SkyscraperCity Forum banner
681 - 700 of 705 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
Only the top part of Mt. Davis is always tarped, as is true with other parts of the stadium.
Coincidentally it's that top part of Mt. Davis that's been criticized being it's - too steep, too high and too far removed from the field. I always thought that the upper deck looked out of place when it was first built!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,278 Posts
Well, no doubt that Mt. Davis is not a great aesthetic triumph. But you don't gratuitously spend millions to REMOVE potential seats, particularly in a year when the A's have an excellent chance of going into the playoffs and the Giants don't promise to be contenders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,278 Posts
One more use for the Coliseum: with Santa Clara banning large events, the Quakes may want to use it for their remaining home game in March.

Likewise, the Sharks may want to use "old Oracle" next door for their home matches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
They’re tearing down Mt. Davis when the A’s move (as well as the upper decks), why not get an early start? Lord knows how long it’ll take the A’s to secure and build the terminal site. Play in an optimum fan setup while we wait.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,553 Posts
AP Source: Raiders decline option to stay in Oakland in 2020

Here's a shocker:
The Raiders have officially declined their option to play the 2020 season in Oakland and remain set to begin play in Las Vegas this season.

A person familiar with the team’s plans said Wednesday that the Raiders notified officials in Oakland and Alameda County that they won’t exercise an option that would have allowed them to play this season at the Coliseum in case the new stadium in Las Vegas wasn’t completed on time. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the team hadn’t announced it.

The San Francisco Chronicle first reported the decision.

The Raiders announced plans to move to Las Vegas in 2017 and the NFL approved it later that year. The team remained in Oakland as a lame duck the past three seasons and had an option to stay for 2020 if needed.

With the COVID-19 pandemic shutting down many businesses in Nevada for at least 30 days, there were questions about whether construction on the $1.9 billion stadium would go on without interruption.

But construction on the stadium has been deemed “essential” and is still going on. The stadium, which will be home to the Raiders and UNLV football, is set to open this summer.
The rest of the article is here : https://apnews.com/0cee87a2dd439e7b9aaa5c5414a43f73?utm_medium=AP_NFL&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,278 Posts
All this sounds pretty reasonable. If it's illegal to use it, you shouldn't have to pay. It would take a pretty tough court to argue that you COULD use it if you just follow the distancing guidelines, etc.

The issue is how much money you want to spend building a new stadium next door when you are playing in an empty stadium as long as Newsom and Alameda Cty. feel like it. Suppose they decide that there will never be safety in large crowds?
 

·
Proud Facebook Non-Member
Joined
·
2,549 Posts
The Oakland A’s on Monday bought a 50% stake in the Oakland Coliseum site from Alameda County for $85 million, putting the team a step closer to a new ballpark and redeveloping the Coliseum property.

The Major League Baseball franchise is still in negotiations to buy the remaining half from the city of Oakland, which jointly owned the 155-acre site with Alameda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,930 Posts
Sooo... the plan is now "buy up the whole old stadium site and build a new stadium there? Or buy up the site and develop it, and use the profits to fund the new stadium at the terminal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,278 Posts
Sooo... the plan is now "buy up the whole old stadium site and build a new stadium there? Or buy up the site and develop it, and use the profits to fund the new stadium at the terminal?
Yes. By which I mean that they will happily take either one. My sense is that Howard Terminal is fading and that the Coliseum won't work economically unless Oakland slips some funds in while the electorate isn't looking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,278 Posts

·
Registered
N830MH
Joined
·
1,695 Posts
NFL expansion team investors bid for Oakland's stake in Coliseum site | Local News Matters

New NFL expansion team to Oakland? Black ownership? Play at site of Coliseum? Tons of parks, affordable housing, entry level jobs and museum, where the Raiders couldn’t get a nickel of investment?

And so the story continues….

But, I do have to say that I put this out there with Tinkerbell and the tooth fairy.
They already have NFL team in Oakland before. Raiders already moving to Las Vegas, but they are not going back to Oakland anymore. I just don't see any new NFL expansion in Oakland in the near future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,278 Posts
They already have NFL team in Oakland before. Raiders already moving to Las Vegas, but they are not going back to Oakland anymore. I just don't see any new NFL expansion in Oakland in the near future.
I agree. This is like several other proposals that were only made to get press coverage and get the city to subsidize some private development scheme. There really is no chance of the NFL expanding in the US and even less chance that they would go to Oakland, which not only tried to take the Raiders by eminent domain but failed to live up to maintenance agreements on their stadium.

And a single use stadium for the A's and and NFL team seems beyond unlikely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
Oakland doesn't quite have the same kind of worry bead gripping clout that LA used to have in terms of owners using it as leverage to get taxpayer funded stadiums/improvements. The real boogeyman is London or Mexico City and which team coughJacksonvillecough will end up moving there

And I don't see the NFL expanding at all, they have perfect balance in terms of divisions and schedules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,278 Posts
Oakland doesn't quite have the same kind of worry bead gripping clout that LA used to have in terms of owners using it as leverage to get taxpayer funded stadiums/improvements. The real boogeyman is London or Mexico City and which team coughJacksonvillecough will end up moving there

And I don't see the NFL expanding at all, they have perfect balance in terms of divisions and schedules.
Hundred percent. It didn't escape anyone's notice that Oakland fked the Raiders for decades and openly dissed them and the NFL at every opportunity. The Niners did a nice job of moving to SJ/Santa Clara and keeping the name SF, so there's little room for competitors to grab market share.

I was predicting J'ville to London for 2022 but that's pushed by at least a year by COVID. Think about the choices:

London: leading city of Europe and influential over the whole world;
Mexico City: city of 30M people, a country with 130M people and growing plus 40M Mexicans in the US;
Oakland, no brand value and even the Raiders couldn't catch a break from the city
 

·
Proud Facebook Non-Member
Joined
·
2,549 Posts
They already have NFL team in Oakland before. Raiders already moving to Las Vegas, but they are not going back to Oakland anymore. I just don't see any new NFL expansion in Oakland in the near future.
"Fool me once, shame on you (Raiders). Fool me twice, shame on me (Oakland)."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,278 Posts
This is being discussed a bit in the Bay Area threads. The Niners moved to SJ/Santa Clara but kept the SF name, which largely cuts off any team from coming to the Bay Area since the Raiders still have many fans in East Bay.

Likewise, as far as MLB is concerned the Giants OWN the South Bay, which cuts off any other baseball team from having much of a market in the Bay Area. Clearly an antitrust issue since the Bay Area may very well go from 2 teams to 1 in football and baseball in an era where population and income levels were exploding. But the Sup. Ct. has granted baseball an exemption.
 
681 - 700 of 705 Posts
Top