Closed

NFL banned shredder mask 
tired.gif
 
What the A's lease extension means for the Raiders

What the A's lease extension means for the Raiders

by. Scott Bair

The Raiders should have some state-of-the-art scoreboards at their 2015 home games, flashy additions to a stadium they’d rather discard.

The Oakland Coliseum still has some life in it yet. A 10-year lease extension agreed upon between the Athletics and the Oakland-Alameda Joint Powers Authority (JPA) on Thursday goes through 2024 and, while out clauses remain, keeps the A’s tied to the stadium until 2018.

CSN A’s insider Joe Stiglich addressed the deal’s details and our man Ray Ratto gave his two cents earlier today, so we’ll stick with the extension’s impact on the Raiders.

Honestly, it’s not much. The Raiders remain free to pursue a new stadium on the Coliseum site -– which remains Raiders owner Mark Davis’ chief objective –- but there are some caveats on when/if a very-much-still-in-limbo project could break ground.

If the Raiders were to build an approved development next door to O.co Coliseum, they could break ground without hindrance.

For the Raiders to build an approved development on the exact O.co Coliseum footprint, the JPA would have to give the Athletics two years notice the Silver and Black could start construction.

In that scenario, a stadium developer would have to put $10 million into an escrow account.

The Raiders have a lease that ends following the 2014 season. Davis remains committed to finding a long-term solution in Oakland, but remains cautious after years without tangible progress.

Davis said a few weeks ago that the A's and Raiders are not rivals. They aren't working in concert, either. While Davis will continue his efforts to remain in the East Bay, the Athletics' efforts complicate matters some for the Raiders' quest for new stadium.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
pretty much a stale mate, as much as i would love to stay in Oakland, LA is looking more and more likely if we want a new stadium any time soon. i hate the dirt field with no logo at the 50 yard line for the first half of the season! we deserve better!
 
They've been talking about building a stadium in LA for years and its been nothing but talk. Ill believe it the day they break ground on one. Remember LA was initially awarded an expansion team around 98 or 99 but they didn't have their stuff in order so it went to Houston instead.

Its always been one thing or another.
 
Is A's Coliseum lease bad for Raiders?


By Paul Gutierrez | ESPN.com

How does the 10-year lease agreement between Major League Baseball’s Oakland Athletics and the Oakland Coliseum Authority to have the A’s keep playing for the next decade in O.co Coliseum affect the Oakland Raiders?

The knee-jerk reaction of the deal being approved by a 6-2 vote, under threat of MLB commissioner Bud Selig giving the A’s permission to move if the deal was not approved, is that 81 baseball home games is preferable to 10 NFL home games (two in the preseason, eight in the regular season). But the Raiders might now want to take their ball and go home ... wherever that might be -- Dublin, Concord, Los Angeles, Portland, San Antonio, Parts Unknown.


Especially because two weeks before Thursday’s vote, Raiders owner Mark Davis said the Coliseum needed to be knocked down. Davis’ vision, of course, is Coliseum City. That would mean demolishing the Coliseum, which opened in 1968, and building new homes for both the Raiders, in the current south parking lot, and A’s, in the north parking lot.

It was after the Raiders’ final minicamp practice a few weeks ago that Davis told four reporters he did not consider the A’s a rival for the Coliseum site, although he did want A’s owner Lew Wolff to make his long-term intentions known.

The A’s 10-year lease, despite Wolff’s long-standing desire to move the team to San Jose, would seem to answer Davis. Still, there are reportedly many outs for the A’s, which would make a decade-long commitment a mere stopgap. Again.

Per MLB.com, “The deal permits the team to leave the Coliseum so long as it gives two years’ notice and continues paying the lease for the remainder of the two-year term. The A’s do not have to make these payments, however, if they move to another stadium within Oakland.”

Plus, in the news release from the A’s, the team announced, “The contract takes into account the possibility of progress towards building a new football facility for the Oakland Raiders. If private money becomes available for such a venue, the A’s and the Coliseum Authority recognize that a variety of next steps would be considered to ensure maximum flexibility for both the A’s and Raiders.”

Davis, meanwhile, has said the Raiders have $400 million to put toward a new stadium of their own. And, again, Davis wants new digs, not a refurbished and shared Coliseum.

“In order to do a really comprehensive building development there, you have to tear the Coliseum down to start with,” Davis told the San Jose Mercury-News after that last minicamp practice. “You can’t be putting the stadium in a corner here, because of infrastructure and all that. And I keep bringing that word up, but it’s a key word in this process.

“So the stadium’s got to come down. So [the A’s staying in the Coliseum] does make a problem, there’s no two ways about it.”

While the A’s have been dealing with the Coliseum Authority, the Raiders have been working with Colony Capital to get Coliseum City up and running. And the way Davis saw it, with the A’s lease up in 2015, before Thursday’s agreement, the Coliseum could have been torn down immediately thereafter.

“And that would get us into a stadium by 2019, I believe,” Davis said. “On that site.

“So it’s a tough situation. I’ve said that if the A’s were going to buy in and the A’s say, 'Yeah, we want to build on this site as well,' I’m all for it. Let’s build two stadiums and let’s do it.

“Selfishly I would like to be the only one there, but for the good of everybody, I’m all for it. Let’s do it. But make a commitment to it if you want. But it doesn’t look like it’s going to fit. Lew’s vision and Colony Capital’s vision don’t seem to mesh. So that’s where the problem is.”

Davis did not reply to messages Thursday now that the deal is all but official.

The A’s agreement still must be approved by the Oakland City Council and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.
Click to expand...

Is A's Coliseum lease bad for Raiders?

http://espn.go.com/blog/oakland-raiders/post/_/id/4923/does-as-coliseum-lease-affect-raiders
 
Raiders in talks to tear down Coliseum despite A's deal

While the A's are trying to negotiate a deal to stay in the O.co Coliseum for another 10 years, the Raiders are in talks to tear down the stadium next year to make way for a new home for the NFL team.

The talks, revealed in a memo to Mayor Jean Quan from planners of the city-backed Coliseum City sports-retail project, stunned officials of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority - the agency that just reached an agreement to keep the A's in the existing ballpark for a decade.

Representatives of Coliseum City say they expect to reach a deal with the Raiders by the end of the summer that would lead to the opening of a new football stadium on the existing site by 2018.

"It will be critical to demolish the existing stadium in 2015" if the project is to be finished on time, Coliseum City attorney (and local political powerhouse) Zachary Wasserman said in a July 2 memo to Quan and City Administrator Henry Gardner.

In the meantime, the Raiders "are making arrangements to play elsewhere," Wasserman wrote. Just where that might be, he doesn't say.

Two years' notice

Just where the A's would play under this scenario isn't clear, either. If the City Council and Alameda County Board of Supervisors ratify the deal reached between the A's and the Coliseum Authority, the baseball team would get two years' notice before any construction that would force them out of the ballpark. That would keep them in the Coliseum through at least the 2016 season.

If that happens, it would "frustrate efforts to develop the site and disrupt the ability to deliver a stadium for the Raiders and the ancillary developments adjacent to that stadium," Wasserman wrote.

Quan and the city are serious about Coliseum City, which would put a hotel, offices and housing on the current stadium site, along with a new home for the Raiders and a retail center. Wasserman noted that the city has already spent more than $4 million planning the project.

The A's lease extension talks, however, have complicated that planning. Quan has been pushing the idea of a baseball-only park at the Howard Terminal near Jack London Square, but A's ownership has shown zero interest.

Instead, they've been busily negotiating with the Coliseum Authority - which includes representatives of the city along with county officials. The City Council has been hoping for more out of the A's lease than what the Coliseum Authority approved, and it's an open question whether Oakland will ratify the deal.

Smoke and mirrors

County Supervisor Nate Miley - who serves as the Coliseum Authority chairman - called the idea of tearing down the Coliseum "totally preposterous."

"We still owe about $180 million on the stadium," Miley noted, thanks to the mid-1990s makeover that city and county taxpayers paid for to bring the Raiders back from Los Angeles.

"This is either smoke and mirrors," Miley said, "or they are on crack."

Oakland City Councilman Larry Reid - who also sits on the Coliseum Authority, supports the A's lease extension and walked out of Monday's closed council meeting in frustration when the issue came up - called the teardown idea "crazy, absolutely insane."

Reid noted that while the Coliseum City group has the blessing of Quan and the council, it has no such blessing from the Coliseum Authority, which actually controls the stadium.

Like Miley, he wondered whether the project is anything more than smoke and mirrors.

No funds or developer

"They don't have a developer - they don't have the money," Reid said of the Coliseum City planners.

The development firm Forest City pulled out of the project months ago, and a replacement has yet to be announced.

Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan, who also sits on the authority board and who is running for mayor, pointed the blame at Quan's administration for pressing ahead with the Coliseum City deal without any evidence it can be delivered.

Kaplan said the A's and co-owner Lew Wolff would also like to be involved in a development deal at the Coliseum, but not "underneath this particular development group that he lacks confidence in."

Wasserman told us Tuesday that he couldn't give "a definitive answer" on how the Coliseum City project would be financed until an outlined agreement with the Raiders - known as a term sheet - is completed later this summer.

However, he said the basic idea is to pay for the stadium with money brought in by the surrounding commercial and housing developments.

Scratching their heads

As for the stadium's price tag, Wasserman said only that it would be "less than $1 billion."

The Raiders didn't return our calls. Nor did Quan or Gardner.

The A's - who say they're willing to look at building a new ballpark on Coliseum property, but not as part of any Coliseum City deal - are simply scratching their heads.

"From our position, we just don't think that (Raiders project) is going to happen - we are betting it doesn't," said team Vice President Ken Pries.

But if it is real, the A's say, they have already agreed to leave on two years' notice if the Raiders put down a $10 million deposit on their new stadium.
 
Anybody scared of LA coming and taking the team shouldn't be. LA is more useful as a boogeyman to bully taxpayers into funding new stadiums, than it is as an NFL city.

Basically what I'm saying is the NFL doesn't WANT a team in LA so the Raiders are fine where they are.
 
Their is a reason why LA hasn't had an NFL team in almost 20 years. They can't get their **** together either. We're screwed
 
If LA found an ownership group to throw it's weight behind they could land a team. But they keep having different people trying their hand and it's stopping the process going forward.
 
Yea it's a mess but Ray Ratto sounds like an idiot.

The City of Oakland and the Coliseum Authority are NOT one in the same, no surprise that two separate government entities co-owning one stadium is dysfunctional. The fact that Oakland's representative on the Coliseum Authority, Rebecca Kaplan, detest Jean Quan and is running against her for Mayor this year makes it even messier. Agendas everywhere.

But thays not even why Ratto sounds dumb, it doesn't matter if negotiations are ongoing to keep the Colsieum standing, a pretty explicit exit opportunity has been laid down so that the stadium can be torn down if the City and County wish to. What is he talking about?
 
Last edited:
Raiders Want To Tear O.co Down
by Rory Anderson

Last week it was widely reported that the Oakland Athletics had struck a deal with the Joint Powers Authority on a ten year lease agreement that would keep them in O.co coliseum. It seems in typical Oakland Raiders fashion, there have been behind the doors discussions between the Raiders and Mayor Jean Quan that insinuate they are working on a power play that would put the Joint Powers Authority in a very awkward position.


The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the Raiders expect to complete negotiations by the end of the summer on a deal for a “Coliseum City” which would require a tearing down of the current O.co building by 2015 and a new building would be built by 2018. This is surprising news for a fan base that assumed after the Athletics deal, that the Raiders were destined for a new location. Not only would this be a coup for the Raiders to get this deal done, but it would also be massively beneficial for the re-election of Jean Quan.

One of the potential issues with this plan, is the built in two year warning that would be required for the Athletics in the event the coliseum is going to be torn down. With that in mind, it would then be impossible for the Raiders to have O.co demolished by 2015 in order to have the new coliseum built by 2018. This may insinuate there is more to this deal that we currently know and the Athletics may in some way benefit further with this project. Mayor Quan has pushed for a Jack London Square site for the Athletics, but that idea has met opposition from local businesses and the Athletics.

Of course there are skeptics to the deal and said skeptics have mentioned the lack of a developer since the loss of Forest City development and the lack of funds. It has also been made clear the Lew Wolff has little confidence in the current investment group, but businessmen are persuaded by money. To quote a businessman of sorts, maybe they “made him an offer he couldn’t refuse” or at least they plan to. The article mentions that the Raiders and the Mayor plan to have a term sheet ready by the end of the summer. This sheet would outline the money and the basics of the investment plan moving forward. Lastly, there is always the worry about the remaining 180 million from the last renovation, but this has long been viewed as a part of the deal.

This entire deal comes down to two things. First, if the Raiders invest ten million dollars as a down payment for the project the Athletics will take it as their two year notice and move out at the end of those two years. Secondly, Colony Capital is a private real estate investment firm. They have the wherewithal and corporate structure to make this work. If the city of Oakland is willing to allow the group to own the entire area much in the way AEG owns the entire downtown Los Angeles area, then there is the long term investment potential for them. Without it, the Raiders simply do not create enough profit in ten games a season. As for the skeptics, Colony Capital if they a truly looking for a power play, have the money to not only incorporate the 180 million dollar debt from the last renovation into the plan, but they also could buy out the Joint Powers Authority making this process much more efficient.


Saw this on JustBlogBaby. Not sure accurate
 
Where do you guys think the Raiders will play if they tear down the Coliseum to build the new stadium?
I'm thinking Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

eracism
Texas ranked worst state for quality of life
5 6 7
Replies
165
Views
10K
Mark Antony
M
us3less
Healing/Recovering from Anxiety and Panic Attacks - by Allowing the Feelings and Thoughts to Happen
Replies
1
Views
2K
Belgium
Belgium

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom