Raiders to pay extra $2.5m in rent to public this year, after county shows it can too haggle

We now know how much that undisclosed rent increase was that the Oakland-Alameda Coliseum Authority was able to extract from Raiders owner Mark Davis as a condition of not making his team go play in the street for the 2016 season, and it’s either a lot or a little, depending on whether you go by percentages or actual dollar amounts:

The NFL team’s lease for Coliseum in Oakland and a training facility in Alameda includes a steep increase from last year’s rent of $925,000: It’s now $3.5 million for both venues.

Yes, the Raiders will now be paying more than triple their rent from last year. On the other hand, even triple the rent is only another $2.575 million, which isn’t much for a team with annual revenue of $285 million. Plus, it’s only for one year (unless Davis decides to drag his feet about where to play while waiting for the San Diego Chargers to determine whether they’ll be the second team in Los Angeles, in which case he can renew), so … it’s nice to see that the public stadium authority pushed back and made some demands instead of rolling over and giving Davis an even sweeter deal. But I still would have loved for them to say, “Re-up for a decade, or take a hike,” if only to see what Davis’s response would have been.

15 comments on “Raiders to pay extra $2.5m in rent to public this year, after county shows it can too haggle

  1. The Raiders situation has me torn – I grew up in Northern Cal as a fan of the Raiders, Niners, Giants and A’s and I believe that Oakland really is the home of the Raiders. However, I love the way Mayor Schaaf is just saying “we can’t afford this,” so maybe Davis will try to get creative and bring in a partner….sadly, I doubt it, and I really can’t get used to saying “San Diego Raiders.”

  2. I think we can all give kudos to Mayor Schaaf. However, neither a business partner nor San Diego seem viable at the moment.

    To raise enough cash to build a stadium Davis would have to sell somewhere between a controlling interest and the entirety of the Raiders.

    In terms of San Diego, Spanos has now played his cards. In the unlikely event voters will gift him a stadium, he’ll stay (and presumably the Raiders will move to LA). If they don’t, there’s no stadium for Davis either.

  3. I’ll add my voice to those congratulating Schaaf.

    I don’t know if there’s a long term deal to be made with the Raiders or not. If so it will certainly include the highest percentage of “team funding” seen in the NFL in recent years.

    To the question of Davis bringing in a partner to help fund a stadium I would ask, who would be that partner?

    You are buying an interest (possibly even non-controlling interest, given that Mr. Davis has waited his whole life to run this team) in a team in a small market that has to pay for most of it’s own stadium.

    This is not Steve Ross, Steve Bisciotti or Larry Tisch redux.

    Davis’ only path (apart from relocation, which has it’s own problems for him) might be to beg the NFL for help and then fund the majority of his own new stadium. Or, he could agree to fund improvements to the coliseum jointly with the authority while watching his co-tenant build his own facility (maybe near by)… but I don’t see that happening.

    Being the second team (and tenant) in LA isn’t going to be the cash cow he wants. Taking the deal that Spanos didn’t want in San Diego doesn’t seem likely to produce the desired result either (which would be why Spanos rejected it, if it comes to that).

    Man, it ain’t easy being an NFL owner these days…

  4. I’m still trying to figure out why sharing Levi’s, at least for a few years, is such an insufferable idea.

  5. Oakland is the raiders home, they’ve been there forever . It just fits, next to the bay. Its totally awesome there, I was born in Oakland, and will always bleed ,silver and black. Oakland has money, please keep the raiders at home.

  6. I would recommend they just keep the stadium as is and do nothing. We are talking about a game here people not real life.

  7. This may be the Coliseum board’s way of saying, “We know you want to leave. But as long as you’re here, its a foregone conclusion the Raiders are going to help us repay for what was spent bringing them back to Oakland.”

  8. John Bladen: I don’t disagree with much of what you are saying. However, can we please stop calling Oakland a “small market”?

    The Raiders play in one of the largest metro areas in the country, the Bay Area in a stadium 5 BART stops from San Francisco’s Financial District.

    If the Raiders are a small market team, the Jets and Giants are in a minuscule market. Oakland is 50 times as large as East Rutherford, and East Rutherford is much tougher to get to from Manhattan than Oakland is from San Francisco.

  9. Scola. A better way of stating it is the Raiders are second fiddle in the large Bay Area market.

  10. @jonelle …. Please provide the financials that show “Oakland has money.” And don’t forget to include the $100M they still owe for the Davis Deck.

  11. jcpardell: Yes, second fiddle in a large market is a good way to put it. However, that’s a function of being lousy at running their business and marketing their product. I’m not sure how moving to another market solves that issue.

  12. JC: Oakland has plenty of money. It has a pretty good tax base and it is currently the hottest housing market in terms of appreciation in the country, meaning property tax receipts will be rising further in future years.

    That doesn’t mean it is a good idea to set that money on fire. Oakland taxpayers have other needs and concerns.

  13. Scola: We are on the same side here, I just find blanket statements like “Oakland has money” to be a bit……

    (i’ll hold off on the adjective).

  14. Oakland has greater problems than keeping the A’s, Raiders or Warriors happy.

  15. jcpardell: True enough. So does every city.

    The cliche about Oakland is that it has high crime. So far this year murders are down 61%, with other crimes down 20-50%.

    Is that all because Mayor Schaaf decided to focus on those other priorities instead of building stadiums? Almost certainly not. However, the correlation is no worse than the flimsy economic studies that justify stadiums, so if other cities take note and follow Oakland’s lead, I don’t think any of us will be crying.