Friday roundup: Raiders talk lease extension, Rams attendance woes may set record, and more!

Here’s what you missed this week, or rather what I missed, or rather what I saw at the time but left till Friday because there are only so many hours in the week, man:

Share this post:

23 comments on “Friday roundup: Raiders talk lease extension, Rams attendance woes may set record, and more!

  1. Five billion dollars for fifty thousand jobs doesn’t sound like a bad deal. That’s $10,000 per job. At that rate, the most you’d offer for a shiny new NFL team would be about 20 million, and that’s being generous.

    Of course, that assumes you actually get all those jobs.

      1. Yeah, the whole point of Christie’s plan is to raise the state cap on subsidies from $50,000 per job to $100,000 per job. And that’s just the direct state subsidies — there would be a pile of extra goodies as well.

          1. Sounds like the plan on Jersey’s end is to pass the enabling legislation now, then talk terms with Amazon later. Because that always works out well.

          2. So has Amazon spelled out anything about how this competition is going to go. I know proposals due on 10/19 and decision announced next year but any other details like how many rounds of vetting or how many finalists etc?

  2. Well alot of the first year back in LA for the Rams could be summed up as the honeymoon period.Going 4-12 did not help the cause as playing in a stadium that is nowhere near any of the other NFL stadiums in sitelines,and other amenities.And factor in the USC is ‘the’ football team for LA.San Diego & Oakland look like palaces compared to the LA Coliseum.Speaking of Oakland do the right thing and just say No to the Raiders getting one more year in the east bay.Make Mark Davis Crawl to the York family and Beg to play in Levi’s stadium.

    1. The bad team certainly doesn’t help. But if it were a stadium issue you’d expect fans to stay away from SC games as well, and they don’t (at least not in similar numbers).

      The fact is that the Rams were rarely a huge draw in LA before. When they competed for championships fans turned up. Otherwise, not so much.

      That they aren’t a big attraction now (at least not yet, perhaps a big marketing push will accompany the opening of the new stadium) isn’t a big surprise.

      1. Not true. Rams had average-to-great attendance for 45 straight years, 1946-1990.

        And when the owners voted on the relocation to St. Louis, the initial vote was 21-3 “No” (6 abstain). The Commissioner specifically cited the “incredible” fan support the team had enjoyed in LA/Anaheim for nearly 50 years, calling the attendance woes a short-term, correctable problem caused by the owner’s bad-faith dealings:

        Fans are not going to come back immediately, especially to a bad team, but the popular notion that “Los Angeles has never consistently supported an NFL team” is false.

        1. Nice graphic, but no actual data.

          For much of the period in which the Rams allegedly had “above average” support, they were doing just slightly better than 65% capacity (90-100k at coliseum until 1980, then just under 70k at reconfigured Anaheim stadium).

          Having “league average” attendance of 50-55k when you are in a metro area of 10m plus and play in a 70k/90k capacity stadium is not tremendous support.

          As for the commissioner’s comment – what he actually said was this:

          “Once the bridges have been burned and people get turned off on a sports franchise, years of loyalty is not respected and it is difficult to get it back. By the same token, there are millions of fans in that area who have supported the Rams in an extraordinary way. The Rams have 50 years of history and the last 5 or so years of difficult times can be corrected.”

          That is quite a bit different than your summary of what he said, isn’t it?

          And lets not forget the three main conditions the NFL tried to impose on the team to grant their move (from your linked article):

          1. Rams share the revenue their new stadium deal provided with league.

          2. Rams indemnify FOX sports for the loss of the LA market/replacement with Stl.

          3. Rams agree to help pay for a new NFL stadium in LA for an expansion team.

          There isn’t a team in the league now or then that would have accepted those conditions, and Tagliabue knew that.

          The graphic provided shows sub 60k attendance (barring one season) from 1976-94. This is very nearly two decades and spans both Carrol Rosenbloom and Frontiere ownership periods. Add to that, the Rams were a pretty good team (in playoffs from 1973-1980, averaging 11 wins, and from 1983-89, excepting 1987) for most of this period. Attendance dropped to under 50k on avg over the last 8 years in Anaheim.

          So no, I don’t think it fair to say they were “well supported” during their last two decades in Los Angeles. They were a playoff team for 14 of their final 21 seasons in LA, and couldn’t come close to filling any of the stadia they played home games in.

  3. Rumor is Nashville has already allocated between 100-150mil. For the public share. Also the public share only if put on fairgrounds location. Now that Vanderbilt out of equation that figure might drop along with size of stadium.

  4. Davis pays $3.5m annually now, and splits some game day revenues with the authority.

    I would hope Oakland will start with a base rent of $8m p/a and work on other revenues for the additional 2 years (and no break clause, you want the two years you pay for them. Agreeing to provide the coliseum to the lame duck Raiders means that no redevelopment can start before 2021… and there’s a price for that).

    For Oakland, there’s no reason in the world to play nice with the NFL or Davis. If they don’t like the offer, go play somewhere else in 2019.

    Or hey, maybe Vegas would be willing to pay another $750m to Oakland to cover the Raiders rent for the two seasons in question… they’ve done dumber things, right?

    1. Agreed. $8 million a year or play at Sam Boyd Stadium. They should be doing a retrofit to make the Coliseum baseball-only for the one team that isn’t bailing on Oakland anyway, but that’s a whole other set of dynamics.

      1. The league would have to agree to night games or a 3-game road trip to begin season for outdoor football in Las Vegas in September. Maybe throw in a London game and an early bye week. Even October can get above 105 easily.

        1. The NFL has proven with Thursday Night Football that if there’s a dollar to be chased, they’ll be out front with butterfly nets. I see no problem with them scheduling night games in Vegas (beyond fears that Penn & Teller shows might cut into the gate).

        2. It can be done. The Cardinals played at Sun Devil stadium for 15 years, let’s not forget. Different climate, but games were played outdoors in Dallas and Atlanta, as well as on 130 deg astroturf in KC and St. Louis not all that long ago.

          At least with the Raiders, they are talking about a maximum of two seasons.

          It would not be that difficult to schedule the team on the road to begin the season. Doing so would have the added benefit of allowing some of the northern teams to play road games in the desert come December. In my view, this outweighs any ‘competitive balance’ issues suggested by an unbalanced home/away schedule for desert/northern teams.

  5. I’m surprised this one slipped your notice:

    I just feel sorry for Santa Clara now. That stadium will bleed cash forever.

    1. Aw, you know, I had that one saved in Instapaper, too, but forgot to include it. Thanks, Mike!

  6. I have really come to hate this game, after the 49ers stadium debacle, relocating the Rams, relocating the Chargers, relocating the Raiders, and most of all, the CTE issue. So it really gratifies me to see what’s going on with the Rams and Chargers. This is just stupid enough to where it could topple the league. I think we’ll see bankruptcies very soon. Teams, local governments, and other entities will be involved.

    This madness with LA is… It reminds me of 70 year old guys who are pretty far along with dementia; they start doing things that don’t even resemble logic.

    1. After beating the Cowboys last Sunday, one might assume the Rams home game this weekend vs Seattle should see a jump in attendance

      1. One would think so right?After all the Rams are 3-1 & wearing their throwback uniforms this weekend.But seeing the LA Coliseum is so large and so 1995 as far as an NFL venue the jury is still out.And while the Dodgers have a home playoff game the night before as well as USC playing at home Saturday at 3pm the Rams will be the one’s fighting for LA.Not the Chargers

Comments are closed.