Most interesting about the announcement is the unified front being displayed by the Authority. County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, who was front-and-center in the public effort to bring the A's to Fremont. Haggerty rejoined the Authority's board recently after a few years off it. It'll take all of Alameda County's political will to put together a good, responsible deal for the Raiders, and that means having power brokers from the northern and southern ends of the county. With Oakland officials perhaps focused elsewhere in their efforts to retain the A's (OFD Training site, anyone?), it's a baby step forward - albeit a major baby step.
18 November 2009
Raiders re-up at Coliseum through 2013
The Raiders' quarterback situation may be in flux, but their home for the next three seasons isn't. Officials from the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority and the team jointly announced an extension of the Raiders' lease through 2013, which puts the team in line to leave for newer digs at the same time as the A's, wherever those digs are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Is the OFD training site meant as a serious proposal?
Off the top of my head, I'd say that this is a more constricted site in a more unpleasant setting than any of the existing MLB parks, any of their immediate predecessors, or the Fremont and Diridon sites.
Nothing in Oakland other than downtown (nothing available) or JLS (here I think there is potential) is going to be better than Diridon.
Of all sites in Oakland, OFD has the best potential. Factoring in BART nearby, Amtrak nearby, existing businesses nearby, proximity to down town and the fact that it doesn't require shutting down some portion of Oakland's economic engine (the port).
That is not to say it doesn't have warts, but all sites do at this point. The warts here are not as bad as any other Oakland site I have heard mentioned.
I don't know if I would call ti better than Diridon, but it is Oakland's best chance and they should be rallying around it and elt the cards fall where they may.
Jeff,
I agree other than a true downtown site OFD is the best available site and they should definitely rally around it. However at this point with the blue ribbon committee likely done their work I'd say it's probably too late. For Oakland it's out of their hands at this point. It's in the owners hands now and their undoubtedly coming vote on the territorial rights to San Jose. From where I'm sitting San Jose has already won if the vote goes against Oakland because Oakland is so far behind the curve on getting serious about a stadium.
As for the Raiders, interesting that they've reupped to 2013. That should get them up to at least the year that both the Santa Clara and LA stadiums are slated to be ready depending on where the Raiders land.
Speaking of the possibility of the Raiders heading to Santa Clara or LA what are Raiders fans feelings on that? We know there's a fairly vocal group that wants to keep the A's in Oakland over San Jose. Is the opinion the same on keeping the Raiders in Oakland over Santa Clara? It could be because this site is more A's oriented, but I've not been seeing much uproar over the Raiders moving to Santa Clara which is odd considering the opposition to the A's moving the exact same distance.
Personally, football has more of a regional fanbase (given that they play 8 home games rather than 81) and the Raiders have more of an individual identity that is not as intertwined with Oakland (for a variety of reasons) as the A's' is, so it's not as big of a deal to me.
Dan,
Interesting point, which leads me to the one I'm about to make...
I honestly think most of the uproar coming from both sides, (Oakland and SJ)the underbelly argument is over what city the team will represent, not necessarily where they are located...If the Raiders move to SC, they will still be the Oakland Raiders, same with the 49ers...if changing the city name to Santa Clara were part of the deal there would be blood in the streets from Oakland and SF if that were to happen...The obvious difference with the A's is they are changing the city name, if they were to move...put it this way, if the A's were to move to SJ and still be called the Oakland A's, half the post on here wouldn't exist...
I'm not saying that the city name means everything, there are obviously other economical, geographical, and historical reasons...but I think the whole idea of a major sport representing the city you identify with makes those citizens feel important, even special...especially cities who get over shadowed easily like SJ and Oakland...
I honestly think if ALL bay area sports teams followed NY, LA, and Chicago and were universally named like the "Bay Area" 49ers, or the "Golden State" A's...it wouldn't hurt as bad if a team left your city to move to the county next to it
That may sound immature...but its true
I don't think people here, who regularly follow stadium issues, have any faith in the Santa Clara deal passing. In my mind, it's a non-issue. The average dolt thinks Santa Clara is a done deal because they don't analyze this stuff. Just look at half the tards in that Facebook group, still talking about Fremont.
Anon 3:58--follow all the stadium issues closely and couldn't disagree with you more regarding Santa Clara passing--an area reeling from 10+% unemployment, a parking lot that sits vacant most of the year serving a decling theme park, $1B investment in the city of SC, opportunity to diversify the economy just a tad and add some entertainment which only makes the region more appealling-I wouldn't suggest that it will be a slam dunk but I would guess it will pass by more than a few percent--
I do agree with Le Andre--a city's name regardless of location, carries alot of emotional baggage--
Has there been any public polling done in Santa Clara? I work down here in Sunnyvale and everyone I work with HATES the idea, but it is limited exposure and not much of a random sample.
Also, as far as I understand it the Raiders are not "in" on Santa Clara officially.
If they were, and they would assume some portion of the construction cost, I imagine it would be easier to counter the "not with my money" attitude of opponents. Hell, if the teams went in together it could negate the ened for any public contribution for stadium construction.
Jeffery, not true unfortunately. The NFL requires all stadiums to be constructed with some form of public money if there is a contribution from the league (which there is in the case of the Niners stadium). So the stadium would still require the city to put some money into it.
. . . as far as I understand it the Raiders are not "in" on Santa Clara officially. If they were, and they would assume some portion of the construction cost . . .
Would Al Davis assume some of the development cost, or would he wait for the deal to get firmed up, and then become a tenant without having to put up any of the development money?
Admittedly, Al is a world-class philantropist and humanitarian, but I'd still vote for the latter.
Post a Comment