Nfl To Fund Oakland Stadium

[dapz]

http://m.nfl.com/news/0ap1000000107042/roger-goodell-nfl-would-help-fund-oakland-raiders-stadium/

 

I was highly upset reading this. If the nfl is willing to find a teams stadium to keep them in the same town. Why was this not applies universally to all teams that have moved?

 

What's to stop owners from just using this as leverage saying is the nfl doesn't pay for my stadium I am picking up and leaving.

 

I'm sure modell would have loved hearing the nfl was building him a new stadium in Cleveland.

[The Gipper]

http://m.nfl.com/news/0ap1000000107042/roger-goodell-nfl-would-help-fund-oakland-raiders-stadium/

 

I was highly upset reading this. If the nfl is willing to find a teams stadium to keep them in the same town. Why was this not applies universally to all teams that have moved?

 

What's to stop owners from just using this as leverage saying is the nfl doesn't pay for my stadium I am picking up and leaving.

 

I'm sure modell would have loved hearing the nfl was building him a new stadium in Cleveland.

 

The NFL DID help build the new stadium in Cleveland. And the article said only that the NFL was going "help" build a new Oakland stadium...as it has helped any number of others. Cleveland, Santa Clara, Jacksonville, and probably many more.

 

More critical is two things from this article: 1. That the NFL thinks that a single stadium for both the 49ers and the Raiders is a viable option, like they do in NYC. (The Oakland team and the San Francisco team would then both actually be playing essentially in San Jose...not in the cities they are name after....like the Jets and Giants don't play in NYC)

2. That they actually think a return to LA is a viable option. It may indeed be the best option given the following NFL goals:

A. to have a team and stadium in LA

B. to retain a 32 team league and not expand

C. to not remove the NFL completely from a market.

 

Quite frankly if the Raiders move back to LA, I think the 49ers should change their name to the "Bay Area 49ers" or the "Golden State 49ers"...like the Warriors do. Or the "California 49ers". That way they would essentially encompass all of the SF/SJ/Oakland...even Sacramento areas....and also have LA covered.

It would also be a possible signal that even though the Raiders may leave, it doesn't mean that the NFL intends to relegate the East Bay area to nothingness compared to San Francisco.

 

And, I mean, here is a clue for you: The Top 5 TV markets in America (which is what matters to the NFL really) are:

New York (which more than doubles all other markets except LA)

Los Angeles

Chicago

Philadelphia

Dallas-Ft. Worth

 

San Fran/San Jose/Oakland is 6th. LA right now has no team, Chicago/Philly/Dallas have only one team. I think the NFL believes that if Chicago etc. don't need two teams, then neither does the Bay Area....especially if the #2 market in the nation has no team.

 

Trust me, I am sure certain factions in the higher echelons of the NFL are thinking along these lines.

[Pumpkin Eater]

Why would they be looking at just the TV market size when they black out games in that market if the game isn't sold out.

[Mark O]

There will be a team in LA before long. They are going ahead with constuction even though no team has officially announced moving there. I still would bet a whole lot of money that it's the Chargers. They were originally the LA Chargers, there's no way that a new stadium gets built in San Diego. After this dismal season they've had, it wouldn't shock me to hear the announcement in February or March that the Chargers will play next year in the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum until the new place is ready.

[The Gipper]

There will be a team in LA before long. They are going ahead with constuction even though no team has officially announced moving there. I still would bet a whole lot of money that it's the Chargers. They were originally the LA Chargers, there's no way that a new stadium gets built in San Diego. After this dismal season they've had, it wouldn't shock me to hear the announcement in February or March that the Chargers will play next year in the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum until the new place is ready.

 

Yea, but, to me, leaving San Diego makes no sense. The San Diego market alone is as big as the Cleveland market....and I don't know why the NFL would want to allow that to be abandoned. While it may also be a fact that the East Bay area is about the same size as the San Diego area, that area would at least still be served by the 49ers.

If it came down to my choice about which team I would rather see move to LA it would be the Raiders not the Chargers....not that I want either of them to move....not that I want any team to move....even Jacksonville which is the other prime candidate.

[Mark O]

It's not about the size of the market, it's about the city and the ability to get a stadium deal done. The Chargers have been trying to figure out a location to build a new stadium for more than 10 years now and still have no plan in place. Add to that the number of transplants who live there who couldn't care less about the Chargers stadium problems or whether there is an NFL team in San Diego means it will be nearly impossible if public funds are needed to get it passed through any kind of election. The fact that there will be a state of the art stadium 120 miles north of San Diego for the Chargers to very easily move up the coast, makes it nearly impossible for the Chargers to stay in San Diego.

 

Also add this to the mix... In 1998 the Padres had on the ballots a petition for a new downtown ballpark which passed, getting a bit over 60% of the votes. Construction was to begin immediately and the team was to move in just a couple of years. Politicians, lawyers, and god knows who else, held up the construction for 2 years through various lawsuits. They lost each and every time but those same people are in San Diego and they've made it known that they would also oppose any public funding of a new football stadium. I'm sure the Chargers owners saw what happened to the Padres and the time and money that was lost trying to defend something that was already approved. Would you stick around to go through that when you can just as easily move up the coast to a new and much larger market?

 

Add to the dismal season, most of the home games being blacked out, the fact that the owners brought back Norv Turner despite the fact that the team is getting worse each year under him, all points to someone looking for an excuse to bail out.

[The Gipper]

It's not about the size of the market, it's about the city and the ability to get a stadium deal done. The Chargers have been trying to figure out a location to build a new stadium for more than 10 years now and still have no plan in place. Add to that the number of transplants who live there who couldn't care less about the Chargers stadium problems or whether there is an NFL team in San Diego means it will be nearly impossible if public funds are needed to get it passed through any kind of election. The fact that there will be a state of the art stadium 120 miles north of San Diego for the Chargers to very easily move up the coast, makes it nearly impossible for the Chargers to stay in San Diego.

 

Also add this to the mix... In 1998 the Padres had on the ballots a petition for a new downtown ballpark which passed, getting a bit over 60% of the votes. Construction was to begin immediately and the team was to move in just a couple of years. Politicians, lawyers, and god knows who else, held up the construction for 2 years through various lawsuits. They lost each and every time but those same people are in San Diego and they've made it known that they would also oppose any public funding of a new football stadium. I'm sure the Chargers owners saw what happened to the Padres and the time and money that was lost trying to defend something that was already approved. Would you stick around to go through that when you can just as easily move up the coast to a new and much larger market?

 

Add to the dismal season, most of the home games being blacked out, the fact that the owners brought back Norv Turner despite the fact that the team is getting worse each year under him, all points to someone looking for an excuse to bail out.

 

The Norv Turner issue will be resolved post haste as soon as the season ends.

 

On the other issues you address....certainly the nitty gritty of the politics or the economics goes into play in these decisions. I am naturally thinking in the ethereal. In the ethereal no one in their right mind would have ever wanted to move their team out of the cradle of professional football....

but.....when you insert the reality of a greedy/inept owner who will whore himself out to the the first town with cash to give him, sure, you have someone who will want to leave the greatest fan base around for his own personal self interest.

Maybe you don't have that kind of fan base there. Too bad. I think SD deserves a team....they have had a team for 50 years. I don't want to see them lose it. But reality might set in.

[Mark O]

 

Maybe you don't have that kind of fan base there. Too bad. I think SD deserves a team....they have had a team for 50 years. I don't want to see them lose it. But reality might set in.[/b]

 

 

It's a different kind of fan base. In part because the weather is so nice, going to football games just isn't that important unless the team is winning. When they suck, people will find something else to do. There isn't the "die hard" fans like you see in Cleveland, Chicago, Philly, etc, etc. Throw in the fact that there's just a lot of people here who came from somewhere else and will only go to Chargers games to see "their" team play, you end up with a pretty apathetic fan base for the most part. The funny part is that LA is no different, there's just more people there and they will support the team (whoever it is) in the early going but if they start or continue to lose, attendance will drop there too. I went to the Rams/Browns game in December 1993, the Rams left after the 94 season and there was no one there (looked it up, attendance 34k, capacity mid 60's), and those that were there were Browns fans.

[Horn of Lake Erie]

It's a different kind of fan base. In part because the weather is so nice, going to football games just isn't that important unless the team is winning. When they suck, people will find something else to do. There isn't the "die hard" fans like you see in Cleveland, Chicago, Philly, etc, etc. Throw in the fact that there's just a lot of people here who came from somewhere else and will only go to Chargers games to see "their" team play, you end up with a pretty apathetic fan base for the most part. The funny part is that LA is no different, there's just more people there and they will support the team (whoever it is) in the early going but if they start or continue to lose, attendance will drop there too. I went to the Rams/Browns game in December 1993, the Rams left after the 94 season and there was no one there (looked it up, attendance 34k, capacity mid 60's), and those that were there were Browns fans.

 

 

Watching the Raiders game I was amazed at how few OAK fans there were and how many CLE fans there were. Outside of the "Black Hole," the fan base is pretty much non-existent from what I could see.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

The Norv Turner issue will be resolved post haste as soon as the season ends.

 

On the other issues you address....certainly the nitty gritty of the politics or the economics goes into play in these decisions. I am naturally thinking in the ethereal. In the ethereal no one in their right mind would have ever wanted to move their team out of the cradle of professional football....

but.....when you insert the reality of a greedy/inept owner who will whore himself out to the the first town with cash to give him, sure, you have someone who will want to leave the greatest fan base around for his own personal self interest.

Maybe you don't have that kind of fan base there. Too bad. I think SD deserves a team....they have had a team for 50 years. I don't want to see them lose it. But reality might set in.

 

When I was stationed there in the 80's we used to have a ball going to Chargers and Padres games. We used to have some really good tailgates. Saw one game of the Padres/Tigers World Series also.

[ballpeen]

I think its the Jaguars. They hardly ever sell out and Jax is a Gators town.

 

 

I agree it's a Gator town, but the NFL wants to be in Jacksonville. A lot of people live in that area...say down to Gainesville and over to Tallahassee, not to mention south Georgia. It's a stretch to get those folks rooting for the Tampa Bay Bucs or some other team.

 

As for the Raiders.....move them to LA and have the Niners claim the bay area with a stadium in the middle..

 

Keep the Chargers in SD

 

 

I agree with Gip or whoever brought it up, the NFL doesn't want to expand at this point. The talent pool is to the point of being watered down. No matter how you cut it, you usually only have 20 or so good quarterbacks in any given era, so you have 8-10 teams who don't really stand much of a chance.

 

It cycles around over time, but none the less, it doesn't help parity or profits in the city that doesn't have one.

 

 

Heck, the Browns are a classic example of a franchise that can't find one, either due to poor drafting or luck of the draw....meaning the best QB available doesn't mean he is going to be a quality NFL QB. The "luck" factor is pretty high at that position.....you can make all the right calls known to man and the guy still might turn out to be a dud.