SkyscraperCity Forum banner
81 - 100 of 715 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
22,482 Posts
Taxpayers need to put in 300M. It should be an interesting negotiation since neither side really has any live alternatives. I still think that the Raiders have the least chance of leaving, but keeping the Warriors should be cheaper.

And after 300M for the Raiders what's left for the A's?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,565 Posts
Raiders propose $800 million, 50,000-seat stadium near site of current stadium

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/e...ant-50000-seat-800-million-stadium-in-oakland
The documents forecast that the Raiders could only raise $100 million in seat license sales, an average of $2,000 per seat. In comparison, the Niners have already raised more than $800 million. The plan is $200 million from the team, $200 mil from the NFL, $100 mil from seat licenses, and $300 mil in taxpayer money magically appearing. There was no mention on what to do about the ~$100 mill the taxpayers still owe from the 1995-96 renovation.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
22,482 Posts
Shame doesn't typically enter into business deals. If anything, its the first thing to go...
Or as they say, shame doesn't have a seat at the negotiating table.

I'm not sure shame is the right word. You feel shame for your sins or other shortcomings, for poverty, disease, addiction, street crime, poor education, decaying roads, etc.

But you can blame poor attendance on high ticket prices and a low quality product.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
22,482 Posts
Link to the study (pdf file):

http://www.coliseumauthority.org/archive/2013/31_130715_474.pdf

Is Mount Davis really that bad, I mean, is it worth renovating and redeveloping the other three sides of the stadium, rather than the need for a complete new stadium?
Much more PR for a new stadium plus you get union support since it basically transfers a few hundred mill to their members. This is critical in a city that is broke and basically has to justify taxing or borrowing to the electorate.

The map and comment that most of the wealth in the area is south of Oakland really sums up sports in the Bay Area: the Niners moved south and the Giants are desperate to keep the A's out of the south. But with the Niners already in Santa Clara, the current Oakland location is not bad for a second football team.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,220 Posts
Link to the study (pdf file):

http://www.coliseumauthority.org/archive/2013/31_130715_474.pdf

Is Mount Davis really that bad, I mean, is it worth renovating and redeveloping the other three sides of the stadium, rather than the need for a complete new stadium?
I don't know if I'm in the minority or majority on this, but I think it would be better for the stadium to match Mt. Davis. Why not? It was put there JUST for football in the first place...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
I don't know if I'm in the minority or majority on this, but I think it would be better for the stadium to match Mt. Davis. Why not? It was put there JUST for football in the first place...
Problem with Mt. Davis is its old now. It would have to be renovated so as all the top of the line amenities would be offered. The club section is nice, but not up to the new standard. Also, the bottom half of the stand is temporary. All the bleachers are wheeled in from outside of the stadium to accommodate baseball. A lot of money would have to be spent to rebuild the part of the stadium that is already in place for football.

The most important reason to build somewhere else is the location itself. Its one of the the worst possible locations in the city. Oakland isn't actually that bad of a town (I personally like the city). There are many beautiful neighborhoods, and business districts that are able to attract a lot of foot traffic and business. Unfortunately the coliseum complex is smack dab in the hood, with no local business or eateries for the public to enjoy before or after a game. You simply drive to the stadium, or take BART, and drive or ride back. The neighborhood get seriously sketchy when the sun sets, and to be honest, I wouldn't hang out there during the day either. Downtown, Jack London Square, North Oakland or another area would serve the team and fans much better. They say they are eying property near the coliseum, and I hope its on the western side of 880 (the current stadium is east of 880). That neighborhood is much better with many existing business fans can peruse before and after Raiders games. The new park would also probably spurn many more.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
22,482 Posts
Problem with Mt. Davis is its old now. It would have to be renovated so as all the top of the line amenities would be offered. The club section is nice, but not up to the new standard. Also, the bottom half of the stand is temporary. All the bleachers are wheeled in from outside of the stadium to accommodate baseball. A lot of money would have to be spent to rebuild the part of the stadium that is already in place for football.

The most important reason to build somewhere else is the location itself. Its one of the the worst possible locations in the city. Oakland isn't actually that bad of a town (I personally like the city). There are many beautiful neighborhoods, and business districts that are able to attract a lot of foot traffic and business. Unfortunately the coliseum complex is smack dab in the hood, with no local business or eateries for the public to enjoy before or after a game. You simply drive to the stadium, or take BART, and drive or ride back. The neighborhood get seriously sketchy when the sun sets, and to be honest, I wouldn't hang out there during the day either. Downtown, Jack London Square, North Oakland or another area would serve the team and fans much better. They say they are eying property near the coliseum, and I hope its on the western side of 880 (the current stadium is east of 880). That neighborhood is much better with many existing business fans can peruse before and after Raiders games. The new park would also probably spurn many more.
You then leave Oracle isolated and in weaker position to counter-offer the Warriors. Or do you assume that is a lost cause?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
You then leave Oracle isolated and in weaker position to counter-offer the Warriors. Or do you assume that is a lost cause?
I think it is. It may not be 2017, but the Warriors will be in SF eventually. Its where the owners want to be, and Oakland isn't putting up a fight.

Oracle will live on, and perhaps the Raiders and A's leaving could have a silver lining. The arena will host concerts, monster trucks, motocross, and all the other typical events without the Warriors. Plus, a minor league hockey team, arena football team or something could come around and fill some dates (maybe the Bulls cross the bay the other way). I'm hoping a developer sees some potential, and builds mix use development around the arena. Make it an arena village, that could give way to potential development around the complex. Something like the Nassau Veterans Coliseum is looking at.
 

· Moderator
Joined
·
23,830 Posts
Mark Davis talks about Stadium options

The lease is up to the O.Co Coliseum after this year which means there is no agreement in place for the Raiders to play there anymore after this season. We all already know that but the fact still remains unsettled. Keeping the Raiders in Oakland now has a time limit and Mark Davis is reminding the city of the clock while talking to Tim Kawakami of the Bay Area News Group.

Mark said it was a very good possibility that the Raiders would be playing at the Coliseum next year but that he hasn't started negotiating a new lease despite talks being on going. He also said he understands that playing in the Coliseum means playing on the dirt because of the Oakland Athletics also sharing the stadium and that has to be fine because that was the agreement already in place.

Then Davis confirmed that sharing the stadium in Santa Clara with the 49ers was probably out of the question to him. Not every Raider fan is against the idea to share the stadium with the Niners but it definitely is not a popular option so eliminating it as an option should be well received. You might be able to cross off the Santa Clara stadium as an option for the Raiders, but that doesn't mean that the Raiders will definitely be in the Coliseum next year either.

Even though Mark was quick to dismiss the 49ers stadium as an option for next year he was not nearly so quick as to dismiss the University of California's stadium in Berkeley as a short term option. It has drawbacks like a lack of parking and transportation but Mark couldn't deny that it was a possibility for a short term solution.

"Sure. I mean, if they’d want us. We’ve done it before. There’s some… things about Berkeley that wouldn’t be optimal–the parking and all of that stuff is always tough.' But at the same time, it’s if (there’s a need to play elsewhere for a while) for a new stadium… and we like Berkeley. I think what they’ve done with the new stadium is great."

The "if" that Mark Davis pointed out there is a really important one to notice. For the Raiders to need to look for a short term solution it would take a new stadium agreement in place in Oakland first. Now that agreement could be a new stadium or maybe a rebuilt Coliseum with the substantial updates included but it would need to be set for the Raiders to seek a short term answer while the construction begins.

That short term solution wouldn't be needed if the Raiders were to, let's say, move to LA. If you were really hoping that idea wasn't in Mark's mind at all then you would be sorely mistaken. Mark wants a permanent solution and he has the leverage of LA to make it happen. Now he has officially used that leverage after he was asked if LA is on his mind as a possibility for a permanent site.

"Always. An opportunity for us to get a new stadium is always on my mind. Oakland is first, OK? That’s all I can say."


Consider the gauntlet thrown people! The City of Oakland needs to make a move now because the Raiders definitely could move out of town if its not settled soon. Mark will not be signing a multi-year lease without a new agreement in place, and the LA stadium will not be an option forever without a team signing on. Just look at how Mr. Davis responded when asked if he would be frustrated if he spent another 5 years with the current Coliseum if you don't think this has come to a head.

"I don’t see how that could happen. But yeah, it obviously would be frustrating. It just doesn’t make sense, for anybody."

Your turn Oakland, the Raiders will not wait forever.
http://www.silverandblackpride.com/...s-talks-about-oakland-raiders-stadium-options
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,874 Posts
What I should have done to the old Oakland Coliseum, if they decide to reconstruct it: Keep the so-called "Mount Davis" stand and renovate/opgrade it; tear down the original stands and replace them with new ones (including a possible parallel stand to "Mount Davis" in the west sideline). Too bad about the surrounding neighbourhood, though.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,220 Posts
What I should have done to the old Oakland Coliseum, if they decide to reconstruct it: Keep the so-called "Mount Davis" stand and renovate/opgrade it; tear down the original stands and replace them with new ones (including a possible parallel stand to "Mount Davis" in the west sideline). Too bad about the surrounding neighbourhood, though.
Yeah, this suggestion has gone around. Even from me in this thread.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,565 Posts
I wonder just how much it would cost to rebuild the "old" section at the Coliseum as several have said. Could they knock down the old stands and put up newer stands for $600 million? Get your $200 million from the NFL, maybe $100 million from a new naming rights deal, then you would only need $300 million from PSLs. An aggressive new marketing campaign (which the Raiders have needed for years) could do the trick. Not a penny in tax dollars. Does this sound feasible?

Edit: totally spaced on some of the numbers above. The team has said they would kick in $200 million, which would drop the PSL requirement down to $100 million. But still, could this rebuilding happen for $600 million? I'm not a construction expert.
 
81 - 100 of 715 Posts
Top