Reply With Quote
Spurs have to big of a diehard fan base in San Antonio to play second fiddle to an NFL team. I don't think bringing a team in would create any problems.
Is that why Peter Holt came out and said SA is big enough for both the NBA and NFL and that the Spurs would take a hit from an NFL but in the long run it would benefit the Spurs and the city.
o, he'd even invest in the team if they moved her.
You're gonna have to stop playing this card and you're gonna have to stop settling.
Spurs have to big of a diehard fan base in San Antonio to play second fiddle to an NFL team. I don't think bringing a team in would create any problems.
The Spurs can definitely compete with a new NFL franchise considering the loyal fan base it already has. That being said, if the Spurs were to become a cellar dwelling team for an extended time after Tim and Manu leave then competing with an NFL team will definitely have an effect on attendance. It won't kill the Spurs but it will affect them.
As to a MLS team, I think SA would make a great location for an expansion. But its not like SA can just pick NFL over MLS or vice versa. SA will be lucky to get the chance for either one and if they do get that chance they should go all in for whichever one becomes available.
And everyone keeps talking about the Scorpions turning into an MLS franchise but there is no guarantee of that even if MLS comes to SA. Gordan Hartman does not own the rights to an MLS franchise in SA just because he has a NASL team and has a stadium. All the scorpions have done is show that Pro Soccer can be successful in SA.
There is just as much of a chance that some other en y/person ends up becoming the owner of a possible MLS franchise here. Already having a stadium is a nice plus for Hartman but in the end its the amount of money being put up for the franchise that will end up deciding who gets the franchise. And MLS has a strong preference for stadiums existing downtown for some reason which could actually work against Hartman if some other ownership group can get the money together to build a pro soccer stadium downtown.
As I mentioned earlier, Davis is wanting to keep the Raiders in Oakland, but, if a stadium deal is not reached by Jan, he will move the Raiders. And with the Mayor already saying Oakland won't use public monies to finance the new stadium, chances are looking slimmer. The fact Oakland government has had to cut it workforce by 20%+ over the past 3 years, along with reduced public services monies, how it are they going to afford new roads and public amenities to support a new stadium.
Its up to private investors and Davis to fork over around 2 to 2.5 billion for a new stadium when factoring financing the roads and public infrastructure to support it. I don't see this happening. City of San Antonio already pledge 300+ million to the a new Stadium, while SSE and private investors have pledged this much as well. I am sure that other investors will join if the Raiders actually do relocate. The fact that you can get the same stadium for half the price in SA, Davis will only have to fork out 200-300 mil as oppose to 600 mil + for the same stadium in Oakland.
Right now, I would say that its 50-50% that Raiders relocate. We haven't heard anything from the Los Angles end of relocating the Raiders there. So at this point, Its Oakland or San Antonio. I think Davis is posturing right now. He is trying to save face with the current fans, and hoping that some deal possibly works itself out. But I think he knows one more than likely isn't going to pan out, which is why is moving forward with San Antonio right now just in case.
You're sure pissy about this
You mean we have not heard much PUBLICLY from Los Angeles regarding relocation of the Raiders. That does not mean serious talks are not going on. I think its highly optimistic to count LA out already. In fact many people predict two teams could end up in LA in the next few years.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...rams/19126113/
You do make some good points though but I think LA definitely has a much greater shot to land the Raiders than San Antonio and possibly even Oakland at this point. That fact that you are not hearing much talk coming from LA may be nothing but good business on their end.
As the article reports, LA won't have a team next year due to legal restraints right now. This basically counts the Raiders out as they are going to strike a deal this year, either it be Oakland or San Antonio.
I still think that they remain in Oakland, but you never know. San Antonio has positioned themselves as the front runners for the Raiders to relocate next year, if that is what they decide.
It will more than likely be the Rams moving back to Los Angeles as its owner already seems to be planning that move. If there are two team in LA, it will be the Rams or Chargers (possibly both) with a future expansion team.
I think the reason you haven't heard anything about the Raiders moving to LA is because of the pending legal action brought by LA Citizens to block the NFL from the Coliseum in Pasadena. It appears that a lot people in LA don't want an NFL team and the NFL is forcing the issue. Considering the traffic issues they already have, I guess they don't want Sunday added to the list.
Here is a quote from Larry Reid Oakland's Vice Mayor.
“I asked him, 'Marc, are you guys serious (about San Antonio)?'” Reid said. “He told me, 'Look, Larry, we're exploring our options, and if and when we get serious, you'll be one of the first persons we will call and let you know of our intentions.'”
Davis is basically saying he is working on getting a deal done in Oakland, which I said from the beginning. But don't be surprised if the Raiders relocate to San Antonio if a deal can't be worked out. The fact they have invested this much time in SA would tell anyone, they are looking at SA as a serious viable option if things fall through in Oakland.
And reason why I believe Cisneros said the chances the Raiders move to SA are 50/50 at this point because moving to Raiders would be the best financial option for the Raiders at this point and its not even close. The only reason why Davis would want to stay in Oakland is for sheer sentimental reasons.
not necessarily true. they could agree to a move to LA and just sign a 1 year lease in oakland until the legal restraints are solved
There are no legal restraints. That was an empty threat over a legal issue that has already been decided. The Rose Bowl is available for next season.
I don't see that happening, as you can't agree on a move until things are legally resolved. The NFL would just be opening itself to another lawsuit. That is why all reports say this issue has to be resolve before the NFL makes a move. NFL already has enough on its plate with the substance abuse, behavioral conduct and Redskins naming issue to deal with.
By only signing a one year lease, It would be a dead give away that the Raiders are moving and Davis would probably take a major hit in ticket sales and revenues as most of the Raiders would be probably be blacked out on television.
Raiders will more than likely stay in Oakland permanently. But SA is really the only viable relocation option for them at the moment, which is why they continue to invest time in the idea.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...rams/19126113/
This article and many others (just posted this past week) say differently.
The neighborhood is appealing because they lost. I have seen no injunction against the plan's moving forward.
And this has nothing to to with the Coliseum. The only question there seems to be how much money it would take.
Report: Davis says LA 'great option' if Oakland hopes run out
November 16, 2014, 7:15 pm
http://www.csnbayarea.com/raiders/re...-hopes-run-out
SAN DIEGO – The Raiders were in Southern California playing the San Diego Chargers this weekend, so it’s not surprising that relocating to Los Angeles came up in conversation.
Los Angeles Daily News reporter Vincent Bonsignore spoke with Raiders owner Mark Davis, who said Los Angeles would be a ‘great option’ for the Raiders if a new stadium in Oakland isn’t going to get built.
This isn’t earth-shattering news, but it re-emphasizes the fact that Davis is open to the prospect of moving. Los Angeles could be a viable option for the Raiders, considering the NFL’s latest push to get a team or possibly two into the country’s second-largest media market.
“Absolutely, sure,” Davis told the Daily News after his team fell to 0-10 with a 13-6 loss to the Chargers. “We loved it when we were down here.”
The Raiders played in Los Angeles from 1982-1994. The team’s lease with O.co Coliseum expires at season’s end.
The Raiders have flirted with the city of San Antonio, and Davis has made it clear that LA could be another destination should his hope of remaining in the East Bay flame out.
This is true, but if it came down to a battle between San Antonio and a Los Angeles built stadium, then S.A. would lose, but right now Los Angeles has no viable stadium situation, nor in the works, for a temporary home to an NFL team next year or the year after according to many reports like the one below, despite what the NFL wants or thinks, nor the public interest in one, from the link you just posted:
There are three likely options for temporary homes, and each has issues.
-- The city of Pasadena has approved hosting an NFL team at the Rose Bowl for up to five years, but that approval is being challenged in court and could take a year to resolve.
Pasadena Councilman Victor Gordo told USA TODAY Sports, "There have been no specific discussions regarding an NFL team playing at the Rose Bowl in 2015 or 2016."
-- The Los Angeles Coliseum is now controlled by the University of Southern California. What price could USC charge for rent if there were no other viable options available?
"Our current lease allows for a NFL team to play in the Coliseum temporarily," said Thomas Sayles, USC's senior vice president of university relations. "If we were to receive a proposal, we would review it."
-- Dodger Stadium isn't ideal either because it's a baseball stadium with a listed capacity of 56,000, which would give it one of the lowest attendances in the NFL. It also has a dirt infield and a baseball team that wants to play there through October.
The Dodgers declined comment on the possibility of an NFL team playing there.
The Rose Bowl would seem to be the ideal choice after hosting five Super Bowls. The problem for the NFL is legal opposition. A neighborhood and environmental group is challenging the league's potential presence — a case that is pending in the state Court of Appeal and might not be decided for a year.
"If the NFL wanted to start using the Rose Bowl and our case wasn't over yet, we would ask the court to not allow that," Susan Brandt-Hawley, an attorney for the group, told USA TODAY Sports.
City of San Antonio scores strong bond rating
Nov 17, 2014, 5:50pm CST W. Scott Bailey Reporter/Project Coordinator- San Antonio Business Journal
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantoni....html?page=all
San Antonio has another positive economic fact it can share with Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis. The city's 'AAA' general obligation bond rating has once again been re-affirmed by the three major rating agencies — Standard & Poor's, Fitch, and Moody's.
How fiscally healthy is San Antonio? This is the sixth time since 2010 that the city has scored the highest credit rating a municipality can receive. The strong rating allows the city to pay the lowest possible interest rates in the market.
San Antonio officials said this is the only major U.S. city with a population of more than one million people to earn a 'AAA' bond rating from any one of the major rating agencies — let alone all three. Those same officials add that the strong rating reinforces the city's strong fiscal performance, financial management policies and budgetary flexibility.
"It's one thing to achieve a 'AAA' rating and another to keep it year after year," said City Manager Sheryl Sculley in a statement. "The rating agencies noted our improved financial position for fiscal year 2014, which shows the benefits of our strong financial management."
According to Sculley, the high bond rating will allow San Antonio to spend less money on interest costs and more on capital projects.
Standard & Poor's and Fitch have rated San Antonio as "stable," meaning the "AAA" rating is not likely to change.
Moody's has reported because of a lower balance in the city's General Fund in prior years. The negative outlook means a city's bond rating could be downgraded. However, Moody's has noted in the rating report the city's improved financial position in fiscal year 2014.
The benefits of the affirmed 'AAA' rating will be realized immediately. The city plans to sell approximately $52.5 million in bonds on Tuesday for interest cost savings of approximately $7.3 million, which will provide additional capacity for more streets, drainage, and other infrastructure projects.
San Antonio Mayor Ivy Taylor said the strong bond rating represents a "significant achievement" for the city.
The fiscal picture in California is less stable.
Last month, Bloomberg News reported that Moody's was considering downgrading the debt of 30 California cities, including Oakland, because of issues related more than $14 billion in lease-back and general-obligation bonds.
Oakland has a B+ rating right now, which is pretty bad. Oakland has so much debt right now, there is no way it can afford to sell bonds or take out any loans to pay for a new stadium or infrastructure to support it.
Right, plus from what I have read, Mark Davis would have to sell a major controlling interest in his team to the powers that be in Los Angeles to get a stadium built there or in Oakland, which he does not want to do.
He does not have to do this in San Antonio.
getting the raiders. They're a joke. Id be embarrassed to have them in San Antonio aka city of champions
You do realize San Antonio Spurs were once Dallas Chapparals who drew about 200 fans a night with a record of 28-56 the year before they moved to San Antonio. Just saying...
Final Four win could help San Antonio sell NFL Raiders on move
Nov 19, 2014, 3:06pm CST Updated: Nov 19, 2014, 3:50pm CST W. Scott Bailey Reporter/Project Coordinator- San Antonio Business Journal
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantoni...-sell-nfl.html
San Antonio City Manager Sheryl Sculley believes that millions of dollars in planned upgrades to the Alamodome so it can host the 2018 NCAA Men's Final Four might gain the city some extra yards in its negotiations with Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis.
San Antonio has pitched the Alamodome as a possible relocation site for the NFL franchise if Davis decides to move the team from Oakland. There have also been talks of the team's possible return to Los Angeles.
When NCAA officials announced last Friday that San Antonio had been selected to host the 2018 men's Final Four basketball championship, that decision committed the city to spend roughly $44 million to overhaul the Alamodome in preparation of the tournament. Those upgrades could cause the Raiders' owner to give the city a closer look as he contemplates potential franchise relocation sites, Sculley said.
"I think it definitely helps our case," Sculley told me when asked what impact the NCAA endorsement and Alamodome improvements could have on San Antonio's discussions with Davis and the Raiders.
Among the planned upgrades are new video walls and media work space, as well as expanded Alamodome concourses. While the changes will be made to accommodate the Final Four, they could also benefit an NFL tenant, provided such a team could look beyond the temporary construction.
Michael Sawaya, director of the city's Convention, Sports & Entertainment Facilities Department, said the 21-year-old Alamodome is already "in better shape than (the Raiders') current stadium."
Other planned changes, including technology improvements and new team locker rooms, will create an even greater distinction between the Alamodome and Oakland's O.co Coliseum, which opened in 1966. Sawaya said any team that elects to play in San Antonio's downtown stadium will benefit from the venue improvements.
"This is a significant upgrade," Sawaya added.
Couldnt be more wrong.
The oil and gas industry along with the rest of the city's rapidly growing business base is bringing money in hand over fist.
There is way way way more than enough money to spread around.
Mark Davis: We're trying everything to get Oakland stadium deal
By Ian Rapoport NFL Media Insider Nov. 21, 2014 at 08:09 a.m.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...d-stadium-deal
The Raiders upset the Chiefs Thursday at O.co Coliseum and just two more home games sit on the schedule for 2014. After that is nothing but uncertainty.
The lease for the Raiders' longtime stadium expires after the final regular-season game, and then comes the first of many decisions that will dramatically affect the long-term future of one of the NFL's most storied franchises.
Will they stay in Oakland with a new stadium? Bolt to Los Angeles or San Antonio, two cities that have been the object of their flirtations? Or sign another one-year lease and prolong the decision?
In a phone interview Wednesday, owner Mark Davis said another extension without a firm plan is less than ideal: "What I don't want to do is get caught up in an endless cycle of one-year extensions. Those lease extensions, they tend to give comfort."
]B]What does Davis want? Simply, a new stadium right where the old stadium sits. And a decision soon.
A few days after Davis told the Los Angeles Daily News that Los Angeles would be a "great option" for the Raiders, he told me the paper didn't offer proper context to his remarks. He insists he made clear to the reporter how his main goal is a stadium in Oakland. So just to be clear, he reiterated.
"We are trying everything possible to get something done in Oakland right on the same exact site we're on right now," Davis said. "And I'd say 99 percent of my interests and energy are going towards getting something done there. That's really the crux of it right now. People want to know about the other sites and there are always options. But we want to get something done in Oakland."[/B]
A league official deferred to the club when asked to comment.
The political situation is complex in Oakland, and having to deal with the city and the county on all stadium issues makes it more complex. New Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf only adds an unfamiliar face to the mix, though she has begun working to keep the Silver and Black home. Oh, and the A's just signed a new 10-year lease for the stadium the teams share, though Davis points out that their agreement says the A's will leave within two years if the Raiders get a new deal on their site.
As far as how it would work, the San Francisco Chronicle has reported the Raiders would receive the land from the city and county on which the stadium sits in the event of a new stadium, and the Alameda County taxpayers would handle the $120 million still owed for the last construction in the 1990s. Davis adds that "we're not asking for public money" to actually build the stadium.
Instead, the only public investment would be for infrastructure such as improving the BART station at the stadium. Davis said the Raiders would put up half the money, while the land developer would "help fill in the gaps," he said. Part of all of that construction would be a Raiders Hall of Fame.
The next step, according to the Chronicle, is for New City Development LLC to use their 90-day extension of the exclusive negotiating window with the city and try to strike a deal.
"We'll see if anything is live there," Davis said, "and hopefully there is."
What about Los Angeles or San Antonio? Davis said both are "viable" options if Oakland doesn't work out as a permanent home.
"We want to stay here in Oakland," Davis said. "There's other opportunities that would be much more lucrative for us, to be real honest. But we are really trying to get something done in Oakland. We want a stadium the fans and the team can be proud of."
Like I said, it they stay in Oakland, its for sentimental reasons. Its a hard sell to investors to give up money based on sentiments as opposed to taking the deal that brings in more monies.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Right now, moving to San Antonio would bring in 3 to 4 times the net profit for Davis plus costing him 6-700 million less of his money in actually building a stadium.
Where are you getting "3-4 times net profit" from?
For Chargers and Raiders, the bigger game is off the field
BY JIM ALEXANDER / STAFF COLUMNIST Nov. 15, 2014 6:43 p.m.
http://www.pe.com/articles/stadium-7...san-diego.html
And to the winner goes … the moving vans?
The Chargers and Raiders will meet for the 110th time today, and the crowd at San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium almost certainly will be liberally dotted with fans wearing silver and black. It will be a reminder of the Raiders’ diaspora, the intensely loyal SoCal fan base that fell for the Raiders when they moved from Oakland to Los Angeles in 1982, stayed true when they moved back to Oakland in 1994 and helps fill Southwest flights to and from Oakland on home game weekends.
That color scheme will also serve as a reminder of stakes that go way beyond whatever transpires on the field today, where the Chargers (5-4) try to break a three-game losing streak and stay in the playoff hunt and the Raiders (0-9) try to play spoiler.
Call it the Battle For L.A.
The second-largest city in the country, without an NFL team since the Rams and Raiders both bolted 20 years ago, is again the object of breathless speculation. Is it a serious destination, or a bargaining chip? Who knows?
But the Chargers and Raiders both play in aging, inadequate stadiums. Both are on year-to-year leases. Both have L.A. in their DNA (the Chargers played in the Coliseum in 1960, theirs and the American Football League’s inaugural year, before moving to San Diego).
Add to this mix the Rams, who are having their own stadium issues in St. Louis and also can opt out of their lease, and whose owner, Stan Kroenke, bought 60 acres of land adjacent to Hollywood Park in Inglewood earlier this year and reportedly is negotiating to buy the remaining 300 acres.
Since the Rams play at San Diego next week and at home against Oakland the following week … well, remember the old pro wrestling line, “loser leaves town?” We may be watching the 21st-century version.
Honestly, Los Angeles has served the NFL better as a stalking horse the past two decades than it did when it was an actual league city. The skillfully brandished threat of a move to L.A. has helped accomplish new stadium deals in Minnesota, Indianapolis and San Francisco alone in the past decade.
And even with the league’s other myriad issues (a way-too-recent commitment to doing something about its players’ propensity for domestic violence, the long-term dangers of the game, etc.), it can’t help itself when it comes to priming the pump in Los Angeles.
Two current SoCal stadium proposals – neither of which involve taxpayer funds – aren’t enough. Ed Roski’s City of Industry proposal seems to be on life support, too far from the prosperous West L.A. demographic. Phil Anschutz’s Farmers Field concept, next to Staples Center, recently received a six-month extension from the L.A. City Council, but the godfather of AEG seems to insist on buying a piece of whatever team moves into town, a potential deal-breaker.
The league, keenly aware that competing sites mean more potential dollars, is dropping hints about a site in Carson, again casting a covetous eye on the Dodger Stadium parking lot and taking yet another look at Inglewood, where Hollywood Park’s race track is now closed and a decision awaits on the future use of that acreage. (Said acreage, remember, including that owned, present and maybe future, by one Enos Stanley Kroenke).
If the Hollywood Park Casino ever closes, it’s a pretty good bet – pun intended – that the NFL will be movin’ on in.
The working concept has been for one stadium shared by two teams, likely one from each conference. But Chargers owner Dean Spanos dropped a hint earlier this year that he’d be less than amenable to someone else, anyone else, moving into L.A. He indicated that 25-30 percent of the team’s season ticket business came from north of San Diego county, including the Inland Empire as well as Los Angeles and Orange counties.
“Putting a team in there (L.A.), or two teams, would have a huge impact on our business going forward,” Spanos told Sports Business Daily in October. “So we are trying to protect our business in San Diego … It would be really harmful to us.”
Spanos may be sending a message that he intends to muster the nine votes needed to block someone else’s relocation, which would require approval of three-quarters of the league’s 32 teams. He may be angling to get a significant share of someone else’s relocation fees.
Or he could be jockeying for position. The Chargers, who can opt out of their lease yearly, have been trying to find a stadium solution in San Diego for a decade with little progress. Do you wait for a stadium funding proposal on the 2016 ballot, always risky, or do you grab the immediate opportunity to increase the valuation of your franchise by 300 percent or more?
San Diego ($995 million), Oakland ($970 million) and St. Louis ($930 million) are all in the bottom tier of 2014 NFL team valuations, according to Forbes magazine. Twenty-five teams are valued at over $1 billion, led by Dallas at $3.2 billion. The league average is $1.43 billion, and considering the size of the L.A. market, the sale prices of the Dodgers ($2.1 billion) and Clippers ($2 billion) in recent years and the potential of a new stadium, whoever gets to L.A. first could quickly vault into the NFL’s top five in value.
You thought the action on the field was cutthroat? Stay tuned.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
