- 15,958
- 19,388
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
I agree with 90% of that. Libby was too stubborn to make any moves as well. Not sure how true, but I've heard NFL wants to buy or lease and she wasn't willing...
CLOSED, NEW THREAD OPENED
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by Johnny_Cakes,
- Start date
- 21,784
- 2,957
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
Libby did the right thing. No way should City be paying hundreds of millions for a stadium.
- 2,145
- 934
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
Man I hope we don't loose the the Oakland Raiders to Vegas
- 29,077
- 27,411
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
seen someone tweet that Oakland can be a city that teams use as leverage. don't understand how that even works.
- 21,784
- 2,957
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
Lmao
- 15,958
- 19,388
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
That's like them tweets saying once LV fails they'll use SD as leverage 
- 21,784
- 2,957
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
City of Oakland sent the NFL a letter stating that Fortress Group is prepared to spend up to $600M for a stadium in Oakland, per Vic Tafur. In the letter the City addressed the standing issue the NFL has with the A's retaining use of the Coliseum site and responded that "truncating" the A's use of the site is "problematic". An NFL executive said the letter does not answer many issues the NFL still has with Oakland and believes it was a measure of "saving face" for City, per Tafur.
I have no problem with City refusing to contribute big public money for a stadium and can respect that the City refuses to play a role in this ransoming of the Raiders. But I do not like what Libby Schaaf has chosen to do here in sending this last-ditch letter. I do agree that this seems self-serving and is another example the NFL can cite in stating that the City has not been fully committed to putting it's best foot forward in keeping the Raiders. City will receive criticism for this stunt and it is deserved.
I have no problem with City refusing to contribute big public money for a stadium and can respect that the City refuses to play a role in this ransoming of the Raiders. But I do not like what Libby Schaaf has chosen to do here in sending this last-ditch letter. I do agree that this seems self-serving and is another example the NFL can cite in stating that the City has not been fully committed to putting it's best foot forward in keeping the Raiders. City will receive criticism for this stunt and it is deserved.
- 6,437
- 4,651
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
I don't understand the issue. Frankly the criticism of the city have been ridiculous from day one.
Why would you not reach out in the 12 hour of negotiations to get a deal done. Why is something that deserves criticism. Why is it referred to as a stunt when it's standard negotiating tactics. Citing this as a reason why the city has not been fully committed isn't rational.
Lott Group/Fortress Investments have decided they're willing to increase their contribution from the $400M being offered in December, to $600M. Why would you not come to the NFL with that?
The extra funds don't belong to the city. Criticizing them for not providing that earlier doesn't make any sense.
As usual an NFL "rep" is in the process with the usual smear campaign.
Why would you not reach out in the 12 hour of negotiations to get a deal done. Why is something that deserves criticism. Why is it referred to as a stunt when it's standard negotiating tactics. Citing this as a reason why the city has not been fully committed isn't rational.
Lott Group/Fortress Investments have decided they're willing to increase their contribution from the $400M being offered in December, to $600M. Why would you not come to the NFL with that?
The extra funds don't belong to the city. Criticizing them for not providing that earlier doesn't make any sense.
As usual an NFL "rep" is in the process with the usual smear campaign.
- 21,784
- 2,957
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
I would imagine that the NFL sees this negotiating on the part of City as deceitful, in that the offer continues to be insufficient (not my view). I understand the point about this being a negotiation between two parties and that we're still within that window where City + supporting parties would now be improving their offer to better their offer, but the Raiders and NFL have wanted a straight-forward approach from City for a long time, and in their view they must see this as another example of City not giving everything it can to keep the team. Remember Jean Quan's vague promise of a Middle Eastern developer interested in building Coliseum City? Or Floyd Kephart's BS involvement? There is a history of City kicking the can down the road.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/04/10/quan-dubai-prince-partnering-on-oaklands-coliseum-city/
With that said, what the NFL wants is absurd. Asking for a large public donation for a stadium when City is substantially better off investing that money into real needs is pathetic on the part of the NFL and I hope the league is called out strongly by politicians and others for their morally bankrupt desires. Once the Vegas public money became a real offer I don't think City stood a chance in keeping the team.
And that is where I'm a bit upset about City's approach. I would rather that Oakland shut the door on the NFL entirely and air out the NFL for their disgusting attempted robbery of a municipality instead of this "negotiation". The NFL has made up its mind about where they want the team to be, I am convinced of that. I understand some of us might think that's not the case but IMO I feel the league has wanted out of Oakland for a long time.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/04/10/quan-dubai-prince-partnering-on-oaklands-coliseum-city/
With that said, what the NFL wants is absurd. Asking for a large public donation for a stadium when City is substantially better off investing that money into real needs is pathetic on the part of the NFL and I hope the league is called out strongly by politicians and others for their morally bankrupt desires. Once the Vegas public money became a real offer I don't think City stood a chance in keeping the team.
And that is where I'm a bit upset about City's approach. I would rather that Oakland shut the door on the NFL entirely and air out the NFL for their disgusting attempted robbery of a municipality instead of this "negotiation". The NFL has made up its mind about where they want the team to be, I am convinced of that. I understand some of us might think that's not the case but IMO I feel the league has wanted out of Oakland for a long time.
Last edited:
- 6,437
- 4,651
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
Fair enough we're 100% in agreement. I was gonna add to my original post that the only thing I'm disappointed with the city about is not sticking to their guns.
In the city's defense though, there's no such thing as a straight forward plan to securing funding for a $1B development project. Finding that kind of financial backing was never going to be easy and is always going to involve discussions with tens of prospective backers.
NFL always knew that they were just negotiating in bad faith.
In the city's defense though, there's no such thing as a straight forward plan to securing funding for a $1B development project. Finding that kind of financial backing was never going to be easy and is always going to involve discussions with tens of prospective backers.
NFL always knew that they were just negotiating in bad faith.
Last edited:
- 15,958
- 19,388
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
I've already accepted the fact that it's over for Oakland...
As much as I want them to stay, the NFL doesn't care about fans or tradition. They just want free money to build billion dollar stadiums for billionaire owners.
This Vegas thing is so short sighted though, I don't know how these guys don't see it...
As much as I want them to stay, the NFL doesn't care about fans or tradition. They just want free money to build billion dollar stadiums for billionaire owners.
This Vegas thing is so short sighted though, I don't know how these guys don't see it...
Last edited:
- 15,958
- 19,388
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
I'm more pissed about MD. Dude never brought the damn minivan to see wassup with building a stadium in Oakland. Ronnie Lott has made more progress in a year than MD has since he's become owner.
Add that to the fact that this dude is literally getting a $1.9B stadium for his contribution of like $300M :x
Can't stand MD as an owner. Legit makes me question if I even want to support him and his team...could just be heat of the moment feels tho
Add that to the fact that this dude is literally getting a $1.9B stadium for his contribution of like $300M :x
Can't stand MD as an owner. Legit makes me question if I even want to support him and his team...could just be heat of the moment feels tho
D
Deleted member 185039
Guest
Too little too late?
- 7,947
- 6,793
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
Naw I'm wit you tho. To me it seem Mark never cared for the team being in Oakland. Jus rubbed me the wrong way for awhile. He jus chasing that money and keeping up with the other owners to have that fancy new stadium plus being in a new, "flashy" market...
- 21,784
- 2,957
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
To be honest... I won't blame any of you that choose to leave the Nation. A team leaving it's home is destabilizing and can throw into question a lot of what you consider to be fundamental to how you view your relationship to them. You might feel that the Oakland Raiders are so because of where they are located, not solely due to the franchise itself; that would not be a position I would have issue with. I would understand.
With that said, we call it a Nation for a reason. I don't know if there is another team in North America that has a fanbase comparable to ours. A team that has twice moved and is preparing to move yet again and still have legions of fans ready to follow them into the unknown. There are original Oakland Raider fans who watched the team leave for Los Angeles, come back to Oakland, and will follow them to Las Vegas without batting an eye. I don't know if that deserves respect or ridicule, but I think that's going to be my path.
With that said, we call it a Nation for a reason. I don't know if there is another team in North America that has a fanbase comparable to ours. A team that has twice moved and is preparing to move yet again and still have legions of fans ready to follow them into the unknown. There are original Oakland Raider fans who watched the team leave for Los Angeles, come back to Oakland, and will follow them to Las Vegas without batting an eye. I don't know if that deserves respect or ridicule, but I think that's going to be my path.
- 15,958
- 19,388
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
Right. To each his own. Like all of us on here, we been rocking with this team for 20+ years now (assuming most of us are now in our mid 20's) and this **** is engraved in us now.
But the more I just think about it, the more shady this whole **** feels...I know once they move and once football season comes around again these emotions will be different but I can't help but feel like saying a big **** you to Mark Davis for being such a *****.
This dude keeps the tarps on to keep the Raiders at low ticket sales/attendance when we have a 20k waitlist on season ticket holders.
Then he says Oakland doesn't have an option when Libby and Ronnie have made hella progress in a short amount of time without him providing any kinda help.
Then they wanna say the A's are an issue, but the A's are looking to possibly move towards Howard Terminal and one of Libby's proposals is a stadium on the south side parking lot anyways.
Anyway, I need to figure out a way to support this team without supporting MD
/KanyeOut
But the more I just think about it, the more shady this whole **** feels...I know once they move and once football season comes around again these emotions will be different but I can't help but feel like saying a big **** you to Mark Davis for being such a *****.
This dude keeps the tarps on to keep the Raiders at low ticket sales/attendance when we have a 20k waitlist on season ticket holders.
Then he says Oakland doesn't have an option when Libby and Ronnie have made hella progress in a short amount of time without him providing any kinda help.
Then they wanna say the A's are an issue, but the A's are looking to possibly move towards Howard Terminal and one of Libby's proposals is a stadium on the south side parking lot anyways.
Anyway, I need to figure out a way to support this team without supporting MD
/KanyeOut
Last edited:
- 2,792
- 492
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
My question is if they move do we get the shaft for watching games every weekend on local tv?
- 15,958
- 19,388
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
Libby Schaff and Ronnie Lott hosting a rally at the coliseum today at 11a
- 7,947
- 6,793
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
It'll be a miracle if Libby and Ronnie can pull this off...
- 15,958
- 19,388
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
Caught some of the press conference. Libby basically went over the plan and said they can't advance any further without having the Raiders there to help guide them on what they want (basically come to the table to at least negotiate).
One thing to note is there were rumors of NFL wanting to own or lease the land, but Libby said NFL has never requested or offered to do that...
Also said Fortress will back out if they are an issue but are willing to help in any capacity (loan, developer, or nothing at all)
They also presented some newer renders of the proposed stadium locations (multiple options with A's there and A's not there)
Also said Ronnie and Rodney are working on pushing this forward this weekend.
I really don't see what the issue is with the Oakland plan...
Edit: she got kinda heated too that the media is saying Oakland is doing nothing and has no plan. Straight up said "that is bulls*it"
One thing to note is there were rumors of NFL wanting to own or lease the land, but Libby said NFL has never requested or offered to do that...
Also said Fortress will back out if they are an issue but are willing to help in any capacity (loan, developer, or nothing at all)
They also presented some newer renders of the proposed stadium locations (multiple options with A's there and A's not there)
Also said Ronnie and Rodney are working on pushing this forward this weekend.
I really don't see what the issue is with the Oakland plan...
Edit: she got kinda heated too that the media is saying Oakland is doing nothing and has no plan. Straight up said "that is bulls*it"
Last edited:
- 21,784
- 2,957
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
If this whole area becomes a Niners-only area for TV viewing [emoji]128548[/emoji]
- 7,947
- 6,793
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
Mark don't wana be here. That's the problem. If he did he'd be out there wit Libby or willing to talk. SMH
- 29,077
- 27,411
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
dude looking forward to living in a casino like Biff in back to the future 2
- 2,792
- 492
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
Biff Tannen
- 6,437
- 4,651
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
I really don't see what the issue is with the Oakland plan...
Edit: she got kinda heated too that the media is saying Oakland is doing nothing and has no plan. Straight up said "that is bulls*it"
She's not the only one frustrated with that rhetoric.
It really is a good plan. It's creative though, in a bad way. The only valid concern I see.
I'm forgetting the details but as I remember it from the term sheet the debt structure gets a little complex. There's a financing tool in there that's been created for this project and hasn't been used before, but it's only tied to a specific and relatively small portion of the loan.
