Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-21-2011, 11:05 PM
 
Location: East Bay Area
1,986 posts, read 3,600,744 times
Reputation: 911

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
They should move back to LA. They have trouble selling out here as it is and you probably have just as many Raiders fans if not more down there. LA probably has a better chance of getting a new stadium built too as well.
The Los Angeles Raiders had trouble selling out as well, but I'm not going to say that's the reason why they moved back to Oakland.

NFL teams ignore relocation rumors despite fan woes. - Entrepreneur.com

Since moving back to Oakland, the Raiders' attendance fluctuated.


1996: 53,127
1997: 46,937
1998: 48,319
1999: 49,768
2000: 57,814
2001: 59,011
2002: 60,637
2003: 55,008
2004: 50,742
2005: 52,306
2006: 58,496
2007: 59,110
2008: 57,850
2009: 44,284. Bye Jarmarcus Russell!!!!!
2010: 46,431

http://media.baycitizen.org/uploaded...%201%2010).pdf

How can this be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-21-2011, 11:18 PM
 
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
9,197 posts, read 16,845,334 times
Reputation: 6373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen1110 View Post
Excellent! If Jed's down with it, then let's build it! How about extending BART to San Jose as well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2011, 11:25 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,663,382 times
Reputation: 13635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo View Post
Very true. LA wants the Chargers and has a good chance at getting them as San Diego is not at all thinking about a new football stadium.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?? There isn't a single issue that is talked about more nowadays than a new stadium for the Chargers. Unless you've managed to avoid every single media outlet in SD for the past 5+ years, I don't see how anyone that claims to live there can say that. Especially considering you claim to live in Chula Vista, which came somewhat close to securing a stadium deal along their bayfront. The Mayor constantly talks about it, the previous city attorney was probably voted out because of his stance on the issue, and I guess you must not vote at all since there was a stadium related ballot measure a few elections ago. I can't think of a single issue that is talked about more than a new Chargers stadium in SD; the airport issue has come and gone and nobody talks about it anymore, the beach booze ban occasionally gets brought up, and besides those two things nothing even comes close to the search for a new Chargers stadium.

The SD Union-Tribune, which fyi is the main newspaper in the region, has a WEEKLY stadium searching report called "Chargers stadium search week in review - SignOnSanDiego.com"

I won't even bother posting the hundreds of links talking about the issue as anyone with a half of brain in SD is fully aware of how much SD is trying ot get a new stadium, but like many CA cities taxpayers don't want to foot the bill and SD is very anti-tax. I know you have an anti- SD bias and lack objectivity but claiming that SD isn't thinking about a new stadium 'at all' really takes the cake, you're beyond help. It's pretty much what they think about the most now!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2011, 12:15 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,663,382 times
Reputation: 13635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen1110 View Post
The Los Angeles Raiders had trouble selling out as well, but I'm not going to say that's the reason why they moved back to Oakland.

NFL teams ignore relocation rumors despite fan woes. - Entrepreneur.com

Since moving back to Oakland, the Raiders' attendance fluctuated.


1996: 53,127
1997: 46,937
1998: 48,319
1999: 49,768
2000: 57,814
2001: 59,011
2002: 60,637
2003: 55,008
2004: 50,742
2005: 52,306
2006: 58,496
2007: 59,110
2008: 57,850
2009: 44,284. Bye Jarmarcus Russell!!!!!
2010: 46,431

http://media.baycitizen.org/uploaded...%201%2010).pdf

How can this be?
It's more just a personal wish of mine for them to move to LA. It means SD would probably get to keep the Chargers and the Raiders would be out of the Bay. Maybe with just one football team and a brand new stadium the could do better in LA than their last few seasons there. I think sticking any AFC team besides the Raiders in LA is a mistake though. I just see doing a shared stadium in a region so divided among these two teams will be hard mainly because of where to put it. Yes NY does it but I just think it's a different dynamic, more territorial issues here than there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2011, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Santa Ana
1,196 posts, read 2,314,195 times
Reputation: 464
it's funny, the Raiders were in L.A. were for only like 12 or 13 years but there are so many Raider fans in L.A. it's like as if the Raiders have been there as long as the Dodgers and Lakers, but I don't want them back in L.A., too many cholo, gang problems already
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2011, 01:02 AM
 
Location: ABQ
3,771 posts, read 7,095,424 times
Reputation: 4893
Sav,

The reason it'll never happen is that Davis and heirs will never sell their shares and that's what the group that wants to head up the stadium build wants. It's just not a good fit. Chargers, Vikings, and Jaguars are far more likely.

I know there are big time Raider fans, but the working class fan support aren't generally your reason for relocation. The big-money spenders in L.A., in my opinion, aren't that concerned with football. San Diego makes a lot more sense if they're going to do anything at all.

But regardless of any of that, Davis will never sell so the point is moot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2011, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,659 posts, read 67,539,821 times
Reputation: 21244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen1110 View Post
1. A new shared facility in Oakland, (not San Francisco) is plan B for Jed York, owner of the San Francisco 49ers.

The Oakland Coliseum, Niners President Jed York said in an interview Friday, "has the location and the infrastructure. It's right on a freeway, and it has BART access."

As for San Francisco and its envisioned stadium site at the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard? It has none of those things, York pointed out.

"At this point, Oakland just makes more sense," York said before jetting off with the team for today's game against the Philadelphia Eagles.

York: Oakland beats S.F. as 49ers stadium site

2. A new facility in Oakland, shared or not, is the only plan for Al Davis and Amy Trask, owner of the Oakland Raiders and CEO of the Oakland Raiders, respectively.

3. Jed York acknowledged that the San Francisco 49ers would consider Oakland a possible home, but knows the Oakland Raiders would never call San Francisco home. Thus, it's either Santa Clara or Oakland.

4. The Oakland Raiders conducted and released a Feasibility Analysis For A New NFL Stadium in Oakland, in October 2010. The Analysis included studies of a Oakland Raiders ONLY stadium, and a Oakland Raiders/ San Francisco 49ers shared stadium.

The Feasibility Analysis is Directly Below

http://media.baycitizen.org/uploaded...%201%2010).pdf

5. The Santa Clara site is 45 miles south of both Oakland and San Francisco. The Oakland site is conviently located in the center of the San Francisco Bay Area, much closer to both teams' main fanbases.

6. A shared facility in Oakland is between $60-$230 million cheaper than the cost of a shared facility in Santa Clara. The Oakland Raiders will spend $380 million less and the San Francisco 49ers will spend $350 million less by building a shared stadium in Oakland, versus building two separate stadiums.

7. At the high end cost for the shared stadium:

Public sources: $109.7 million

This includes 7 different sources of public funding: Ticket fees, parking fees, concession & merchandise tax, transient occupancy tax, property tax increments, etc.

Private sources: $566 million

This includes 3 different sources of private funding: Membership equity fees, stadium builder licenses, NFL contribution

Team Funding: $204.5 million

The Oakland Raiders and the San Francisco 49ers will split the bill at $102.2 million a piece.


Oakland is in the best interest of the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders.
Very interesting....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2011, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Santa Ana
1,196 posts, read 2,314,195 times
Reputation: 464
as long as the raiders don't move back to L.A.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2011, 08:02 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 9,164,063 times
Reputation: 3248
Raiders are not going to LA. LA might need another futbol team, but they have shown they don't care for nfl football. USC on the other hand....

Oakland is not going to give up the Raiders. If you thought Sac fought tooth and nail for the Kings, you have no idea what Oakland is willing to do. The raiders are the what, 42nd most valuable franchise in the world, right behind the Chicago Cubs and a head of the LA Lakers and Knicks.

It would be win for the A's too, they could renovate the mausoleum or tear it down completely.

The only caveat of course, would be coaxing 49ers fans to watch football, in Oakland. Possibly a cold day in hell before that happens..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2011, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Santa Ana
1,196 posts, read 2,314,195 times
Reputation: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude View Post
Raiders are not going to LA. LA might need another futbol team, but they have shown they don't care for nfl football. USC on the other hand....

Oakland is not going to give up the Raiders. If you thought Sac fought tooth and nail for the Kings, you have no idea what Oakland is willing to do. The raiders are the what, 42nd most valuable franchise in the world, right behind the Chicago Cubs and a head of the LA Lakers and Knicks.

It would be win for the A's too, they could renovate the mausoleum or tear it down completely.

The only caveat of course, would be coaxing 49ers fans to watch football, in Oakland. Possibly a cold day in hell before that happens..
L.A. is full of bandwagoners, fairweather fans
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:08 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top