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.
I could be wrong about this but I thought $300 mil was sort of the standard NFL offer to help build a stadium. I think it was in play for San Diego and Oakland before the Los Angeles thing was decided. Does anyone know, that if true, whether or not it includes the $100 mil payout?
$200 million is the standard and then with the additional$100 million we would get $300 million total from the league to help build a stadium.
Conversely this year they were able to go with early Sunday kickoff times in the U.S. allowing for four Sunday broadcasts. The London team would have a dedicated time slot with no competition from other games up to eight times/year.
I believe the $300M is the total after combining the normal $200M the League would provide to a new stadium along with the $100M given as a result of the Raiders part in the latest LA adventures.
Not a fan of early Sunday games. The NFL is on too much already.
Last I read this wasn't confirmed. I don't believe the lease is in place in Oakland for 2016. I think they might be homeless at the moment to be honest. And further more I believe the League has final approval on all lease agreements (whether or not that means anything here)...
I don't see any way they won't be. I think they're stuck in that building for the foreseeable future.
They don't have a lease, but logistically they are getting short on time to find an alternative. My guess is they will do a 1 year with the Coliseum as a last ditch effort to get the stadium done there. In 2017 they end up in San Antonio. I think the Chargers end up in LA, and even if not I don't see them going to LA as a 3rd SoCal team. It's either Oakland ponying up or SNA, and if Oakland were going to make it easy for them to stay they would have by now.
It's also sounding like San Diego is becoming a real option for the Raiders as well. Having three options, Oakland, San Diego, and San Antonio is nice. Play them off each other and get the best deal possible.
I don't think SD is real. If they were willing to pony up, it would be for the Chargers. Why go in behind Spanos and beg for the scraps he rejected? I'm also wondering if three teams can survive in such a compact area. I realize it's the 2nd largest metro in the US, but it's three teams in a town with the most alternatives and distractions imaginable. Something like 11 other pro franchises. Beaches with year round weather to support it. All the entertainment/movie/Hollywood scene. Combined with traffic, all of a sudden fans 20 miles away take 2 hours to get to the game. Hmm I can spend 4 hours in the car, or I can watch it on my iPad from the golf course or beach along with 3 other games or make the wife happy and go to wine country with the game on my phone. There's literally nothing to do in Cleveland in December, and whatever it is you'll freeze your tail off, may as well go sit 300 yards from Lake Erie for maximum lake effect wind to punish you.
As much as there is reason to doubt Mark Davis as a businessman, playing up San Antonio is possibly a brilliant move.
I'm happy for him and all but...meh. The pro bowl is little more than a popularity contest in the first place and Carr wasn't selected to be there he is just a replacement.D Carr named to the pro bowl in year 2. Cool
Cooper and Edwards make the all rookie team. Awesome.
Keep the accolades coming.
I watched a segment where this chick went around SD interviewing people asking them if they could support the Raiders if they moved to SD. 90% said no. But then if she reframed the question in terms of supporting the LA Chargers or SD Raiders then most jumped on to the Raiders side.
He is an absolute stud. If available for us- we need to take him. Only reason why he would be is because of the injury.
I'm not understanding it either. BOth from a fan-base level and an operational level.
RosterWatch @RosterWatch 1h1 hour ago
Raiders wouldn't go to San Diego unless there is some sort of stadium deal done first.
Agree on Ragland for the same reason. I also think its tough to evaluate Alabama LBs since their defensive line is so dominant and requires so much blocking attention.
The whole team is stacked since Saban has been jamming in top recruiting class after top recruiting class there.
I have to agree as well.
I have to wonder if a similar thought was running thru the Texan's draft room the year that Carr came out: "We should pass on him because of our experience with his brother."
If he is projecting to OLB in a 3-4 no less then I can't see the Raiders wanting him too seriously. Secondary is still the biggest need and the talent could be there at 14 with either Alexander or Hargreaves. J. Smith is mostly intriguing because it really looks like he can be disruptive in pass coverage, getting after the QB and in the run game. Injury or no that kind versatility, without having the label of "tweener" should not be overlooked. His injury could be a blessing for the Raiders.
Without the injury I would not expect Jaylon to be on the board after the first 5 picks. Like you said even with the injury #14 may be dreaming.
