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 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Hankmoody
- Start date
Hankmoody
Footballguy
Perhaps not, but this compromise doesn't incent that in any way, it's just an option that already existed and the probabilities are no higher/lower than they were before this. It's also a very distant third on my list of what I'd like to see.
massraider
Footballguy
I think San Antonio gets involved now, for sure.
Chaka
Footballguy
So the $100 mil is essentially coming from just the Rams relocation fee, is that right? Does that mean they will get another payday if the Chargers bolt for Inglewood, which they haven't officially declared yet? Florio says the relocation fee for the Chargers would be $550 mil.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think so. The Rams' relocation fee is being divided up among the other 31 non-relocating teams. And, so would the Chargers.
The $100M is on top of that amount.
massraider
Footballguy
I haven't heard anything like that, and really, if the consolation prize is only $100 million, then it looks like the team got screwed.
But I don't really know what we should have expected. 300 mill? Based on what? There is no precedent for this I am aware of. I mean, 100 mill of free money is still 100 mill.
Personally, staying Oakland is the best scenario, I wonder if now that LA is done deal, there will be new opportunities for a stadium in Oakland, or if they get serious about San Antonio.
I just can't get upset because we aren't sharing a stadium in a market with a lame fan base. I prefer we stay in Oakland, and get a free extra home game vs. Chargers every year.
LawFitz
Footballguy
$100 MM doesn't move the needle. I would love to hear how the NFL strong-armed the vote when supposedly Carson had the LA committee in favor 5-1 and also supposedly had 20 votes heading into the deliberations.
Worst part of all of this will be when Kroenke steals Reggie Mac in another year or two. When that happens, I'll officially be done with football.
Love or hate Al, he never would've been steamrolled like what happened yesterday to his seed.
Worst part of all of this will be when Kroenke steals Reggie Mac in another year or two. When that happens, I'll officially be done with football.
Love or hate Al, he never would've been steamrolled like what happened yesterday to his seed.
Autumn Wind
Footballguy
I guess we'll find out once and for all if Mark Davis has either the brains or (preferably) the cash to make the Raiders relevant in the 21st century. My gut tells me he's way in over his head.
massraider
Footballguy
Pro Football Focus most improved players 2015:
Our next award is for the NFL’s most improved player. Our most improved player list features a pretty even mix of second-year “making the leap” players and a few veterans who have managed to reinvent themselves. We factored in overall production grades, as well as improvement in relevant signatures stats.
WinnerDavid Amerson, CB, Oakland Raiders
Amerson was the Redskins’ second-round pick in 2013, and saw the field in every game during his rookie season. He struggled with consistency throughout the year, and finished with a relatively low coverage grade, which placed him 92nd out of 110 cornerbacks. Last season his coverage grade dropped even further, and he slid all the way down to 106th at his position. Amerson was released after Week 1 this season, and was subsequently picked up by the Raiders, where he’s been a completely different player ever since.
The former NC State standout posted a positive production grade in 2015, despite being targeted 104 times (sixth-most among NFL CBs). On those targets, he allowed just 58 completions and one touchdown. He tied for fifth overall with 13 passes defensed, and also picked off four passes. Last season, he allowed more completions (61) on fewer targets (91), and an NFL-high 10 touchdowns when targeted. Quarterbacks had a 140.2 rating when targeting Amerson in 2014; this season, that number has dropped to 62.7. His improvements have brought him up to an 83.4 overall grade, good for 15th out of all cornerbacks this season.
First runner-upBlake Bortles, QB, Jacksonville Jaguars
Bortles finished with our lowest overall quarterback grade in his rookie season. This year, he managed to jump up to 24th among QBs, with a 69.7 overall grade. Bortles’ biggest improvement has come with improved confidence and effectiveness in attacking downfield. Last season, he completed just 13 deep passes in 50 attempts, with three touchdowns and five interceptions. This season, he’s connected on 40-of-97 deep passes for 10 touchdowns and five picks.
Second runner-upJake Matthews, LT, Atlanta Falcons
Matthews finished with the lowest production grade out of any tackle last season. He struggled both in pass blocking and run blocking. This season, though, he’s moved up to 19th overall at the position, with a season grade of 79.5 (scale of 1–100). Matthews’ pass blocking efficiency jumped to a very respectable 95.7 this season. In 2014, his 51 total pressures allowed were the fourth-most of any tackle. He was able to cut that number down to 38 total pressures this season.
Third runner-upDerek Carr, QB, Oakland Raiders
Carr finished with our second-worst overall production grade last season. He’s jumped all the way up to 10th this season, with an 81.6 overall grade. Carr has made improvements across the board, but the most obvious improvement was his higher efficiency when throwing the ball downfield. On 71 deep passes last season, Carr managed just 15 completions and two touchdowns. This season—on four fewer deep passes (67)—he has 25 completions and an astounding 12 touchdowns.
Fourth runner-upJerrell Freeman, LB, Indianapolis Colts
Freeman showed the ability to excel in coverage last season, as well as the ability to be a solid blitzer in 2013. His struggles have always been against the run, culminating in a career-worst run grade in 2014. This season, he finally put it all together. His 90.6 overall grade (1–100 scale) this year ranked sixth out of all NFL linebackers, and his 97.9 grade in run defense trailed only Carolina’s Luke Kuechly.
Our next award is for the NFL’s most improved player. Our most improved player list features a pretty even mix of second-year “making the leap” players and a few veterans who have managed to reinvent themselves. We factored in overall production grades, as well as improvement in relevant signatures stats.
WinnerDavid Amerson, CB, Oakland Raiders
Amerson was the Redskins’ second-round pick in 2013, and saw the field in every game during his rookie season. He struggled with consistency throughout the year, and finished with a relatively low coverage grade, which placed him 92nd out of 110 cornerbacks. Last season his coverage grade dropped even further, and he slid all the way down to 106th at his position. Amerson was released after Week 1 this season, and was subsequently picked up by the Raiders, where he’s been a completely different player ever since.
The former NC State standout posted a positive production grade in 2015, despite being targeted 104 times (sixth-most among NFL CBs). On those targets, he allowed just 58 completions and one touchdown. He tied for fifth overall with 13 passes defensed, and also picked off four passes. Last season, he allowed more completions (61) on fewer targets (91), and an NFL-high 10 touchdowns when targeted. Quarterbacks had a 140.2 rating when targeting Amerson in 2014; this season, that number has dropped to 62.7. His improvements have brought him up to an 83.4 overall grade, good for 15th out of all cornerbacks this season.
First runner-upBlake Bortles, QB, Jacksonville Jaguars
Bortles finished with our lowest overall quarterback grade in his rookie season. This year, he managed to jump up to 24th among QBs, with a 69.7 overall grade. Bortles’ biggest improvement has come with improved confidence and effectiveness in attacking downfield. Last season, he completed just 13 deep passes in 50 attempts, with three touchdowns and five interceptions. This season, he’s connected on 40-of-97 deep passes for 10 touchdowns and five picks.
Second runner-upJake Matthews, LT, Atlanta Falcons
Matthews finished with the lowest production grade out of any tackle last season. He struggled both in pass blocking and run blocking. This season, though, he’s moved up to 19th overall at the position, with a season grade of 79.5 (scale of 1–100). Matthews’ pass blocking efficiency jumped to a very respectable 95.7 this season. In 2014, his 51 total pressures allowed were the fourth-most of any tackle. He was able to cut that number down to 38 total pressures this season.
Third runner-upDerek Carr, QB, Oakland Raiders
Carr finished with our second-worst overall production grade last season. He’s jumped all the way up to 10th this season, with an 81.6 overall grade. Carr has made improvements across the board, but the most obvious improvement was his higher efficiency when throwing the ball downfield. On 71 deep passes last season, Carr managed just 15 completions and two touchdowns. This season—on four fewer deep passes (67)—he has 25 completions and an astounding 12 touchdowns.
Fourth runner-upJerrell Freeman, LB, Indianapolis Colts
Freeman showed the ability to excel in coverage last season, as well as the ability to be a solid blitzer in 2013. His struggles have always been against the run, culminating in a career-worst run grade in 2014. This season, he finally put it all together. His 90.6 overall grade (1–100 scale) this year ranked sixth out of all NFL linebackers, and his 97.9 grade in run defense trailed only Carolina’s Luke Kuechly.
32 Counter Pass
Footballguy
True, but we would then still be in cap hell with a talentless roster. Al completely lost his evaluation skills the last decade of his life. No need to post all teh crappy drafts he spearheaded, or the players he passed up because of his infatuation with speed.
krsone21
Footballguy
Insider Buzz: Davis Vows to 'Find a Home' for Raiders, Could Move to San Antonio
By Team Stream
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2607480-insider-buzz-davis-vows-to-find-a-home-for-raiders-could-move-to-san-antonio?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=web-des-art-top-157
By Team Stream
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2607480-insider-buzz-davis-vows-to-find-a-home-for-raiders-could-move-to-san-antonio?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=web-des-art-top-157
jonessed
Footballguy
Apparently Kroenke steamrolled Spanos/Davis on the presentation. The plans weren't just for a stadium, but a state-of-the-art football mega-complex. He saved a bunch of goodies for the presentation.LawFitz said:
That seems pretty vague but it's being reported in quite a few pieces. The owners saw the big dollar signs rolling and they were bought.
LawFitz
Footballguy
Thanks. This actually makes me feel better. I can tolerate the Rams winning an honest competition a lot more than I could the NFL bending over the Raiders just because they are the Raiders.
Hasn't this been out there for a year? Stadium + retail/entertainment/performing arts/housing venue.
Stompin' Tom Connors
Footballguy
Isn't this kind of the model for any modern stadium these days? Maybe not the whole housing/entertainment complex, but stadiums are no longer places where you come in for the game, then leave right afterwards. They are mammoth, with ever-increasing square footage with each stadium built. There are bars, restaurants, retail, etc. Rooftop decks, luxury suites -- the experience isn't just the game but the venue as well.
It's a little ridiculous, as you don't really have to have so many extras, but Jerry Jones upped the ante in more ways than one -- with a gigantic digital scoreboard (or 4), you can't just build a new stadium that has 2 smaller screens on either side -- you need the tech. Stadium construction has become ludicrous in terms of one-upmanship.
There are a few things that could drive down relative costs -- may be no need for a roof, for example -- but the cost per square foot is going to be high in Oakland (as compared to other non-coastal cities). To do it in today's environment in a way that is on par with other recent stadiums (the aforementioned Cowboys Stadium, MetLife Stadium, etc.) is $1B easy.
So while $100M sounds like a nice consolation prize, it doesn't indeed move needles.
massraider
Footballguy
First, let me say that there is a lot about the stadium stuff I didn't follow that closely. I don't really know quite what the feeling should be. As a financial boon to Mark, LA makes sense. But as fans, did any of us WANT the Raiders in LA? Wouldn't be my first choice.
Sharing a stadium with the Chargers, was that going to create revenue for the team that would allow them an advantage? I don't think so. I think it might level the playing field, from a financial standpoint, but I feel like any new stadium will do that.
I hope Oakland can work. But I wouldn't be mad to hear that Mark went back to San Antonio for another trip.
Sharing a stadium with the Chargers, was that going to create revenue for the team that would allow them an advantage? I don't think so. I think it might level the playing field, from a financial standpoint, but I feel like any new stadium will do that.
I hope Oakland can work. But I wouldn't be mad to hear that Mark went back to San Antonio for another trip.
http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2607334-nfl-draft-2016-complete-1st-round-mock-draft-following-wild-card-weekend
First mock I have seen...Clemson CB MacKenzie Alexander
First mock I have seen...Clemson CB MacKenzie Alexander
joey
Footballguy
from what I heard, it's the "football mega-complex" part that was the cherry on top. Like a college campus of all things NFL. Meeting complex for the league, fan experience, etc.
I thought I heard something like that on the radio...
Autumn Wind
Footballguy
I'm kind of torn on the whole thing. On the one hand I grew up with the Rams in L.A. so it's cool on one level to see them back. On the other, the way the whole thing went down just stinks, and a part of me is dying to see a half-empty stadium within 5 years after it opens.
Sarlakticacid
Footballguy
Heard Andrew Brandt explain that he was shocked that the LA committee
(Made up mostly of football family owners) were all for the Carson Project(doing a solid for The Spanos family) but the, for the lack of a better word, business guys were all behind Kronke. Sounded like those who built there teams vs those who bought their team kinda scenario
Is this a sign of things to come for the NFL?
(Made up mostly of football family owners) were all for the Carson Project(doing a solid for The Spanos family) but the, for the lack of a better word, business guys were all behind Kronke. Sounded like those who built there teams vs those who bought their team kinda scenario
Is this a sign of things to come for the NFL?
Riversco
Footballguy
Here are the options for the Raiders:
1. Move to Texas.
2. Give money to the Chargers to help them build their new place in San Diego in exchange for them staying put and allowing the Raiders to move to LA.
3. Move to London.
That's the reality. The door is open to LA if they really want it. But they better make sure they can buy off the Chargers if they do.
1. Move to Texas.
2. Give money to the Chargers to help them build their new place in San Diego in exchange for them staying put and allowing the Raiders to move to LA.
3. Move to London.
That's the reality. The door is open to LA if they really want it. But they better make sure they can buy off the Chargers if they do.
Riversco
Footballguy
Here is what the owners want:
1. Rams in LA.
2. The Raiders to give a boatload of money to the Chargers to help fund their new stadium in San Diego.
3. The Raiders forking over another $550 million to move to LA.
4. Davis is now forced to sell the team because of all the money he paid out.
That should cover everything they want. They want Davis out of the NFL. They want Kronecke happy. There it is.
1. Rams in LA.
2. The Raiders to give a boatload of money to the Chargers to help fund their new stadium in San Diego.
3. The Raiders forking over another $550 million to move to LA.
4. Davis is now forced to sell the team because of all the money he paid out.
That should cover everything they want. They want Davis out of the NFL. They want Kronecke happy. There it is.
massraider
Footballguy
kaso
Footballguy
Amy Trask was on SiriusNFL yesterday afternoon. I was only able to catch the beginning of the interview but here was her explanation of the situation as of about 4:00pm Central time on Jan 13. I'd imagine some of this is repeated from what has already been shared in this thread.
The owners voted against the Chargers/Raiders deal for Carson.
The owners voted for the Rams/TBD deal for Inglewood. (Reading between the lines here, and adding in angles from other stories... money won out here)
The Chargers have one year to decide to join the Rams in Inglewood, to stay in San Diego, or to look at other relocation options.
The Raiders are 3rd in line, and need to wait for the Chargers decision.
Here is where her take took an interesting turn in my opinion...
The Chargers can decide to join the Rams in Inglewood as either part owners, or as tenants.
The options available to Oakland will change dependent on the decision of the Chargers.
The catch is that the Chargers may need to make a defensive call, reason being is that if they decide to stay in San Diego. And the Raiders move to Inglewood with the Rams, all of a sudden there will be 3 teams within about 100 miles of each other. While the issue may not be with fans filling the seats, the close proximity of these teams could negatively impact the ability for the Chargers to operate as hoped in San Diego on their own. Given that they would then be competing for stadium advertising, naming rights, box suites, corporate sponsorships with two additional clubs at a much larger facility.
She also went on to talk about the Oakland option. She believes a deal can get done if all 3 parties (Oakland, Football Club, and Tax Payers) take a step back from their current stance. Each have to give a little to make it work. The location in Oakland is perfect, in her opinion, based on logistics of making it work.
She also commented that when she was with the Raiders she raised the idea of building a smaller stadium, but one that was exceptionally high-tech. 40-45k seats. No 3rd deck, her comment was the cost to build the 3rd deck doesn't make sense with what you can charge for those seats. The long term cost to a small stadium is that you'd never be selected for a Super Bowl.
That's all I recall at the moment...
The owners voted against the Chargers/Raiders deal for Carson.
The owners voted for the Rams/TBD deal for Inglewood. (Reading between the lines here, and adding in angles from other stories... money won out here)
The Chargers have one year to decide to join the Rams in Inglewood, to stay in San Diego, or to look at other relocation options.
The Raiders are 3rd in line, and need to wait for the Chargers decision.
Here is where her take took an interesting turn in my opinion...
The Chargers can decide to join the Rams in Inglewood as either part owners, or as tenants.
The options available to Oakland will change dependent on the decision of the Chargers.
The catch is that the Chargers may need to make a defensive call, reason being is that if they decide to stay in San Diego. And the Raiders move to Inglewood with the Rams, all of a sudden there will be 3 teams within about 100 miles of each other. While the issue may not be with fans filling the seats, the close proximity of these teams could negatively impact the ability for the Chargers to operate as hoped in San Diego on their own. Given that they would then be competing for stadium advertising, naming rights, box suites, corporate sponsorships with two additional clubs at a much larger facility.
She also went on to talk about the Oakland option. She believes a deal can get done if all 3 parties (Oakland, Football Club, and Tax Payers) take a step back from their current stance. Each have to give a little to make it work. The location in Oakland is perfect, in her opinion, based on logistics of making it work.
She also commented that when she was with the Raiders she raised the idea of building a smaller stadium, but one that was exceptionally high-tech. 40-45k seats. No 3rd deck, her comment was the cost to build the 3rd deck doesn't make sense with what you can charge for those seats. The long term cost to a small stadium is that you'd never be selected for a Super Bowl.
That's all I recall at the moment...
DocHolliday
Footballguy
This situation is frustrating. It is to the point that I do not care where the Raiders are located as long as they are playing in a new stadium.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
My thinking on this was that there was no incentive for Kroenke to add the Rams now. The whole thing I was hearing from Spanos side was that they did not want to be a tenant and did not want to be a junior partner. Unless there is language in this deal that makes Spanos equal partner then I suppose all the talk about the Chargers joining the Rams is that Spanos decided he is ok being Kroenke's little biotch. Again, unless there is specific language to guard against this- what keeps Kroenke from saying "you either come in as junior partner or screw you"? If the Chargers stay in SD and Raiders don't agree to move then Kroenke has the LA market to himself. The only incentive he had before to make a deal was to get the league to vote to allow him to move. He has that now. Why offer the Chargers or Raiders anything but inferior terms?
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Agree but I am not sure how much will be real prospecting to move there and how much will be leverage to getting a deal in the Bay Area.
Wasn't there some possibilities in the Bay Area (or greater surrounding area) that was not Oakland?
Chadstroma
Footballguy
That is the league's view.
You have one of the wealthiest individuals in the room with Kroenke who is a proven business acumen. On the other side you have the poorest owner in the room who may not have much of any business acumen. Whether that is fair to Mark or not- that is the perception I get from the owners with them obviously not coming out and saying as much.
The league owners wanted to keep Kroenke happy and to much lesser degree Spanos. Then, they wanted Mark happy enough just not to cause problems with lawsuits and beyond that- who cares.
I really, really, really hope that there is more to the back scenes than just $100MM being offered on top of the other $100MM. Sure, $200MM is a lot of money but we still have a gap to fill from the lack of funds the Raiders/ownership has and Oakland being broke/unwilling to do anything.
krsone21
Footballguy
What’s next for the Raiders?
By Vic Tafur and Rachel Swan
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/What-s-next-for-the-Raiders-6757373.php?t=9a8fe2f201f294ee0d&cmpid=twitter-premium
It sounds like the relocation fee could possibly be waived if the Raiders decide to relocate.
By Vic Tafur and Rachel Swan
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/What-s-next-for-the-Raiders-6757373.php?t=9a8fe2f201f294ee0d&cmpid=twitter-premium
It sounds like the relocation fee could possibly be waived if the Raiders decide to relocate.
massraider
Footballguy
Autumn Wind
Footballguy
The San Antonio chatter is kicking up, and apparently former Vikings owner Red McCombs is part of a group trying to lure the Raiders. I don't know, I don't live in CA so ultimately it doesn't matter to me where they play. But San Antonio is a much smaller market than Oakland, so I have to wonder if the Raiders would actually benefit from the move long-term. Not to mention that they'd probably get huge resistance from the Cowboys and Texans.
massraider
Footballguy
Former San Antonio Spurs and Minnesota Vikings owner Red McCombs said that he talked to Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis on Tuesday and that they’ve “got the whole program put together” as far as the Raiders relocating to San Antonio.
McCombs told ESPN San Antonio Radio that he and his group still need to persuade Davis, who lost out on moving to Los Angeles on Tuesday, to make the final leap.
“We still have to get them to want to come here,” McCombs said in the radio interview. “He was born and raised there and he has a great feeling for the state of California. But it appears he is going to need to go somewhere.”
McCombs, a billionaire automotive executive who made his fortune in San Antonio, said the NFL’s decision to move the Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles and give the San Diego Chargers the option to follow them, “clears the runway” for the Raiders to move somewhere else.
The league would have to approve a move to San Antonio in 2016 — with the Raiders temporarily playing in the Alamodome — but McCombs said he doesn’t see approval being withheld.
Davis declined to comment on the San Antonio possibility.
In related developments, the website Bleacher Report reported that Davis has a parcel of land between San Antonio and Austin to build a new stadium, and McCombs said, “We have several locations that will work.”
Davis and Raiders President Marc Badain visited the sites in July 2014 and McCombs said he and his group of seven local business and political leaders have “become close with” Davis and Badain. One of those leaders is former San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros, who senses now is the time to strike.
“The stakes are so high for a city like San Antonio that is on the cusp of being an NFL market that it is worth making every effort,” Cisneros told the San Antonio Business Journal. “This may be our best chance in decades.”
McCombs said that he would be willing to buy in with the Raiders if that helped Davis get to San Antonio and that there is a team of potential investors and corporations lined up.
“We already have 12 of the corporate entities nailed down and ready with serious commitments,” McCombs told ESPN San Antonio Radio. “We proved it with the Spurs. They said it wouldn’t work at all, and it just happens to be the best franchise now in all of sports.
“We know how to do things here. We weren’t born yesterday.”
McCombs was born 88 years ago and has long vowed to get an NFL team to San Antonio, “so I’ve got to hurry,” he said in the radio interview.
The Chronicle reported Wednesday that it is still possible for the Raiders to move during this offseason because the team satisfied the NFL’s relocation guidelines during the recent three-team competition to move to Los Angeles. Last week, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, in a report to owners, called O.co Coliseum “inadequate and unsatisfactory” and said the city of Oakland’s plan to keep the Raiders lacked certainty.
McCombs said Davis will realize soon that “San Antonio is heaven.”
“They’re not going to find anywhere else in the United States that can equal what we put together,” McCombs said.
McCombs told ESPN San Antonio Radio that he and his group still need to persuade Davis, who lost out on moving to Los Angeles on Tuesday, to make the final leap.
“We still have to get them to want to come here,” McCombs said in the radio interview. “He was born and raised there and he has a great feeling for the state of California. But it appears he is going to need to go somewhere.”
McCombs, a billionaire automotive executive who made his fortune in San Antonio, said the NFL’s decision to move the Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles and give the San Diego Chargers the option to follow them, “clears the runway” for the Raiders to move somewhere else.
The league would have to approve a move to San Antonio in 2016 — with the Raiders temporarily playing in the Alamodome — but McCombs said he doesn’t see approval being withheld.
Davis declined to comment on the San Antonio possibility.
In related developments, the website Bleacher Report reported that Davis has a parcel of land between San Antonio and Austin to build a new stadium, and McCombs said, “We have several locations that will work.”
Davis and Raiders President Marc Badain visited the sites in July 2014 and McCombs said he and his group of seven local business and political leaders have “become close with” Davis and Badain. One of those leaders is former San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros, who senses now is the time to strike.
“The stakes are so high for a city like San Antonio that is on the cusp of being an NFL market that it is worth making every effort,” Cisneros told the San Antonio Business Journal. “This may be our best chance in decades.”
McCombs said that he would be willing to buy in with the Raiders if that helped Davis get to San Antonio and that there is a team of potential investors and corporations lined up.
“We already have 12 of the corporate entities nailed down and ready with serious commitments,” McCombs told ESPN San Antonio Radio. “We proved it with the Spurs. They said it wouldn’t work at all, and it just happens to be the best franchise now in all of sports.
“We know how to do things here. We weren’t born yesterday.”
McCombs was born 88 years ago and has long vowed to get an NFL team to San Antonio, “so I’ve got to hurry,” he said in the radio interview.
The Chronicle reported Wednesday that it is still possible for the Raiders to move during this offseason because the team satisfied the NFL’s relocation guidelines during the recent three-team competition to move to Los Angeles. Last week, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, in a report to owners, called O.co Coliseum “inadequate and unsatisfactory” and said the city of Oakland’s plan to keep the Raiders lacked certainty.
McCombs said Davis will realize soon that “San Antonio is heaven.”
“They’re not going to find anywhere else in the United States that can equal what we put together,” McCombs said.
Autumn Wind
Footballguy
Yeah that all sounds great and I'm sure if nothing else, the stadium in SA would be sweet. But in terms of launching the Raiders out of the bottom half of teams financially and in prestige, does San friggin' Antonio get it done? And please don't tell me about the Spurs, that's a totally different sport where you can succeed with five really good guys on the roster.
Stompin' Tom Connors
Footballguy
That part got me thinking. Surprised that Toronto hasn't come up.
Their bid for the Bills was the second highest, and the market seems right -- knowledgable about football, can support an NFL team being the 4th most populous city in North America and the third largest market in English-speaking North America.
They would still have a stadium issue, though with a new (non-crack-smoking) mayor the city's support may change, and the notion of allowing personal seat license may help fund it. Another blocker in the Bills bid was the NFL wanting to get a team in LA first -- that seems taken care of now.
Only other obstacle is the variable rate of the Canadian dollar -- it's fairly weak right now, and that proved fatal for pro teams like the Expos, Nordiques, Winnipeg Jets, and Vancouver Grizzlies.
Enderdog
Footballguy
San Francisco + Oakland + San Jose = 2.3 million people.
San Antonio + Austin = 2.3 million people
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0763098.html
Chaka
Footballguy
When it comes to signing free agents Texas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Canada
because
Texas taxes <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Canada taxes
because
Texas taxes <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Canada taxes
Chadstroma
Footballguy
What exactly have they put together? Corporate sponsors? How much are they willing to pony up in land, rights, and straight out cash to get a stadium built?
I think SA is a last ditch option that is more valuable as a hedge and leverage to get things done than actually being a desirable market.
There was some talk about London being the second choice of Kroenke missed on LA. Would London work for the Raiders? I really would not want that since I think any London team would be at a disadvantage via travel and FA. But if we are talking SA, Portland OR, and I guess even Toronto- wouldn't it make sense that London is brought up to? Being that the league is very keen on eventually building an international franchise.
I think SA is a last ditch option that is more valuable as a hedge and leverage to get things done than actually being a desirable market.
There was some talk about London being the second choice of Kroenke missed on LA. Would London work for the Raiders? I really would not want that since I think any London team would be at a disadvantage via travel and FA. But if we are talking SA, Portland OR, and I guess even Toronto- wouldn't it make sense that London is brought up to? Being that the league is very keen on eventually building an international franchise.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Yea, the ONLY thing I like about Texas is it is much more tax friendly than California and that helps a lot in FA.
massraider
Footballguy
If they have their own stadium, and can count on a legit revenue stream worthy of being in the NFL (the A's control concessions in Oakland, and the Raiders pay rent) then Oakland is my 1st choice, followed by San Antonio. Taxes and quality of life...whatever. I don't think those factors are decision-makers, just ancillary benefits or negatives.
I believe Mark exhausts Oakland options, and if no deal, looks at San Antonio. Teams move because they get sweetheart deals, it certainly looks like San Antonio is more willing to play ball.
The LA thing held everything up, and I think Davis is disappointed, but if they wind up in Oakland or San Antonio, they could wind up coming out of this OK. Just too early to tell now. It really is starting over, but I believe things have to move quick now, because the Raiders need a resolution.
I believe Mark exhausts Oakland options, and if no deal, looks at San Antonio. Teams move because they get sweetheart deals, it certainly looks like San Antonio is more willing to play ball.
The LA thing held everything up, and I think Davis is disappointed, but if they wind up in Oakland or San Antonio, they could wind up coming out of this OK. Just too early to tell now. It really is starting over, but I believe things have to move quick now, because the Raiders need a resolution.
I honestly don't care what city they play in...I just want the team that I care about to not have the most embarrassing venue in the league and be the only team that still has to play with a damn baseball diamond on the field.
Their stadium is over 5 decades old....if the city of Oakland doesn't want to help Davis with a new stadium after 5 decades then they deserve to lose the team. If San Antonio is willing to help then I wouldn't blame Mark for going there. I also think the fans in San Antonio/Austin would embrace the Raiders just as much as they are embraced in Oakland if not more.
Their stadium is over 5 decades old....if the city of Oakland doesn't want to help Davis with a new stadium after 5 decades then they deserve to lose the team. If San Antonio is willing to help then I wouldn't blame Mark for going there. I also think the fans in San Antonio/Austin would embrace the Raiders just as much as they are embraced in Oakland if not more.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
They need a resolution, they need a stadium and they need a lease in the meantime.massraider said:
So, the NFL is now ready to kick in $300 million. Last I heard, we have about $300 million. $900 million is really the starting point of having a modern stadium and that is on the small side. Oakland is not giving up cash though I think that they finally will concede most everything else. Where do we get the rest of the cash in an Oakland deal?
Hankmoody
Footballguy
Yeah it's probably a lot more relevant to look at MSA of the market. SFO/Bay area is 5th with 8.5M people, with Sacramento being another 2.4M and about the same distance from Oakland that Austin in from SNA. San Antonio and Austin are 31/36 respectively with about 2.2M/1.8M respectively.
It can be done, KC, CIN, and Indy are all about the same size as San Antonio and only CIN has a large market nearby to draw from in Columbus. Teams like TEN, GBP, NOS, and BUF are all in much smaller markets and are surviving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_the_United_States
Chaka
Footballguy
joey
Footballguy
really? hadn't heard this. link to an article or something? Sounds like an interesting new wrinkle if true (and, honestly, more in the range of what I was expecting to be the "buy out" payment from the NFL to the Raiders)
Similar threads
