Friday sent a memo to all 32 teams outlining a possible Raiders move to Las Vegas and instructions on how to handle any questions about it.

Most importantly, it discourages teams from assuming a Raiders move to Las Vegas would not be supported by the league and that there are no prohibitions under league rules on a team moving to any particular city.

That doesn’t mean the Raiders would get the necessary 24 votes to move to Las Vegas if they apply for relocation there. But it’s obvious the league will take a look at relocation to Las Vegas as seriously and diligently as they would a move to any city.

Incidentally, Raiders owners Mark Davis and team staff met Friday with Las Vegas Sands chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson about Adelson’s plans to build $1 billion domed stadium on the UNLV campus. The stadium could be a potential landing spot for the Raiders, who are waiting out the San Diego Chargers decision on whether to join the Rams in Los Angeles or remain long term in San Diego.

If the Chargers stay in San Diego, the Raiders would strongly consider joining the Rams in L.A. But if the Chargers move to Los Angeles, the Raiders would absolutely turn to San Diego as a potential new home.

And perhaps even Las Vegas.

Here are the contents of the emailed memo NFL teams received Friday:

There have been reports over the last day about a proposal to construct a new stadium in Las Vegas in connection with a possible move of the Raiders to Las Vegas. If your club owner or executives are asked about this, there is no need to comment. If any comment is offered, please keep the following points in mind:

1. All decisions regarding the location of teams are made by the full membership. Three-fourths of the member clubs must approve any team move.

2. No proposal made to the league. It would be speculative to suggest that your club would or would not support such a proposal. If such a proposal is made, it would be considered under the league’s relocation policies.

3. There is no prohibition under league rules on a team moving to any particular city. Any proposal for relocation would be evaluated based on the same standards as apply to any proposed move. Those standards are well-known, having just been applied in connection with relocation proposals to Los Angeles.

Let us know if you have any questions.

www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2016/01/30/nfl-sends-memo-to-all-32-teams-about-possible-raiders-move-to-las-vegas/

[mikecubs]

1. Vincent Bonsignore ‏@dailynewsvinny 13h13 hours ago
My observation: #Chargers asking for more from SD than #Raiders are from Oakland and SD doing back flips over their reprieve 1/2

2. Vincent Bonsignore ‏@dailynewsvinny 13h13 hours ago
2/2 But via #NFL sources (not #Raiders mind you) Oakland is gloating rather than trying to compromise. From #NFL source: Terrible approach

3. Vincent Bonsignore ‏@dailynewsvinny 20h20 hours ago
Pretty much a given now that SD is out of the picture for 2016 Vincent Bonsignore added,
Marcus Pearl @marcuspearl429

@dailynewsvinny If I said it be smarter for the Raiders to wait until next season before moving, what would be your reaction ?

4.Vincent Bonsignore ‏@dailynewsvinny 21h21 hours ago
Good question. I'm on it! Vincent Bonsignore added,

@dailynewsvinny If Oakland comes up with viable plan for Raiders can Mark decline and relocate to LA if Chargers stay in SD?

[mikecubs]

Oakland Raiders have a new home waiting for them in Levi's Stadium

More than three weeks after the Raiders lost in a game of relocation roulette, rejected in a bid to move south to Carson, Calif., Super Bowl 50 will kick off Sunday as yet another reminder of what could have been — and still remains possible — for the future of the Raiders in the Bay Area.

The game will be played at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, a $1.2 billion facility that was financially supported by the NFL on the condition that it be built as a home for two NFL teams. One of those teams was the neighboring San Francisco 49ers, the only NFL tenant so far in a stadium that opened in 2014. The second possible tenant is a team that might never move in, no matter how much sense it makes for the Raiders, the 49ers, the NFL, Raiders fans and even the city that owns the land underneath it.

“Levi’s Stadium was built to accommodate two home teams,” said Jamie Matthews, the mayor of Santa Clara and chairman of the public stadium authority that owns the stadium. “We already have the locker rooms built for two home teams. We set up the LED lighting so they could change the whole feel of the stadium with the flick of a switch. All the environmental work on it has been completed, and all the work permits. If we had a second team, they could move in tomorrow.”

But they won’t, and only one person gets to say why not: Mark Davis, who took over team ownership after his father died. Davis didn’t respond to an interview request about whether his feelings on the subject might change now that his bid to move to Los Angeles appears to be a longshot. He has steadfastly rejected the possibility of Levi’s Stadium and instead hoped to build a separate stadium in Oakland. After not making progress there, he joined forces with the San Diego Chargers to pursue a $1.7 billion shared stadium in Carson, a suburb of Los Angeles.

That didn’t work, either. NFL owners rejected the Carson project on Jan. 12, sending the Raiders back to Oakland with no viable long-term plan except maybe one. Davis can see it again Sunday when the Carolina Panthers play the Denver Broncos in the Super Bowl, about 30 miles down the bay from the old Oakland Coliseum.

“There are things that could be changed to make it work,” said Marc Ganis, a sports consultant who helped the Raiders and Rams leave Los Angeles for Oakland and St. Louis in 1995. “The point is really an interesting one. Why have they not tried harder?”

The simple answer — they haven't had to. At least not yet.

Splitting costs in Santa Clara

There are plenty of superficial reasons for the Raiders to hate the idea of moving into Levi’s Stadium.

One is the red stadium seats, which clash with the Raiders’ silver and black but is consistent with the colors of the 49ers and Levi’s, the stadium’s naming rights sponsor.

Another is pride. A second team would be a subtenant of the 49ers, according to contract terms between the 49ers and the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, which owns the stadium and is governed by members of Santa Clara’s city council.

But none of that should stand in the way of an attractive business deal for both teams, said Matthews, the mayor, whose city stands to reap more tax revenues with the addition of a second team.

The seat colors could be negotiable. And the 49ers would have a big incentive to create favorable terms for a second team. If stadium costs are shared, that could mean more money to keep for both teams.

“There’s a huge upside for (the 49ers) to want to attract a second team,” Matthews told USA TODAY Sports.

For example, the 49ers pay $24.5 million in rent for the stadium, an amount that only would increase by $1 million with a second team, said Gary Ameling, the city’s finance director. In theory, the 49ers could get the Raiders to split that rent to around $13 million for each.

The 49ers’ profits are private and not disclosed, but city records indicate the team collected around $83.7 million in NFL ticket revenue in 2014, with a 10% surcharge of $8.3 million going to the stadium authority to help pay for stadium costs.

A second team could get its own revenue boost from the stadium while doubling the number of NFL games at the stadium from 10 to 20 games per year.

Similar models have been attractive for other teams. After suffering as tenants at Giants Stadium for 25 years, the New York Jets are co-owners with Giants co-owners at MetLife Stadium, a $1.6 billion facility that opened in 2010. Likewise, after being rejected in their attempt to move to Carson with the Raiders, the San Diego Chargers have agreed on a deal to share a new $2 billion stadium in L.A. with the newly relocated Los Angeles Rams.

The Chargers will play the 2016 season in San Diego but could move to L.A. after that unless San Diego voters unexpectedly approve a new stadium to replace the team’s current 49-year-old facility.

Running low on options

That leaves the Raiders in limbo:

► They can continue on yearly leases in Oakland, playing in perhaps the worst stadium in league.

► They can hold onto the dim hope that the Chargers reject their L.A. option in the next two years. If they do, the Raiders would obtain the right to join the Rams there instead, according to a league agreement.

► They can even try to find a home in another city, potentially costing hundreds of millions for a relocation fee and in new stadium construction, subject to approval that some league owners might not be willing to give.

► Or they can accept a warm welcome and likely favorable financial terms at Levi’s, also subject to NFL approval.

The NFL deferred questions from USA TODAY Sports to the Raiders but confirmed that approval for the stadium’s $200 million in funding from the NFL was conditioned on a second team being able to play there. To make it easier on the Raiders at Levi’s Stadium, Ganis said the league might provide similar support. That could help pay for their share of Levi’s Stadium obligations, including a likely initial payment of $42 million that would be passed on to the city of Santa Clara.

The 49ers have a 40-year lease at Levi’s. They declined comment.

“We are completely focused on helping the NFL host a tremendous Super Bowl experience at Levi’s Stadium, and we understand the Oakland Raiders are focused on their own stadium project,” team spokesman Bob Lange said.

'Show me the numbers’

Mark Davis’ father didn’t like the idea, either, though it’s arguable that he hated it less than his son.

“Al was not as adamantly against it as is current ownership,” Trask said. “My conversations with Al went something like this: I would update him on my discussions with the 49ers, and he would immediately say, 'Hey, I’m not sharing that stadium.' And then after a beat or two, he would say, 'Show me the numbers.' "

The bottom line on the expense side of the ledger wasn’t too hard to figure out.


USA TODAY
Silicon Valley rolls out red carpet for Super Bowl

“There’s an economic and environmental efficiency in sharing a building,” Trask said.

After Davis died, Trask said the subject waned and both teams went their separate ways, with the 49ers eventually helping pull off a California miracle of sorts. Levi’s Stadium is the first new big-league football stadium built in California in nearly 50 years. The facility is largely funded by the proceeds of personal seat licenses, naming rights and rent, plus an estimated $114 million in public funds. Matthews said the stadium’s remaining debt is only about $561 million, nearly half of the stadium’s cost less than two years after it opened.

Before Levi’s, the state’s NFL teams played in stadiums built in 1960, 1966 and 1967. Sunday’s game will be the first Super Bowl in California since 2003.

“It’s tough to build in California,” Trask said. “At the time the 49ers did what they did, it was a magnificent accomplishment because nobody else had been able to do it. From a league perspective, it was like, `Aha! One building solves two problems.’ Again, it’s just market efficiency: one building to solve the problems of two teams.”

The new stadium planned in Inglewood for the Rams will add more luxury to the state’s NFL neighborhood, but that project was possible largely because of the wealth of the L.A. market and the deep pockets of Rams owner Stan Kroenke, who planned to invest more than $800 million in the project.

Other owners in smaller markets would be challenged to build new stadiums without public funding, which can be tough to get these days.

'Far preferable to losing the team’

Even Raiders fans say Levi’s Stadium beats the alternatives outside of Oakland. The team recently opened a swanky new practice facility in nearby Alameda that cost around $8 million. They could keep using that, keep their Oakland name and just play games at the south end of the same Bay on Sundays.

“Would I like going to Levi’s stadium?” asked Jim Zelinski, a lifelong Oakland Raiders fan. “No, but it would be far preferable to losing the team to Southern California or another state.”

Fans’ feelings don’t really matter in this equation, however. Neither do the opinions of the NFL, the city of Santa Clara or the 49ers.

Even though all might have good reasons to want the Raiders to move into Levi’s Stadium, none can make Mark Davis move his team against his will.

“I think the Raiders really want to do their own thing,” Ganis said. “They want their own stadium in the East Bay, but as a free agent they have a lot of places they can go.”

At least until they can’t.

Relocation is subject to league politics and approval from 24 of the league’s 32 owners. Davis has flirted with San Antonio, but the owners of the Dallas Cowboys and Houston Texans might try to block a move into their backyards. The team’s recent interest in Las Vegas also appears to be a longshot based on the league’s historical stance against sports gambling.

If the Chargers leave San Diego, Davis might look there, too. But he’d be trading a 50-year-old stadium in Oakland for a 49-year-old stadium in San Diego unless that city somehow suddenly can provide a suitable stadium for the Raiders after more than a decade of not being able to do so for the Chargers.

Finding the funds to pay for new stadiums can be even more difficult. Unless that new stadium is already built.

“Our fan base is huge here for the Raiders, and it’s huge for the 49ers,” Matthews said. “It’s certainly sufficient to carry both teams, but there are a lot of moving parts. … We’re going to wait until it shakes out. When and if they’re ready, we’re here.”

www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/01/31/oakland-raiders-levis-stadium-santa-clara-san-francisco-49ers-mark-davis/79601796/

[mikecubs]

Billionaire wants $780m in tax money to build an NFL stadium for him in Las Vegas
Posted on February 1, 2016 by Neil deMause
We now have a hint of how Sheldon Adelson’s “public-private partnership” for a Las Vegas football stadium would work, and it’d probably be better called a “public-public-private partnership,” or maybe a “public-private partnership”:

A domed stadium proposed for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas football team has a price tag of $1.2 billion, and developers would seek $780 million in public financing, according to a document provided by Las Vegas Sands Corp., which is leading a consortium behind the project.

Private investors would contribute $420 million toward the planned 65,000-seat stadium, with various tourist-driven tax sources — commercial conveyance on taxicabs, rental car taxes or hotel room taxes — providing the bulk of the funding.

This is more or less the same funding scheme put forward by UNLV two years ago, except that the stadium price tag has gone up by $300 million since then, so the subsidy demand has as well. Putting in $780 million in tax money would be a stupendous amount of public cash — depending on how you count and whether the stadium would also get property tax breaks (probably), it could end up the most expensive public subsidy ever for a football stadium.

Of course, Adelson’s casino company also provided numbers to justify how this would be a great thing for Clark County to spend money on, telling the newspaper that Adelson owns that “the domed stadium would provide $600 million to $800 million in total annual economic benefit,” which is even more than consultant Convention, Sports and Leisure estimated two years ago.

But, you know, inflation or something. Or maybe just the fact that an extra $300 million in cost means you need an extra $300 million in economic benefit to make it still look good, But surely a consultant owned by the Dallas Cowboys and New York Yankees would never reverse-engineer figures like that, right?

www.fieldofschemes.com/2016/02/01/10525/billionaire-wants-780m-in-tax-money-to-build-an-nfl-stadium-for-him-in-las-vegas/#comments

[mikecubs]

^^^This won't ever pass. Vegas tried forever to get public funding for an arena and it never happened. MGM/AEG went private. If the Raiders did get $780M in public funding and did want Vegas the NFL won't say no however.

[mikecubs]

No surprise here. Raiders are going to wait to see what will happen with the Chargers plus it would take time to work out funding in either Oakland, Las Vegas or San Antonio.

Owner Mark Davis says Raiders likely to stay in Oakland for 2016

Raiders owner Mark Davis said Monday that his team is negotiating a one-year lease extension with the O.co Coliseum in Oakland, California, and expects his team will remain in the city for the 2016 season.

"As of today, right now we are in the process of trying to negotiate a one-year extension at the Oakland Coliseum to play the 2016 season there," Davis said in an interview with the San Jose Mercury News' Tim Kawakami for his "TK Show" podcast. "And after we get that done, we'll sit down and try to figure out where the future of the Raiders lies."

Davis said the Raiders remaining in their current situation for 2016 is "not desirable" but "in life, you have to do things that make sense, and this absolutely makes sense."

He said the Raiders are not seeking any changes to the terms of their lease from last season, so it's "up to the city" when the agreement for 2016 is signed. Their current lease expires Feb. 17.

"It's always more challenging when all you're trying to do is a one-year short-term lease,'' Scott McKibben, the head of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority, told The Associated Press. "These are more difficult to get done than a five- or 10- or 20-year lease when you're getting a longer commitment from all parties. But things are moving along, and we are having productive and meaningful discussions.''

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf also told The AP on Monday that she is looking forward to sitting down soon with Davis to negotiate a deal for a new stadium.

"Of course I'm anxious to get them back to the table to talk about a new stadium," she said following a news conference held by the local organizing committee for Super Bowl 50 in the Bay Area. "But I understand that their first focus is where they play next year."

Davis, who has had conversations with billionaire Red McCombs about San Antonio and visited Las Vegas, said he didn't consider any other temporary homes for the Raiders other than the planned Carson, California, project, which failed to gain approval at the recent owners meetings.

He said his visit to Las Vegas last week was "interesting." He said he had a "great meeting" with UNLV, whose contingent included university president Len Jessup and former president Donald Snyder. He said he also met with casino magnates Steve Wynn and Sheldon Adelson and UFC owner Lorenzo Fertitta.

Davis said UNLV is building a new stadium whether there is an NFL team involved or not.

"I think Las Vegas is coming along," he said. "I don't know if the environment is correct for the National Football League or not. That's for the other [31] owners to decide."

Davis said Las Vegas believes "the Raider brand would do well there." He said he was unsure if the NFL would resist a potential move to Las Vegas. The league said in a memo sent to all 32 teams, however, that no city is considered off limits to teams considering relocating.

Davis said he hasn't made a recent visit to San Antonio. He made a visit to the city in 2014.

Davis also said in the interview that there are some other Bay Area sites that could work for the Raiders but that Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, the home of the San Francisco 49ers, isn't one of them. He didn't identify the locations he thought would work in the Bay Area.

"No, it's not," Davis said about the possibility of moving to Levi's Stadium. "I've always said in my mind, it's just not for the Raiders."

As for the reasons, he said the three criteria important to him for a stadium are "ingress, egress and parking."

Davis was also asked about potential interest in moving the team to San Diego if the Chargers decide to follow through with their agreement to partner with the St. Louis Rams on playing in Los Angeles.

Davis said he didn't want to say too much about San Diego because he didn't want to affect the team's negotiations with the city, which he called a "phenomenal place."

"For the Raiders, it would be great because we have a very large Hispanic market, and we think that's something that we could tap into down there," he said.

Still, Davis said he hopes the Chargers are able to get a stadium in San Diego "because I know the fans down there would like to keep them."

Asked for his message to Raiders fans, he said the fans are at the "forefront" of his thoughts on finding a new stadium for the team.

"They have been so patient and so forgiving through all of this that it's unbelievable to me," he said of Raiders fans.

Davis said the Raiders "have to have a home. We have to have a great home, and we want to have a great home," not only for the players, but the fans as well.

espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14694084/oakland-raiders-owner-mark-davis-says-team-negotiating-remain-oakland-oco-coliseum-2016-season

[Bruinsfan]

No, it's not," Davis said about the possibility of moving to Levi's Stadium. "I've always said in my mind, it's just not for the Raiders."

Read more: jetshockeyforum.proboards.com/thread/6906/louis-rams-returning-angeles-spot?page=5#ixzz3z2F9bmQJ



EVEN A 2 year deal with a one year opt out is better for davis than oakland. Putting himself in Santa clara tells the city, "hey we are already gone you want to bring us back? you better wow us! "

A Santa Clara move ups the leverage.

[mikecubs]

If he did take them to Levi's Oakland would be stupid to want them back. They'd still be the Oakland Raiders. The city would still get all the benefits of having a team without have to pay $$$ for the stadium plus they could turn around and save the A's. What boggles my mind is Mark Davis has a solution to stay in market and instead he is flirting with all these cities but fans love him. Yet they hate Lew Wolf and Wolf not one time has suggested taking the A's out of the Bay area.

[mikecubs]

Chargers Plan for San Diego Stadium Comes to Light
The site they've targeted, the steps they'll take, and the timeline they'll follow


In 2015, Carson became a 4-letter word to Chargers fans. But in an ironic twist of fate, now the same strategy the Chargers used to try and make their jump to Los Angeles is likely going to be used to try and build a new stadium in San Diego.
A lot has been made of the Chargers “coming back to the negotiating table” with Mayor Kevin Faulconer and County Supervisor Ron Roberts. If the Chargers plan plays out, local politicians will still have significant input into the process because the team will want and need their support. But, in the end, the content of the citizen’s initiative and the campaign to win support for it will be decided on and funded by the Chargers.
Through a review of financial disclosures in Carson, NBC 7 SportsWrap has learned the members of the team the Chargers put together to fully entitle the land in Carson via a citizen’s initiative. A source close to the Chargers, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the team’s desire to have a citizen’s initiative be their course of action for whichever site is chosen, be it Mission Valley or Downtown San Diego.
“No matter which site is selected — Mission Valley or downtown — the quickest and most legally defensible way to gain the necessary local environmental entitlements will be through the citizen’s initiative process,” said the source. “That process will also involve all interested parties — community groups, fan organizations, organized labor, and the private sector — helping to provide the effort with real momentum in the way that would not be possible as the result of months of quiet, behind the scenes negotiating.”
In reality, the team feels citizen's initiative might be its only option. The Chargers still fear the so-called "quickie" EIR the City did for the Mission Valley site will not stand up to legal challenges and miss the August certification window, making it impossible to put on a November ballot. One more reason to believe the Bolts will be focusing their efforts on Downtown.
Chargers owner Dean Spanos has said publicly he prefers the Downtown stadium idea. To get that done, his best bet is to assemble the same team that got the Carson site entitled in a mere two months.
That team, according to public disclosure forms, consists of the law firm of Latham & Watkins; the political law and lobbying firm of Nielsen Merksamer; the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olsen; global investment firm Goldman Sachs; and of course Chargers Special Counsel Mark Fabiani, and the campaign and signature-gathering team that Fabiani and his partner Chris Lehane assembled. Together they were able to push a citizen’s initiative through in Carson.
Fabiani and Lehane were also able to help Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson secure a new arena for the Kings when it seemed they were destined to move away from the California capitol. The Chargers may have lost out with their Carson proposal, but it’s not because the team working on the legal aspects did not do their jobs.
So with that success in their back pocket, the Chargers’ A-Team is about to be re-assembled for a run at a citizen’s initiative in San Diego, and the Bolts plan on starting that process soon.
NBC 7 SportsWrap was granted access to internal team documents that detail the timeline for putting the citizen’s initiative on the November ballot.
The first major deadline is March 24. That is when the measure must be drafted and ready for filing because the very next day a Notice of Intention, the full proposed legislation and an explanation of it, must be posted for the public to review.
Then on April 15 the public gets involved. That’s the day the petition can be circulated and the signature drive can begin. The Chargers paid for the signature drive in Carson and plan on doing that again in San Diego. This time they’ll need nearly 67,000 people to sign within an eight-week period in order to submit it to the City Clerk for verification.
The next major fencepost is July 18, when the City Council (assuming the signatures are verified) will have options on whether to adopt the initiative by Council action (which is what occurred in Carson) or to put it on the ballot. Assuming the Council chooses to place it before voters, the last possible day to place the citizen’s initiative on the November ballot is August 12.
All that leads up to the November 8 election. If all goes according to the Chargers plan November 8 will also be the day they find out if they can go ahead with a new facility in San Diego or if they take the deal to move in with Stan Kroenke in Inglewood.
That is the timeline we are working with but there is one more factor. Expect a big P.R. push from the Bolts as they try to win back fans and win favor from local decision-makers. The team understands having as many community leaders as they can on a united front makes what they’re about to attempt a whole lot easier.

www.nbcsandiego.com/news/sports/Chargers-Plan-for-San-Diego-Stadium-Comes-to-Light-367238731.html

[mikecubs]

Reid: San Diego gets last chance to keep Chargers

Under the terms of an agreement earlier this month in which the NFL’s owners gave the Chargers the option of joining the Rams in a $2.66 billion stadium in Inglewood, team chairman Dean Spanos has until January 15, 2017 to decide whether to relocate or stay in San Diego.

It would be a mistake, however, to view Spanos decision Friday to play the 2016 season at Qualcomm Stadium as throwing San Diego a year-long lifeline.

In reality the first in a series of crucial steps the Chargers and San Diego city and county officials must complete in order to land the stadium deal that has eluded the franchise for most of this century is already fast approaching.

Spanos met with San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer and San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts on Friday afternoon not long after the Chargers reached an agreement in principle with the Rams to play in Inglewood when the stadium opens in 2019, a deal that provided the safety net that allows Spanos to chase a new stadium in San Diego one final time. If Spanos wasted little time in reaching out to two men whose support of a stadium project will be crucial if it is to stand any chance of public approval in a November election, it’s because there is no time to waste.

The Chargers have set a March 24 target to complete a drafted and vetted citizens initiative on a stadium that the team hopes will receive enough signatures to be placed on the ballot and ultimately approved by San Diego voters in the Nov. 8 election.

Having already spent $20 million over the previous 14 years searching in vain for a replacement to the dilapidated Qualcomm, the Chargers make their 10th, by their count, run at a new stadium with two advantages over their most recent failed attempt – more time and money.

As part of the deal in which the NFL owners approved the Rams relocation to Inglewood, the league also promised to give the Chargers and Raiders each $100 million grants for new stadium projects in their current markets.

Just importantly the Chargers now have the time to do things right.

San Diego’s flawed plan for a proposed $1.1 billion stadium in Mission Valley was doomed primarily by two factors: Faulconer’s decision to ignore the advice of the Chargers and top NFL officials and turn much of the process over to a task force, and a suspect expedited environmental impact review plan that almost certainly if approved would have ended up in litigation potentially for years.

Not only did the task force waste valuable time but it produced, again ignoring the counsel of the Chargers and the league, a problematic proposal full of environmental, fiscal and political red flags. The mistakes of the task force were further compounded by an equally flawed city and county plan for an expedited EIR process that was necessitated by the time wasted by the task force and contradicted a memo from the San Diego city attorney only four months earlier that stated an adequate EIR would take 12-18 months. NFL attorneys and consultants told league commissioner Roger Goodell and executive vice president Eric Grubman, the NFL’s point man on the Los Angeles situation, that the EIR plan was uncertain and risked litigation.

The Chargers’ legal counsel questioned the legality of the plan and warned the team officials that by agreeing to it the franchise risked getting entangled in a costly and lengthy court battle over it. Citing legal concerns about the EIR, the Chargers broke off negotiations with the city and county on the Mission Valley stadium in June.

The Chargers concerns were well founded. In a Sept. 25 letter to San Diego city environmental planner Martha Blake, one of the state’s top environmental law firms, Chatten-Brown & Carstens, representing three San Diego conservation groups, wrote that “The Draft EIR fails to accurately identify and analyze the Project’s significant environmental impacts across a range of topics, including biological resources, health risks, greenhouse gases, air quality, noise, hazards, hydrology, land use, and traffic. We identified a number of new significant impacts and impacts that are substantially more severe than what was presented in the Draft EIR.”

This time any stadium proposal presented to San Diego voters first in this spring’s signature-gathering process and again in a November election will be shaped by the Chargers.

The ballot initiative process, an avenue the Chargers didn’t have the time to pursue last year, is the same path used in passing the Inglewood stadium project and the Chargers and Raiders’ plans for a $1.75 billion venue in Carson. It also allows the Chargers to avoid the lengthy EIR process.

The Chargers are currently putting together a team of consultants to evaluate various issues related to a stadium project. Among those issues is whether to pursue building a stadium in Mission Valley, push for a combined stadium-convention center complex on the city’s downtown waterfront, that the team has previously advocated, or look at another location.

The assessment group is expected to complete their work in the next week to 10 days and then share those assessments with the city.

To get an initiative on the November ballot, the Chargers need to secure the valid signatures of 66,447 registered voters in San Diego, 10 percent of the registered voters in the last city-wide general election.

The proposed legislative act for the Chargers’ final stadium plan must be summed up in no more than 300 words for a notice of intention to be published in a daily general circulation newspaper. The Chargers have a March 25 target date for publication.

If the team hits that date they would then file a series of required affidavits and statements with the City Clerk on April 4. Meeting the March 25 publication date would also allow the Chargers to begin circulating petitions on April 15. The team would then have 180 days to gather signatures. The team is hoping to secure between 90,000-100,000 signatures as a precaution against not getting enough valid signatures.

The Chargers would then file signed initiative petitions with the City Clerk’s office for verification. The clerk’s office has 30 days to verify the signatures. The team hopes to place the certification of signature verification results on the San Diego City Council docket by July 15. Aug. 2 is the last possible regular City Council meeting to place the measure on the Nov. 8 ballot. Aug. 12 is the last day the Council can file a request with the San Diego Board of Supervisors to consolidate the measure with the statewide general election.

And this is where the San Diego process will likely differ with what happened with the Inglewood and Carson city councils. Under state law if the initiatives gather enough valid signatures to be placed on the ballot the local governing body can approve the measure outright without putting it up for election. That is what both the Inglewood and Carson councils did.

San Diego officials, however, have said repeatedly they believe any stadium plan requiring public financing should be placed on the ballot, a stance that has frustrated NFL officials. As recently as an October meeting in San Diego, top NFL officials encouraged local officials to certify an EIR and then see what happens. Even if the San Diego city council did approve the initiative without an election there is the likelihood that citizen’s groups would target referendums against the council decision.

The task force’s 2015 Mission Valley plan called for $350 million in public funding, $200 million from the city, $150 million from the county. The remaining $750 million would come from the Chargers, NFL and the sale of personal seat licenses. The NFL will loan the Chargers $200 million from the league’s G-4 stadium fund. It’s also important to point out that both the Chargers and the league believe the cost of a stadium would be higher than $1.1 billion.

In a Nov. 10 letter to Chris Melvin, the city’s top consultant on the stadium proposal, NFL in-house counsel Jay Bauman and Chris Hardart, the league’s vice president for corporate affairs, questioned whether the “$1.1 billion budget would be sufficient to build the stadium.”

NFL owners have also been skeptical of the $1.1 billion price tag.

“Your numbers are light,” 49ers chief executive Jed York told San Diego officials during a November meeting at the league’s New York headquarters.

All of which brings us to what hasn’t changed from last year – the likely local opposition to public funding for a stadium whether it’s in Mission Valley or on the waterfront.

A poll conducted by Faulconer’s pollster in June found that 51 percent of respondents supported public funds being used to supply one-third of the financing of the new stadium. Forty-one percent said they opposed funding the project, with 8 percent undecided.

Two polls commissioned by the Chargers and conducted last year by two national firms, one including Peter Hart, who oversees the NBC/Wall Street Journal polling, present a vastly different picture. When asked if they favored $350 million from the general fund being used to pay for the proposed stadium, 65 percent of San Diego voters surveyed said no. Thirty-five percent said they favored using public funds to partially finance the project.

Which means if a stadium initiative is going to have any chance of approval, Faulconer, Roberts and other San Diego political and business leaders are going to have to enthusiastically support it.

This, of course, will require some fence mending. The last year has seen a rift between the Chargers and local officials grow. The key now is whether the two sides can play nice.

There are valid arguments to be made on whether professional sports teams with franchise values in the billions should receive any public funding for stadiums or arenas. A case can certainly be made that it’s the ultimate form of corporate welfare.

But for all the local criticism, Spanos did what any owner or businessman would do – he took every step available to protect his company. If the Chargers weren’t shy about leveraging Carson or Inglewood against local officials, weren’t hesitant to use sharp elbows it’s because they had to. It was the aggressive maneuvering that enabled the franchise to the secure financial security for the team’s future that the Inglewood deal represents, a safety net that now allows Spanos and the Chargers to engage in a San Diego stadium effort the team’s fans deserve. If local politicians and corporate leaders got their feelings hurt along the way they need to get over it and get on board.

There are many in the NFL questioning why Spanos hasn’t committed to the Los Angeles market already, why the Chargers’ aren’t driving moving vans up Interstate 5 this weekend instead of pursuing another San Diego stadium project with history and the current climate so obviously against them. Certainly the revenue potential is greater in Los Angeles, to say nothing of how much the franchise’s value would increase by moving just two hours north.

But for whatever reason and as misguided as some might think, Spanos has granted San Diego a reprieve, perhaps not as long as it appears, but nevertheless a final chance that was unimaginable only days ago.

www.ocregister.com/articles/chargers-702164-stadium-diego.html

[mikecubs]

Check out this "for your eyes only" model of the Los Angeles Rams stadium that was just sent to Super Bowl 50 for a private showing with the NFL owners.









www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?s=dd84c9d0546b375c015b01ce208e6ac6&t=1252959&page=331