Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Empire49:
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Empire49:
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Empire49:
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
they might not be welcomed, but they have nowhere else to go and Oakland (City) needs the money.
Paying off the stadium could get rid of the SBLs which benefit the fans.
It could. But it wouldn't.
And I didn't mean the raiders would be able to play in the Coliseum but wouldn't be "welcomed," I meant they would not be able to play there because they won't be allowed.
Allowed.. why are they allowed today?
They have a lease option that allows them to play there in 2017 and 2018. That's why. After that, they have no contract and it will be up to the stadium authority, which has said they have no desire to have the raiders playing there in 2019. Again, they are not welcome in 2019. The Vegas stadium won't be ready until 2020.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-raiders-stadium-oakland-20170329-story.html
"I would say to you with the highest level of confidence, my opinion and recommendation and that of my board members — I don't believe there is any appetite for a third season [in Oakland]," Scott McKibben of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority said.
That article then goes on to state that they lose money on raider games and the stadium authority sounds like they would boot them out right now if they could.
Thats all butt hurt just talking. They could easily stop the contract right as the raiders are not paying nearly anything in rent anyways.
Oakland needs the Money bad, they will create another lease
How do you figure they can "easily stop the contract" when the raiders have lease options? The rent they pay is completely irrelevant. You don't get to say "well, the contract says you can stay here for 2 more years, but since you don't pay much in rent we're just gonna ignore that and you need to get out now."
Whether or not its butt hurt talking, the stadium authority still gets to decide whether the raiders will be ALLOWED to play there beyond 2018. And according to them, the answer is no. You can keep saying Oakland needs the money, but according to the director of the stadium, they LOSE money while hosting raider games. So, since Oakland needs the money so badly, why would they want to continue throwing money away by keeping the raiders around?
If they work something out, cool. But it doesn't look like they will.
leases can be nullified, St'L did it, SD did it..and i believe we did it. The rent is completely relevant. as after 2018 Oakland can charge more because it will be a year to year lease.
The Stadium Auth is just a dept under Oakland city, The Mayor will have the final say.
What you're failing to acknowledge is the Stadium Authority (which you correctly identify as just a department under the city) has stated that they lose money hosting the raiders, meaning the city of Oakland loses money every time the raiders play there. If it were possible to nullify their obligation to the raiders, they'd probably do it based on that alone.
Your main argument is that Oakland needs money, but they aren't getting any money by keeping the raiders around. Even if they decide to jack up the rent in an effort to make a profit by hosting them in 2019, Mark Davis is unlikely to accept the offer.
The point is they - as of right now - are not welcome at the Coliseum after 2018. You can call it butt hurt talk, but that's the word coming directly from the people running the venue. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you.
I just hope they don't come to Levi's, even if it's only for one year. We don't need that type of negativity in our stadium.
