The Raiders relocation thread (3/27 viva Las Vegas Raiders!!!)

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,425
5 owners/team prezes saying the move is likely to happen
Thanks.

Yeah, the press release by Goodell in response to the mayor of Oaklands proposal was ominous. He basically said the proposal was lacking in all the important details and was a piece of shit.

True? I have no idea, I didn't read it. Do you have any insight into it GF09?
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
Yes. Essentially, the NFL wanted to stay in Oakland and act as the developer for the Raiders new stadium. The NFL's three main desires were these:

-The NFL wanted all 120 acres of Coliseum real estate to develop along with re-building the stadium
-The City of Oakland / County of Alameda had to confirm that they would honor the clause in the Raider's lease that would evict the A's if the Raiders had a stadium plan
-The NFL / Raiders had to have control of the development, not a third party developer.

The Ronnie Lott / Fortress Investment Group was brought in by Oakland Mayor Libby Schaf and came up with a plan that built a stadium on 55 acres of the Coliseum land,made no mention of the A's being inconvenienced in the slightest, gave Fortress the right to "loan" $600M to the project with a piece of the Raiders as collateral (schedule and rate of repayment not mentioned at any point to date) and gave all development rights to the rest of the land around the Coliseum to Fortress, not the NFL and the Raiders. Further, the plan called for a special stadium tax to be paid by the Raiders to repay the city for ~$200M in infrastructure improvements around the stadium, mostly moving the BART line and redoing the 880 offramp.

So what the owners are voting for today is either a Las Vegas plan that gives the Raiders total control of the site of their choice and a piece of every revenue the stadium ever takes in, with no obligation to every pay back anything but their bank loan from BofA, that also gives $750M dollars in public stadium money and $900M in public infrastructure improvements that don't have to be paid back. Or they can vote for the plan outlined above that violates the NFL's lending rules (you can't borrow against the team), ensures minimal profits for the team, and sets the precedent that non LA / NY markets can keep their team without paying up public money.

I'm sad they are leaving Oakland again, but I think Mark Davis is made himself a hell of a business opportunity and I completely understand why he is doing it and why the NFL is allowing it.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,425
Yes. Essentially, the NFL wanted to stay in Oakland and act as the developer for the Raiders new stadium. The NFL's three main desires were these:

-The NFL wanted all 120 acres of Coliseum real estate to develop along with re-building the stadium
-The City of Oakland / County of Alameda had to confirm that they would honor the clause in the Raider's lease that would evict the A's if the Raiders had a stadium plan
-The NFL / Raiders had to have control of the development, not a third party developer.

The Ronnie Lott / Fortress Investment Group was brought in by Oakland Mayor Libby Schaf and came up with a plan that built a stadium on 55 acres of the Coliseum land,made no mention of the A's being inconvenienced in the slightest, gave Fortress the right to "loan" $600M to the project with a piece of the Raiders as collateral (schedule and rate of repayment not mentioned at any point to date) and gave all development rights to the rest of the land around the Coliseum to Fortress, not the NFL and the Raiders. Further, the plan called for a special stadium tax to be paid by the Raiders to repay the city for ~$200M in infrastructure improvements around the stadium, mostly moving the BART line and redoing the 880 offramp.

So what the owners are voting for today is either a Las Vegas plan that gives the Raiders total control of the site of their choice and a piece of every revenue the stadium ever takes in, with no obligation to every pay back anything but their bank loan from BofA, that also gives $750M dollars in public stadium money and $900M in public infrastructure improvements that don't have to be paid back. Or they can vote for the plan outlined above that violates the NFL's lending rules (you can't borrow against the team), ensures minimal profits for the team, and sets the precedent that non LA / NY markets can keep their team without paying up public money.

I'm sad they are leaving Oakland again, but I think Mark Davis is made himself a hell of a business opportunity and I completely understand why he is doing it and why the NFL is allowing it.
Awesome insight. Thanks, GF09.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,759
Pittsburgh, PA
yeah that's a great post GF, I had no idea about the terms of the Oakland proposal and that's really well-summarized.

The cloak-and-dagger articles last year all said that Davis lost the LA relocation wars to Kroenke because there was a perception Davis couldn't bring the money, was a bit of a simpleton and didn't know how to play hardball. Boy were they wrong.

Good for the Raiders. If today's vote goes through, they're on very solid financial footing, they're in commuting distance for all of their california-based fans, they're in a city that's a match made in heaven for them, and they'll continue to be an entertaining team and fanbase. As someone who always wishes the NFL were a little less militaristic and a little more fun-loving, it's damned hard for me as a Pats fan to muster any hate I'm supposed to feel for that franchise.
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,826
Northern Colorado
Yeah, Mark Davis made out quite well here. Just a year ago he was rightfully pissed about the league sabotaging his plans for LA and placing the Rams and Chargers ahead of his franchise. Now, to pull this rabbit out of his hat, and in less than a year, too, is quite remarkable.

He may look silly with that terrible haircut, but this is an impressive deal. Coupled with the success he's instilled in the franchise again (perhaps more due to Mackenzie than him, but he hired Mackenzie and has stayed out of his way) and his short reign as owner has been impressive to say the least.
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,826
Northern Colorado
Gunfighter breaks it down well, but that Oakland proposal is about saving face, politically. It's not competitive with the Vegas Deal. Oakland had years to get something done and they never did. They essentially called Davis' bluff, even after last year when it became clear he wasn't bluffing. Then, when it became apparent he had a strong hand with this Vegas deal, they were left grasping at straws.

The fanbase knows it, too. This isn't Cleveland or Baltimore moving in the middle of the night. This isn't even St. Louis, which had a more viable proposal but less fan support. This is a franchise and fanbase that were loyal to each other (after Al came back, that is), almost to a fault, but could not get any semblance of support from the political leaders.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
Gunfighter breaks it down well, but that Oakland proposal is about saving face, politically. It's not competitive with the Vegas Deal. Oakland had years to get something done and they never did. They essentially called Davis' bluff, even after last year when it became clear he wasn't bluffing. Then, when it became apparent he had a strong hand with this Vegas deal, they were left grasping at straws.

The fanbase knows it, too. This isn't Cleveland or Baltimore moving in the middle of the night. This isn't even St. Louis, which had a more viable proposal but less fan support. This is a franchise and fanbase that were loyal to each other (after Al came back, that is), almost to a fault, but could not get any semblance of support from the political leaders.
The state of California does not negotiate with terrorists.

In all seriousness, California is a state that has correctly evaluated that pro sports franchises aren't of any real value to them, and as such if the teams want to take advantage of the large prosperous markets in California they should pony up their own billions. Eventually a team will probably move back to Oakland on their own dime, same as LA, it's a big prosperous market, and at some point that is a bigger draw than fleecing a city and state for your stadium.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,943
Silver Spring, MD
The state of California does not negotiate with terrorists.

In all seriousness, California is a state that has correctly evaluated that pro sports franchises aren't of any real value to them, and as such if the teams want to take advantage of the large prosperous markets in California they should pony up their own billions. Eventually a team will probably move back to Oakland on their own dime, same as LA, it's a big prosperous market, and at some point that is a bigger draw than fleecing a city and state for your stadium.
Why is Oakland a big prosperous market when there's a team already in Santa Clara? The Bay Area is only the 11th largest US metro area by population.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
I hate team relocations on principle. It sucks for the local fans and business owners in umpteen ways.

After having been in Vegas last week though, it's going to be a helluva attraction for visiting fans. I'm already ready to book a travel package for the first time the Pats play there.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
So in the space of four years, we go from no Pro Bowl or X-games to an anchored franchise --

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/nfl-shows-no-interest-games-proposed-unlv-stadium

An NFL spokesman said this week it's unlikely the league would have any interest in staging an all-star game event such as the Pro Bowl at the proposed UNLV stadium. The stadium project is $800 million to $900 million and boosters plan to seek state legislative approval of a tax district contained to the UNLV campus to help pay for construction.

In an email to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy wrote sports gambling in Las Vegas is the reason the NFL would not likely get involved in holding a Pro Bowl or approving preseason games here.
We all know why, and that's fine. I just don't want to hear another word from these people about gambling ever, ever again.

The NFL will not alter it's position on that -- unless and until it gets a piece of the action, of course.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
How many of the season ticket buyers are going to be actual "Raiders" fans vs people looking to cash in on whichever marquee team is coming to town that week?
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,826
Northern Colorado
The state of California does not negotiate with terrorists.

In all seriousness, California is a state that has correctly evaluated that pro sports franchises aren't of any real value to them, and as such if the teams want to take advantage of the large prosperous markets in California they should pony up their own billions. Eventually a team will probably move back to Oakland on their own dime, same as LA, it's a big prosperous market, and at some point that is a bigger draw than fleecing a city and state for your stadium.
There's something to be said for this approach, sure, and the debate of whether or not tax funds should be used at all to fund professional sporting venues is an important one and a much bigger issue. However, while Oakland has, in reality, taken this stance, they're also being duplicitous with the recent proposal that wasn't actually viable.

I would have more respect for Mayor Libby if she admitted as such. Perhaps even taking a public stance against this is a winning proposition ("Good for you, Raiders. You got the money we were never going to give you, so enjoy Vegas."). Like most (all?) politicians, she and others in Oakland are trying to have it both ways.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,759
Pittsburgh, PA
Why is Oakland a big prosperous market when there's a team already in Santa Clara? The Bay Area is only the 11th largest US metro area by population.
Have to factor per-capita disposable income into that. It's a lot easier to sell a ton of high-end corporate boxes there than in, say, Philly (#7) or Miami (#8). Plus even on a raw population basis, #11 sure beats the hell out of Jacksonville (#40) or Nashville (#36).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
Why is Oakland a big prosperous market when there's a team already in Santa Clara? The Bay Area is only the 11th largest US metro area by population.
It's the 11th biggest metro by population and the highest-income by a significant margin. It's basically the same size as DC Metro (2 teams) but with a much higher amount of per-capita income. It also has a huge business base to sell luxury boxes etc. to. It's one of the most attractive markets in the country after NY, LA and maybe Chicago, if you aren't considering gov't subsidy.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
I don't think the state as a whole is bothered, because just as the NFL, there are now two good markets open for any owner that wants to pull a Kroenke and move to a good market in a prosperous state on mostly their own dime.

NFL teams in California

2015: 3
2016: 4
2017: 4
2018: 4*
2019: 3*

*(unless an owner moves to one of the two vacated markets)
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,276
Larry Reid an OAK city council member just had a press conference and pretty much said he wants to see if they can evict the Raiders Immediately
 

PayrodsFirstClutchHit

Bob Kraft's Season Ticket Robin Hoodie
SoSH Member
Jun 29, 2006
8,319
Winterport, ME
No, but it would be suggestive about the reliability of those sell-outs going into the future.
I do not see a scenario in the next decade where Vegas cannot sell out 8 games per season with a combination of casual fans in town for the weekend + visiting team fans + LV locals + Raider fans willing to travel. The travel costs from the LA area are not a factor, so what do you see as the barrier to selling these games out?
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
It's the 11th biggest metro by population and the highest-income by a significant margin. It's basically the same size as DC Metro (2 teams) but with a much higher amount of per-capita income. It also has a huge business base to sell luxury boxes etc. to. It's one of the most attractive markets in the country after NY, LA and maybe Chicago, if you aren't considering gov't subsidy.
The problem is that it has a high percentage of immigrants (both foreign and domestic), who do not have ties to the local sports community. I lived in the Bay Area for a few years and never cared about the teams, although I did enjoy getting Oakland A's seats right on third base for basically nothing.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
The state of California does not negotiate with terrorists.

In all seriousness, California is a state that has correctly evaluated that pro sports franchises aren't of any real value to them, and as such if the teams want to take advantage of the large prosperous markets in California they should pony up their own billions. Eventually a team will probably move back to Oakland on their own dime, same as LA, it's a big prosperous market, and at some point that is a bigger draw than fleecing a city and state for your stadium.
Yep, that's awesome for California....and while I'm fine with this for the Raiders I also love the eviction idea.

Larry Reid an OAK city council member just had a press conference and pretty much said he wants to see if they can evict the Raiders Immediately
yeah that's a great post GF, I had no idea about the terms of the Oakland proposal and that's really well-summarized.

The cloak-and-dagger articles last year all said that Davis lost the LA relocation wars to Kroenke because there was a perception Davis couldn't bring the money, was a bit of a simpleton and didn't know how to play hardball. Boy were they wrong.

Good for the Raiders. If today's vote goes through, they're on very solid financial footing, they're in commuting distance for all of their california-based fans, they're in a city that's a match made in heaven for them, and they'll continue to be an entertaining team and fanbase. As someone who always wishes the NFL were a little less militaristic and a little more fun-loving, it's damned hard for me as a Pats fan to muster any hate I'm supposed to feel for that franchise.
The funny thing is that the Raiders in Vegas will likely be the most popular team in Southern California. If they could ever get the high speed train built between Vegas and L.A. that'd be even more of a lock.
 

B H Kim

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2003
5,719
Washington, DC
It's the 11th biggest metro by population and the highest-income by a significant margin. It's basically the same size as DC Metro (2 teams) but with a much higher amount of per-capita income. It also has a huge business base to sell luxury boxes etc. to. It's one of the most attractive markets in the country after NY, LA and maybe Chicago, if you aren't considering gov't subsidy.
Unrelated to the discussion, but this is true only if you count Baltimore as part of the DC metro area. Median household income in DC metro alone is higher than SF/Oakland metro (which is how the Census Bureau calculates the data). (And even if you consider the combined DC/Baltimore metro, median income is not that much lower than SF/Oak.)
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
Unrelated to the discussion, but this is true only if you count Baltimore as part of the DC metro area. Median household income in DC metro alone is higher than SF/Oakland metro (which is how the Census Bureau calculates the data). (And even if you consider the combined DC/Baltimore metro, median income is not that much lower than SF/Oak.)
I'm including Baltimore because that is what you need to come anywhere near the population, the data I see has the bay at 63,000 or so with BAL/DC at around 57,000. BAL/DC is high (3rd) but still SF is over 10% higher.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
How many of the season ticket buyers are going to be actual "Raiders" fans vs people looking to cash in on whichever marquee team is coming to town that week?
And casinos for comps.

Between Oakland being salty for however long the Raiders choose to remain in NoCal during the transition and the highly nomadic population of Vegas, the Raiders are going to have the worst home crowd for quite a while.
 
Last edited:

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
@Gunfighter 09 What is your prediction for how long the Raiders will stay in the bay area? I assume this upcoming season is a certainty, but what about 2018-19? Mark Davis has said recently that they plan to remain for 2 more seasons, regardless of what happens with the Vegas decision. They can't really stay for that long with fan base having diminishing enthusiasm, can they? There are rumors that the Raiders are looking at using UNLV's stadium, but I understand there is a lease commitment for the Coliseum through the next 2 seasons. I'm not aware of the details.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
Why is Oakland a big prosperous market when there's a team already in Santa Clara? The Bay Area is only the 11th largest US metro area by population.
I think for the purposes of understanding the market for NFL attendance, it probably makes sense to look at the larger Combined Statistical Areas, which aggregate adjacent metro areas, rather than Metropolitan Statistical Areas. SF-Oakland is the 11th metro area by MSA population (i.e. only SF-Oakland-Hayward), which means you exclude the whole San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA, which is almost 2 million people (plus is the home of Levi's Stadium).

Edit: You can't both say "there's a team already in Santa Clara" and then say "the Bay Area is only the 11th largest US metro area", because it's only the 11th if you consider Santa Clara to be part of a separate metro area from SF/Oakland.

If you look at the whole San Jose-SF-Oakland CSA, the Bay Area has the 5th-largest population in the country, after NY, LA, Chicago, and DC/Baltimore.
 
Last edited:

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
It's the 11th biggest metro by population and the highest-income by a significant margin. It's basically the same size as DC Metro (2 teams) but with a much higher amount of per-capita income. It also has a huge business base to sell luxury boxes etc. to. It's one of the most attractive markets in the country after NY, LA and maybe Chicago, if you aren't considering gov't subsidy.
As I mentioned above, it's really the 5th biggest metro by population. But let's not exaggerate how much more it earns than DC. They're probably the two wealthiest large metro areas, and they're about equivalent: the median San Jose-SF-Oakland CSA household income is $83,692 , and the DC-Baltimore CSA one is $83,181.
 
Last edited:

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
Anyway, the Raiders should embrace the whole Vegas identity. Make the captains call red or black on a giant roulette wheel to start the game instead of a boring ol' coin flip. Make the "Make It Rain" celebration mandatory for Raiders players, kind of like the Lambeau Leap. Have "The House Always Wins" emblazoned on the outside of the Vegas stadium. The whole shebang.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,759
Pittsburgh, PA
I love it. One can only speculate where Mark Davis's newly-unlocked business genius will take this.

After leveling a WR with a certain number, a safety will find the nearest mic and scream "Always hit on 17!".

DMCA rights claims against fan-filmed video from inside the stadium will be met by the blanket statement, "what happens here stays here".

If a third-down run is stuffed, the jumbotrons will encourage the opposing coach to go "double or nothing" on 4th. After that is stuffed, they will play the Michael Corleone clip, "my offer to you is this: nothing."

The gatorade coolers will say "while playing, you always drink for free" on the side.

Audible plays screamed out by name: Siegfried, Roy, Penn, and Teller. "Celine" if they're desperate.
 

DegenerateSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2006
2,064
Flagstaff, AZ
Anyway, the Raiders should embrace the whole Vegas identity. Make the captains call red or black on a giant roulette wheel to start the game instead of a boring ol' coin flip. Make the "Make It Rain" celebration mandatory for Raiders players, kind of like the Lambeau Leap. Have "The House Always Wins" emblazoned on the outside of the Vegas stadium. The whole shebang.
That's fucking golden. I think they should have a scoreboard that accounts for the point spread in the display.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
And casinos for comps.

Between Oakland being salty for however long the Raiders choose to remain in NoCal during the transition and the highly nomadic population of Vegas, the Raiders are going to have the worst home crowd for quite a while.
In terms of attendance the NFL is a totally different animal than any other pro sport. We're talking about filling 70K seats eight times a year in Vegas. The market has a population of 2 million, the Raiders have a national following, and every opponent is going to be running travel packages for road trips. Like every other NFL franchise, if the team is at all competitive they'll fill the place.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
In terms of attendance the NFL is a totally different animal than any other pro sport. We're talking about filling 70K seats eight times a year in Vegas. The market has a population of 2 million, the Raiders have a national following, and every opponent is going to be running travel packages for road trips. Like every other NFL franchise, if the team is at all competitive they'll fill the place.
They'll fill the place competitive or not, no doubt, between packages and casino comps. But they won't be Raiders fans. It'll be like going to Camden ten years ago for a Sox game and a 'Yankees suck' chant breaks out because the place is 80% Sox fans. They just aren't going to recreate the Black Hole. I still think it's great and the right move for the franchise, but it does have some drawbacks.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
In terms of attendance the NFL is a totally different animal than any other pro sport. We're talking about filling 70K seats eight times a year in Vegas. The market has a population of 2 million, the Raiders have a national following, and every opponent is going to be running travel packages for road trips. Like every other NFL franchise, if the team is at all competitive they'll fill the place.
I wasn't talking about filling the place. I was talking about the allegiance and enthusiasm of the home crowd (advantage). NoCal for 1 or 2 seasons with pissed off fans and then playing in front of transients and visiting public.

I now realize that wasn't clear.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
@Gunfighter 09 What is your prediction for how long the Raiders will stay in the bay area? I assume this upcoming season is a certainty, but what about 2018-19? Mark Davis has said recently that they plan to remain for 2 more seasons, regardless of what happens with the Vegas decision. They can't really stay for that long with fan base having diminishing enthusiasm, can they? There are rumors that the Raiders are looking at using UNLV's stadium, but I understand there is a lease commitment for the Coliseum through the next 2 seasons. I'm not aware of the details.

I think they play in the Coliseum in 2017 & 2018. I think they play 2019 in either a renovated Sam Boyd stadium or in someplace weird like San Diego, Fresno or one of the LA stadiums.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,676
I think they play in the Coliseum in 2017 & 2018. I think they play 2019 in either a renovated Sam Boyd stadium or in someplace weird like San Diego, Fresno or one of the LA stadiums.
They definitely play 2017 in Oakland. However if attendance, sponsors diminish then I could see them breaking the lease and playing Vegas in 2018 in Sam Boyd stadium. Not ideal but the NFL in the past has brokered deals to end the lease early. See the Houston Oilers move to Tennessee.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
I wont pretend to know how 2017 is going to go fan wise. The waiting list is 20K long in Oakland and tickets were selling for 250-300% above (the crazy low) face last year.

In terms of predictions, I think the seats will still be full, but you will see lots of fan protests. I think the biggest public relations debacle will be fights in the parking lots between fans who are heartbroken and fans like me, who have only small allegiance to Oakland and frankly see our lives get simpler and cheaper with the move to Las Vegas. The Raider Nation is a big group that is widely spread across (mostly) California and there has always been some SoCal - NorCal rivalry among Raider fans. Over the last six months it has gotten much more heated, and I fear it will spill over into more than words at games in Oakland and LA this year. It is already a group that is a bit more prone to violence than the average group of NFL fans, so I think it is a legitimate worry. Those bad optics, combined with protests in the stands, might persuade the NFL to force a move.

Sponsorships are not a worry, since there are hardly any in the Coliseum that pay the Raiders. One of the factors that Mark Davis referenced yesterday was the fact that the City (read: Schaf) ripped up the lease he negotiated after the LA debacle last January and tripled the rate on him, as well as took all sponsorship money for stadium advertising away from the Raiders. This is what he cited as the final straw yesterday and is why the Coliseum has no naming right sponsor.


Finally, this team should be able to compete for a division title and perhaps even the AFC with a few breaks. It would be really strange if the last game in Oakland was an AFCG. If they were to lose that game, it might be the saddest event in the history of sports.


This article from ESPN's Raiders beat writer (and UNLV alum) Paul Gutierrez is really helpful:
http://www.espn.com/blog/oakland-raiders/post/_/id/18058/raiders-leaving-oakland-for-las-vegas-result-of-14-months-of-work

March 25, 2016: The Bay Area News Group reports the Raiders' rent at the Oakland Coliseum more than tripled, from $925,000 a year to $3.5 million. Sources tell ESPN.com this came after the lease was agreed to in principle and revenue from the naming rights to the Coliseum -- which made the rent a wash -- was lost.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
I think the Raiders fans will travel well, and the visiting teams with strong fanbases will have strong presences. This happens a lot in the English soccer leagues since teams are near each other, and it definitely makes the crowds noisier and more involved. It could be a lot of fun. Or Raiders fans could murder a lot of people from Green Bay. We'll have to wait and see.

But I know friends are going to want to fly out there for a long weekend, gamble, hit the strip clubs, and see the Pats play the Raiders.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Will the Oakland Coliseum take down Mt Davis once the Raiders are gone? There used to be a nice vista out towards CF before they filled it in for football.

I'd assume Oakland doesn't put any money into the coliseum and focus all future money on building the A's park if they still want to keep one of the pro sports franchises.

So it'll continue to suck for awhile.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
My personal prediction is that the A's move downtown and the Coliseum land is developed for mixed use development housing and light industry. It would be the most effective way to gentrify that part of Oakland near the airport and provide the greatest total increase into the city's tax base. If the A's owners are real about their desire to self fund a stadium in Oakland, that could happen pretty quickly.


The reason the Oakland City Council and mayor want to evict the Raiders now is not just that they are spiteful towards Mark Davis for out maneuvering them, they want to get that land sold for development sooner rather than later. The Raiders squatting on that land for two years doesn't help them toward the goal of developing the land. It would be ironically funny if the JPA had to pay out one final check to the Raiders to buy them out of 2018.