mhm. my guess is they re-up for 1 year in oakland and try to move to SA next year, but they'd need a stadium deal completed and agreed do before committing to relocation. thats how they got ed over in LA
yeah, its a little frustrating. not that he's a "bad owner." he's not meddling or dysfunctional, legitimately cares about the team, and got the team pretty damn close to a nice stadium deal in LA if not for Kroenke wanting to move at exactly the same time.
the issue is he doesn't have deep pockets, which really holds him back regarding stadium deals. his net worth is entirely tied to his ownership of the team
That doesn't matter. The deal with CBS, NBC, ESPN and FOX already etched in stone. Ratings have little to do with how much the NFL makes after a deal is done. Cable pay for the rights to broadcast these games up front. ESPN forked over 15.2 billion dollars just to retain MNF. Just one freakin' game a week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/sp...lion.html?_r=0
That is why teams like Jags, NO, Indy, Clev, Bal, etc can exist. B/c TV demo is based off regions not cities. You are talking about San Antonio as one market. Combine it with all of South Texas and the TV Market goes to #11 in the Nation. Jerry wouldn't lose any viewers as the Raiders would be on CBS and NFC teams are on Fox. McNair would care because he would then be competing with another AFC team in his own backyard.
If SA/AUS wants a team, the $1B+ stadium should be financed with equity (shares bought by the interested), not taxpayer debt (bonds + interest paid mostly by uninterested people).
Colin speaks the truth.
Tons of Dallas and Houston natives ting on the move. I will never understand how SA natives will root for such s cities... They don't like you.
Would love to have a NFL team, I've never been to a game. Even if the team is lousy it would be cool to have some in person NFL action so close.
The A's are in the O.co Coliseum until 2024. Them signing that 10 year lease was a huge blow against Davis keeping the team in Oakland since he desperately wants out of that stadium. Now he has to go it alone if he stays.
If I am not mistaken, the A's have an early buyout clause after 7 years I think. But the A's owner already said anyways he wanted to build a Baseball park similar to the one they are build the Braves here in Atlanta.
So either way, the Raiders are on their own in Oakland as oppose to having multiple partner with arms wide open here in SA. Levi Stadium is the only option for staying in the Bay Area long-term and that more than likely isnt happening.
Last edited by Cowboys_Wear_Spurs; 01-15-2016 at 01:30 PM.
The Oakland leverage play already has begun
Posted by Mike Florio on January 15, 2016, 11:26 AM EST
APFor years, Los Angeles has served as the leverage for NFL owners hoping to squeeze maximum public money from their current localities in order to build new stadiums. Now that L.A. is off the table, NFL owners need to find new “or else” options if they hope to shake taxpayer dollars from the trees on which money doesn’t grow.
Enter San Antonio.
It’s no coincidence that media reports linking the Raiders to San Antonio emerged immediately after the door was slammed shut on the Raiders moving to L.A. With the very real threat of the Raiders bolting from the Bay Area back to Southern California, the folks in Oakland did nothing meaningful to assist with the construction of a new stadium. Now that the Raiders: (1) can’t go to L.A. unless the Chargers choose not to partner in Kroenkeworld; and (2) have an extra $100 million for the purposes of building a stadium in Oakland, will the powers-that-be in Alameda County feel more compelled to act? Or less?
That’s why San Antonio is back in play. But it won’t be as easy as owner Mark Davis thinks.
“We don’t have a lease right now at the Oakland Coliseum,” Davis said Tuesday. “America, the world is a possibility for the Raider Nation.”
The lease in Oakland is only part of the equation. Davis still needs 23 other owners to approve any move to a new city. Unless Davis plans to take a page from his late father’s playbook, it means that it will take only nine other owners to freeze him out of a given market, like San Antonio.
And two strong “no” votes surely would come, quickly and loudly, from the state of Texas. Neither the Houston Texans nor the Dallas Cowboys will want to see another NFL franchise wedged into their territory.
“Well if they go there, we have a suburb called Plano, Texas right outside of Dallas,” Cowboys owner Jerry Jones told PFT Live last March. “There’s a higher percentage of Cowboy fans in San Antonio than there is in Plano; 97 percent. So it’s a great hotbed for us down there, we do a lot of things down there, we train down there. So if they go down there they’ll be surrounded with a lot of Cowboy fans and that’s good, that’s good.”
On the surface, Jones acts like he isn’t worried about the Raiders causing that 97-percent saturation in San Antonio to fall. At a deeper level, he surely is. While he would have no qualms about the Raiders using San Antonio as a crowbar to get something/anything from Oakland, Jones would drop the hammer if/when Davis tries to move to San Antonio.
And Jones, who had the vision, leadership, and commitment to help make Kroenkeworld a reality for the NFL, undoubtedly has the juice to get at least eight other owners to tell Davis that the Silver and Black will never be infringing upon the Blue and Silver.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ady-has-begun/
Jerry said last year he wouldn't block it. McNair on the otherhand said he was on the fence and would make a decision if and when it came for a vote. Like I said, Jerry wouldn't lose anything. Being that the Raiders are an AFC, it will just give people a reason to root for two teams. The team that it would hurt would definitely be the Texans. I would expect McNair to vote against it for sure.
And SA isn't really a leverage point at this point. There is really no way Oakland can compete with the SA offer. They are broke and have no monies to invest in a new stadium. This would just be leverage to any corporations in the area who might want to step up and fit the bill. But I don't see that happening as stadium events are few and farther between then arena event and cost more to maintain and build.
It's going to cost 1 Billion dollars just to build a new ARENA in the Bay Area on 12 acres. Imagine the cost of a Stadium, which requires 40+ acres. That is why the Warriors new home is going back across the Bay.
Last edited by Cowboys_Wear_Spurs; 01-15-2016 at 02:04 PM.
You just pointed out a problem. Thanks.
San Antonio woos Raiders in relocation bid
28 minutes ago
.View photo
Oakland Raiders fans show 'Stay In Oakland' signs during the game against the San Diego Chargers on December 24, 2015 in Oakland, California (AFP Photo/Lachlan Cunningham)
San Francisco (AFP) - Texas billionaire Red McCombs, a former owner of the NFL Minnesota Vikings and NBA San Antonio Spurs, is encouraging the Oakland Raiders to consider relocating to San Antonio.
McCombs told KZDC radio that he would be willing to invest in the team if that would help lure Raiders owner Mark Davis into the Alamodome as a temporary home while a new stadium is built.
"We still have to get them to want to come," McCombs said. "(Davis) was born and raised there and he has a great feeling for the state of California, but it appears he is going to need to go somewhere."
On Tuesday, the NFL rejected a relocation plan to Los Angeles for the Raiders and San Diego Chargers and approved the move of the St. Louis Rams to Los Angeles. The Chargers have up to a year to join them in a new stadium deal and if they refuse the Raiders would then have a year to move.
But that is scant help for Davis, whose team lacks a lease for next season and is looking at a late March NFL owners meeting to have final answers for the 2016 season.
Corporate support in the region won't be a problem, according to 88-year-old McCombs.
"We already have 12 of the corporate en ies nailed down and ready with serious commitments," McCombs said. "They are not going to find anywhere else in the United States that can equal what we put together."
NFL owners would have to approve the move, which could draw complaints from the two other owners of Texas NFL teams, Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys and Bob McNair of the Houston Texans.
http://news.yahoo.com/san-antonio-wo...medium=twitter
Red McCombs deserves a statue
I'll piss on his statue for bringing Vinny Del Negro in, letting Strickland walk for nothing, and dooming DRob into having mediocre supporting casts in the 90s because of it.
jerry will have a hard time blocking another raiders relocation bid when he was one of the main voices that kept the raiders out of LA this time around
Was he the GM?
Seriously media pushing this hard now. Jerry sealed the deal himself.
Will you still root for the Raiders if they leave Cali?
oh yeah, a low point in Spurs history.
After having a promising young team in 89-90, in 92 a line up with Del Negro as point and Tark as coach....
And the plaque reads "Most Mediocre Pro Sports Owner."
Which of those TVs are not already watching the Cowboys and Texans?
I think the likelihood of their moving here is higher than ever before, but far from a slamdunk.
Being in the NY market, we get screwed by NFL TV rules all the time because CBS can't show a game when the Giants are at home, and Fox with Jets at home (some exceptions when inter-conference games carried on other network, plus prime-time).
This is not the case in Texas, as CBS may push for one of the Raiders or Texans to play late games (Raiders likely, given West division). So theoretically on CBS doubleheader weekends, fans could end up with games featuring all three Texas teams unless there's another compelling Game of the Week in the 3pm CT slot.
As importantly, this extends interest in the AFC West throughout the country, creating more interest in Texas in games featuring the Chargers, Chiefs and Broncos. Bay Area will still get those games, as fans will either stick with Raiders or convert to Chargers / Niners / Rams.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
