Having been denied an option to move back down to Los Angeles, the Oakland Raiders have successfully inked another one-year extension for the Oakland Coliseum along with two one-year options for beyond the 2016 season.

And while Oakland’s Coliseum City plans haven’t progressed, and Raiders’ owner Mark Davis hasn’t openly budged on his demand to be granted the land upon which a new stadium would be built in order to commit to a long-term future in Oakland, the team has engaged a former San Francisco 49ers executive, Larry MacNeil, to champion the team’s discussions with the city.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Elitist Pig

    For the sake of Oakland and its residents, I really hope the city doesn’t pour a billion plus into building a new playground for the Davis family. Get investors and the NFL to pay for it.

    • Posted by curmudgeon

      I honestly don’t think the City will. Too burned in the past, and the current politicians in charge are exceedingly wary of getting burned again.

      • Posted by woolie

        Fortunately, no public financing for stadiums is the consensus opinion in Oakland, at least for now. The mayor has been very explicit about it, as well as most of council. The city is willing to provide up to $120m in infrastructure costs but only if it ties into a larger redevelopment scheme for Coliseum or Howard Terminal (which is now part of the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan, and possibly included in the upcoming EIR.)

    • Posted by JayJay

      I completely agree! They’ll only use the stadium a handful of times a year. That Mark Davis is one greedy mofo.

  2. Posted by Notcom

    Ultimately it’s a question of who/where they want to share a facility with: the Niner’s in Santa Clara or the Rams in SoCal. Obviously there would need to be things worked out in SC – how, for example, would the “exclusive” rental of luxury boxes be ammended ?? could the Raiders stomach being the Niner’s tenant ?? (maybe it could be sold to a third party so they’re both lessees), etc. – but that’s the viable option for keeping them in the Bay Area.
    As for government funding on going it alone, it’s not so much Oakland/AlCo were “burned” – though things didn’t work out as planned in ’96, the cost of having them here is relatively cheap compared to fiascos in Cincy or Pittsburgh – it’s that it makes no kind of financial sense.

  3. Posted by c_q

    The idea for stadiums built with taxpayer money is to provide ‘benefits’ to the taxpayers by increasing revenue to the overall local economy. But of course 90% of that revenue comes from locals attending games, so locals wind up paying for tickets to get into a stadium they paid taxes to build so they can buy overpriced food and drink. Sure, the low-level local employees get jobs, but the profits of course go to team owners and concessionare owners who are not exactly destitute and often aren’t even local. And then when the stadium ages the owners get antsy and start looking for someone to foot the bill (again) so they can keep the gravy train rolling, by tugging at the local fan’s emotions (and thus pocketbook).

    If the owners can’t move the team and they don’t like the stadium they are in, they should just finance it themselves and build another or move somewhere else where there are enough local suckers (i mean fans) willing to pony up for it.

    • Posted by Elitist Pig

      I would say “the fantasy” instead of “the idea” since building a stadium really doesn’t have any benefits when you weigh the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into it. Just ask St. Louis how they feel about the $100 million debt still left on their soon to be empty stadium.

  4. Posted by Sierrajeff

    Why don’t they jump the hills and relocate to Dublin, Walnut Creek, Pleasanton, etc.? I’m sure some of those cities would jump at the chance to have a major stadium built – and the Raiders could disassociate themselves a bit from San Francisco and the 49ers.

  5. Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

    The Raiders had the 3rd lowest attendance in the NFL last year.* Just stick them in AT&T Park (awkwardly configured for football – but who cares?). Or Cal’s stadium. There, I just saved the taxpayers about $2 billion. I can think of thousands of better uses for that money.

    The A’s had the 4th lowest in MLB, by the way – they can stay where they are.

    • Posted by Fishchum

      I think the Giants may have something to say about “just sticking them in AT&T Park”.

  6. Posted by VanCouver Jones

    The Raiders and the NFL don’t deseve jack!! Public financing of stadiums is just a cruel for form of corporate welfare. The taxpayers put up the money, for take on the risk, but dont’ get to share in the profits. It’s time for this $8 Billions per year industry to start paying to build and maintain theit own stadiums and infrastructure. I’m so happy with Obama’s provision that would ban the use of federally tax-exempt bonds for sports venues!! And by the way, the land is too valuble to waste on sports venues. How about putting that land to productive use with places to live and work (you know, a real neighboorhood which would be a net gain to the city).

  7. Posted by VanCouver Jones

    “Tax exemptions on interest paid by muni bonds that were issued for sports structures cost the U.S. Treasury $146 million a year, based on data compiled by Bloomberg on 2,700 securities. Over the life of the $17 billion of exempt debt issued to build stadiums since 1986, the last of which matures in 2047, taxpayer subsidies to bondholders will total $4 billion, the data show.”

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Recent Articles