Gothamite Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The article doesn't make it clear, but considering both teams are still publicly holding out hope of stadium deals in their current cities, it must be contingent upon those deals not going through.Davis says Oakland is his preferred home for team (SF Gate)"That's our No. 1 priority, to stay in Oakland, always has been and will continue to be," (Raiders owner Mark) Davis said. "We're really trying to stay, and now there's a great opportunity in Los Angeles. We need to get something done." The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 If a city as laissez-faire about football as St. Louis could get scared straight into building a stadium and not paying anyone any overtime to do it, San Diego will probably find a way. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Y'know, I think if I were Jerry Richardson or Stephen Ross, I'd get an option on 200 acres of undeveloped land somewhere east of Los Angeles and announce "The Carolina Panthers (or Miami Dolphins) have acquired an option to purchase land for a new stadium in Los Angeles. If our municipality doesn't give in to our demands to pay for improvements to our facilities - despite the fact that we own them and that public money wasn't used to build them in the first place - we'll have to consider relocating for 2016. Turn the thing into a total cluster****.Net-net of all I've read above: the Rams are still in the driver's seat. The land is Kroenke's, they've apparently done all the special California legal mumbo-jumbo it would take to get the thing built, or at least enough of it to put shovels in dirt within the next year. The Chargers and Raiders have committed to buy land, but in fact haven't bought squat; while there's a potential the seller would try to make them buy, odds are there's a default penalty involved - if the deal's not closed by a certain date, the seller keeps anything paid to date as liquidated damages, and keeps the land. That's not uncommon.Unless and until at least one of them makes an application to the NFL - and I still say despite Goodell's edict they should do it now, rather than wait another year - or alternately starts pulling up Mayflower vans to their team headquarters at midnight? It's all speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 So it turns out that the Chargers/Raiders/NFL haven't actually purchased the land yet.San Diego Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani confirmed to NBC's San Diego station that the land purchase for a new joint stadium for the Chargers and Oakland Raiders football teams has not been finalized.Fabiani confirmed this in an email late Friday, a day after the announcement of the joint stadium proposal in Carson.“The project is subject to a binding purchase and sale agreement,” Fabiani wrote in the email. “All parties are bound by the agreement.” When NBC 7 first reached out to Fabiani he said, the "land has been purchased through a binding agreement with the seller."In a press release, the seller of the property was identified as Starwood Capital Group, a company affiliated with Carson Marketplace. Tom Johnson, a spokesperson for the company, confirmed Starwood still owns the land. In an email he said, “we are excited by the prospects for the project."Johnson added in an email the Chargers have control over the land.Fabiani said the sale “is not contingent on anything” and “the buyer is obligated to buy. The seller is obligated to sell. Period.” NBC-LA LinkSounds like it's just a matter of literally crossing the t's and dotting the i's, and actually signing the agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Mayor expedites S.D. stadium planhttp://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12365477/san-diego-mayor-expedites-chargers-stadium-plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 If a city as laissez-faire about football as St. Louis could get scared straight into building a stadium and not paying anyone any overtime to do it, San Diego will probably find a way.There it is! ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Sounds like it's just a matter of literally crossing the t's and dotting the i's, and actually signing the agreement.Yes, but they haven't actually done it yet. Because both teams are preferring to leverage this possible purchase into new stadiums in their current homes. If they really wanted to move, the purchase would already have happened. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Exactly, Goth... I'm guessing that Davis and Spanos decided, "We'll throw in on this together... whichever one of us gets a deal in our home city first stays, the other stirs up **** until Kroenke agrees to make us equal partners in the place he's building for the Rams in L.A." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 San Diego getting a new stadium built probably does St. Louis in. I'm sure the Raiders and probably the league would prefer to join the Rams in LA. And at that point, there's no teams left. So we'll see where they're at in 3 months, I suppose. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I agree - the Chargers are the only real competition Kroenke has for LA. The Raiders are hangers-on, not driving any deals. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2001mark Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Well, Peter King's realignment idea seems doable...AFC WestDenverKansas CityLos Angeles RaidersSt. Louis RamsNFC WestArizona CardinalsLos Angeles ChargersSan Francisco 49ersSeattle SeahawksThus giving Missouri in-state rivals, to help both the Chiefs & Rams. Chargers lose the Raiders rivalry, gain the 49ers. Who knows... call me when it's over... 20yrs & counting. @2001mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Well, Peter King's realignment idea seems doable...AFC WestDenverKansas CityLos Angeles RaidersSt. Louis RamsNFC WestArizona CardinalsLos Angeles ChargersSan Francisco 49ersSeattle SeahawksThus giving Missouri in-state rivals, to help both the Chiefs & Rams. Chargers lose the Raiders rivalry, gain the 49ers. Who knows... call me when it's over... 20yrs & counting.Not to turn this into a pointless realignment thread, but I think if the Raiders go to L.A. along with the Chargers, it's the Raiders that go to the NFC West - it would give Raider fans remaining in Oakland one guaranteed game in the region each year, versus one every eight years if they remain in the AFC. While his father might rise from the grave and beat the **** out of him for agreeing to it, Mark Davis would be willing to make the move to the NFC at this point just to get a guaranteed source of stadium revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The St. Louis group is apparently gauging public support. Perhaps for a future vote. This was just shared elsewhere by someone who received the invite. It doesn't seem to be an open invitation, so the link itself won't do much good. We Need Your Feedback Dear St. Louis Rams Fan: As you know a task force for the City of St. Louis is developing plans for a new open-air stadium in the St. Louis area to replace the Edward Jones Dome as the home of the St. Louis Rams. The Edward Jones Dome has served as the home of the St. Louis Rams since opening in 1995, but has undergone minimal capital improvements over the past 21 years and has since become one of the oldest and most outdated facilities in the National Football League (NFL). The NFL and each of its franchises are putting an increased emphasis on enhancing the in-stadium experience for its fans. As a means of providing a unique and exciting experience for fans and the corporate community alike, we are currently assessing a new open-air stadium in the St. Louis area. Conventions, Sports & Leisure International, a sports facility planning and advisory firm located in Plano, Texas, is currently conducting a market feasibility study to determine the potential support for a new open-air stadium. As part of the study efforts, your participation in an online survey is very important to us so that informed decisions can be made regarding a potential new open-air stadium. CLICK HERE TO TAKE THE SURVEY https://gate.customintercept.com/CSL-StLouisRams Thank you in advance for your participation! JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 EDIT: Just see below. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Sorry for the flurry of posts. It's clearer now. The NFL is actually behind the survey. The St. Louis stadium task force AND the Rams are helping. http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/nfl-sending-market-surveys-to-st-louis-rams-fans/article_557f6203-67f8-57b5-9b97-78030da3a690.html JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Well, Peter King's realignment idea seems doable...AFC WestDenverKansas CityLos Angeles RaidersSt. Louis RamsNFC WestArizona CardinalsLos Angeles ChargersSan Francisco 49ersSeattle SeahawksThus giving Missouri in-state rivals, to help both the Chiefs & Rams. Chargers lose the Raiders rivalry, gain the 49ers. Who knows... call me when it's over... 20yrs & counting.Not to turn this into a pointless realignment thread, but I think if the Raiders go to L.A. along with the Chargers, it's the Raiders that go to the NFC West - it would give Raider fans remaining in Oakland one guaranteed game in the region each year, versus one every eight years if they remain in the AFC. While his father might rise from the grave and beat the **** out of him for agreeing to it, Mark Davis would be willing to make the move to the NFC at this point just to get a guaranteed source of stadium revenue.That's actually not a bad point regarding having the Raiders come back annually rather than every eight years to the Bay Area. Then again that might be a reason NOT to do it as well given the history of violence between fans when the Raiders and Niners meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2001mark Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 - @2001mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 It was reported months ago that the Raiders were willing to move to the NFC. Peter King didn't think it through.As stated above, the Raiders are along for the ride no matter what. They won't be calling any shots. Sad that a storied franchise seems relegated to secondary status no matter which market it ends up in...EDIT:Here's a blog from the Arizona Cardinals website in October on the Raiders' willingness to switch to NFC:http://blog.azcardinals.com/2014/10/08/the-nfl-l-a-and-raiders-in-nfc-west/It mentions Seattle moving back to the AFC, but am I crazy to suggest that the Rams are a better fit with Kansas City and Denver as closer potential geographic rivalries *if* this Raiders-Chargers plan is the one that wins the favor of the NFL and St. Louis stays put? (Always thought the AFC South would be perfect, but Jacksonville is no longer in the L.A. running.) Plus Seattle's success in the NFC makes it hard to imagine they'd go willingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Money the issue with keeping Raiders in OaklandBy Matthew Artz martz@bayareanewsgroup.com OAKLAND -- One day after the Raiders and San Diego Chargers announced a plan to build a shared stadium 17 miles south of Los Angeles, local leaders were adamant Friday about not spending large amounts of taxpayer money to build the Raiders a new home here -- a condition that imperils efforts to keep the team. As city officials in Carson held a celebratory news conference to describe their planned $1.7 billion football palace, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf reiterated her staunch opposition to any public subsidy for a new stadium. And Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley castigated a private developer who is trying to get a Raiders stadium built in Oakland for wanting too much taxpayer money. "We want to make sure we protect the public's dollars," Miley said. The roots of their reluctance lie, in part, in the deal that brought the Raiders back from Los Angeles 20 years ago. Taxpayers from Berkeley to Fremont remain on the hook for more than $100 million in renovations to a stadium the team now wants torn down. Many Raiders fans on Friday were lamenting potentially losing their favorite team once again, but residents no longer appear willing to lavish millionaire owners with new home fields -- even a no-frills stadium like the Coliseum. A city-commissioned poll released this month found that keeping the A's and Raiders finished last among 20 spending priorities for the 701 Oakland residents randomly polled. Only 7 percent of those polled were willing to pay significantly more to keep the teams. The low likelihood of a public stadium subsidy may have nudged the Raiders toward Los Angeles, where there is more private money available for stadium financing, sports economists said. But they also say the Los Angeles proposal has plenty of potential pitfalls and might amount to little more than an attempt by Raiders owner Mark Davis to improve his leverage in Oakland, where he insists he wants to stay. "From the Raiders' point of view this is a good strategic move," said Stanford University economics professor Roger Noll. "A lot of people like sports and would still be willing to be taxed more to keep a team. If you create an environment of stress and an emergency you just might be able to get it." In their joint statement, the Raiders and Chargers said they will spend the rest of this year trying to work out stadium deals in their hometowns while also moving ahead with the project in Carson, where they have a binding deal to buy 168 acres.The teams, however, would need approval from three-quarters of NFL owners to make the move. That remains a big question mark because Stan Kroenke, the owner of the St. Louis Rams and one of the wealthiest men in the league, has a proposed stadium development in Inglewood that is closer to downtown Los Angeles and further along in the development process."With Kroenke, you know the resources are present to do it," said Robert Boland, a professor of sports economics at New York University.Now that three teams are interested in Los Angeles and the NFL is expected to approve only one or two teams for the city, the league could be in for a turbulent year. Addressing the issue Friday, the league said only that it was in regular contacts with teams seeking to move "and all clubs have been meeting their responsibilities to keep us informed."Stadium experts raised the possibility that if St. Louis approves a new taxpayer-funded stadium, Kroenke could end up bringing a different franchise to Los Angeles. They also said the Raiders could end up as Kroenke's tenant in a new stadium, although Davis had been adamant about not having the Raiders be a tenant at the 49ers' new stadium in Santa Clara. Another potential pitfall for the Raiders-Chargers stadium plan is the mechanics of two teams working together on a multibillion project in a city that neither one calls home. With no established fan bases to market to, the teams could find themselves competing against each other in selling tickets and luxury suites. "If they don't cooperate perfectly, they could face a lot of challenges," Boland said.On the positive side, luxury suites and stadium naming rights -- both key to privately funding football stadiums -- are worth more in Los Angeles than in a smaller city like Oakland, Boland said.There remains many questions about the ability to privately fund a Raiders football stadium in Oakland because of the deal that brought the Raiders back from Los Angeles 20 years ago. The $200 million in bonds that helped pay for expanding the Coliseum was supposed to be paid by fans buying the rights to purchase season tickets. But the sales never materialized, and both city and county taxpayers ended up footing the costs.Even today, the Raiders have a small market for premium seating, a city-commissioned report found.The 2013 report from the firm Aecom, advised that a new Raiders stadium include 75 luxury suites and 4,700 club seats. By comparison, the 49ers' Levi's Stadium, which to this point has not required a major public subsidy, has 165 luxury suites and 8,500 club seats."It's very hard to generate private money for football stadiums because they don't generate enough income to make it a worthwhile investment," Noll said.Oakland's plan to keep the Raiders has been to try to find a third-party private developer who could close what is estimated to be a $500 million funding gap in return for development rights to adjacent land -- and presumably a share of the team. Giving away development rights for a football stadium, however, could make it less desirable for the A's to finance a ballpark development on the Coliseum site.After two development groups dropped out, the city is now working with a team led by San Diego businessman Floyd Kephart. City leaders say they believe that Kephart, who heads a hedge-fund advising firm, has strong financial backing, but he has so far refused to disclose his investors even to some city and county officials. Kephart said via email Friday that he will be more forthcoming when a stadium deal is in place.To move forward on a deal, Kephart needs buy-in from Alameda County, which jointly owns the Coliseum property with Oakland. Miley, the county supervisor, said he expected the county to eventually hop on board, but he still had concerns about the outstanding debt on the Coliseum and infrastructure costs to transform the property into a lively urban center, which Miley expected to cost the public more than $100 million."All we need is Floyd Kephart to come up with some money and not expect the public sector to come up with all the money," Miley said.Financial obstacles to Raiders stadium in Oakland Bond debt: The city of Oakland and Alameda County still owe more than $100 million on O.Co Coliseum.Infrastructure costs: While city and county are adamant about not subsidizing stadium construction, they are expected to pay for major infrastructure improvements at the Coliseum complex -- anticipated in excess of $100 million.Stadium costs: There is an estimated $500 million shortfall for construction of a new Raiders stadium.A's: A deal to give development rights to an investor in the football stadium could leave the A's less willing and able to consider a ballpark-themed development on the Coliseum site. http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_27570535/money-issue-keeping-raiders-oakland?source=rss So Oakland still owed $100 million on the renovations from 20 years ago? Yet... Both the Raiders’ owner and its president have personally pledged to Oakland officials over the last week that a new stadium in the city remains the team's first priority. The city is in exclusive talks with an investor group around development of “Coliseum City,” which would include housing and retail as well as a new stadium for the Raiders. After a long delay, the county is now also at the table.Zelinski concedes it doesn't look good that the teams have already bought land in Carson. But he believes the Raiders should not leave home again.In Oakland, he argues, the team has a site with ideal freeway, commuter rail, regional train and even airport access; an opportunity to tap an ascendant economy spurred by the region’s technology boom and sharp rise in wealth; and “the greatest fan base, period.” “I would ask [owner] Mark Davis to remember his own words,” Zelinski said. “After the Raiders beat the Chiefs last season in their first win, he said, ‘You can’t buy the type of support we have here.’ That cannot be overemphasized."What other fan base would show up in such numbers despite the uncertainty over the last three or four years, despite playing in this stadium. For me, this is like a second home.” This community, he added, "has given nothing but blind, most unbelievably passionate support to this team. Mark Davis has an opportunity to create an enduring legacy that would benefit the East Bay for generations, and I would ask him to consider the support that the East Bay has given his family and his franchise.”Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, a commissioner for the joint powers authority that manages the Oakland Coliseum site, said the county is moving methodically to come to agreement with the city on a development plan."We come to the table with the full intention of keeping the Raiders in Oakland," he said, "and I don’t think that they have to move to some small town outside of L.A. As my wife said, ‘Is that in Nevada?’ ”http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oakland-raiders-fans-20150223-story.htmlCity and county officials are trying to use even more taxpayer money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 St. Louis and Missouri still owe plenty on the Edward Jones Dome, too, but they're trying to spend hundreds of millions more also. It's all crummy. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.