So now that they’re not moving to Los Angeles, where will the Oakland Raiders play? Like, next season?
The Raiders’ lease on the Oakland Coliseum has expired, and though the Coliseum authority is apparently willing to give them a year-to-year lease extension — nobody there has the gumption to tell the Raiders to play in the street if they don’t want to sign a long-term deal — Raiders owner Mark Davis insists that the world is his oyster, except for St. Louis:
Reporter: “Lots of Raiders fans will be happy you’re staying.”
Davis: “Where?”
Reporter: “In Oakland”
Davis: “Are we?”…
Where will the Raiders play next year?
“America,” Davis said. “The world is a possibility for the Raider Nation.”
Davis shot down the possibility of replacing the Rams in St. Louis. Other than that, he seems open to ideas.
Renting from the San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara at least short-term is still an option, albeit one that Davis has rejected in the past. Or there’s San Antonio, which has a playable stadium (though Davis would want a new one, and he’d lose leverage by moving before he gets a deal for one), or, um, I guess lots of cities that have big college football stadiums. The NFL’s relocation window ends February 15, so Davis presumably would have to make any decision to move by then, though the NFL could also always change its rules if it wants to.
Hey, you know what Davis should really do? Announce that he’s playing home games in eight different cities — St. Louis, San Antonio, Oakland, London, Toronto, Birmingham, Monterrey, and an eighth to be decided by a text-message contest — and whichever city shows the most “support” (i.e., ticket revenue) will become the front-runner for permanent relocation. Also, he should make it into a reality show. Why am I not the Raiders’ marketing director, tell me?
They’ll end up with a 1 year lease and wait to see what happens with the Chargers and San Diego. If the Chargers go to L.A. and San Diego voters approve public funding for a stadium after that (knowing that the Raiders would be interested), I think it’s a real possibility that they end up down there. If the Chargers ultimately stay in San Diego, then the Raiders will obviously end up in L.A. If the Chargers go to L.A. and the San Diego voters reject public stadium funding, then I think San Antonio becomes the most likely destination. That is in part based on the perception that they’d be more willing to throw public money into a stadium than anywhere else. I think the only way they stay in the Bay Area long term (or even medium term) is by moving into Levi’s permanently.
Davis has no clue about anything. He’s obviously not fit to be an NFL owner (sports leagues are becoming a playground for the super rich). The NFL should force him to sell the team to Larry Ellison. There’s no doubt in my mind that Ellison would be able to build a new stadium in Oakland with his own money. At one time he tried to buy the Hornets and Grizzlies to move them to San Jose. I’m sure he would pay Steve Ballmer type money (he’s worth twice as much) to own an NFL team.
@Anonymous
Spanos still has a tough call to make. Is he better off in San Diego alone or in Inglewood with the Rams? He might prefer another year to see if there is any hope in San Diego since there’s hardly any Charger fans in LA, while the Rams have the largest fan base there. I think the Raiders will end up in San Antonio if the Chargers move to LA. They have zero chance of building a new stadium in Oakland as long as Davis owns the team. He’s only chance at keeping the team is to rent in Inglewood or teaming up with McCombs and getting a new stadium paid for by the tax payers in San Antonio.
The league can’t force Davis to sell and certainly not specifically to Ellison, who has shown absolutely zero interest in the Raiders.
I’m positive Ellison would be interested. There are lots of extremely wealthy Bay Area folks who would buy and build, but Davis is simply not willing. I think one of the main reasons he appeared to be so upset after the meeting in Houston (other than just losing out to Kroenke) is he and his family are probably feeling the increased pressure to sell. The current ownership does not have the capital or standing (any more) to make this team or situation successful in Oakland.
If the Raiders play in Oakland in 2016, I hope it turns out to be the biggest revenue generator for Oakland ever. How about charging the Raiders/NFL $550 million for starters.
As for the Raiders not being “successful” in Oakland: Let’s not forget that according to Forbes, Davis still managed to turn a $39m profit last year. Yeah, that’s less profit than most NFL teams, but it’s hardly destitution.
@Neil deMause
Successful long term solution. You’re right, Mark could own the team and play at the Coliseum for years to come and would still make a profit, but the NFL won’t allow that. The league knows they can get a city like San Antonio to build them a new stadium.
Give us some CONCRETE evidence to support your assertion that Davis will sell and that Ellison is interested in buying. Because literally nothing has indicated either up to this point.
The NFL can’t really stop Davis from staying in Oakland and only making middling profits if he wants. I agree that San Antonio (or someplace else) may be a more likely long-term option, but it’s still his call, and who knows what’s going through his head.
Is it wrong that I’m actually intrigued by your Roaming Raiders Nation proposal?
I’m intrigued as well, and would go even further by adding an expansion team and then making the Raiders a permanent outcast/villain traveling 33rd team that would play each team in the AFC one year and the NFC the next. They could get first dibs on the waiver wire/have some sort of an escape clause in the salary cap and take every other team’s dead salary and do the same thing they did in the 1970s.
NFL, please inquire about my quit claim fee.
The “Roving Raiders” idea sounds fun, but it sounds like a sure-fire way to go from a $39M profit to a $39M loss in one season. Think of the extra costs of moving every week.
I’m sure you don’t seriously mean it, though.
Austin/San Antonio: http://www.sfgate.com/raiders/article/San-Antonio-making-a-push-for-Raiders-6760032.php
Well, NASCAR moves every week and they have a lot more equipment than a NFL team.
I feel like Spanos has to go to Inglewood now or never. He can wait and go right after 2016 but if he gives the Rams a year head start combined with the goodwill the Rams already have from being there before, the Chargers will have less relevance in LA than the Clippers.
I don’t seriously think the concept of a permanent barnstorming team (circa 1870s baseball) will be considered.
However, there is no practical reason why it can’t work financially. The same number of games are played, and given that the Raiders are not a top “home” revenue earner, the case can be made that more revenue could be generated over the course of the season because the actual host teams would generate more revenue than the Raiders would if the site was reversed for a given game (Given the choice, would you rather your team played a game as the designated home team at Jerryworld, Giants Stadium, Foxboro or in Oakland?).
With virtually no local tv revenues involved, the league would not see a drop in income from tv sources or likely from marketing either.
There would be no increase in travel costs as all the teams the Raiders play would have 9 home games instead of 8 and the Raiders themselves would play 8 extra road games than they do now. They could be based literally anywhere, including Hawaii or London, but not play games there. Assuming they were designated as the “home” team for revenue purposes in half their games, they might see an increase in gate revenues rather than a reduction.
Again, I’m not advocating it… and I’m certain it won’t happen. But there’s no practical reason why it couldn’t. The main reason ‘professional’ sports formed up into leagues and adopted set schedules is that barnstorming teams of the late 19th century (in football, baseball and soccer) showed it was possible to generate public interest (and cash) by doing so.
The Raiders might never be able to achieve the whole “entertaining the locals” angle that travelling baseball teams of the 1880s did, but they could certainly take their money.
@anonymous “Give us some CONCRETE evidence to support your assertion that Davis will sell and that Ellison is interested in buying. Because literally nothing has indicated either up to this point.”
Jason Cole of Bleacher Report has reported that Larry Ellison is in preliminary discussions to buy part of the Raiders:
https://twitter.com/jasoncolebr/status/683752157166829569
The Raiders are pirates, right? Pirates don’t have permanent homes. The Raiders and their Nation should just permanently play road games, bringing their merry mob with them.
Ellison has had a long, long time to be able to buy a piece or all of the Raiders and yet he hasn’t. Some maybe-true, maybe-false report about him being interested only insofar as helping them get to L.A. shouldn’t inspire any confidence in his involvement as it pertains to keeping them in Oakland.
The Davis family will not sell. The Raider franchise is all they have. They’ve brought in other “investors” in the past but they have zero voice in running the team (by contract http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Davis-family-finances-fine-Raiders-a-bit-shaky-2327233.php).
John Madden has the ear of Mark Davis and his mother, Carol Davis. It’s my hope that Madden can convince the Davis family to stay in Oakland and work out a stadium plan with Libby Schaaf, the Mayor of Oakland.
What about Hawaii?
Ellison may or may not be eager to buy but you can’t buy what isn’t for sale. Davis has never been willing to sell.
The NFL does revenue sharing on gate receipts. Maybe they could just make the Raiders a perpetual road team and share the take. They could be like the villains in professional wrestling. It would be perfect for their brand.
We all know San Antonio will court the Raiders. Texas has never had an issue with providing corporate welfare and subsidizing billionaires regardless of the business practice (e.g., Enron). However, it will depend if Mark Davis wants Texas. I still believe Sacramento is the best option for having the Raiders remain in California. There are two locations (Cal Expo & Sleep Train Arena) with enough existing infrastructure to accommodate a new NFL stadium.
Dean: My guess is that you’ll get your wish. As I recall, the structure of the original General Partnership left Manager Al, then a minority owner I believe, pretty much in full control of the team. Not that much has changed.
The Raiders two best options from a fan support perspective are Oakland and Los Angeles. I suspect those are the only two that the owner is really interested in as well. There may be dalliances with San Antonio, St. Louis, and myriad other potential hosts, but the real purpose of these will be to try and extract a better deal in Oakland (or LA, if San Diego opts out of being a junior partner there).
If the Davis family was willing to sell it becomes a different story and the franchise could be completely portable. I don’t get the feeling they are going to do that. The son has waited most of his life to take control of the team… and he’s pretty well always had money. What could persuade him to divest, beyond increasing pressure from the league itself?
How can you extract something from nothing? Oakland is a city with very limited resources. In fact, Alameda County no longer wants to participate in the ownership of sports facilities. This being the case, where will Oakland come up with $300+million to pay for a new stadium?
How much can the city of Oakland EXTRACT from the Raiders/NFL to allow the Raiders to play in Oakland during the 2016 season?
jcpardell: Oakland has plenty of resources. For all people rip on Oakland, it’s only poor by Bay Area standards. San Antonio is actually poor. The thing is having money and wanted to waste money are not one in the same.
It does appear the landscape has changed. I didn’t think it had but LA proved me wrong. It seems in this age of PSL sales and the like big markets matter. They matter more than free stadiums. Call me surprised. In this new reality, there’s no way the NFL is going to move to a small market like San Antonio.
If logically it makes sense for the Raiders to move to San Antonio, then it would have made twice as much sense for the Rams to stay in St Louis.
You guys are seriously discussing a barnstorming team? It’s 2016, not 1916, sheesh.
The Raiders will stay put, unless we can find a city to jack up for some public stadium cash. But that whole game is a lot harder now thanks to Walmart Stan and my fellow, spineless owners.
Maybe that old used car salesman I bought the Vikes from, Billy Jo Red McCombs, just wants it so bad in San Antonio he’ll somehow get the local pols to fork over. Time will tell.
Not “barnstorming.” “Global fanbased.” It’s disruptive!
Make it a contest where fans can vote for the team to visit next year.
uber, but for football franchises.
Neil’s traveling reality show idea is so hair-brained and farfetched and brilliant, I’d be shocked if some major sport doesn’t adopt it in the next ten years, twenty max. Seriously.
Unrelated Note: since there’s a Jerryworld, will Inglewood be Kroenkeland or Kroenkewood?
JCP:
Oakland can put “something” into a stadium. Not much, but something. And if Davis has nowhere desirable to move to, and no support from his ownership “partners” to move anywhere even if he did, he might have to take what he can get.
It is possible for Davis to build a modest and smallish (by NFL standards) stadium in Oakland using NFL loans, PSLs and his own money (borrowed or otherwise). If he gets land leased to him more or less for nothing over 35 years, it can be done.
As noted above, I’m not saying it will… just that it could.
If the NFL really wants his family out, they will refuse to allow him to move anywhere. They don’t often turn a cold shoulder to their partners, but as we saw with McCourt and Sterling, ownership groups can be fickle.
San Antone.
Piggy: Think big, my friend.
Once you’ve proven that you can shake down local half wits for stadium cash (and operating expenses and upgrades and all the services that taxes would ordinarily pay for if….), there is no reason in the world not to expand that feature.
You are assuming that we think the Raiders would go play in someone else’s stadium for free 16 times a year… nuh-uh, I can already see Roger Goodell hosting an individual game auction where other NFL host cities have to overpay the Raiders just to get them there for one game…
“Listen, ya want an extra home game in the stadium you paid to build for us, pay to operate and pay to upgrade whenever we think it might need something? Then put your money where your mouth is…” Let’s start the bidding at $5m per game…
BTW, when will dynamic pricing be applied to home viewing?
You know, you have to pay extra for the good games, major matchups and any game not involving Jacksonville, and if by some miracle the game is close going into the 4th, you have to pay again just to see the last 15 minutes, then again at the 2 minute warning etc. etc.
Fans are nothing but a resource to exploit. Not as much fun as exploiting voiceless and stupid taxpayers, obviously, but you gotta work with what you got….
The NFL will not allow 3 teams in So Cal. If they did, the 3 teams would be in LA now and all the hub bub over the Inglewood project or Carson project would have been nil. San Antonio is a non-starter due to Jerry Jones and his influence over the NFL owners. That will result in blocking any team to move into his backyard. Oakland is Davis’ only option, unless he jumps in at Levi’s (which he is totally against), or eyes another site in the Bay Area. He has 2 options – deal with Oakland as an owner or sell the team who will then build in Oakland as that person will have the cash to do so. The NFL wants 2 teams in the Bay Area.
AAAAND Davis is forced back to earth:
“The Raiders and ourselves have agreed to sit down and have discussions about a lease extension,” Scott McKibben, executive director of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority, said Thursday.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_29419668/raiders-talk-lease-extension-oakland
Let’s hope McKibben et al. play hardball.