Raiders want new stadium in Oakland (i.e., they're going back to L.A.)

Remember the Los Angeles Raiders? Hope you liked them, I’m guessing they’ll be making a comeback.

Report: Raiders want 50,000-seat, $800 million stadium in Oakland - CBSSports.com

The issue isn’t even the money (though I seriously doubt Oakland can afford $300M these days.) The issue is the size. I can’t see the league putting up $$ for a modern stadium that only seats 50K. I’m sure they’d much rather build a 60-80K stadium in L.A. and put the Raiders up there. That way the league gets more TV revenue AND more ticket revenue.

Then again... while there are some people who think it doesn't make sense to have teams in both Oakland and San Fran, both cities have their own base-ball teams. People thought Baltimore and Washington D.C. shouldn't each have their own teams and it's working for them in both sports.

Thoughts?

TrueBeliever said:

Remember the Los Angeles Raiders? Hope you liked them, I’m guessing they’ll be making a comeback.

Report: Raiders want 50,000-seat, $800 million stadium in Oakland - CBSSports.com

The issue isn’t even the money (though I seriously doubt Oakland can afford $300M these days.) The issue is the size. I can’t see the league putting up $$ for a modern stadium that only seats 50K. I’m sure they’d much rather build a 60-80K stadium in L.A. and put the Raiders up there. That way the league gets more TV revenue AND more ticket revenue.

Then again... while there are some people who think it doesn't make sense to have teams in both Oakland and San Fran, both cities have their own base-ball teams. People thought Baltimore and Washington D.C. shouldn't each have their own teams and it's working for them in both sports.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Way back when the AFL and NFL merged the league made a rule that all teams had to have a stadium with a minimum capacity of 50,000; that's what got the ball rolling for the Patriots to unsuccessfully try to get a new stadium in Boston and when the politicians in Boston played hardball with Billy Sullivan he built Schaefer Stadium on a shoestring budget in Foxboro.

Although 50,000 would easily be the smallest stadium in the league, the trend has been to create smaller size stadiums in recent years. More and more space is allocated to where the real money is - club seats and suites - leaving less space for traditional seating. More and more people are staying home to watch games on their home theaters, making it more difficult to sell a large number of seats. Not selling out is problematic because of blackout rules. The bottom line is that a new stadium with a relatively small seating capacity is not all that preposterous.

The one monkey wrench in all of this is that although the NFL has a 50,000 seat minimum for a stadium, they have a larger minimum for a stadium hosting a Super Bowl. The standard business negotiating plan to get local and state agencies to help fund a stadium is to tell them if they do so they will get to host a Super Bowl, and the team and the NFL cite what may not be completely objective opinions on the positive economic impact of holding that event. Would the NFL waive that rule? Perhaps more importantly, would the NFL want to hold their cherished gala in Oakland?

The networks want to have a team in the nation's second largest television market, and have surely been pressuring the NFL to place a team there for some time now. Promising Los Angeles a Super Bowl is far more palatable than doing the same for Oakland. The tough part is that beyond the economic situation in the state of California, the NFL - or more specifically, the networks - need Los Angeles much more than LA needs a football team.

At some point there will be a team in Los Angeles; it might as well be the Raiders. But for that to happen people have to realize it's not like negotiating a sweetheart stadium deal in Tampa by threatening to go elsewhere; LA has already proven that they can easily live without a pro football team with no problem.

I figured the 50K was to reduce the risk of blackouts; personally I think the answer to that is to get rid of the blackout rule in the first place, but that's another thread.

It never occurred to me that it was because they were putting more of the capacity into club and luxury seats. Makes sense though.

And no, I can't see the NFL holding a Super Bowl in Oakland. Though if they play one in San Fran at the new place there I imagine there will be some overflow across the bridge.

I have nothing against Oakland. I think the Raiders belong there. That's where they were started, and they helped put the AFL on the map during their time there. But like you said, eventually there's going to be a team in L.A. and I figure the Raiders are the most likely candidate.