What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

2016 Oakland Raiders thread (1 Viewer)

Hankmoody

Footballguy
The Autumn Wind is a pirate
Blustering in from sea,
With a rollicking song, he sweeps along,
Swaggering boisterously.

His face is weather beaten.
He wears a hooded sash,
With a silver hat about his head,
And a bristling black mustache.

He growls as he storms the country,
A villain big and bold.
And the trees all shake and quiver and quake,
As he robs them of their gold.

The Autumn Wind is a raider,
Pillaging just for fun.
He'll knock you 'round and upside down,
And laugh when he's conquered and won.

 
32 Counter Pass said:
Good explanation of the Brice Butler trade: https://www.reddit.com/r/oaklandraiders/comments/40207j/the_brice_butler_trade_and_the_result/

Looks like Reggie won that deal big time. "That means the trade up is probably worth more than 42 slots, more like 45 to 47 slots."
Wonder if Reggie can find a home for Rod Streater next? That story line is so confusing to me. But moving up ~50 spots for a guy who isn't on the field would be a nice end to that story line.

 
In the rumor mill for a possible move San Antonio has resurfaced. It could very well be a ploy to get Jerry Jones to be less enthusiastic about backing a Charger/Ram LA relo but this really has me thinking.... could I still be a Raider fan if the team left California? Sure, I left California but that is different. The Raiders are a California team. It seems to me that they will not longer be the same Raiders and then I become a free agent fan (no way in hell I back the Chargers and no love for the Rams either). What about you Raider Nation? Could you still fly the Silver and Black if they left California?

 
I said it in the 2015 Raiders thread and I'll say it here...

doesn't matter where they play. I'm a Raiders fan through thick and thin. I have way too many great memories with that uniform, helment and team name attached to them for me to just walk away if they're called the San Antonio Raiders.

I grew up in NYC, so it didn't make a difference to me if they played in Oakland or LA or wherever. It was always a far way away from me, so what difference does it make to me if they're a far way away in a different direction (even though I'm only 30 minutes from the Oakland Colossium now, but it still doesn't matter to me).

I just want them to WIN, have great players, and play in a stadium that isn't an embarassment.

 
I am not seeing how they can get the Chargers and Rams together on a deal without the Raiders suing and holding everything up without helping the Raiders get a new stadium. Now, I suppose that stadium does not have to be in Oakland but still. The proposal to marry the Chargers and Rams in LA does not seem to go very far unless they figure out a way to get the Raiders a new stadium too. Whether that money came from the NFL or maybe even Kroenke from savings of pairing with the Chargers... I dunno.

 
In the rumor mill for a possible move San Antonio has resurfaced. It could very well be a ploy to get Jerry Jones to be less enthusiastic about backing a Charger/Ram LA relo but this really has me thinking.... could I still be a Raider fan if the team left California? Sure, I left California but that is different. The Raiders are a California team. It seems to me that they will not longer be the same Raiders and then I become a free agent fan (no way in hell I back the Chargers and no love for the Rams either). What about you Raider Nation? Could you still fly the Silver and Black if they left California?
Insider Buzz: Raiders Owner Mark Davis Pursuing San Antonio Move If LA Bid Fails

By Team Stream

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2606838-insider-buzz-raiders-owner-mark-davis-pursuing-san-antonio-move-if-la-bid-fails?

utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=web-mob-art-vid-157

To answer your question. I would follow the Raiders to San Antonio. I'm a Raider no matter where they play at. I live in the Midwest and will probably never see a Raiders game so to me it doesn't matter what city they play in, I just want to see them get a shiny new stadium.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If they move to SA maybe the fans can sue to keep the Raider name and colors as the Browns fans did.

This is so frustrating because the team clearly has a great fan base, and this area has a lot of wealth to sell luxury boxes. I support the city of Oakland's refusal to foot the bill. I just find it surprising that the parties cannot work out some type of deal that will benefit everyone. For example, the stadium is rent free for X amount of time, and the city gets % proceeds for parking revenue during that time. Just spit balling but if the league comes off their stance that the city should pay for a stadium, and people get creative I think a deal can be reached to keep the team here.

As an aside Peter King predicted way back in September that the Raiders would ultimately end up in StL. Sort of makes sense since they already have a new stadium being built as I understand it.

 
I am not seeing how they can get the Chargers and Rams together on a deal without the Raiders suing and holding everything up without helping the Raiders get a new stadium. Now, I suppose that stadium does not have to be in Oakland but still. The proposal to marry the Chargers and Rams in LA does not seem to go very far unless they figure out a way to get the Raiders a new stadium too. Whether that money came from the NFL or maybe even Kroenke from savings of pairing with the Chargers... I dunno.
Florio broke this down awhile ago and I don't remember the details even remotely but apparently between the relocation fees and the necessity to placate whichever team(s) don't get to move to Los Angeles there should be plenty of money to help get a stadium deal done for the loser(s) in the Los Angeles sweepstakes.

 
While I think the benefits of a new stadium are inarguable to an NFL team in this era, and while I'll root for the Raiders regardless of where they play, I do wish they would find a way to get this done in Oakland.

Maybe it's nostalgia, but even the "LA Raiders" sounded weird to me -- the "San Antonio Raiders" is downright alien.

But I'll get used to it -- especially if it helps preserve the team's operations and continued legacy.

 
2016

Home Denver, Kansas City, San Diego,

Houston, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Carolina, Buffalo

Away Denver, Kansas City, San Diego,

Jacksonville, Tennessee, New Orleans, Tampa Bay, Baltimore

 
I am not seeing how they can get the Chargers and Rams together on a deal without the Raiders suing and holding everything up without helping the Raiders get a new stadium. Now, I suppose that stadium does not have to be in Oakland but still. The proposal to marry the Chargers and Rams in LA does not seem to go very far unless they figure out a way to get the Raiders a new stadium too. Whether that money came from the NFL or maybe even Kroenke from savings of pairing with the Chargers... I dunno.
Florio broke this down awhile ago and I don't remember the details even remotely but apparently between the relocation fees and the necessity to placate whichever team(s) don't get to move to Los Angeles there should be plenty of money to help get a stadium deal done for the loser(s) in the Los Angeles sweepstakes.
Heck, if I had known this was an option, I would have never been on board with the Carson thing.

If the league moves Chargers/Rams to LA, and throw a bone to Oakland, and help get a new stadium in OAK, that sounds pretty great to me.

It might be better financially for Mark Davis if he was in LA, but what do we care? More money clearly doesn't provide an advantage on the field, as Kroenke and Jerry Jones have proven.

If the NFL, as a consolation prize for the Raiders, helps get a new stadium........well heck, you can keep LA.

 
Chargers in Los Angeles, can you imagine what that fan base would look like? At least the Rams have some fans there still, I assume.

 
Chargers in Los Angeles, can you imagine what that fan base would look like? At least the Rams have some fans there still, I assume.
Lots and lots of Ram fans in California.
Yeah, I think they'll pick up right where they left off (I can't really remember where they left off, but I imagine they'll pick up there).

From a fan perspective, you want rabid fans that give a home field advantage. No one in LA will have one, not even the Raiders. Not compared to Seattle/Green Bay/KC, etc. Raiders staying in Oakland is definitely preferred, I really cannot imagine an LA fan base providing the same noise.

LA fans will support a good team, and ignore a bad team, that's been their track record. No reason to think it would change.

 
Raiders are the only team that could legitimately draw home team crowds from the Los Angeles fan base. This young nucleus would probably draw really well next year and beyond if they continue to improve. I don't think the same can be said for the Chargers or Rams. The Chargers would have to be in Carson to have any hope of drawing a substantial fan base, which would have to include the existing fan base in San Diego. The Rams? They couldn't draw in LA or Anaheim before and I see no reason why they would start now.

 
I am not seeing how they can get the Chargers and Rams together on a deal without the Raiders suing and holding everything up without helping the Raiders get a new stadium. Now, I suppose that stadium does not have to be in Oakland but still. The proposal to marry the Chargers and Rams in LA does not seem to go very far unless they figure out a way to get the Raiders a new stadium too. Whether that money came from the NFL or maybe even Kroenke from savings of pairing with the Chargers... I dunno.
Florio broke this down awhile ago and I don't remember the details even remotely but apparently between the relocation fees and the necessity to placate whichever team(s) don't get to move to Los Angeles there should be plenty of money to help get a stadium deal done for the loser(s) in the Los Angeles sweepstakes.
Heck, if I had known this was an option, I would have never been on board with the Carson thing.

If the league moves Chargers/Rams to LA, and throw a bone to Oakland, and help get a new stadium in OAK, that sounds pretty great to me.

It might be better financially for Mark Davis if he was in LA, but what do we care? More money clearly doesn't provide an advantage on the field, as Kroenke and Jerry Jones have proven.

If the NFL, as a consolation prize for the Raiders, helps get a new stadium........well heck, you can keep LA.
One thing is free agency. Both are California so the taxes are a wash. But LA is a bigger draw than Oakland is. Now, not saying that is a make or break thing but it is a nice carrot to dangle when you are trying to sign some hot shot early 20 something year old millionaire. Come live it up with the stars in LA! Or come get a house in wine country a couple of hours out of Oakland!

 
One thing I don't get is the talk about if the Charger/Raider coupling gets the go ahead that the Raiders would be the odd man out and sent to the NFC. How does that happen? The Raiders are an original AFC team with the most heated and passionate rivalry with the other AFC West teams.

 
One thing I don't get is the talk about if the Charger/Raider coupling gets the go ahead that the Raiders would be the odd man out and sent to the NFC. How does that happen? The Raiders are an original AFC team with the most heated and passionate rivalry with the other AFC West teams.
Probably comes down mostly to the fact that Spanos has more of his owner buddies in his corner. Al was hated but also respected. Mark is neither.

 
Heck, if I had known this was an option, I would have never been on board with the Carson thing.

If the league moves Chargers/Rams to LA, and throw a bone to Oakland, and help get a new stadium in OAK, that sounds pretty great to me.

It might be better financially for Mark Davis if he was in LA, but what do we care? More money clearly doesn't provide an advantage on the field, as Kroenke and Jerry Jones have proven.

If the NFL, as a consolation prize for the Raiders, helps get a new stadium........well heck, you can keep LA.
Perhaps, but not having enough is clearly a disadvantage. Much has been made about the Raiders' lack of cash flow from crappy stadium revenues and the impact on how they have had to structure FA contracts. Not having cash to offer signing bonus and instead having to load it into salary limits the FA that we can attract. Reggie has been successful turning that into a perception of being conservative with managing potential dead money, but at some point we're going to have to start pumping out competitive contracts to get solid talents. I'm not wanting us to pump out Suh-level contracts, but we need to improve depth top to bottom. Penn and Hudson are great, but we need to be bringing in 2-3 guys at those positions each year to compete and improve depth. Our secondary is the epitome of this. We have to sign stiffs like Taylor Mays and rely on 38 year olds past their time* because we're not bringing in baseline talent.

*I love Woodson, don't get me wrong, and he played like a warrior at times, but he was also bad bad bad at times. It was hard to watch a guy giving so much, knowing it's not enough, but knowing it's better than the alternatives we would have to trot out otherwise.

 
So, apparently the Chargers would resist the 'forced marriage' of the Chargers/Rams which would delay everything a year and mean everyone stays where they are another year. Which could end up forcing the league to allow the Carson development to go thru with the Chargers/Raiders even if that is not the 'preference' among the majority of owners.

Not sure what the Rams do if they are the odd man out. Most of the thought has been the Raiders would somehow end up the odd man out. There was some speculation before of London because of Kroenkes business ties. Maybe he swings a huge sweartheart deal to make that happen?

 
I am not seeing how they can get the Chargers and Rams together on a deal without the Raiders suing and holding everything up without helping the Raiders get a new stadium. Now, I suppose that stadium does not have to be in Oakland but still. The proposal to marry the Chargers and Rams in LA does not seem to go very far unless they figure out a way to get the Raiders a new stadium too. Whether that money came from the NFL or maybe even Kroenke from savings of pairing with the Chargers... I dunno.
Florio broke this down awhile ago and I don't remember the details even remotely but apparently between the relocation fees and the necessity to placate whichever team(s) don't get to move to Los Angeles there should be plenty of money to help get a stadium deal done for the loser(s) in the Los Angeles sweepstakes.
Heck, if I had known this was an option, I would have never been on board with the Carson thing.

If the league moves Chargers/Rams to LA, and throw a bone to Oakland, and help get a new stadium in OAK, that sounds pretty great to me.

It might be better financially for Mark Davis if he was in LA, but what do we care? More money clearly doesn't provide an advantage on the field, as Kroenke and Jerry Jones have proven.

If the NFL, as a consolation prize for the Raiders, helps get a new stadium........well heck, you can keep LA.
One thing is free agency. Both are California so the taxes are a wash. But LA is a bigger draw than Oakland is. Now, not saying that is a make or break thing but it is a nice carrot to dangle when you are trying to sign some hot shot early 20 something year old millionaire. Come live it up with the stars in LA! Or come get a house in wine country a couple of hours out of Oakland!
The Bay Area is an easy sale for anyone. It's not LA on the media scale but for quality of life it is a very easy sale at any age.

They need the new venue to attract the FAs.

 
Heck, if I had known this was an option, I would have never been on board with the Carson thing.

If the league moves Chargers/Rams to LA, and throw a bone to Oakland, and help get a new stadium in OAK, that sounds pretty great to me.

It might be better financially for Mark Davis if he was in LA, but what do we care? More money clearly doesn't provide an advantage on the field, as Kroenke and Jerry Jones have proven.

If the NFL, as a consolation prize for the Raiders, helps get a new stadium........well heck, you can keep LA.
Perhaps, but not having enough is clearly a disadvantage. Much has been made about the Raiders' lack of cash flow from crappy stadium revenues and the impact on how they have had to structure FA contracts. Not having cash to offer signing bonus and instead having to load it into salary limits the FA that we can attract. Reggie has been successful turning that into a perception of being conservative with managing potential dead money, but at some point we're going to have to start pumping out competitive contracts to get solid talents. I'm not wanting us to pump out Suh-level contracts, but we need to improve depth top to bottom. Penn and Hudson are great, but we need to be bringing in 2-3 guys at those positions each year to compete and improve depth. Our secondary is the epitome of this. We have to sign stiffs like Taylor Mays and rely on 38 year olds past their time* because we're not bringing in baseline talent.

*I love Woodson, don't get me wrong, and he played like a warrior at times, but he was also bad bad bad at times. It was hard to watch a guy giving so much, knowing it's not enough, but knowing it's better than the alternatives we would have to trot out otherwise.
I think pointing to the secondary is cherry-picking a little bit.

I have not read anywhere that players didn't want to sign because there wasn't enough up front money. The Raiders are not the only team to structure their contracts in this manner, most teams with strong front offices are doing this, you can look at the contracts for Dalton and Kaepernick, and more and more teams are placing a lot of money in first few years, or guaranteeing 2nd year salary, as opposed to paying massive signing bonuses. The massive signing bonuses are antiquated. Teams have been burned too much. If Oakland cannot come up with enough cash to keep their good players. then we have a real concern. Cincinnati has been tight with free agent deals and they have one of the top rosters in the league. They've taken on some questionable characters, but as an example, they let Michael Johnson walk, which was the right move.

I feel confident in saying that players were a lot more hesitant to sign because they didn't trust the team to be competitive. Build good team, and good players with the right priorities will come.

Priorities is the right word. If we cannot get players because they go somewhere less competitive for slightly more money, those probably aren't the players we will win with.

It's also time for my annual tale of caution about free agency :D . The top tier free agents are rarely worth it. The 2nd tier is where we have made improvement to the team (aside from the draft) and we should expect, and embrace that philosophy again. One or two big ticket items, because we have the cash, and several solid vets that don't make 10 mill a year. Everyone knows this, everyone says so at the end of the year.

Not worth the money, based on 2015 production: Suh, Cobb, Murray (three players we all would have done backflips if we had signed, myself included), Charles Clay, and on and on. You can set your watch by free agent disappointments.

 
So funny, you read about Chargers/Rams, and then this:

Report: L.A. committee recommends Carson over InglewoodPosted by Darin Gantt on January 12, 2016, 1:06 PM EST
[SIZE=1em]The full ownership might decide to go a different route.[/SIZE]But the NFL’s Los Angeles committee has spoken, and they prefer Carson to Inglewood.

According to Sports Business Daily, the league’s six-owner committee on L.A. Opportunities has recommended the Carson project which to this point has been presented as a Chargers-Raiders partnership, instead of the Rams-backed Inglewood site.

According to the report, it’s unclear if the lean toward Carson is the same as a preference for the Chargers and possibly Raiders, as the notion of Chargers-Rams pairing there remains possible.

But frankly, it’s the owners, so anything’s still possible when you put 32 very rich and powerful people who aren’t used to hearing “No ” in a room together.

The Carson project was presented by Disney CEO Bob Iger, who was recruited to the effort by committee member and Panthers owner Jerry Richardson.

The other committee members are Steelers owner Art Rooney, Giants owner John Mara, Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, Patriots owner Robert Kraft and Texans owner Bob McNair.

It’s unclear if the recommendation was unanimous. It will take 24 votes to approve any relocation, and this is clearly still a very fluid situation.
 
Heck, if I had known this was an option, I would have never been on board with the Carson thing.

If the league moves Chargers/Rams to LA, and throw a bone to Oakland, and help get a new stadium in OAK, that sounds pretty great to me.

It might be better financially for Mark Davis if he was in LA, but what do we care? More money clearly doesn't provide an advantage on the field, as Kroenke and Jerry Jones have proven.

If the NFL, as a consolation prize for the Raiders, helps get a new stadium........well heck, you can keep LA.
Perhaps, but not having enough is clearly a disadvantage. Much has been made about the Raiders' lack of cash flow from crappy stadium revenues and the impact on how they have had to structure FA contracts. Not having cash to offer signing bonus and instead having to load it into salary limits the FA that we can attract. Reggie has been successful turning that into a perception of being conservative with managing potential dead money, but at some point we're going to have to start pumping out competitive contracts to get solid talents. I'm not wanting us to pump out Suh-level contracts, but we need to improve depth top to bottom. Penn and Hudson are great, but we need to be bringing in 2-3 guys at those positions each year to compete and improve depth. Our secondary is the epitome of this. We have to sign stiffs like Taylor Mays and rely on 38 year olds past their time* because we're not bringing in baseline talent.

*I love Woodson, don't get me wrong, and he played like a warrior at times, but he was also bad bad bad at times. It was hard to watch a guy giving so much, knowing it's not enough, but knowing it's better than the alternatives we would have to trot out otherwise.
I think pointing to the secondary is cherry-picking a little bit.

I have not read anywhere that players didn't want to sign because there wasn't enough up front money. The Raiders are not the only team to structure their contracts in this manner, most teams with strong front offices are doing this, you can look at the contracts for Dalton and Kaepernick, and more and more teams are placing a lot of money in first few years, or guaranteeing 2nd year salary, as opposed to paying massive signing bonuses. The massive signing bonuses are antiquated. Teams have been burned too much. If Oakland cannot come up with enough cash to keep their good players. then we have a real concern. Cincinnati has been tight with free agent deals and they have one of the top rosters in the league. They've taken on some questionable characters, but as an example, they let Michael Johnson walk, which was the right move.

I feel confident in saying that players were a lot more hesitant to sign because they didn't trust the team to be competitive. Build good team, and good players with the right priorities will come.

Priorities is the right word. If we cannot get players because they go somewhere less competitive for slightly more money, those probably aren't the players we will win with.

It's also time for my annual tale of caution about free agency :D . The top tier free agents are rarely worth it. The 2nd tier is where we have made improvement to the team (aside from the draft) and we should expect, and embrace that philosophy again. One or two big ticket items, because we have the cash, and several solid vets that don't make 10 mill a year. Everyone knows this, everyone says so at the end of the year.

Not worth the money, based on 2015 production: Suh, Cobb, Murray (three players we all would have done backflips if we had signed, myself included), Charles Clay, and on and on. You can set your watch by free agent disappointments.
Jeremy Maclin

Julius Thomas

Rodney Hudson

Mike Iupati

Brian Orakpo

Clint Boling

Plenty of successes too. Beside, as I stated, I'm not abdicating to spend on the bank-breakers. I am talking about getting 3-4 more Dan Williams contracts, another Donald Penn or three, Jabaal Sheard. If I get a DL3, that pushes my current DL3 to DL4, my DL5 to DL6, and my current DL6 gets cut. Signing one guy improves 3 roster spots that way. I used the secondary because it's such a soft target but this is how you build a good team across the board. Teams like NE are successful because they keep having quality guys to plug in when a guy gets hurt or cut or they just want to gameplan against a certain opponent weakness. If Mack sprains an ankle and misses a game where does our pass rush come from? Nada. Baltimore has 3 pass rushers to step up. Latavius Murray gets concussed and who do we turn to? Frank Gore? Ryan Matthews? Nope, we go to a guy that has bounced back and forth between RB and CB the last few years. Unreal.

I remember watching a Peyton Manning game a few years ago and one of the opponent's CB's twisted an ankle and left the game to get taped. Manning went after his replacement and went right down the field to score a TD, every time to the guy the replacement was starting. It reminded me of the "weakest link in a chain" saying. Indy won that game by 4. One guy, out for one series, cost that team a win. That's us right now.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/25102744/why-the-raiders-must-spend-but-cant-get-anybody-to-take-their-money

Not having the cash up front limits the signing bonus and guaranteed money they can offer - in order to guarantee money in a contract, they have to place the cash in escrow. They could have offered Suh $200M but without a signing bonus or guaranteed money we're not getting him.

 
I am not seeing how they can get the Chargers and Rams together on a deal without the Raiders suing and holding everything up without helping the Raiders get a new stadium. Now, I suppose that stadium does not have to be in Oakland but still. The proposal to marry the Chargers and Rams in LA does not seem to go very far unless they figure out a way to get the Raiders a new stadium too. Whether that money came from the NFL or maybe even Kroenke from savings of pairing with the Chargers... I dunno.
Florio broke this down awhile ago and I don't remember the details even remotely but apparently between the relocation fees and the necessity to placate whichever team(s) don't get to move to Los Angeles there should be plenty of money to help get a stadium deal done for the loser(s) in the Los Angeles sweepstakes.
Heck, if I had known this was an option, I would have never been on board with the Carson thing.

If the league moves Chargers/Rams to LA, and throw a bone to Oakland, and help get a new stadium in OAK, that sounds pretty great to me.

It might be better financially for Mark Davis if he was in LA, but what do we care? More money clearly doesn't provide an advantage on the field, as Kroenke and Jerry Jones have proven.

If the NFL, as a consolation prize for the Raiders, helps get a new stadium........well heck, you can keep LA.
One thing is free agency. Both are California so the taxes are a wash. But LA is a bigger draw than Oakland is. Now, not saying that is a make or break thing but it is a nice carrot to dangle when you are trying to sign some hot shot early 20 something year old millionaire. Come live it up with the stars in LA! Or come get a house in wine country a couple of hours out of Oakland!
The Bay Area is an easy sale for anyone. It's not LA on the media scale but for quality of life it is a very easy sale at any age.

They need the new venue to attract the FAs.
Bay Area vs LA is not Minneapolis vs LA and let's face it- even in the biggest difference of desirable vs not so much places to live- most FA's go with most money but there is a slight edge on LA over the Bay Area for a young 20 something old kid.

The new venue surely helps the most. Who the heck wants to play in the infield for half their season?

 
So funny, you read about Chargers/Rams, and then this:

Report: L.A. committee recommends Carson over InglewoodPosted by Darin Gantt on January 12, 2016, 1:06 PM EST
The full ownership might decide to go a different route.But the NFL’s Los Angeles committee has spoken, and they prefer Carson to Inglewood.

According to Sports Business Daily, the league’s six-owner committee on L.A. Opportunities has recommended the Carson project which to this point has been presented as a Chargers-Raiders partnership, instead of the Rams-backed Inglewood site.

According to the report, it’s unclear if the lean toward Carson is the same as a preference for the Chargers and possibly Raiders, as the notion of Chargers-Rams pairing there remains possible.

But frankly, it’s the owners, so anything’s still possible when you put 32 very rich and powerful people who aren’t used to hearing “No ” in a room together.

The Carson project was presented by Disney CEO Bob Iger, who was recruited to the effort by committee member and Panthers owner Jerry Richardson.

The other committee members are Steelers owner Art Rooney, Giants owner John Mara, Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, Patriots owner Robert Kraft and Texans owner Bob McNair.

It’s unclear if the recommendation was unanimous. It will take 24 votes to approve any relocation, and this is clearly still a very fluid situation.
There still seems to be a push for the Chargers/Rams but I think Spanos pushing back hard on that is really the game changer there. Plus, add in the fact that the Raiders are entwined deep enough into Carson that they could sue all over the place and cause problems too if they were not happy with what ended up happening. Makes it hard when one side of the proposed marriage doesn't want to marry and a third party is ready to crash the reception if they did.

 
Sorry to copy from another thread but if I'm Mark Davis, I go scorched earth on the NFL and Goodell unless the Raiders get major concessions to miss out on L.A.

 
Chadstroma said:
Chaka said:
Chadstroma said:
I am not seeing how they can get the Chargers and Rams together on a deal without the Raiders suing and holding everything up without helping the Raiders get a new stadium. Now, I suppose that stadium does not have to be in Oakland but still. The proposal to marry the Chargers and Rams in LA does not seem to go very far unless they figure out a way to get the Raiders a new stadium too. Whether that money came from the NFL or maybe even Kroenke from savings of pairing with the Chargers... I dunno.
Florio broke this down awhile ago and I don't remember the details even remotely but apparently between the relocation fees and the necessity to placate whichever team(s) don't get to move to Los Angeles there should be plenty of money to help get a stadium deal done for the loser(s) in the Los Angeles sweepstakes.
Heck, if I had known this was an option, I would have never been on board with the Carson thing.

If the league moves Chargers/Rams to LA, and throw a bone to Oakland, and help get a new stadium in OAK, that sounds pretty great to me.

It might be better financially for Mark Davis if he was in LA, but what do we care? More money clearly doesn't provide an advantage on the field, as Kroenke and Jerry Jones have proven.

If the NFL, as a consolation prize for the Raiders, helps get a new stadium........well heck, you can keep LA.
One thing is free agency. Both are California so the taxes are a wash. But LA is a bigger draw than Oakland is. Now, not saying that is a make or break thing but it is a nice carrot to dangle when you are trying to sign some hot shot early 20 something year old millionaire. Come live it up with the stars in LA! Or come get a house in wine country a couple of hours out of Oakland!
The Bay Area is an easy sale for anyone. It's not LA on the media scale but for quality of life it is a very easy sale at any age.

They need the new venue to attract the FAs.
Bay Area vs LA is not Minneapolis vs LA and let's face it- even in the biggest difference of desirable vs not so much places to live- most FA's go with most money but there is a slight edge on LA over the Bay Area for a young 20 something old kid.

The new venue surely helps the most. Who the heck wants to play in the infield for half their season?
I agree that LA>Bay Area particularly because psychologically there is the notion that the media lives in Los Angeles and the Hollywood association. That really helps Los Angeles, even if in reality the impact is diminished in the information age. However, and this may sound bizarre and maybe this just comes from growing up in Los Angeles, I think that with the Lakers being dreadful and Golden State (and the Giants to a lesser degree) being ascendant it closes that gap on LA just a little bit when scouting FAs.

Still the O-Co. kills the Raiders on every level and no amount of star/media/championship power in the city makes up for playing in a ######y stadium with #####y locker rooms. They need a stadium as worse than any team in the league, even the Chargers (who are #2 in my book of #####y stadiums). Frankly the Rams offend me with their ######ing about their stadium, it's 21 years old!!! Renovate @######s! The O-Co and Murph (San Diego) are 50! GTFO Rams!!! And this is coming from a guy who's mother went into labor with me during a Rams game...and refused to leave before the game ended*.

*true story

 
Autumn Wind said:
Sorry to copy from another thread but if I'm Mark Davis, I go scorched earth on the NFL and Goodell unless the Raiders get major concessions to miss out on L.A.
I think this is a given for whichever team loses out on the LA sweepstakes. There is going to be a ton of relocation money paid by the "winners*" and the NFL is going to have to pony up a little more than their standard $300 mil offer they make to any city to finance a new stadium. Bottom line is, when the dust settles, I think all three teams will end up with new stadiums. Although I think San Diego is a lock to move no matter what, SD isn't financing a new stadium so the NFL and team will have to pay for the whole shebang to make that happen.

*which may be why Oakland is considered to be the longshot to move.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Raiders are the only team that could legitimately draw home team crowds from the Los Angeles fan base. This young nucleus would probably draw really well next year and beyond if they continue to improve. I don't think the same can be said for the Chargers or Rams. The Chargers would have to be in Carson to have any hope of drawing a substantial fan base, which would have to include the existing fan base in San Diego. The Rams? They couldn't draw in LA or Anaheim before and I see no reason why they would start now.
This isn't true at all. When the Rams were in L.A., they were near the top of the league in attendance. It wasn't until they moved to Anaheim that things went south.

 
Raiders are the only team that could legitimately draw home team crowds from the Los Angeles fan base. This young nucleus would probably draw really well next year and beyond if they continue to improve. I don't think the same can be said for the Chargers or Rams. The Chargers would have to be in Carson to have any hope of drawing a substantial fan base, which would have to include the existing fan base in San Diego. The Rams? They couldn't draw in LA or Anaheim before and I see no reason why they would start now.
This isn't true at all. When the Rams were in L.A., they were near the top of the league in attendance. It wasn't until they moved to Anaheim that things went south.
If they drew so well then why did they move to Anaheim?

:yawn: It's a Raiders town now and always will be.

 
Raiders are the only team that could legitimately draw home team crowds from the Los Angeles fan base. This young nucleus would probably draw really well next year and beyond if they continue to improve. I don't think the same can be said for the Chargers or Rams. The Chargers would have to be in Carson to have any hope of drawing a substantial fan base, which would have to include the existing fan base in San Diego. The Rams? They couldn't draw in LA or Anaheim before and I see no reason why they would start now.
This isn't true at all. When the Rams were in L.A., they were near the top of the league in attendance. It wasn't until they moved to Anaheim that things went south.
If they drew so well then why did they move to Anaheim?

:yawn: It's a Raiders town now and always will be.
Seriously? They moved to Anaheim for a "better" stadium and land agreement. NFL teams don't really move because of attendance anyway. They move for stadiums and more guaranteed revenue.

And, no. It's a Rams town now (and Chargers). The Rams set attendance records in the Coliseum that the Raiders never touched.

 
I'm sure it will come out as Chargers/Rams 'won', but no team wanted to stay as much as the Raiders, and if we wind up with new stadium deal in Oakland, which it looks like this is paving the way for, that's pretty OK with me.

 
I'm guessing this came with a concession of either waiving a future relocation fee or getting a chunk of the $1.1B in relo fees to help fund a new stadium here. Would be the greatest resolution to stay and get a new stadium.

 
Part of me thinks Davis knew all along he wasn't getting into LA, and partnered with Spanos as a ploy to get as much as he could for "agreeing" to not stand in the way.

 
I will only be happy with this if the Raiders truly get a golden parachute to build a new stadium in Oakland. But my gut tells me Mark is going to end up getting screwed and will ultimately move to San Antonio as a result of the bull#### that went down today.

 
I will only be happy with this if the Raiders truly get a golden parachute to build a new stadium in Oakland. But my gut tells me Mark is going to end up getting screwed and will ultimately move to San Antonio as a result of the bull#### that went down today.
Just read they are getting a nine figure parachute. But, isn't the problem actually the city giving him the green light to control the land?

 
I will only be happy with this if the Raiders truly get a golden parachute to build a new stadium in Oakland. But my gut tells me Mark is going to end up getting screwed and will ultimately move to San Antonio as a result of the bull#### that went down today.
Just read they are getting a nine figure parachute. But, isn't the problem actually the city giving him the green light to control the land?
Oakland doesn't have the money and has no real means to get it. Unless the Raiders and the NFL are footing $1B I don't see the Raiders staying in Oakland long-term.

 
I will only be happy with this if the Raiders truly get a golden parachute to build a new stadium in Oakland. But my gut tells me Mark is going to end up getting screwed and will ultimately move to San Antonio as a result of the bull#### that went down today.
Just read they are getting a nine figure parachute. But, isn't the problem actually the city giving him the green light to control the land?
Oakland doesn't have the money and has no real means to get it. Unless the Raiders and the NFL are footing $1B I don't see the Raiders staying in Oakland long-term.
Why would Oakland need it? Bonsigniore of the LA Daily News said on Friday that Davis wasn't asking for money from Oakland. He said he could get a developer and financing, but that he needed to get an agreement from Oakland to have control of the land so that he could build a new stadium (and work on one for the A's). He'd be willing to lease the land.

 
I read something similar a while back. Don't remember the details but in essence Davis was asking the City of Oakland for rent free land and he would handle developing it. This is what is frustrating, as I mentioned upthread. That land will basic lay vacant if the Raiders. There must be creative ways to get this done. Like maybe the city gets 50% of the parking revenue and a cut of any events besides football.

 
So the "golden parachute" is only $100 MM???

I had a feeling Mark would get fleeced and he did. #### the NFL. I'm so damn tired of spending my emotion on this team when they are constantly undermined by the league on and off the field.

 
$100M if he stays. If Spanos takes that and works something out in SD, Raiders can join Kronke. Or they can take $100M free money and do what they wanted to do in the first place - stay in Oakland. You try getting 31 rich dudes to each give up $3.23M. I say bank the $100M, call up the Niners, and spend that on dual-occupancy in that stadium.

 
I don't think there is any chance that San Diego does not join the Rams in LA and $100M is not a lot of money in terms of stadium building. Oh yeah, and by the way, right now the Raiders do not even have a stadium lease for next season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think just the opposite. I think SDC gets it done. It's been said Spanos truly dislikes Kroenke, and I could see this being a way to mend fences and stay in what really is an attractive market for the NFL. And $100M Is a TON of money. That's 5-8% of the cost of a good stadium. If you run any business and find a way to save 5-8% of costs you're getting promoted hardcore.

But enough of those donkeys. This means Raiders either get an option to go to LA (love it) or $100M free cash to use to stay and get a stadium locally (love it more).

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top