Beat LA: Raiders secretly meet with Oakland officials and NFL to discuss stadium

East Bay Sports Guy August 17, 2012

In their ongoing effort to retain the Raiders, Oakland city officials met with Raiders’ owner Mark Davis and team president Amy Trask, as well as representatives from the NFL.

The delegation from Oakland, which included Mayor Jean Quan, City Council President Larry Reid and Alameda County Administrator Susan Muranishi, were tasked with convincing both the Raiders and the NFL that a new stadium is feasible at the current cite of the 46 year-old O.Co Coliseum. The new stadium would be part of a redevelopment project that would include stadiums for both the Warriors and Athletics (though the A’s would likely share a home with the Raiders), as well as a miscellany of shops and restaurants. The crux of the proposal is the Raiders, along with the Warriors and Athletics, would foot the bill.

The Raiders have made it known they wish to stay in Oakland. “Oakland is my preference,” Mark Davis said. “I see us as an urban team, being in a city. I want it to work here. I’d like to stay here.” However, such a proposal makes a stadium seem unlikely, especially since the NFL has already committed $200 million to the 49ers for their new stadium in Santa Clara. The money just wouldn’t add up.

But there are two other options for the Raiders: Santa Clara and Los Angeles.

Santa Clara

In July of 2011, 49ers president Jed York said the team was open to conversations about a shared stadium between his team and the Raiders. ”We’ve discussed it, but there’s no plans. There’s nothing in the works,” York told ESPN. “And again, it’s something we remain open to, but it’s got to be the right deal for two teams. There’s nothing that anybody can force to make that happen.”

Back in January of this year, Santa Clara Mayor Jamie Mathews told the Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal that the Santa Clara stadium was designed with two teams in mind. ”We designed it for a second team” Mathews intimated. “So it’s our ambition to get a second team.”

Los Angeles

Though there a few hurdles left to be cleared, construction on a new stadium in downtown Los Angeles, could commence as early as March of 2013 — which would be much earlier than any timetable the city of Oakland could produce. Of course the question is not when or if a team will move to the nation’s second largest economy, but who and how many.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has made his desire for two teams in Los Angeles clear. “Consistent with our long-standing view,” Goodell wrote in a memo, “we have made it clear that any stadium seeking investment support from the 32 member clubs should preserve a viable option of being able to host two teams at appropriate times and on appropriate terms.” Currently, the Raiders, St. Louis Rams and San Diego Chargers are the most feasible options for relocation.

But a Raider move to Los Angeles wouldn’t be without its own obstacles. The biggest of which involve Mark Davis.

“The league is going to want someone [an owner] in that market who has strong local connections,” one team official told Jason La Canfora of CBSsports.com. “This is someone who has to understand the marketing, the branding, and have the financial wherewithal and experience to pull it off.”

League sources do not believe Davis fits that description. As Mike Floria of ProFootballTalk.com wrote, “The prevailing opinion among the league’s power brokers is that the owners most likely would not authorize a move by the Raiders unless owner Mark Davis sells controlling interest in the team.”

Alas, if the Raiders were considering a move to Los Angeles, fans would know soon. According to Goodell’s requirements for a team intending to relocate to Los Angeles, the interested team must negotiate a deal with an alternative site (the Rose Bowl or Coliseum) to host games while the downtown stadium is under construction. The team must also submit a petition to relocate within the first two weeks of 2013. With the Raiders’ lease set to expire after the 2013 season, they’ve got no time to waste.

With the construction in Santa Clara in full swing and construction in Los Angeles ready to begin, the Raiders have options, but not time. This of course puts the onus on Oakland to develop a plan that can deliver a new stadium both quickly and cheaply.

About the Author

A resident of Oakland, East Bay Sports Guy (otherwise known as Scott Preston) often spends his time wearing v-necks--sometimes deep, sometimes not--and watching the teams that play in the Coliseum. You can follow Scott @EBSportsGuy.

10 comments

Newest | Oldest

Slam

The ugly truth is Mark Davis is seen by the league as an underqualified bumpkin, and there will be significant pressure on him to sell. The A's coulda had the land where the Fox Theatre is, and that "Uptown" area is completely revitalized. Lou Wolfe is a clown. The fancy pants Hollywood A-holes who own the Warriors are determined to move to SF and anybody who thinks they'll settle for Oakland is a fool

Tru

I really feel L.A. won't be an option. I just can't see Mark selling off his ownership of the team. Heck, even his mom is telling him to stay in Oakland. I've heard that there is a lot of interest by the Raiders in building in Dublin if Oakland can't work. Either way, it's nice having an Oakland sports team saying they want to stay and make it work. I also think Oakland is a football/Raiders town first and a winning season would only help the population get behind a new stadium.

Otis Byrd III

I'm not really sure about the L.A. thing, but I'm sure L.A. would be interested in having the Raiders back. The Raiders are still very popular in L.A., and it's almost like they never left. You would think L.A. fans would dislike the Raiders for moving back to Oakland, but L.A. fans really took to the Raiders, as we saw in that 30-for-30 ESPN documentary about the Raiders when they were in L.A. Right now, it looks like either the Raiders, the Chargers, or maybe even the Jaguars might be the teams that could move to L.A. I heard there might even be two teams that could move to L.A. That would be interesting if the Raiders and Chargers moved to L.A. That would spice up that rivalry a little more, even though I doubt both of those teams end up in L.A. The Chargers might be/probably are the favorites right now though. As far as Oakland goes, I agree that Oakland is more of a Raiders town. Whenever you go to Oakland, you do see people with Raider gear on, as well as people with A's gear, but you see more Raider fans in Oakland. It's kind of surprising that you don't see as many Warrior fans in Oakland. You see more Warriors fans here in San Francisco, than you do in Oakland. I'm sure there's tons of Warrior fans in Oakland, but you don't really see them. Yes, I don't go to Oakland that often, but I agree that Oakland is more of a Raiders town. The Raiders probably are the team in Oakland that represents Oakland the best, out of the Raiders, the A's, and the Warriors. The Raiders are willing to stay in Oakland as you alluted to, the A's have their hearts in San Jose as we know, and of course, the Warriors want to be here in San Francisco.

Mug-Z

Assuming that the Pier 30-32 is a pipe dream that will never happen, which I do (as if the accidental mayor Ed Lee has the fortitude and will to power something like this arena deal through the transom, ala Willie Brown), the issue with the Warriors proposed SF deal is this: will an arena that is developed by the Giants on the Mission Rock site, and from which the Giants will likely keep most of the ancillary income (parking, retail, etc) be a better deal for the Warriors than having full control over those income-generating components at a new arena in Oakland? The reason the W's are even looking at Pier 30-32 is, I think, because they did not like the deal the Giants were offering at Mission Rock and determined that it's best to go their own way. If an arena gets built on land the Giants own, believe me it won't be an equitable deal for the Warriors. That's not how the Giants operate. It's going to be a big money maker for the G's, and the W's will basically be viewed as a tenant. To capture the kind of bucks the Warriors want for a new arena, they need more control over the entire project but I just don't see the Pier 30-32 deal ever happening with all of the hurdles that will be placed in front of it and without a strong, "my-way-or-the-highway" type mayor at City Hall. Ed Lee is not that kind of guy. When this thing starts to get squirrley, he'll get off the ride. He is the guy who wasn't even sure if he wanted the mayoral gig in the first place. Does that sound like a guy who is going to ram this project through for Lacob & Guber? I would be shocked if the Warriors are playing in SF in 10 years. I think they'll be in Oakland. And as far as Lacob needing to make the deal happen because he promised that it would, heck, he's made lots of empty and inane promises before so no big whoop. Therefore, I think the choice is between supporting the Raiders or the A's for a new stadium, and as I noted, 81 home dates, and a downtown (or near downtown) MLB ballpark would do more for the city of Oakland than 10 NFL home games at a site near the airport.

Jason Dunn

Remember the A's do not want to be In Oakland. The Raiders do! Focus on the team that wants to be there.

Mug-Z

I am a long-time Oakland resident, homeowner, and tax payer. If I were to chose ONE team to stay behind it would be the A's because of the transformative impact 81 home dates in a downtown (or near downtown) ballpark would have on the adjacent neighborhood. I don't understand Mayor Clown's obsession with Colesium City. The Warriors will probably stay anyway because their absurd pipedream for the SF waterfront should be blowing up in their faces any time soon. Spending a fortune on the Raiders and their 10 home dates just seems like a bad idea all the way around. The only practical plan is to update the current Colesium site, I suppose, but from my POV, it's no contest between keeping a baseball team or a football team.

Otis Byrd III

Yeah, that's true too. For baseball, there are 81 home dates, and if the A's do have a new stadium in Oakland, they could probably attract more fans, which would do well for Oakland's economy. A new football stadium would benefit the Oakland economy too, especially with the business they could get with people going to the sports bars and the Raiders probably selling out their home games with a new stadium. As far as the Warriors go, I think they will eventually move to San Francisco. I'm sorry man, but it really would be good for the Warriors. Yeah, there are going to be a lot of obstacles, which is unbelievable, but they will probably get it done, whether it's Piers 30/32 or an arena next to AT&T Park. If the Warriors end up staying in Oakland, that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world since Oracle Arena isn't a bad place to watch a basketball game, but the Warriors FO would end up having an egg on their faces, especially after that huge press conference at Piers 30/32 and everything. That would be embarrassing, and they would probably have to make nice with the Warrior fans in the East Bay that they might've upset/pissed off after they announced their intentions of wanting to move back to San Francisco. I think the Warriors will find a way to move to the City, even though it might take longer than 2017, with the obstacles you keep hearing about, and Damon said that it might take longer than that. I do agree that they should update the Coliseum area. There's nothing to do there after games. It's not like AT&T after games where you can hit up the bars, the local eateries, or even Safeway after the games. LOL. It also isn't really that safe there after a night game when everyone is gone, and you're trying to find your parking spot or get on BART after the game. I think if you add more eateries there, and possibly add a new football stadium where the Coliseum currently is, and a new baseball stadium where Oracle stands, should the Warriors new arena here in San Francisco be built, that wouldn't be bad. If that doesn't work, and the Warriors end up staying at Oracle either longer than expected or if they can't get an arena deal done here in San Francisco, then you could just have the new football stadium be where the Coliseum currently is, and the new baseball stadium either near Jack London Square, or on that Port of Oakland site that was talked about.

East Bay Sports Guy

I think at this point city officials just need to choose which team they want to commit too. Mug-Z, you make a great point: The A's do seem to make the most sense economically.

adrian reynolds

Downtown L.A. there's the proposed Farmers Field site, where the LA Convention Center stands, next to Staples Center and Nokia Theatre/L.A. Live. AEG/Philip Anschutz is bankrolling that. City of Industry site only a proposal and from what I read, the DTLA project is further along.

ABIJXY

Oakland is making a mistake by continuing to push for the "Coliseum city" idea to retain the A's/Warriors/Raiders. They should cut their losses and develop a plan focussed on the Raiders and the Raiders only. That's their only real hope of retaining a professional team.