NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[bosrs1]

Has any thought been given in Oakland to tearing down the old half of the Coliseum if the A's ever leave, build a new half similar to Mt. Davis, and voila, brand-new half a stadium.

On Andrew Clem's excellent site, he has diagrams for this possibility, but I wasn't sure if this was ever seriously talked about.

Of course, the A's have to leave first.

No. In part because Mt Davis has some deficiencies of it's own that would have to be addressed (not the least of which was the poor design of the upper half of that half of the stadium). The only thing they've explored is a complete rebuild. But that still doesn't solve the problem of money, of which the Raiders and city of Oakland have none. I mean hell, they're still paying off Mt. Davis.

[ninersdd]

Maybe there can be a way to get rid of the obscene amount of foul territory there is at the Coliseum.

[bosrs1]

Maybe there can be a way to get rid of the obscene amount of foul territory there is st the Coliseum.

Not really. I mean they could fill some in with temp seats but all that does is make an already huge first deck even bigger. They can't be permanent seats due to the football field configuration. The Coliseum is one of those stadiums that is structurally deficient in the way it was designed like most multipurpose venues. And no amount of tweaks will change that.

[DaytonBlue]

Has any thought been given in Oakland to tearing down the old half of the Coliseum if the A's ever leave, build a new half similar to Mt. Davis, and voila, brand-new half a stadium.

On Andrew Clem's excellent site, he has diagrams for this possibility, but I wasn't sure if this was ever seriously talked about.

Of course, the A's have to leave first.

No. In part because Mt Davis has some deficiencies of it's own that would have to be addressed (not the least of which was the poor design of the upper half of that half of the stadium). The only thing they've explored is a complete rebuild. But that still doesn't solve the problem of money, of which the Raiders and city of Oakland have none. I mean hell, they're still paying off Mt. Davis.

sounds like Memphis college football...their video board was obsolete years ago and it's not paid for yet

[The_Admiral]

The enormous foul territory in Oakland is one of my favorite stadium quirks. With everyone trying to build bandboxes with slivers of foul ground, I like that there's still one park left that will swallow you whole if you should pop one up.

[Gothamite]

Lots of empty seats in the game last night. I wonder how many seats the Jaguars had to buy to get the blackout lifted?

[Mac the Knife]

If the A's were to move (preferably getting that stadium they want), it'd be perfect for the Raiders: they could move into Windlestick temporarily, raze the Oakland Coliseum, then build a brand-new, state of the art facility at its location.

[bosrs1]

If the A's were to move (preferably getting that stadium they want), it'd be perfect for the Raiders: they could move into Windlestick temporarily, raze the Oakland Coliseum, then build a brand-new, state of the art facility at its location.

True. And it is looking like the A's are gone. Jerry Reinsdorf is pimping the idea for Wolff and Selig now too. Which bodes well. But the big issue for the Raiders is still the money. They have none. They'll need 800 million minimum.

[Mac the Knife]

If the A's were to move (preferably getting that stadium they want), it'd be perfect for the Raiders: they could move into Windlestick temporarily, raze the Oakland Coliseum, then build a brand-new, state of the art facility at its location.

True. And it is looking like the A's are gone. Jerry Reinsdorf is pimping the idea for Wolff and Selig now too. Which bodes well. But the big issue for the Raiders is still the money. They have none. They'll need 800 million minimum.

You don't think that between access to G-3 loans, other loans, and the ability to sell up to 24% of the equity in the club (reports I've read say A.D. Football, Inc., Al's corporation, held 75% of the club, or at least that was the case several years ago), they can't muster $800M? They have resources the A's don't, so I'm guessing financing wouldn't be a problem.

[bosrs1]

If the A's were to move (preferably getting that stadium they want), it'd be perfect for the Raiders: they could move into Windlestick temporarily, raze the Oakland Coliseum, then build a brand-new, state of the art facility at its location.

True. And it is looking like the A's are gone. Jerry Reinsdorf is pimping the idea for Wolff and Selig now too. Which bodes well. But the big issue for the Raiders is still the money. They have none. They'll need 800 million minimum.

You don't think that between access to G-3 loans, other loans, and the ability to sell up to 24% of the equity in the club (reports I've read say A.D. Football, Inc., Al's corporation, held 75% of the club, or at least that was the case several years ago), they can't muster $800M? They have resources the A's don't, so I'm guessing financing wouldn't be a problem.

Well supposedly G-3 won't be an option. The post CBA G-3 only includes money for one stadium in the bay area (hence why the NFL has been pushing a combined Niners/Raiders stadium). And the Niners have already sucked all that up. Also have to remove any public funding as Oakland has none now that redevelopment is dead. I believe Al sold off a sizeable chunk of the club to minority investors a few years ago so his heirs aren't holding 75%. But even if they were I question whether anyone would loan them 800 million in Oakland. I mean the only way the Niners got their similar infusion is because Santa Clara co-signed on the Niners loans and is backing them. With Oakland's financial situation I don't see them co-signing, not that it would be as much help as Santa Clara was anyway.

I honestly question if they have any resources the A's don't have or even the ones the A's do have. I mean they're already going to have to dump part of the team when Al's wife dies due to the family not having enough money to pay the estate tax. And it fits, if you look at the Raiders traditionally, they haven't spent any money on big projects outside team building. They were working toward public stadium improvements in Oakland in the 70's, a new public stadium in the 80's in LA, and in 95 they conned Oakland into a $150 million public renovation of the Coliseum.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Any word on if the Niners will keep San Francisco as their name?

It sounds silly not to, but Santa Clara is roughly 40 miles from SF and it's basically affixed to another major city in San Jose.

It's not like the Jets and Giants playing East Rutherford, because that's all metro NYC; Pistons playing in Auburn Hills; etc, etc. The Bay area contains 3 major centres in SF, Oakland and San Jose.

It would kind of seem weird if they changed the name but also weird if they kept it, if that makes sense.

[TBGKon]

I can't see the Niners changing their locality moniker unless they're contractually obligated.

[illwauk]

San Francisco is also the name of the actual bay that gives the entire region its name (San Francisco Bay Area), so the 49ers moving to Santa Clara and keeping their name intact isn't quite the same as if the A's were to move to or near San Jose, but still identify as an Oakland club.

[NJTank]

How far is Arlington to Dallas?

[BBTV]

I could be mistaken about this, but isn't the entire area considered the "San Francisco Bay Area"?

If so, I can see a team that plays in any of the centers using that centers name (sort of like how the Nets are using Brooklyn), but it'd be really strange if they did the shared stadium thing and you had the "Oakland" raiders playing in San Jose or Santa Clara or wherever. Wouldn't that be like the Brooklyn Nets playing in Manhattan?

[NJTank]

I could be mistaken about this, but isn't the entire area considered the "San Francisco Bay Area"?

If so, I can see a team that plays in any of the centers using that centers name (sort of like how the Nets are using Brooklyn), but it'd be really strange if they did the shared stadium thing and you had the "Oakland" raiders playing in San Jose or Santa Clara or wherever. Wouldn't that be like the Brooklyn Nets playing in Manhattan?

In 1941/42 the Brooklyn Americans Hockey team played in MSG.

[McCall]

I could be mistaken about this, but isn't the entire area considered the "San Francisco Bay Area"?

If so, I can see a team that plays in any of the centers using that centers name (sort of like how the Nets are using Brooklyn), but it'd be really strange if they did the shared stadium thing and you had the "Oakland" raiders playing in San Jose or Santa Clara or wherever. Wouldn't that be like the Brooklyn Nets playing in Manhattan?

Manahattan College is the Bronx. Kind of the same thing.

[Burmy]

Has any thought been given in Oakland to tearing down the old half of the Coliseum if the A's ever leave, build a new half similar to Mt. Davis, and voila, brand-new half a stadium.

On Andrew Clem's excellent site, he has diagrams for this possibility, but I wasn't sure if this was ever seriously talked about.

Of course, the A's have to leave first.

Or how about the Raiders leave first to share that new stadium with the Niners, then Mount Davis gets torn down, the O.co gets spruced up, and becomes that BEAUTIFUL ballpark I know it can be?

[BBTV]

I could be mistaken about this, but isn't the entire area considered the "San Francisco Bay Area"?

If so, I can see a team that plays in any of the centers using that centers name (sort of like how the Nets are using Brooklyn), but it'd be really strange if they did the shared stadium thing and you had the "Oakland" raiders playing in San Jose or Santa Clara or wherever. Wouldn't that be like the Brooklyn Nets playing in Manhattan?

Manahattan College is the Bronx. Kind of the same thing.

Sort of, but not really. I look at it as the name of the college being "Manhattan College", as opposed to a pro-sports name where the location-designator is often used to show what area the team represents. I get what you're saying though, I just think that from a marketing perspective it's very different.

[bosrs1]

Has any thought been given in Oakland to tearing down the old half of the Coliseum if the A's ever leave, build a new half similar to Mt. Davis, and voila, brand-new half a stadium.

On Andrew Clem's excellent site, he has diagrams for this possibility, but I wasn't sure if this was ever seriously talked about.

Of course, the A's have to leave first.

Or how about the Raiders leave first to share that new stadium with the Niners, then Mount Davis gets torn down, the O.co gets spruced up, and becomes that BEAUTIFUL ballpark I know it can be?

Won't happen. The Coliseum was never a "baseball park" unlike say it's contemporary down in Anaheim. For an Anaheim style rebuild in Oakland to be effective would require completely tearing down now only Mt. Davis but also the entire original bowl (as it's not properly aligned for baseball and never has been) and rebuild it with baseball as it's only focus. And that's just in the ballpark. Outside the city would have to invest in a huge capital improvement program to lure in the kind of gentrification that has occurred in concert with downtown ballparks across MLB (ie: a new ballpark in Oakland at the Coliseum site with the current crap neighborhoods around it would be an utter failure). And all of that again supposes the team, league and city would be willing to pony up to do so. The team and league won't spend money on something like that and the city has no money to spend on something like that.)