N/S Raiders Officially Change Name To Las Vegas Raiders (1 Viewer)

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
14,015
Reaction score
1,855
Offline
Oakland made a vague, long-term promise to Al Davis about a new, football-only stadium to lure him back in 1995 after he originally moved to L.A. in 1982. Some long-time Raiders fans and Oakland residents will probably admit the city played hard ball not coming across as negotiating in good faith to renew Raiders original lease in 1980, and treating the Raiders like a second-class tenant compared to the A's. (Similar mindset cost Baltimore and city of New York the Colts and Jets to other cities and states a few years later). Oakland has always carried a bit of an inferiority complex in terms of viewing itself as a rough, historically working-class city juxtaposed to glitz, glamour, larger, cosmopolitian, New Age-ish San Francisco. I mean in terms of knowledge, overall level of intelligence in its range, scope, Oakland residents have to be some of the smartest, most informed communities in this country. If one is acutely aware of Oakland's history regarding social issues, political issues over the past 50-60 years, this shouldn't come as a surprise.

But, like most West Coast cities, the overall mood for publicly-funded/subsidized stadiums is very negative, thermonuclear negative. Even 100% privately-funded stadiums have their enormous share of political infighting, squabbling. The Golden State Warriors didn't even bother to request to city or county leaders, or administrators, for a mostly, if not wholly-privately funded new arena, they surveyed a new site in SF several years ago, built it and relocated there to play starting this season in downtown SF area.

My own take is perhaps Oakland city or Alamedia County leaders probably meant well in their promise to build Al a new stadium over two and half decades ago, but didn't have a realistic working plan then and instead hoped for the best that new city and civic leaders would come along and eventually find a reasonable accommodation.

Except that never happened and likely a good chunk of any remaining hope, promise to find a solution for a new stadium or even share Levis Stadium with 49ers in Santa Clara ended when Al Davis passed away in 2011. Al didn't like the concept of sharing Levis Stadium with 49ers, but the last 1-2 years of his life, according to several close Raiders executives, he wasn't disliking as much the more the plans supporters explained to him the benefits. If 49ers had been willing to accept the Raiders as equal partners in revenue-sharing, or perhaps %60-40%, or 55-45% split, I think Al Davis would've agreed it was best chance at a new stadium he was ever going to receive and acquiesced. Now, how 49ers management and ownership would've responded or behaved on their end is where any possible agreement becomes tricky. And ultimately, it doesn't work anyway, long-term.

His son, Marc, was totally and completely opposed to any such plans and once his father died and he assumed full control, these discussions were quietly ended.
 

TheRealJRad

The Artist Formerly Known as AgentJRad
Staff member
Tech-Admin
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
10,624
Reaction score
11,830
Age
36
Location
Baton Rouge
Online
Also think I’m going. I feel like Raiders fans aren’t going to be very well represented in that stadium, it’ll just be visiting fans (really visitors in general).

I could see our game being early and/or primetime for that reason. We travel well, and we can certainly handle ourselves in a party city.
 
OP
OP
Saint Jack

Saint Jack

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
9,463
Reaction score
15,783
Location
Marrero
Offline
Also think I’m going. I feel like Raiders fans aren’t going to be very well represented in that stadium, it’ll just be visiting fans (really visitors in general).

I could see our game being early and/or primetime for that reason. We travel well, and we can certainly handle ourselves in a party city.
I think the Raiders could move anywhere out west and it’ll work. They own that region.
I can see Saints/Raiders being the opening MNF.
 

RJ in Lafayette

Super Forum Fanatic
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 1999
Messages
9,781
Reaction score
7,430
Online
The Raiders have something of a national fan base. I don"t think tickets will be cheap. And I think the atmosphere will be as rowdy as ever.
 

TheRealJRad

The Artist Formerly Known as AgentJRad
Staff member
Tech-Admin
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
10,624
Reaction score
11,830
Age
36
Location
Baton Rouge
Online
I think the Raiders could move anywhere out west and it’ll work. They own that region.
I can see Saints/Raiders being the opening MNF.
Well I more meant it as there will be more visiting fans than normal because of the location, not because the Raiders didn’t have a following. I phrased that poorly.
 

No2DC

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
3,877
Reaction score
3,345
Online
Thanks for the backgound. It's hard to tell the city and state's tax payers a billion dollar sports project is more important other issues, especialy when the owners are billionaires.
Oakland made a vague, long-term promise to Al Davis about a new, football-only stadium to lure him back in 1995 after he originally moved to L.A. in 1982. Some long-time Raiders fans and Oakland residents will probably admit the city played hard ball not coming across as negotiating in good faith to renew Raiders original lease in 1980, and treating the Raiders like a second-class tenant compared to the A's. (Similar mindset cost Baltimore and city of New York the Colts and Jets to other cities and states a few years later). Oakland has always carried a bit of an inferiority complex in terms of viewing itself as a rough, historically working-class city juxtaposed to glitz, glamour, larger, cosmopolitian, New Age-ish San Francisco. I mean in terms of knowledge, overall level of intelligence in its range, scope, Oakland residents have to be some of the smartest, most informed communities in this country. If one is acutely aware of Oakland's history regarding social issues, political issues over the past 50-60 years, this shouldn't come as a surprise.

But, like most West Coast cities, the overall mood for publicly-funded/subsidized stadiums is very negative, thermonuclear negative.
Even 100% privately-funded stadiums have their enormous share of political infighting, squabbling. The Golden State Warriors didn't even bother to request to city or county leaders, or administrators, for a mostly, if not wholly-privately funded new arena, they surveyed a new site in SF several years ago, built it and relocated there to play starting this season in downtown SF area.

My own take is perhaps Oakland city or Alamedia County leaders probably meant well in their promise to build Al a new stadium over two and half decades ago, but didn't have a realistic working plan then and instead hoped for the best that new city and civic leaders would come along and eventually find a reasonable accommodation.

Except that never happened and likely a good chunk of any remaining hope, promise to find a solution for a new stadium or even share Levis Stadium with 49ers in Santa Clara ended when Al Davis passed away in 2011. Al didn't like the concept of sharing Levis Stadium with 49ers, but the last 1-2 years of his life, according to several close Raiders executives, he wasn't disliking as much the more the plans supporters explained to him the benefits. If 49ers had been willing to accept the Raiders as equal partners in revenue-sharing, or perhaps %60-40%, or 55-45% split, I think Al Davis would've agreed it was best chance at a new stadium he was ever going to receive and acquiesced. Now, how 49ers management and ownership would've responded or behaved on their end is where any possible agreement becomes tricky. And ultimately, it doesn't work anyway, long-term.

His son, Marc, was totally and completely opposed to any such plans and once his father died and he assumed full control, these discussions were quietly ended.
 

Saintaholic

<><><><><><><><><><><>
Joined
Jul 8, 2000
Messages
15,982
Reaction score
26,270
Offline
Thanks for the backgound. It's hard to tell the city and state's tax payers a billion dollar sports project is more important other issues, especialy when the owners are billionaires.
This as always the mindset of short term thinkers that vote on these things. The economic impact of a pro sports team, an NFL team especially, pays for itself. It effects so many things - hotels, restaurants, airport business, tourist spots, creates a plethora of new jobs, and your city also pretty much has a free year-round advertisement deal just from the city name being attached to an NFL team when flashed on the TV screen or internet, not to mention the likelihood of getting a Super Bowl bid.

The city basically just lost a cash cow just because it didn't want to front some money out of principle.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom