- 12,443
- 1,194
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
Right now we have 500 mil. I think the last suggestion for a new stadium in Oakland was like 800-900 mil. Not sure how we get the rest.
The Oakland Raiders 2016 Offseason Thread | Welcome, Karl & Jihad & Shilique & DeAndre
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by Johnny_Cakes,
- Start date
khalilmack52
Banned
- 2,284
- 630
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2015
Mines well be a tenant at Levi's than play 2nd fiddle in Inglewood
- 21,784
- 2,957
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
Raiders already said no to the Niners when they were approached about Levi's when it was first being built, don't see that changing unless the other markets don't want us.
We should have $600M now for a stadium. $300 from Mark, $200 from the NFL's G-4 loan funding and $100M more from the failed move. That is ~$300M short of what would be needed for a stadium in Oakland, and City of Oakland has been consistent in saying it won't allow public money to pay for a stadium (which I agree with). This could very likely be what sends us elsewhere, unless something unforeseen happens like Larry Ellison buying into the team, though that rumor seems to be just that.
We should have $600M now for a stadium. $300 from Mark, $200 from the NFL's G-4 loan funding and $100M more from the failed move. That is ~$300M short of what would be needed for a stadium in Oakland, and City of Oakland has been consistent in saying it won't allow public money to pay for a stadium (which I agree with). This could very likely be what sends us elsewhere, unless something unforeseen happens like Larry Ellison buying into the team, though that rumor seems to be just that.
- 7,950
- 6,798
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
^thats where the private investors/partners need to come into play. Not enough money so go out and seek some! Mark doesn't wana do that so to say he doing all he can to stay in Oakland, no he is not. Now the lease has expired at the Coliseum and we basically technicaly homeless. I'm sure if it comes down to it they sign another year but it's jus rediculous how this is playing out...
- 16,093
- 20,032
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
Uncertainty is exactly the position we were in last year tho.
Uncertain how we'll fill the gap of $300-$400Mill for the Oakland gap.
Uncertain if the Raiders will remain in Oakland.
Uncertain how committed MD is to Oakland.
Uncertain how committed Oakland is to the Raiders.
LA is still an option lol. Nothing has really changed.
MD even has StL as an option so now he'll probably be going to look at San Antonio, Portland and StL....if anything we have even MORE uncertainty.
Last edited:
- 37,414
- 39,183
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
I'm down here in SD. Local news is reporting that SD is going to get a meeting with Spanos to work this out. Spanos wants no part of a deal with Stan.
- 16,093
- 20,032
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
Local radio stations here said that Spanos team and Kronke's team were in discussions and that the general consensus is that the Chargers will join the Rams.
Time will tell though...I've heard Spanos and Kronke don't exactly see eye-to-eye, so for the NFL to have Spanos wait this long and stick him with Kronke is like a slap in the face. Then you have Mark Davis who is willing to deal with anyone to give him a stadium for as little money as possible...
LA is still an option for MD.
Last edited:
- 29,123
- 27,523
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
I think Spanos takes LA deal. Just too much money to be made, specially if they can reach some kind of partnership like some sojrces are saying.
- 29,123
- 27,523
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- 6,437
- 4,651
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
Nah man like I said. Yea we're still playing the game, but the nuances have changed dramatically assuming the Chargers join the Rams which we won't have to wait a year to find out. LA is not an option if the Chargers go. L.A. not being a real option changes everything.
Last edited:
- 36,184
- 28,841
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
It would be nice to see the Raiders stay in Oakland and have a new stadium built...Sucks, that they can't get the approval.
- 21,784
- 2,957
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
San Diego is a real option though.
- 3,636
- 609
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2009
Ugh im tired of all this
- 29,123
- 27,523
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
i'll never get used to that name. maybe Mark will go with Southern California Raiders.
khalilmack52
Banned
- 2,284
- 630
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2015
- 7,950
- 6,798
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
Unless San Diego is able to build chargers a stadium, they're going to LA. Quailcom look jus as bad or even worse than O.co. Chargers would b dumb not to go. You rather b a partner than a tenant. Don't know why chargers heads are dragging this out. The Carson plan was dumb from the gate. Yea you get a new place but Carson isn't even a great place for fans to drive out to. But like someone said, gettin tired of it all...
- 16,093
- 20,032
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
LA is still an option for the Raiders. But no way Spanos can let that happen...his franchise is barely hanging on with most of his fan base coming from LA already, if the Raiders go to LA than the Chargers will burn out. No way he lets the Raiders go to LA.
Unless Spanos takes his team to StL.
Unless Spanos takes his team to StL.
- 12,443
- 1,194
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
Spanos might look at SA. They seem to really want a team.
- 6,437
- 4,651
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
Man can we take a step back from the hysteria for a second and look at this logically?
The Raiders aren't going to San Diego. I've said it the entire time, it's L.A. or nothing. We're more likely to see the franchise move to Mexico City or London than San Diego.
30 owners just voted NOT to allow the Raiders to move to L.A.
24 owners aren't voting to let the Raiders move to SD or SA any time soon. Why? Because it's not best for the league.
From an economic standpoint, it would be lunacy for the NFL to leave the Bay Area, specifically Oakland. From both a short and long term perspective over the next 40 years. If after 10 years of year-to-year leases at the Coliseum and nothing gets done the leagues viewpoint might change, but there's little chance the Raiders are allowed to move anywhere but L.A. in the next few years.
If the Chargers excercise their option, The Raiders are staying put and the stadium process continues, except like I said earlier, pieces on the board have moved. If the Chargers stay in San Diego, the Raiders are going to L.A. those are the only two realistic scenarios.
The Raiders aren't going to San Diego. I've said it the entire time, it's L.A. or nothing. We're more likely to see the franchise move to Mexico City or London than San Diego.
30 owners just voted NOT to allow the Raiders to move to L.A.
24 owners aren't voting to let the Raiders move to SD or SA any time soon. Why? Because it's not best for the league.
From an economic standpoint, it would be lunacy for the NFL to leave the Bay Area, specifically Oakland. From both a short and long term perspective over the next 40 years. If after 10 years of year-to-year leases at the Coliseum and nothing gets done the leagues viewpoint might change, but there's little chance the Raiders are allowed to move anywhere but L.A. in the next few years.
If the Chargers excercise their option, The Raiders are staying put and the stadium process continues, except like I said earlier, pieces on the board have moved. If the Chargers stay in San Diego, the Raiders are going to L.A. those are the only two realistic scenarios.
Last edited:
khalilmack52
Banned
- 2,284
- 630
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2015
Jerry Jones would never allow that to happen
- 29,123
- 27,523
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
lets be honest, this is not what really happened. Kroenke is building the sports epicenter of the west, its the reason why the RAMS are headed back to LA.
its wasnt a no vote against anybody. sharp business acumen and deep pockets got it it done. Mark has neither.
From an outside perspective Mark is looking for a hand out at this point.
Last edited:
- 21,784
- 2,957
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
Anything Mark gets done he will need a second hand involved. His limitations were on full display with this partnership with Spanos, and he was the short end of that relationship by far.
Mark needs to give serious power to whoever chooses to buy into the team and fund the remaining portion needed to build a home. If Ellison is indeed interested then there's no other person to call first. Offer him everything short of power over the team and first option to buy out Mark if he ever chooses to sell and let Larry complete the funding gap and then some, as I'm sure he would want to have a stadium plan and surrounding development of serious consequence.
Mark needs to give serious power to whoever chooses to buy into the team and fund the remaining portion needed to build a home. If Ellison is indeed interested then there's no other person to call first. Offer him everything short of power over the team and first option to buy out Mark if he ever chooses to sell and let Larry complete the funding gap and then some, as I'm sure he would want to have a stadium plan and surrounding development of serious consequence.
Last edited:
- 7,950
- 6,798
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
Exactly. Nothin proactive bout that dude
- 6,437
- 4,651
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
In a way yes they really did.
There are numerous reasons why 30 owners voted in favor of the Chargers getting right of first refusal and not the Raiders.
Cumulatively, all those rreasons share one thing in common, 30 owners believe it was best for the league, i.e. best for their pockets.
Last edited:
- 29,123
- 27,523
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
It wasnt a no vote, Kroenke just had a better plan. Also Mark agreed to stay in Oakland before the final vote was casted.
I understand where youre coming from but it wasnt a vote to keep anyone out of LA. Mark just found out the hard way that the NFL isnt a charity.
I understand where youre coming from but it wasnt a vote to keep anyone out of LA. Mark just found out the hard way that the NFL isnt a charity.
Last edited: