|
Post by mikecubs on Aug 15, 2017 15:41:57 GMT -6
Why Laney College might want new A’s ballpark next doorT he Oakland A’s have picked up support from a key figure in their hunt for a new ballpark: the chancellor of the Peralta Community College District, which controls land that is at or near the top of the team’s list. The 13-acre site between Laney College and Interstate 880 — one of three potential ballpark locations under consideration — has strong appeal to team executives. Among its advantages: sweeping views of Lake Merritt, proximity to BART and just enough land to create the “vibrant, urban ballpark village” that A’s President Dave Kaval has in mind. But to seal the deal, the Peralta Community College District needs to be persuaded to sell or lease the parcel and uproot its district offices. Until a few weeks ago, that seemed a tall order, with Chancellor Jowel Laguerre, head of the four-college district, saying Laney faculty and students would probably put up a fight against a ballpark plan and that he hoped the team would look elsewhere. But Laguerre said that was before he knew exactly where the stadium would be built. Only Peralta district offices would have to move to make way for a ballpark, not the campus itself, Laguerre says. He has come around to the idea in a big way, brainstorming how the ballpark could provide workforce training for students in the district. “We didn’t have that relationship with the Raiders or Warriors, but here’s an opportunity for us,” he said. “The A’s are in the business of hiring people, and we’re in the business of developing people, so it makes sense to have these conversations.”Some of Laguerre’s ideas: culinary students could intern with stadium concessions, multimedia students with the scoreboard graphics team, police academy students with ballpark security, and design students with the merchandise team.The chancellor said Kaval and his staff are keenly interested. Ultimately, it would be up to the district’s Board of Trustees, some of whom have been involved in the discussions, to approve any land deals. The A’s have long been dissatisfied with the Coliseum, which is more than 50 years old and was made over in the 1990s to accommodate the Raiders when they returned from Los Angeles. At one point the A’s looked seriously at moving to Fremont, then pushed for years to get permission from Major League Baseball to try to build a ballpark in San Jose. When the Giants stuck to their territorial rights to the South Bay, the A’s decided to focus their efforts on Oakland. Besides the Laney site, the A’s are also looking at the Coliseum site and Howard Terminal northwest of Jack London Square. Kaval won’t say which of the three locations A’s owner John Fisher and other team officials favor, but he promises to make an announcement by the end of the year. Those who advocate for building the ballpark next to the Coliseum, on “shovel-ready” land that already has the necessary approvals in place, say the college site may have appeal now, but it’ll be hard to maintain during the years it will take to get permits and other development approvals prior to building. “How do they keep community momentum for five years?” asked Andy Dolich, a former executive vice president of the A’s. Kaval is meeting with business, religious and community groups and surveying local residents around all three sites. Behind the scenes, city analysts are helping his staff collect data on traffic and transportation, and sorting through land-use and ownership issues. “Each aspect to developing a new venue has complexities and things you wouldn’t foresee. If you have the right partners, these things have a way of working themselves out,” Kaval said. “We can’t do this in a vacuum. We need the community and commitment from everyone.” Pat Gallagher, a longtime Giants executive who helped with the marketing and business development of AT&T Park, said there will be pushback from neighbors and groups wherever a new ballpark goes. Teams need to create a political strategy and assemble allies to help them navigate regulations and permitting, he said. The A’s bargaining position, with both the city and residents, will be helped by the departure within the next few years of the Raiders to Las Vegas and the Warriors across the bay, said Daniel Rascher, a University of San Francisco economist and sports management professor. Even though the A’s have committed to privately financing the ballpark, infrastructure work could cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. Being the last game in town may prove useful in negotiations, Rascher said. “Infrastructure, environmental impacts, right of way, ingress and egress, and residential displacement are difficult and very specific to each situation,” Rascher said. “It really behooves the team to be out on the ground talking to people block by block and getting buy-in. That’s why it’s a slow process.” Thus far, city officials are mostly steering clear of stadium conversations — at least publicly. Mayor Libby Schaaf, who favored the Howard Terminal site along the waterfront, has backed away in recent weeks from vocally advocating for her desired location. City Councilman Abel Guillén, a former Peralta trustee whose district includes Laney College, wouldn’t say whether he supports a ballpark at the site. He and other East Bay politicians say they are just happy the A’s want to remain in Oakland. Ignacio De La Fuente, a former City Council president and also a member of the joint powers board, said a project as big as a stadium will never be accomplished without a champion in City Hall to shepherd it through the various approval stages. “It takes political will and risk — a 24/7, 100 percent commitment by the people who have the power to make decisions,” he said. “Someone needs to be willing to put their political power behind a project. The A’s need to feel confident someone is responsible. You can’t negotiate with 20 people.” De La Fuente said he fears too many community demands will be placed on the A’s and the ballpark will become a “political football” amid re-election campaigns next year, hindering its approval. “The community sometimes thinks these projects are going to solve all the problems we have in Oakland,” he said. “It’s the responsibility of elected officials to make sure the demands and expectations placed on businesses are realistic. Otherwise it’s pie in the sky, and nothing ever happens.” For Laguerre, though, asking the A’s to give students jobs and internships is sensible. “The A’s will be the team we have left in Oakland, and we really need to put our arms around it and make it feel welcome wherever it goes,” the chancellor said. “We’re talking about huge potential community benefits. These are things we should have been doing a long time ago.” www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Why-Laney-College-might-want-new-A-s-ballpark-11740617.php
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Aug 15, 2017 16:03:14 GMT -6
A very long interview with A's president Dave Kaval. A very interesting read Key things -“One of the reasons we’re building a stadium is that it allows us to jump into that top quartile of spending on players,” Kaval says. “Right now we’re at over a $100 million disadvantage compared to the Giants or Dodgers because they have more revenue streams. They have premium tickets and sponsorships and other event revenue and all this other stuff that we don’t have, and it obviously drives their media value and things like that.” -“We’re trying to do it as soon as possible, but we’re also being very deliberate because if we do this right this is a 100-year decision. “We don’t want to build a ballpark and then build another one in 20 years. We want to have a Fenway or a Wrigley that can stand the test of time, that can be here for a hundred years, that can be built into a neighborhood with a ballpark village and be a lasting part of the community. That’s something we’re taking very seriously and we’re spending a lot of time, money resources and effort to make that happen.” fansided.com/2017/05/03/oakland-as-dave-kaval-stadium-rumors/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Nov 14, 2017 8:27:30 GMT -6
Raiders break ground in front of 1,000 at Las Vegas ceremonyThe Oakland Raiders' impending move to Las Vegas by 2020 took another step closer to reality with Monday's groundbreaking ceremony, an event attended by close to 1,000 guests, officials and media. The event had the glitz of a headliner on the Strip, with Wayne Newton and Carlos Santana in the front row and George Lopez the emcee. It had the power of the NFL in owners Robert Kraft, Stan Kroenke, Dean Spanos and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell -- and the awe of Raiders royalty Howie Long, Fred Biletnikoff, Jim Plunkett, Tom Flores and Cliff Branch. It also featured a touching tribute to the 58 victims of the Oct. 1 shooting with streams of light to the sky and music by Judith Hill and a choir. "Only in Vegas," Goodell said, "can you turn a groundbreaking ceremony into a show." Said Raiders owner Mark Davis: "I hope my dad would be proud." The Raiders' relocation to Las Vegas was a plan years in the making -- Davis' late father tried for years to get a new stadium in Oakland and Los Angeles, where the franchise played from 1982 through 1994, before moving back to Oakland -- that began again in earnest when NFL owners shot down their plans to move to Los Angeles in January 2016. Shortly after, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson announced his interest in helping build a domed stadium near the UNLV campus that could be shared by a professional team and the school. Lobbying began, and the Nevada Legislature approved a tax increase to contribute $750 million to the project. Adelson later withdrew his $650 million pledge from the project, and the Raiders chose a different site for the stadium. A loan from Bank of America took Adelson's place. UNLV and the Raiders will still share the stadium, but the joint-use agreement is pending. Contractors have a tight deadline, as they plan to complete the stadium in time for the 2020 season. Raiders president Marc Badain called the $1.9 billion, 65,000-seat dome with a grass field that will be rolled in and out of the stadium a "massive" project. "We know the labor force here does things that no other market can do," said Badain, who also acknowledged the early leg work of Adelson. Still, Davis recognized the balancing act he has to perform in Oakland while building the brand in Las Vegas. The Raiders have a lease to play at the Oakland Coliseum in 2018 and are open to playing there again in 2019 before moving to Southern Nevada in 2020. "I think it's going to be the same as it's been," Davis said. "We've concentrated on the football and trying to keep all these things separated. And I think we've done a really good job of keeping that on the football side of the building. My focus is on giving them everything we need to win." Davis referenced the multi-million dollar training facility the Raiders added to their Alameda complex two years ago. "It's all about winning, and providing them with everything they need to win," Davis said. "We're the Oakland Raiders right now and we're going to try to bring a championship up there. But in 2020, we're going to be the Las Vegas Raiders, and we're proud of that. But the fans are the most important thing to us as well, and they've been very understanding. There's a lot of people that may have their feelings hurt; they may feel hurt, right now." Davis said he has spoken with Bay Area fans and tried to explain why the move was necessary, and while they may understand, they don't necessarily agree. Long told ESPN.com that for the Raiders to be competitive, the team needed a state-of-the art facility. And it was not going to happen in Oakland. "Priorities 1, 2 and 3 were to keep it in Oakland," Long said. "I think every player that's ever played in Oakland would have hoped that it could have gotten done there. If you're going to be upset with someone, be upset with the right people." Long was amazed with the backdrop of the gleaming Las Vegas Strip, but moreso of what he saw in the wake of the Oct. 1 tragedy and how the city came together at the NHL Vegas Golden Knights' opening game. "It's a real community," Long said. "People don't think of Vegas that way. They think of the Strip. But you walk away with a sense of community. Every politician in a three-state radius, I think, was in that room." Including Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, who thanked the Raiders for the tribute to those who perished in the shooting attack last month. "In Nevada, a handshake still means a handshake and a deal's a deal and these men are men of integrity and it's a class organization," Sandoval said of Davis and Badain. "It's those small things that made today a reality ... today, it's real." The groundbreaking ceremony finished, Davis was on to his next project. "I want to see if I can get Tom Brady's passport revoked before Sunday," Davis said. The Raiders play Brady and the New England Patriots in Mexico City this weekend. www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21406040/oakland-raiders-break-ground-las-vegas-ceremony
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Nov 14, 2017 11:38:58 GMT -6
^ if this year is an indicator of how the raiders will perform in the future, atleast the golden knights dont have to compete with a dynasty football team lol another lucky break for bettman
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Nov 14, 2017 16:53:48 GMT -6
^^The Raiders are still loaded with Carr, Cooper, Mack. I didn't predict the start of a dynasty this year though I did think they'd win the division or at least a wild card. Carr did miss a couple games with a broke bone in his back.
The lame duck thing hurts. They need a LOT more defensive help for Mack. They can't stop the run. This years draft class has done NOTHING! I still think the Raiders have a good shot at the last wild card when you consider Buffalo has it and they traded away a good chunk of their team to tank for draft picks.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 4, 2018 1:43:30 GMT -6
Clark County officials have agreed to sell the bonds for the Raiders new stadium lasvegassun.com/news/2018/apr/03/county-oks-selling-bonds-for-raiders-stadium/This was the last hurdle to get the stadium built. Even though they broke ground on it the stadium wasn't 100% official. The Raiders were on the hook for all the preliminary work for over $100M dollars. Here is a web cam of stadium construction. They have the hole dug and they are going to start going vertical now www.raiders.com/lasvegas/live-stadium-camera.htmlThank god they are gone from Oakland! What a total Crap show their 2nd stint in Oakland was. Sometimes you CAN'T go home again.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 4, 2018 3:17:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 4, 2018 3:19:35 GMT -6
Good off season for the Raiders with a bunch of depth signings and bringing Jon Gruden out of retirement. Gruden would only leave the TV booth for the right job, he left for the Raiders due to the young talent(Carr,Cooper,Mack).
|
|
|
Post by DEATHBYPOPCORN1990 on Apr 5, 2018 17:43:36 GMT -6
Since the NFL has shown it moves teams rather frequently and then awards teams back into the abandoned market, they should implement a rule that grants the brand to that city, and must remain as the brand in that city if the team physically leaves for another market.
The Texans could have been the Oilers in Houston if Tennessee had become the Titans first off.
Browns remained the Browns in Cleveland only because Baltimore changed their name, however if rule would have been in place, the Ravens could have been the Colts.
Rams move to St. Louis had to be Rams as the Cardinals were in Arizona after moving from St. Louis
Rams back to Los Angeles from St. Louis is okay, however see scenario above.
The scenarios are many actually when you think about them all.....
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Apr 5, 2018 18:21:05 GMT -6
Since the NFL has shown it moves teams rather frequently and then awards teams back into the abandoned market, they should implement a rule that grants the brand to that city, and must remain as the brand in that city if the team physically leaves for another market. The Texans could have been the Oilers in Houston if Tennessee had become the Titans first off. Browns remained the Browns in Cleveland only because Baltimore changed their name, however if rule would have been in place, the Ravens could have been the Colts. Rams move to St. Louis had to be Rams as the Cardinals were in Arizona after moving from St. Louis Rams back to Los Angeles from St. Louis is okay, however see scenario above. The scenarios are many actually when you think about them all..... I would have thought that after all the legal trouble with the Browns moving to Baltimore that the league had set the precident that history and names belong to the city, not the franchise. But the LA teams went in the complete opposite direction.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 5, 2018 23:44:28 GMT -6
Since the NFL has shown it moves teams rather frequently and then awards teams back into the abandoned market, they should implement a rule that grants the brand to that city, and must remain as the brand in that city if the team physically leaves for another market. The Texans could have been the Oilers in Houston if Tennessee had become the Titans first off. Browns remained the Browns in Cleveland only because Baltimore changed their name, however if rule would have been in place, the Ravens could have been the Colts. Rams move to St. Louis had to be Rams as the Cardinals were in Arizona after moving from St. Louis Rams back to Los Angeles from St. Louis is okay, however see scenario above. The scenarios are many actually when you think about them all..... I would normally agree with you in the vast majority of cases but this one is different/a total outlier. This wasn't like a Jets in the NHL/Rams/Supersonics/Nordiques return(if the NHL ever gave Quebec a shot) The Raiders lost too many bay area fans when they went to LA. When they were gone for 13 years the 49ers won 5 super bowls in that time period. Too many people shifted to 49ers and the Raiders couldn't win them back. The return was a debacle worst than the Coyotes fiasco except for the fact that the national TV deal mitigated things. Building Mt. Davis was a totally 100% rip off for the tax payers and the thing is the Raiders have so few fans it hasn't been used the past 5 years. Talk about adding insult to injury. Al Davis was senile when he returned. To get fans back they needed to hit the ground running. Davis instead ran the team into the ground, there was the PSL's debacle/lawsuits etc...(see below) plus they p1ssed off a lot of A's fans by building Mt. Davis and ruining the views of the Oakland foothills. The Raiders had so few fans Mark Davis was literally going to build a minor league 55,000 seat stadium with only 90 luxury boxes if they stayed. Keep in mind the next smallest stadium is Chicago with 61,500 and they charge MASSIVE prices. When they asked Davis why so small he admitted the Raiders don't have that many fans/corporate support. There are also these problems. The Raiders needed 100s of millions in taxpayer funding to build the minor league stadium. California does NOT go for public funding. END OF DISCUSSION!!! The 49ers stadium was almost all private, LA went without football for 20+ years until a privately funded stadium was built, San Diego balked on public funding and people actually cared about the Chargers. California is also the leading state at rebelling against football because of CTE. High school football participation is down double the national average. They are one of the states leading the charge against youth football and have a bill pending to ban it. If football is ever killed someday the beginning of the end will be started in California. Liberals are against football and California is OVERWHELMING liberal. Football isn't come back to Oakland it failed twice now. This isn't like Winnipeg/Cleveland/Charlotte/Seattle/LA Rams where most of the stadium was outdated and you fix that and all is well. Too much other crap happened in Oakland besides the Coliseum being outdated and the ship has sailed. Oakland's focus is on helping the A's privately finance a park and liberal stuff like taking care of illegal aliens. Google Libby Schaff and illegal aliens. Houston wanted a different name/brand. Bud Adams was the guy who moved the Oilers and he was an oil man so most Houston fans wanted something new. They aren't attached to Oilers like Winnipeg to Jets, Seattle to Supersonics, Cleveland to Browns, Charlotte to Hornets.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 6, 2018 0:00:07 GMT -6
This is from 2005 and how it all went wrong. Not every return has a happy Jets/soon to be Supersonics like ending Weak PSL sales mean trouble for the RaidersThe upcoming Raiders football season could prove to be a pivotal one for the team, the fans and, perhaps most of all, Oakland and Alameda County taxpayers. No, the team isn't moving, but when the 2005 NFL season ends in January, so will the 10-year obligation of nearly 25,000 ticket-holders whose purchase of personal seat licenses is inextricably linked to the public financing of the deal that brought the team back to its Oakland roots in 1995. It's fourth down and long for the team and its public landlords, who this month agreed to pay $3 million more in public funds this year to come up with a plan to persuade Raiders fans to dip into their pockets again -- thousands of them paid $250 to $4,000 per seat a decade ago -- for PSLs that guarantee holders the rights to season tickets. Before the team agreed to leave Los Angeles, where its fan base rose and fell with the team's won-loss record, it asked for nearly $200 million in stadium improvements that included Mount Davis, a 10,000-seat addition that rises above the rest of McAfee Coliseum.The Alameda County Coliseum Authority's plan to cover the cost of construction was based on PSL revenue for the 62,000-seat Coliseum. But before the first season back in Oakland had ended, it was clear that the taxpayers were going to get stuck with a big chunk of the bill. Just 39,000 PSLs sold at first, and thousands of fans have since forfeited them.
Why would anyone want to invest in something that isn't worth anything, given that there are more than 35,000 tickets available without the hefty surcharge?
Patrick O'Connell, auditor-controller for the authority, estimated revenues at between $115 million and $120 million from Raiders games since 1995. The total includes a percentage of food concessions and parking revenue, he said. On top of that, the team's lackluster performance in its first two years was coupled with bitter, nasty off-the-field battles between team officials and local government that erupted into a court duel. The team filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming elected officials defrauded the team into signing the deal by allegedly telling them the first season of home games were sold out when they weren't. A Sacramento jury in 2003 awarded the team $34.5 million.Taxpayers are right to be ticked off because the annual subsidies of nearly $20 million will only climb if fans abandon the PSL plan when it expires at season's end -- and there is every reason to expect they will. It doesn't take a degree in quantum physics to calculate the savings of purchasing game-day ticket because sellouts at Raiders games have been as erratic as the team's performance. For every PSL holder who opts out at the end of the season, count another brick on the pile for John Q. Public. At a time when local governments are struggling to pay for basic services such as parks and street maintenance, health programs and youth programs, the annual handouts to the football team are hard to swallow. "Most of the PSL holders I know, and I know a lot of them, don't want to pay for the license anymore," said Alameda County Supervisor Gail Steele, chair of the Coliseum authority board. "We are trying to build a relationship with the Raiders, and it's getting better by working together on how to move forward with the new marketing campaign." Steele said her colleagues hope to hammer out a plan by the end of the summer, even against seemingly long odds. "We are very aware that we have to take care of the PSL holders," Steele added. Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente, one of the architects of the deal that brought the Raiders home, said Coliseum authority officials are looking for ways to enhance the value of a PSL in a bid to resuscitate the idea. "It's not going to be an easy task, but we are going to have to find a way to add value to the PSLs," De La Fuente said. Among some of the ideas being tossed around include converting PSLs into lifetime guarantees of a game-day seat (even though at this point, the Raiders' lease to play in Oakland expires in 2010). Licenses could be enhanced with VIP parking, food discounts and giving holders perks at events held at the Arena at Oakland, he said. Another possible perk on the table: A PSL holder could be given first choice to purchase concert tickets to potentially sold-out events like the Eagles and U2 performances scheduled at the arena this fall. There is also talk of giving PSL holders a chance to enter the stadium an hour ahead of everyone, giving them some pre-game face time with players. None of the ideas have been formally reviewed by the Coliseum board or approved by either the public agency or the football team, De La Fuente acknowledged. But after spending a decade at each other's throats, it appears that the futures of board members and the team's fortunes seem to go hand in hand. They need each other now more than ever. For elected officials, increasing the burden on taxpayers because of a poorly planned deal doesn't help anyone get re-elected, or even move on to a higher office. For the Raiders, the Raider Nation will remain as hard-core and faithful as any fan base in the country, but not even the costumed behemoths who live and die with every snap are going to pay for a PSL premium when regular-priced seats are available for every game. www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Weak-PSL-sales-mean-trouble-for-the-Raiders-2654677.php
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 6, 2018 0:04:29 GMT -6
Another flash from the past LOL Oakland Raiders to reduce capacity of stadium in order to avoid blackoutsCapacity for Raiders games at O.co Coliseum will be reduced by nearly 10,000 to 53,200 in 2013, and approximately 4,850 season-ticket holders from the east side high-rise structure known as “Mount Davis” will be relocated, the club announced Wednesday. Raiders CEO Amy Trask described the decision as a “tool” to ensure games remain on local television as well as to promote more of a community and family-friendly atmosphere.Fans who paid $260 per season ticket on the east side structure will be moved to the west side third deck, and their tickets will cost $250 this season — or $25 per game including preseason games. All seats in the west side third deck from sections 304 through 330 will be $250 per season ticket — even those that previously cost $610 or $460 depending on how close they were to the 50-yard line. “It certainly makes this entire third deck very, very attractive to families — especially families with a lot of kids,” Trask said. All other season ticket prices will be reduced $10. In reducing the maximum capacity from 63,132 to 53,200, the Raiders will have the smallest venue in the NFL. Soldier Field, home of the Chicago Bears, seats 61,500. With invoices having gone out to season-ticket holders starting Tuesday, Trask said it’s too early to tell if the Raiders’ 4-12 season in 2012 will cause a reduction in the amount of renewals for 2013. Reaction to relocation has been met with concern with some season-ticket holders, although Trask said the Raiders will work with fans who want to stay near those they consider neighbors and friends. “Some people are just a little hesitant about change. … It’s not an insignificant but not an overwhelming number,” Trask said. The east side structure, built under terms of a deal that brought the Raiders back to Oakland from Los Angeles in 1995, probably will be covered with a tarp. Fans and media have long called it “Mount Davis” after Al Davis, the late Raiders owner. The Raiders had just one television blackout in eight regular-season games in 2012 with help from the NFL’s “85 percent” rule, which allowed them to declare a sellout (and give the NFL a bigger cut of the ticket sales) if 85 percent of their non-suite tickets were sold by Thursday. The average regular-season attendance for the Raiders in 2012 was 54,217. Trask said closing of the east structure would be made in lieu of the 85 percent rule. The club is also planning to eliminate other “tools” to achieve sellouts, such as 2-for-1 ticket giveaways sponsored by companies such as Compass Media and Hawaiian Airlines. The A’s have tarped off sections of the third deck since 2006, reducing capacity for baseball to the 34,000 range. The Jacksonville Jaguars have reduced capacity by approximately 10,000 in the same manner. According to Trask, NFL rules state that once a club closes off a section, it cannot be reopened for any games regardless of ticket demand — even in the case of the postseason. Trask said the Raiders are continuing to focus their energy for a new stadium on the current site and have been in talks with the city and county, with the next round of discussions coming next week. There have been discussions, but not recently, about the possibility of sharing the 49ers’ new stadium in Santa Clara. “We have not closed the door on that opportunity, but our focus is on this site,” Trask said. Regarding unconfirmed reports that Raiders owner Mark Davis is looking to add a new executive and has interviewed NFL executive vice president of operations Ray Anderson and former Madison Square Garden president Scott O’Neal, Trask said: “I have enjoyed participating in the discussions we’ve had with each of those gentlemen, but we don’t have anything to announce in that regard yet.” www.mercurynews.com/2013/02/06/oakland-raiders-to-reduce-capacity-of-stadium-in-order-to-avoid-blackouts/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 6, 2018 0:14:00 GMT -6
Raiders leaving Oakland because not enough interest in them staying Snip 1. Years of sales, marketing and on-field neglect made the Raiders a poor revenue generator by changing NFL standards. The Raiders had been making money but they were also accepting supplemental revenue sharing from the league which was about to dry up. 2. Oakland and Alameda County chose not to bail out the Raiders A SECOND TIME after getting royally screwed the first time. Mount Davis is among the greatest architectural mistakes of the last three centuries, and it still isn’t close to being paid off, so the city and county made the utterly defensible stand of getting out of the stadium game entirely by making a deal with the Fortress corporation that gave the NFL no leverage – and the NFL loves leverage the way you love puppies. 3. Mark Davis has been eager to show how desperate he is to leave but has been remarkably silent on casting blame toward Oakland (and to that point, nobody in Alameda County government has called Davis any names either). The normal owner tack is to deflect blame by savaging the government that wouldn’t build them palaces, and yet the quiet here would deafen crickets.4. There has been remarkably little outrage in town over the proposed move, far less than San Diego or St. Louis. This has been considered a fait accompli for awhile now, and even those good souls who desperately wanted to keep the Raiders have been relying on the kindnesses of contrarian owners to save them because it worked as recently as a year ago. www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/raiders/raiders-leaving-oakland-because-not-enough-interest-them-staying
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 6, 2018 0:23:44 GMT -6
The move to LA and all the mistakes in the return KILLED the Oakland Raiders. The move to LA was pointless in the 1st place because LA didn't have a new stadium either and they had to leave after 13 years. They should have stayed in the 1st place because before they left the 1st time they were very popular at the time and regularly sold out. They should have eventually moved into Levi's Stadium and shared with the 49ers. But the Raiders couldn't do that after the return because there's no way in hell they could fill 68,500 seats and they'd be embarrassed.
Most Oakland people are hardly upset they left to outright ecstatic. The few fans they have can make the road trips to Vegas or become 49er fans or quit football like "DR. Death" did.
The IMPORTANT thing in all this isn't the Raiders history at all. That's irrelevant. What's important is saving the Oakland A's Oakland's only team left that NEVER abandoned them like the Raiders did twice now and that is willing to 100% PRIVATELY finance their facility(since they have fans unlike the Raiders) and make the Mt. Davis debt go away to top it off!!!!!!!! Saving the only team that plays in a non CTE sport plus greatly helping the tax payers is a win for all!!!!!
|
|