Raiders not playing 2019 in Giants’ stadium, back to drawing board

So barely 24 hours after news broke that the Oakland Raiders might be looking to play the 2019 season at the San Francisco Giants‘ home park, this happened:

San Francisco Mayor London Breed [joined] KTVU on Tuesday to explain why she’s opposed to the Raiders using San Francisco as a temporary home.

“As far as I’m concerned, the Oakland Raiders should play in Oakland,” Breed said. “In San Francisco, we have a number of challenges that we need to address with the Warriors coming to the new Chase Arena, the housing –1,400 units — that’s going to break ground in that area, our transportation system, our ferry landing. We have a number of things for years that we’ve been working to prepare for, and we don’t need another layer to add to what we already have in terms of an area that’s really congested, filled with construction, and will host a number of concerts and games for both basketball and baseball over the coming months.”

And then, arguably even more importantly, this happened:

What the hell exactly happened here? Either Raiders owner Mark Davis jumped the gun by opening talks with the Giants owners before checking in on whether Mayor Breed and the 49ers owners would be okay with NFL games at the Giants’ ballpark, or Raj Mathai jumped the gun by reporting that the move was a done deal, or both. Either way, it’s an important lesson that “talks” don’t mean much until you have the approval of everyone necessary, and a lot can still go wrong until you do.

If Rapoport is correct and it’s really the Oakland Coliseum or the 49ers’ Santa Clara stadium for the Raiders, man oh man is Davis between a rock and a hard place: The 49ers will almost certainly want to charge him through the nose to share their digs after cutting off all other options, and Davis is desperate not to give Oakland the time of day after officials there sued him for announcing he was moving the team to Las Vegas. And the clock is ticking: The NFL usually likes to release its schedule no later than April. It looks like the Raiders owner is going to have to pay dearly in either cash or dignity or both in order to find a place to play next season — maybe at least some of that $750 million check from Nevada taxpayers will go to a better cause than burning barrels of fossil fuels in order to get a haircut.

Share this post:

28 comments on “Raiders not playing 2019 in Giants’ stadium, back to drawing board

      1. Hell, maybe the Raaaaaduhs could well end up in East Rutherford, NJ.

        With this league and The Rayduhs anything is possible.

        Sarc off

  1. Kansas City Chiefs’ tax returns provide rare look inside the business of pro football

    1. I’m not sure this adds anything that the yearly release of the Green Bay financials provides. Most of the money is made from the four national TV contracts, so absent something like relegation, it really doesn’t matter to your finances how well you do or not do on the field.

      1. Yeah, the KC Star folks shared the documents with me for comment before publication as well, and I didn’t see anything remarkable about them. Though as I pointed out, I am even less of an accredited accountant than I am an economist.

  2. I know Stanford and Cal have already ruled out the Raiders next year, but I’m sure San Jose State would be willing to cash 10 rent checks next season…it’s not like the Raiders are going to draw well next year in NoCal, regardless of location.

    1. If you are going to draw crap and play in a small stadium, why not play at Sam Boyd Stadium in Las Vegas? I never understood why the Raiders didn’t move there immediately after announcing the move to Las Vegas. It seems really weird honestly.

      1. Something about too hot early in season. All night games. Too far from hotels. No luxury boxes etc, etc. Bottom line, they thought they could continue to bring in more revenue in Oakland. But without a stadium that might not be the case anymore.

        1. I think it was more that they were afraid the stadium would be half-empty or only full with a heavy dose of gratis tickets, and that would depress PSL sales. However, they’ve apparently started selling PSL’s to the cheapest seats, which could imply that they’ve sold almost all the pricier ones.

          On the other hand, has anything the Raiders have done during this project been done with the least amount of logic, with the exception of taking the $700 million of Nevada’s money that they lucked into?

        2. Davis said early on he wouldn’t play anywhere in Vegas other than the new stadium. There also were some renovations the NFL and/or UNLV wanted to see done and Davis said he wouldn’t foot the bill.

  3. Neil, we have your favorite subject- VAPORTECTURE! From expensive, glowing and pretty….to cheap, no frills, and utilitarian. If you expected an orangified Allianz Arena in the 3rd largest city in Ohio then (checks comments code of conduct)….never mind.

    FC Cincinnati stadium: Goodbye glow. Design morphing ahead of groundbreaking –

    1. But but but … where’s the renderings of the post-glow design? PLEASE DON’T TELL ME THEY CUT OUT THE LENS FLARE!!!

  4. Welp.If the York family doesn’t want to grant territorial rights then the Oakland Coliseum is probably back to being the front runner.Although the York family could get a little cash by renting out Levi’s stadium for one year year they probably won’t as they just got a nice property tax reduction at Levi stadium by claiming they only use it for 6 months out of the year.So the more things change the more they stay the same.

  5. Looks like Pauly nailed it yesterday re: territorial rights… I guess we can’t expect Davis to actually think about any of these issues before having someone announce where he will play.

    Well, time for Davis’ secret plan f or k or whatever we are up to now.

    Fremont high school and Elmhurst Prep fields are only a few blocks away from the coliseum. Elmhurst even has some spare grass (the baseball outfield) that Raider fans could park on… for a hefty fee, obviously.

    Since nobody is going to go watch them play in Santa Clara or San Francisco or San Jose or Stockton or San Diego or St. Louis anyway, why not just play on a school field with 700 kids watching (hopefully for free)?

    And you all thought Davis had no backup plan… Ha! Ha! I say…

  6. This has been eye opening regarding how badly the Raiders are run. You’d have thought that shortly after the move announcement they’d have called a few places and setup a backup plan just in case Oakland didn’t work out. It’s not like it was shocking there’d be some hard feelings. It’s honestly crazy that the NFL didn’t require them to show proof they’d done that. Instead, they’re cold-calling places at the 11th hour looking like total fools.

    1. Yeah, excellent points.

      I guess there could be some secret last ditch backup plan that the NFL is holding for the Raiders in the (entirely predictable) event that Davis and his team of clowns managed to screw things up as badly as they did, but there’s no sign of it as yet. I would argue that if there was such a plan we should at least have heard about it by now (“why not three teams in LA?”)

      The question your points re: the NFL beg is: Is it possible that the entire league is run just as badly as the Raiders?

      The owners voted for this knowing full well who Davis was and the historic poisoned earth between the family and Oakland. So either they did this prepared to tell the Raiders “if you don’t have a home you will be playing 16 road games in 2019”, or they have some fall back plan that they think will be better (monetarily) for the entire league. I doubt playing a near zero attendance lame duck season in any of the temporary homes that have been mentioned is something that the NFL is really interested in.

      We’ve seen what happens when the league offers a non-member city a short term hosting gig… Memphis. And it didn’t go all that well… so badly, in fact, that they moved to a 40k college stadium in their future home city for the second season.

      Even a final lame duck season somewhere in the Bay area may not produce the meaningful revenue the league is hoping for (and the league does worry about such things).

      I suspect the riot act will be read to Davis at some point and he’ll be told that he can play on the road for a year or come up with a deal at the coliseum in Oakland OR at a temp venue in Las Vegas (probably the much maligned and “not viable” Sam Boyd).

      Scheduling requirements will necessitate a decision being made in the next month or so. I doubt the NFL has any more confidence in Davis’ ability to come up with a concrete solution than FoS readers do….

  7. Serious Question:
    Can Oakland say no, you are not playing here. Can Oakland not do a one year lease for football.

    Or is it basically if they really want to play there they can, no matter what

    1. Oakland is under no obligation to allow the Raiders back into the Coliseum ever again. Though I imagine if Mark Davis offers to pay a reasonable rent and mumbles an apology, they will.

    2. Serious answer: yes. But there are complications, not least of them the City of Oakland’s lawsuit vs the NFL, Raiders, Mark Davis’ barber et al. The city isn’t suing to get them back, they’re suing to get back at them. Under the circumstances a lease that doesn’t require several arms and legs, plus the first born, would be unlikely

Comments are closed.