Talk about a new stadium in Oakland for either the A’s or the Raiders has been pretty quiet of late, but all that has changed in the last few days. First off, a Raiders-sponsored study is calling for an $800 million, stadium near the current Coliseum site, of which the Raiders owners would pay $300 million. Add in up to $200 million in NFL G-4 money, and that’s only a $300 million shortfall!
To its credit, the Oakland Tribune is cold-eyed about the plan, stating in its lede that “the team might not be able to cover even half the costs” of the new 50,000-seat (or maybe 56,000-seat) stadium. (Which, by the way, is yet another sign that the NFL is heading toward smaller stadiums with more TV lounges.) Less to its credit, it includes this paragraph:
There is a growing urgency in Oakland to strike a deal with the Raiders to keep the team from returning to Los Angeles, where a 75,000-seat stadium has been proposed in the nearby City of Industry.
Seriously, the City of Industry? Where the only thing anyone’s heard about NFL stadium plans in the last year or two was a rumor that the developers would be giving up on football and trying to lure the Los Angeles Angels instead? That’s “urgency”?
Even as Oakland is being pressed to pay for a Raiders stadium, meanwhile, there’s renewed talk of a possible A’s stadium at the Howard Terminal site adjacent to Jack London Square on the Oakland waterfront, thanks to an all-but-concluded lawsuit settlement that will clear out one of the port tenants. This has some people extremely excited about the prospect of keeping the A’s in Oakland, even though nobody knows how much it’ll cost, let alone who’ll pay for it.
Oakland councilmember Larry Reid says all this (or at least money for a Raiders stadium) is necessary because “this is a city that always had three major league teams and that now there is the possibility that we will have none.” That would be the A’s, Raiders, and Golden State Warriors, whose San Francisco waterfront arena plan is, um, actually maybe not happening until 2018, if at all?
Aw, hell with it. Let’s just build some stadiums because Dr. Death wants us to. Cities have done it before for sillier reasons.
My initial reaction was “Isn’t the CIty of Industry about halfway to Indio?”, but turns out, eyeballing a radius from downtown LA, it looks about as far as Carson, where the HDC is (and maybe I don’t think the HDC is too far from anywhere because whenever I went there, I was already someplace on the westside that was 405-adjacent).
Still, in my mind, City of Industry is still way far away from “LA.” And it’s really no place you want to go (unless you’re looking for looser, oh, restrictions than the Spearmint Rhino downtown can offer).
Location is somewhat less of an issue for the NFL, where people only have to drive there once a week, and their main concern is whether there’s a big parking lot they can barbecue in once they get there. But yeah, no one in either SoCal or the NFL seems real excited about the Industry location or Ed Roski’s financing plan, which IIRC still requires Roski to get a chunk of the team in the bargain.
What I don’t get is how this would even theoretically make anyone money? If it were a free stadium proposal (not that that would stand a chance, of course) at least it would make financial sense for the Raiders, but given that the Coliseum features plenty of club seating and luxury suites, what possible revenue streams would be created from building a smaller stadium? The team and public would each pay $300 million for the privilege of playing in a nicer stadium that doesn’t make anybody one dime more than the dump that’s already there… what?
So assuming Oakland would have to give the A’s the same deal- provide the site and infrastructure improvements Oakland is looking at near 1B in public dollars to support both- $500M for Raiders, $150M for site clean up and infrastructure improvements for HT and $250M-$300M for public investment in ballpark- and oh by the way-$100M remains on the current loan for the debacle known as Mt Davis- I know Oakland has alot of pot clubs…somebody is smoking some good shit there
Neil, I don’t know if this actually signals a trend of NFL teams building smaller stadiums so much as it’s a signal that the Raiders don’t really have many fans in the Bay Area. They’ve had attendance woes since the day they returned to Oakland despite having the second smallest stadium in the league (now smallest thanks to the new tarps they’re putting up). This is just an continuation of that same disinterest on the part of Bay Area sports fans.
Allow this Facebook map of the plurality of fans in any particular county demonstrate
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5106f2716bb3f7e816000002-900-525/nfl-fans-map.jpg
As you can see, not one Bay Area county, including Alameda County, has a plurality of Raiders fans.
Joe, you hit it on the head but you are looking at this from a logical stand point, so in other words “you hate oakland”…
This Raider stadium is part of a bigger “project” called Coliseum City, which will also have an A’s Stadium and an Arean for the Warriors. In another article I read, it mentioned that the cost of the stadium maybe go up because this study did not include a dome.
Oakland pols want to add a dome to the stadium…:0 why? lol So if that is the case who covers the extra cost? raiders? city/county? you know who will
The funny thing or sad thing depending on how you look at it is that no other city in the bay area would even entertain paying ~45% of the stadium cost. (this is not loans the stadium authority will take out, its direct tax money they will pay to the cost of the stadium)
SJ A’s, the A’s will not get the same deal from oak. all those cost will have to be covered by LW or “LW hates oakland” haha…
To Oak the Raiders are the mistress you keep having affairs with, she leaves but keeps coming back. Now she wants a new condo so you can have your get togethers. The A’s are the wife you are still with for some reason, she keeps threatening to leave you for some one else (SJ) but the kids (Giants/MLB) wont let her leave.
So to keep her happy you tell her we can move to a bigger house i found the land but you should take out the mortgage since my credit (oak spend all money on raiders) is terrible. ;)
Guey, you just pointed out another absurdity to this whole thing. The Raiders stadium doesn’t work unless it’s part of the larger “Coliseum City” project. That project requires all 3 teams staying in Oakland to work (A’s, Warriors and Raiders). Yet at the VERY SAME TIME, Oakland is working now to try and see if they can build a baseball park at Howard Terminal 12 miles north of the Coliseum site (on a site HOK Sports, now Populous) estimated to be the single most expensive site to build on in the east bay. So not only are they moving forward with a project that to be “successful”, by their own analysis requires the A’s to stay at the current Coliseum site (and despite the fact the A’s and MLB have repeatedly stated they have no interest in staying at the Coliseum site), they city is still also moving forward with an even more expensive project that would take the A’s out of their own Coliseum City plan.
If that seems moronically contradictory to you, it’s because it is a moronic contradiction concocted by the most inept local leadership in the Bay Area.
“Still the planning and spending in Oakland go on.” – M&R SF chron, Oak has already spent $4.5 million on these studies and the company doing the studies wants $3 million more.
Dan, all this planning and competing plans you point out gets summed up by the “most inept local leadership in the Bay Area”:
“Quite frankly, it’s political cover,’’ said Nate Miley, president of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and chairman of the city-county Coliseum authority. – M&R SF chron
@geuy and Dan- agree with your points- expensive political coverage at that-
While most of the dialogue out of Oakland so far regarding the A’s and Raiders has been pie-in-the-sky, at least there is dialogue. It is a start. My hope is that new and fresh minds come together to work out a plan to save at least the A’s for Oakland. With the Brooklyn Basin project combined with recent development downtown, Oakland is moving forward in a positive direction. The A’s can tap into this movement with the right ownership group.
Dean, even with Brooklyn Basin the question remains how to pay for it? Howard Terminal is a $700+ million dollar project. And the city can barely afford to pay for an EIR right now. So who pays for the site remediation and the stadium?
@dean- would love to hear where you think Oakland will come up with the money to make HT happen when their very only feasibility study identified it as the most expensive site in Oakland to build as well as the recently completed study done for the Raiders by the JPA identified the lack of corporate support in the east bay- hence the proposal for the smallest stadium in the nfl- talk is cheap- real numbers and studies are what reenforce the challenges that Oakland has in saving any of their teams- ideally the A’s stay in the bay area
For all the world this looks to me like a stalking horse for a move to L.A. The Raiders’ ain’t paying $300 million up front for anything. Goodell has said that the NFL will control who goes to L.A., which implies that teams must put forth an effort to resolve stadium issues in town. Crapping out this study and getting the inevitable “no” from Oakland/Alameda is the Raiders’ way of showing the commish that they made a go of it up north.
Assuming that Oakland/Alameda say No to the $300 million (plus backing the Raiders’ $300 million share if PSL and suite sales fall short), I think we’ll see the Raiders at the L.A. Coliseum or Rose Bowl for the 2014 season. At this point it’s just a matter of Mark Davis and Phil Anschutz hashing out what percentage of the franchise Anschutz will be allowed to buy at the pre-move valuation.
Ben I agree. This may end up being the final season in Oakland for the Raiders. They’ve already said they won’t sign a lease extension at the Coliseum until progress is made on the new stadium. No progress will be made on the stadium because this study highlights why a stadium in Oakland is not viable. There’s no corporate support, the PSL support is ESTIMATED to be at most $100 mil so you can bet the actual number would be even less, the team has minimal money to contribute and the city has none. This is nothing more than both sides going through the motions. The city so the politicians don’t get hurt politically when the team leaves, and the Raiders so they can justify moving out of town.
And while Santa Clara remains viable, the Niners aren’t exactly jumping to get them in anymore now that they’ve sold their PSL’s and naming rights for enough to cover their costs. Add to that the Raiders getting involved at this late date means that rather than being partners like they would have been if they’d joined on the ground floor, the Raiders would now be the Jets in Giants Stadium rather than the Jets at Met Life Stadium.
Though I don’t agree it’ll be Anschutz. It’s Roski that the Raiders have been meeting with if reports are to be believed.
The Raiders have the least leverage of any NFL franchise. No developer in SoCal wants them back because their fans are bad for business. Where are they going to go? They’ll be lucky to be taken on as tenants in Santa Clara.
I am impressed the Raiders offered $300 million in private financing after the Chargers just made public their grand bargain of only $100 million in private funding. How generous.
@Ben
The NFL will never approve a Raiders move to LA, not as long as the Davis family owns any part of the team. Good luck trying to build a new stadium without the league’s blessing or any league money.
Santa Clara is still the most realistic, just remember the slumlord York can’t bring in the section 8 tenants until he’s sold all of his luxury suites to the upper crust.
No corporate support in the east bay, where have we heard this before? So when the Raiders say it its true, but when the A’s say it its not?
Of course because Lew Wolff is the devil and the Davis family is trustworthy… oh wait.
Dan and SanJoseA’s: The funds to build a stadium at Howard Terminal, or any site in Oakland, would have to come from a combination of public and private sources as well as from the A’s ownership. Look, I get that the solution in Oakland is not only difficult but also costly. I also have no doubt that a committed ownership group in the Bay Area can make it work in Oakland. It worked across the Bay in China Basin…
You quote numbers yet every report I read on projected attendance for a ballpark in San Jose still falls short of current attendance in the O.Co. Coliseum. I just don’t see how San Jose can measure up to a new, waterfront, ballpark in Oakland.
Dean, attendance is only one factor in determining ROI… yes you would like to have a stadium full of people or close to it, but in order to get a large ROI you need to have other sources of revenue.
The south bay as the 49ers have proved is a market with a lot of disposable income, because of that you can expect to get revenue at higher levels from different sources than in Oak.
“Committed Ownership” is an oxymoron, in my opinion the last committed owner in sports was Walter Hass, (ceo of Levis) he owned the a’s in the 80s and 90s. He was constantly in the red and didn’t care just to put a wining product on the field.
Once he died his kids sold the A’s, they were not going to lose money so that the fans would think the owners are “committed”.
LW or any new ownership group are smart business people they are not going to invest if they do not see a return on the investment.
Unfortunately Oak pols are not the type of people any reasonable business person can do business with. Or at least put up their own money to make things happen. (clorox ceo talks up oak and the mayor but when asked to put up his own money for the a’s he says “i am not interested”)…
Dean, what reports have you read that state the San Jose stadium can expect lower attendance? A link in this instance would be helpful.
But even if true you also have to take into account that even if attendance was slightly lower in SJ than say the Coliseum or even a waterfront park in Oakland, the price of tickets and more importantly the PSL’s and luxury boxes you’d sell in San Jose would offset that lower attendance and then some. The days where raw attendance mattered as much are over. It’s the $$$ amount and corporate $$$ amounts that are king at the stadium these days. With TV being the crown jewel.
Dean needs to look at where fortune 500 companies are located in the Bay Area- the consultant that just did the Raiders projections for the JPA include one in their report- look on the newballpark site for it- this should be sobering for anyone who believes that Oakland has the necessary corporate support to have owners privately financing stadiums- and once again- this was Oaklands consultant- not Lew Wolff or Marc Davis’
Chalk up another sucker (oak) to fall for the NFL shell game.
Oak ponying up billions because they’ve “always” had 3 franchises shows how ridiculous the place and those who “run” are. No surprise that those businesses want out.
The drum beaters/flag wearers and dress up/down footballtypes will eventually have to get a life.
Raiders are trying to see what Oakland’s willing to do now that it seems like an eventuality that the A’s and Warriors will be gone by 2020, and with their lease expiring in a year. In addition, I think they are trying to do things this way by putting the project with a guise that Oakland could use it to try to keep the Warriors and A’s (Which the Raiders know will likely fail for Oakland, but if it improves the odds of success for their stadium being built, why not try it?)
There is a something that I would like to say that hasn’t been mentioned by any of you:
I believe that under the National Football League’s Constitution and Bylaws, every stadium (unless certain sections are tarped off) must have a seating capacity of at least 60,000. Unless the NFL has changed their stance on this, is a seating capacity of under 60,000 for a new (or existing) stadium considered a violation of the NFL’s constitution and bylaws?
Also, I agree with Ben & Dan when they say that the Raiders will be relocating back to L.A. for the 2014 season. I cannot see the Raiders sharing the new stadium being built in Santa Clara with the 49ers.
It see no relevance in determining where Fortune 500 companies are located in the Bay Area (Oracle puts it’s name on the Oakland Arena) although Chevron, Safeway, ScanDisk, Ross Stores and Clorox are all headquartered in the East Bay to refute SanJoseA’s notion. You cannot compartmentalize companies in the Bay Area. Peter McGowan, from Safeway in Pleasanton, led the investment group that purchased the Giants from Bob Lurie.
Attendance still matters. And smart owners realize this as well as realizing they need corporate sponsorship and the TV contract – but you cannot secure a large TV contract without demand for the product aka people in the stands. But to say ROI is the leading reason for purchasing a team is rarely the case given the price for the Dodgers last year (smart “business” decision? Hardly). The value of MLB teams continue to soar. LW has seen his “investment” in the A’s double. Not too shabby for a team from Oakland.
Nobody would need to lower capacity or tarp seats if they kept the last 10-20,000 seats at a reasonable price (say, $20). It’s sad that prices have risen so much that now people fight for the cheapest seat instead of the best seat (as they did when I was a kid; it was usually worth it to pay ‘just a little more’).
Mark Davis is playing Oakland and it is because he has the nuclear option of Levi’s Stadium 35 miles way and no lease after 2013.
Hence why he refuses to sign a lease extension. He wants to put as much pressure on Oakland as possible. He saw how Oakland poured 120M for the Warriors when San Jose was about to take them away.
LA is not an option as the NFL has stated they will not let a team play perpetually in the LA Coliseum or Rose Bowl without a stadium being shovel ready. Plus there would need to be another NFL team involved and the Raiders if they are going to share would do it with the 49ers and here is why:
-In LA, the Raiders would have a major capital expense along with another NFL team to foot the bill. While Levi’s Stadium there would be no such investment. They could sign a lease, revenue share suites, club seats, ticket sales, and parking and make $$. They could even tarp 10,000 seats to ensure sellouts….Plus Levi’s Stadium was built like Met Life where all signs and digital displays can be flipped along with a full 2nd home team locker room….The NFL made sure of this.
-This plus Levi’s Stadium would have to be proven as inadequate by NFL for the Raiders. The 49ers would be obligated by the NFL to accept the Raiders as a tenant even if they did not need the revenue.
If Davis signs a lease now or after 2013, then he looks weak to Oakland and he loses leverage. if Oakland balks he can sign a 5 year lease at Levi’s Stadium and hold Oakland for ransom even more.
Oakland pols will be distraught having the Raiders operate in the East Bay but play in Santa Clara while still paying of the Mt. Davis debt…..It would be utter disaster.
Davis is smart…Just like his old man before him.
Dean: Well said & very true. MLB has expressed interest (perhaps even “preference” for, depending on whom you believe) the HT site. And Oakland also is interested in building there.
It may well be that HOK is correct and it will cost a boatload more to build there. But if two of the ‘partners’ want it there, it makes the most sense for LW to work with them. That’s not to say he can’t drive a hard bargain (if it were me, I’d start with “HOK says it will cost $150m more, so that cost is yours, Oakland”), but he needs to realize that he doesn’t own any market other than the one he is in.
He seems to believe he can get to San Jose for free. He can’t, according to MLB. So if his options are a better deal at HT (and we are a long long way from even considering that as an option at this point… only one relatively minor hurdle has been resolved) or paying Larry $20m a year forever to get to San Jose, well, which poison is easier to swallow?
I forgot to mention that Davis would sign a lease extension at Oakland if they can come to an agreement on a new stadium…..Only then does it make sense to do so.
@dean- fascinating response – I guess the JPA and others put more credence behind location of fortune 500 companies and hence the map that hey provided. Oakland has to compete with SV for corporate sponsorships- any wonder why the ‘9ers chose to locate where they are and any wonder that their PSL’s, naming rights deal and sponsorships are off the chart? Last I remember Oaklands PSL attempt failed horribly- and btw- Oracle bought naming rights in advance of Ellison trying to purchase the team. Don’t expect them to be back once that ends- and how many years was that arena without a naming sponsor. Last- look at the DOdgers pending tv deal and tell me that even at 2+B dollars that it wasn’t a smart business decision.
@John Bladen- MLB has lost all say on the A’s moving to San Jose due to the lawsuit. The courts will let the A’s in because it is the right thing to do and it is against Anti-Trust law to restrict any business by TRs.
MLB has their shot……San Jose will get $$ from MLB and the A’s.
@SanJoseA’s- Oakland failed at PSLs because they offered 10 year terms and not lifetime terms.
They got greedy and thought they could charge again in 10 years…..Fatal mistake.
Wait wait wait. SBSJ, you wrote:
“The 49ers would be obligated by the NFL to accept the Raiders as a tenant even if they did not need the revenue.”
Tell me how that would work exactly?
I have seen the hand writing on the wall. I didn’t think it would come to this, but I think OAKLAND HAS LOST!!! All three teams will leave by the end of 2017.
To think that the city had a rich history in the pro sporting market back in the 1970’s. Oakland had the RAIDERS, A’s, WARRIORS and the CALIFORNIA GOLDEN SEALS playing at the Coliseum and Coliseum Arena. Oakland had three world championship teams playing in the same area: Warriors won in 1974-75, the A’s won three consecutive world titles in 1972, 1973 and 1974, and the Raiders in 1976 and 1980.
All i can say is LET THEM GO!!! Goodbye Oakland.
@Neil- The NFL wants the teams to share one stadium.
The 49ers will not turn down free money and the NFL will not let the Raiders move from the Bay Area unless they try at Levi’s worst case by league guidelines on relocation.
The NFL has made that clear to all teams that all options must be exhausted in a given market before relocation can be considered. If Oakland fails on a new stadium, Davis has to try Levi’s first before he can even dream of LA.
The 49ers by this guideline has to let the Raiders share.
So by “obligated by the NFL to accept the Raiders as a tenant even if they did not need the revenue” you meant “they need the revenue”?
I haven’t seen any evidence that the NFL would require the Raiders to share with the 49ers before moving elsewhere – in fact, I expect the NFL would rather have two new stadiums than one new one, all things being equal. (I know that the NFL says it wants teams to try to stay put first, but all leagues always say that. It’s butt-covering.) And they certainly wouldn’t try to force the Raiders into an second-rate lease, which is all I’d expect the 49ers to accept at this point.
I don’t think the Raiders (or anyone else) is going to L.A. anytime soon either, mind you. But as Dan noted above, the incentive for the 49ers to offer to share Santa Clara couldn’t be lower right now.
Oakland should be wise about there decision and focus on keeping atleast 1 team instead of three no other city has three teams in it.. it’s too much to handle and since Football is the most popular and the raiders are the most famous it would make since to only focus on them first. Dont get me wrong i love the oakland a’s but if it meant i had to get rid of the raiders I wouldnt even consider it. We need to focus on keeping the Raiders in OAKLAND!
“no other city has three teams in it”
Um, wha?