In a near unanimous vote of 31-1, the NFL owners have approved the Oakland Raiders proposed move to Las Vegas, an outcome which shouldn’t catch any plugged-in readers by surprise.

As we wrote when other “credible sources” saw the loss of Sheldon Adelson’s support for the proposed $1.9 Las Vegas stadium as the deal’s death knell, with “previous concerns about a casino owner’s involvement now moot, it could actually help make the relocation a reality.” And yes, there are other sources of capital than Goldman Sachs.

If the move is executed and the new stadium built, the Raiders could open the 2020 season in Las Vegas rather than the Oakland Coliseum, for which they have the option to occupy through the end of the 2018 season.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by 101

    No surprise. $750 million on the table from LV compared to uncertainty and foot dragging in Oakland. I am sure the 49ers are happy having the Bay all to themselves. Within the next four years, Oakland will go from three professional teams down to one, ouch.

    • Posted by Occupied in Oakland

      Uncertainty and foot dragging… are you an NFL bot or just into posting propaganda?

      • Posted by 101

        Neither. This has been going on for the past four years or more with their desire to move to LA and Austin. Look at when the Giants were approved and ready to move to Florida, the City found investors and they bought the team and built a private funded stadium. Davis did not want a private funded stadium and in the end it was all about money.

        • Posted by Jake

          uh, it was 4 years between the MLB owners DIS-approved the sale and move of the Giants to Florida in 1992 and the passage of the SF ballot measure for pacbell park in 1996. During the very long period of “uncertainty” about the location of a new Giants baseball park, Hass the owner of the A’s granted the Giants rights to the south bay, reportedly so that they could pursue a wider range of options to stay in the Bay Area. If the Giants were willing to reciprocate after they built in SF, then the A’s would be building a new ballpark in or around San Jose. That is, afterall, the better location, no doubt about it.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            No it’s not. The A’s are in love with Oakland. Did you see Libby and the A’s president raising the Athletics flag over City Hall today?

          • Posted by Zig

            Baseball is a downtown sport. Oakland is best but San Jose would be OK too

            Football stadiums a waste of urban land

          • Posted by Jake

            The A’s will only stay in Oakland if they can’t move to the south bay. They have been very clear about that for years. EG, you are so easily taken in by a smiling/lovey sales pitch. Maybe that is why you take it so hard when they leave you for another, like the Warriors are doing. The heart of a romantic, the head of a romantic.

            Zig, both football and baseball stadiums are a waste of urban land. Football is a 90+% waste and baseball a 50+% waste. I live nearish ATTpark and it is basically a huge brick waste of space 6 months of the year and then for half of the days of the other 6 months, and on the days when it is in use it thrashes the already bad traffic. Go Giants.

            The A’s could probably charge more for tickets in the much wealthier south bay and get a fatter TV contract, but not gonna happen because and only because Giant greed. A good location for an NFL stadium is near an airport where they can share the parking lots that are at their least use on the weekends. Either that or some area of very low utility, which both Oakland and Vegas have in abundance.

          • Posted by SFRealist

            Complaining about ATT Park is not going to help your credibility. It’s been amazing for San Francisco. Sparked the revitalization of that neighborhood.

          • Posted by Jake

            What I’ve written about ATTpark is more than credible, it is irrefutable. I’ve repeatedly refuted on SS the too common misunderstand that Pacbellpark “Sparked the revitalization of that neighborhood.” Below are a portion of the fullest exchange I have had on SS explaining the sparkling of “that neighbohood” (namelink):

            The Giants ballpark had and has a big effect for about one block. Except for the extra congestion for an hour or so before and two hours after a game, by the time you get to Brannan St it doesn’t matter if that pier had been made into a ballpark or an office park or public park.

            And I am a Giants fan, but not a fan of them taking credit for something of which they were a very small part and would have happened in the same place and with similar results if they had stayed at Candlestick.

            SF Planning put together a brief summary of the dot com boom and early bust in SF as part of the eastern neighborhood planning. It covers job growth, vc investment levels, map of the new livework buildings, commercial and residential rental costs, and has plenty of stats and graphics. It is the most succinct summary of this period for this place that I know. Here’s a snippet:

            “Between 1994 and 2000, San Francisco experienced a period of sustained growth and added over 86,000 jobs. … In 1996, venture capital (VC) companies provided about $10 billion to Internet and other high-tech start-up companies in San Francisco. Funding continued at about that level until 1998, when the funding rose 20 percent to $12 billion, even though many of the companies were not generating any profit. The amount of venture capital funding continued to rise and many new high-tech companies started to grow very rapidly, hiring staff and leasing more office space. In 1999, VC funding rose to $40 billion. In 2000, the last year for which we have complete information, VC funding exceeded $50 billion for start-up companies in San Francisco. This funding allowed the expansion of the high-tech office space. The reported leasing activity increased from about 0.5 million square feet to 4.25 million square feet.”

            Whenever anyone tells you the Giants $300 million stadium construction and $200 million payroll transformed SoMa and/or South Beach, just remember well over $100 billion in VC money washed through in 5 years.

            PacBellPark opened three weeks after the Nasdaq peak in 2000 and in the very middle of the crash…

          • Posted by zig

            Jake: Giants could not have stayed in SF at Candlestick so as a fan where would you like to see them playing?

            Although I am sure the area could have been revitalized without them it is hard to imagine them in San Francisco not in this location.

          • Posted by Jake

            zig, the Giants did splendidly for themselves and their fans building at China Basin. That location had been proposed way back in 1982 but the voters rejected then Mayor Feinstein’s over-generous giveaways to the Giants. The other viable locations considered before they built pacbellpark were rebuilding at Candlestick, which voters approved, and 7th/Townsend, which would have only been slightly better for the traffic and not as nice for the view, and Santa Clara County like the 9ers.

            SF/SoMa/SouthBeach would have had traffic problems and a very strong economy over the past 20 years, even if the Giants had moved to Tampa, though probably an even stronger economy and less traffic problems without the Giants than with, but the price of stickball glory is priceless, I guess. Too bad SF taxpayers are still subsidizing Giant ticket prices.

          • Posted by Anonymous

            AT&T was the best deal for taxpayers of any active stadium in the league. That’s not a small thing.

          • Posted by Jake

            yes, and it only took at least 4 mayors, 3 ballot initiatives, 2 ownership groups and a generation to negotiate. all to yield a gem costing SF taxpayers $150+ million to date, and the SFballpark meter is still running. And some people think the SF planning/development process is inefficient and favors the wealthy.

        • Posted by E. Gonsalves

          I have to agree with Jake on this one. It’s true that if you drive by AT&T Park during off season, it looks like a huge aircraft carrier moored on the waterfront obstructing lovely views of Oakland. A nice public park would draw more activity during at least half the year.

          • Posted by Anonymous

            This is a blatantly ridiculous and hypocritical statement. You’d be signing its praises if it were in Oakland and have praised the idea of blocking waterfront access in Oakland with a ballpark at Howard Terminal. It’s totally absurd that you think you can get away with trying to take both sides like that.

          • Posted by Fishchum

            Obstructing the views? How? You understand you can walk around the park right to the waterfront and out onto the piers in and around McCover Cove, right?

          • Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

            Lovely views of Oakland?

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Howard Terminal is in an industrial maritime area. There are no views to obstruct right now other than shipping cranes. There are 60 acres and plenty of space to keep as open space between the ballpark and the waterfront. AT&T walls of the water views to most residents across from the ballpark.

          • Posted by 101

            You obviously have no idea what you are talking about E. Gosalves.. South Beach is right next door to AT&T with vast views of the Bay . When the Giants developed parcel A, there will be more outdoor parks and pleanty of activity. With the new Warriors Area down the street and AT&T at the other end, it will be the premier entertainment district in the Bay Area.

          • Posted by Formidable Doer of the Nasty

            Wouldn’t want anything to obstruct the view of those lovely cranes at the port. Or the beautiful smog you can see on hot days.

      • Posted by Anonymous

        You seem to have a real grudge against reality. It’s a FACT that Vegas offered $750 million in financing for the stadium while Oakland (rightly) offered none. It’s a FACT that it is to the advantage of the 49ers to have the market to themselves. It’s a FACT that Oakland will have 1 pro sports team, down from 3, by 2020.

    • Posted by zig

      Oakland does not need the Raiders and can’t provide public money to any owner let alone a Davis.

  2. Posted by InclineJJ

    No builder or stadium developer
    No land under contract or option
    The lease is horrible
    UNLV has no money to put

    An additional $750,000,000 to 1 billion dollars in infrastructure improvements need to be made. Highway improvements and new overpass and on and off ramps.

    “Bowl Cut” Mark Davis doesn’t know how to do deals in Las Vegas and Nevada plus he has Adelson trying to sink the deal. Adelson arranged the $750,000,000 from the State Of Nevada.

    Wait till Bowl Cut figures out how many hands have to be greased in order for this to happen.

  3. Posted by Mark F.

    No great loss. Now if only the As can get a new stadium.

  4. Posted by Nick E.

    Good. They can’t leave soon enough. Just wish they were moving farther away.

  5. Posted by ananimal

    So glad that Oakland wised up. Subsidizing professional sports is obscene.

    • Posted by jwb

      Where is the evidence that they wised up? The mayor has spent a lot of time trying to keep these idiots in Oakland, when in reality the best thing for the city is for them to leave ASAP.

  6. Posted by MB

    This is great news for finally finding the A’s a new ballpark in Oakland. I’ve said all along 81 home games > 8 dates for football. Hoping that Oakland can work some magic by Howard Terminal and get a truly magical baseball park instead of planting the new home in the middle of the sea of parking that is the Coliseum site.

    • Posted by curmudgeon

      That’s a great idea, but I’m doubtful that Howard Terminal will ever work….unfortunately there are lots of issues with access/rail crossing/layout that make it less than ideal, although I’m agreed in general that a downtown park would be so much more preferable. Then Coliseum could be redeveloped in it’s entirety as an employment site tied to BART and the Airport.

    • Posted by Anonymous

      The Coliseum site has significantly greater potential for both the team and the city of Oakland.

      The A’s and city have an opportunity to transform a large underdeveloped and underserved area in the city into a hub of housing and activity in general. And they essentially have a clean slate, with an already relatively mature planning and entitlement process, for the site.

      JLS is largely already developed with more already in the pipeline. A stadium there would not greatly affect the trajectory of the neighborhood. It is not comparable to what happened with the Giants in China Basin/Mission Bay. That area was severely underdeveloped and the team had an opportunity to be a lead influencer the neighborhood’s development (and by extension a lot of the eastern part of the city), along with getting land that they themselves could develop. That’s an opportunity that the Coliseum site could afford the A’s that Howard Terminal simply could not hope to match.

    • Posted by Zig

      Isn’t there land in Uptown? That seems like the better location

      • Posted by Anonymous

        No, there’s not even close to enough space anywhere uptown.

  7. Posted by MB

    I’d LOVE to take a ferry between AT&T and a new A’s waterfront ballpark for a day/night doubleheader. However, if it’s not meant to be and they do build at the Coliseum site, I hope they’ll build a “ballpark village” development around the new field like they have in St. Louis or like the Giant’s planned development south of McCovey Cove.

    • Posted by E. Gonsalves

      Have you seen how close the Coliseum actually is to the Bay? You could technically still take a ferry to the Coliseum and walk about 1/4 mile to the ballpark. I agree with you regarding A doubleheader. It would be great for the Bay Area.

      • Posted by Patrick

        Do you have any idea how shallow San Leandro Bay is? You would have to dredge a channel from the existing San Leandro Channel to the dock. Not gonna happen.

        • Posted by E. Gonsalves

          I had no idea how shallow it is in that area. I’ll take your word for it. But those new hydrofoil Ferries do run pretty high on the water.

          • Posted by Anonymous

            That’s not how a hydrofoil works. It sits low down in the water at the dock and on approach and departure from it. It only rises up out of the water during the cruise period of a trip at higher speeds and in deeper water.

        • Posted by kgbnsf

          There is already a dredged channel that circles Alameda. It’s navigable. It wouldn’t take much to extend it to the dock.

    • Posted by Kent

      That would be so cool! 50K people taking the ferry across for game 2. Make it happen!!

  8. Posted by anon

    If only the other local sports teams would leave permanently.

  9. Posted by InclineJJ

    Keep sucking up Whiner fans! Jed York and Santa Clara love you!

  10. Posted by Kent

    If you took a 40-year view, what were the contributing factors to this move?

    • Posted by Jake

      Oakland learned an expensive enough lesson to opt-out of the NFL bribe-to-play game, while a new mark took their place at the table.

      • Posted by Anonymous

        Pretty much. I’d also add that the way the league makes money now means the size of a given tv market matters a lot less. The NFL is the only US league where the tv contracts are national, rather than done through a regional sports network affiliate (e.g. NBC Sports Bay Area), meaning the tv money differences between markets is basically negligible.

      • Posted by E. Gonsalves

        We agree on this. I’d like to see Oakland tell Davis to immediately take a hike.

      • Posted by Kent

        It’s so refreshing not to have to ‘upvote’ people on this site.

        • Posted by Patrick

          You don’t have to upvote people on Disqus either. Just because the option is there, doesn’t mean you have to use it.

  11. Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

    Huge uptick in cultural atmosphere for Las Vegas, with all of the Raiders fans coming to visit regularly

    • Posted by Kent

      That’s one thing you could call it.

  12. Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

    Just think of all the economic activity in the Least Bay that will now be spurred on by the rise in pickup truck redecoration.

    • Posted by E. Gonsalves

      Grow up. “Least Bay?”

      • Posted by Some Guy

        Get this guy a cheerleader outfit and some pom poms. “GO Oakland, ur thr best! Head and shoulders ‘bove the rest! … Goooooooo Oaklanddddd!!!”

        • Posted by E. Gonsalves

          How many San Francisco cheerleaders on this site and all over Bay Area media? When Oakland has someone sticking up for the city all of a sudden it’s an outrage. How about all the poster here who denigrate Oakland by calling it a “dump” “Jersey of the Bay” “Murder capital” etc? How come no one complains about that?

          • Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

            I’ll take that as an admission that you’re being deliberately dishonest in an attempt to “even the score”.

            Btw, the vast majority of the “San Francisco cheerleaders” here are quite negative on things like homelessness, transit, traffic, and one of either NIMBYism or gentrification. Those things detract from the quality of life in an otherwise quite attractive and interesting city. You have never shown any attempt to be similarly balanced, which is what makes your incredibly numerous Oakland praises so ridiculous.

  13. Posted by pablito

    Good riddance. The Stadium area should be redeveloped into something that pays Oakland taxes- not costs Oakland a $20mil a year subsidy.

  14. Posted by Formidable Doer of the Nasty

    Too bad. There’s something about a sport which causes brain damage and Oakland that just makes sense.

  15. Posted by Shmendrick

    Hats off to Steven Ross, owner of the Miami Dolphins, for the only No vote. He thinks teams should be loyal to their communities, and should build their own damn stadiums. What a weird guy.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles