Spanos should either move or sell to someone who will keep the Chargers in San Diego.Happy at least one city stood up against unnecessarily financing these.
The NFL covets the San Diego market and wants to stay there. Spanos, for all his flirtations with L.A. over the years – including the 12-month affair last year when the Chargers and Raiders mounted a Carson counterattack on the Rams’ Inglewood stadium proposal – wants to remain in San Diego for now and forever.
He just needs help getting a new stadium built there. Which is not unlike every other owner in the NFL when it comes to these sorts of things.
L.A., for everything it offers Spanos and the Chargers, is just a chip to play. An opportunity to leverage San Diego into action as a viable partner on a new stadium.
And leverage it will remain. But maybe not forever. In fact, there might come a day soon in which L.A. ceases to be leverage and becomes the only real option. That’s a discussion for another day, and certainly the good people of San Diego will have a big say in whether that happens or not.
For now, Spanos’ heart is in San Diego.
Always has been.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Mayor-Libby-Schaaf-Says-Framework-Deal-Reached-to-Keep-Raiders-in-Oakland-402478366.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_BAYBrandThe Oakland mayor’s office confirmed Tuesday morning that a framework deal has been reached to keep the Raiders in Oakland.
Mayor Libby Schaaf has reached a framework with a group led by ex-NFL player Ronnie Lott. According to Schaaf’s office she will be meeting with representatives from the county and the city council in closed session over the next few days.
“The mayor said this a.m. there is a framework that that has been agreed upon and now in closed session today (county) and closed session on Nov. 29 (city council). Both bodies will review so we know if we can move forward," the mayor's office said.
The Oakland Raiders did not immediately return a request for comment.
This is a pet peeve of mine, so maybe I'm on an island, but can we not edit titles of threads based upon recent news? If the development is that momentous, it probably deserves its own thread.
Google "Ronnie Lott".What does Ronnie Lott have to do with the ownership of the Raiders? Is he negotiating on behalf of Davis or something?
I was planning on starting a new thread for this, but the Raiders have yet to respond, and given its the Raiders, there is no guarantee they will go along with this. Once the raiders agree to stay in OAK, then I think we can break it outThis is a pet peeve of mine, so maybe I'm on an island, but can we not edit titles of threads based upon recent news? If the development is that momentous, it probably deserves its own thread.
I came into this forum specifically to check up on this news, only to see what appears to be a 5-page discussion on the topic already in progress... but nope.
@SeoulSoxFan ? @Dogman2 ? Am I OCD on this, or is it a legitimate gripe? 'Cause I loves me some good griping.
The framework agreement does not include the Raiders, nor has Raiders owner Mark Davis agreed to stay in Oakland. The agreement would need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors and the Oakland City Council before the groups could move forward.[\quote]
Basically, Libby thinks they have private financing and released a statement that is really misleading. We don't know what they want from the Raiders or Oakland in exchange for financing a stadium, though I imagine it is a piece of the team. We also don't know what the stadium plan actually is. My fear is that the plan is for a small, non SuperBowl capable bandbox that won't help the Raider's revenue picture much.
Schaaf's hope is that Oakland just needs any plan better than the one they had last year and the NFL owners will force a Davis to stay in the East Bay.
I did the same thing you did and clicked on the thread thinking it was a new thread with lots of discussion. I'd agree that the news itself fits in the previously titled thread and didn't need a title change. As you said, if it is momentous, a new thread is good. So, the gripe in this case is a good one.This is a pet peeve of mine, so maybe I'm on an island, but can we not edit titles of threads based upon recent news? If the development is that momentous, it probably deserves its own thread.
I came into this forum specifically to check up on this news, only to see what appears to be a 5-page discussion on the topic already in progress... but nope.
@SeoulSoxFan ? @Dogman2 ? Am I OCD on this, or is it a legitimate gripe? 'Cause I loves me some good griping.
http://www.usatoday.com/wlna/sports/nfl/cowboys/2016/10/18/jerry-jones-raiders-las-vegas-oakland/92388930/When casino owner Steve Wynn got before the Nevada Legislature to talk about bringing the NFL to Las Vegas, he specifically said two influential owners had told him the league is on board – and at least one of those owners says Wynn was spot-on.
“I would say, ‘Amen,’ ” Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones told reporters during the NFL meetings Tuesday. “Steve is a valued friend and Sheldon (Adelson) is as well. I admire Jim (Murren) and what they do with MGM and I just admire what Nevada, Las Vegas is about.
“It’s a compliment to the NFL that they’re considering supporting a team. And so, I think it’s a great opportunity for everybody concerned, and I’m looking forward to the future.”
When casino owner Steve Wynn got before the Nevada Legislature to talk about bringing the NFL to Las Vegas, he specifically said two influential owners had told him the league is on board – and at least one of those owners says Wynn was spot-on.
“I would say, ‘Amen,’ ” Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones told reporters during the NFL meetings Tuesday. “Steve is a valued friend and Sheldon (Adelson) is as well. I admire Jim (Murren) and what they do with MGM and I just admire what Nevada, Las Vegas is about.
“It’s a compliment to the NFL that they’re considering supporting a team. And so, I think it’s a great opportunity for everybody concerned, and I’m looking forward to the future.”
"Today, the Oakland Raiders submitted an application to relocate their franchise to Las Vegas, as is provided for under the NFL Policy and Procedures for Proposed Franchise Relocations," the statement read.
"The application will be reviewed in the coming weeks by league staff and the Stadium and Finance Committees. The relocation of a franchise requires the affirmative vote of three-quarters of the NFL clubs."
The move was anticipated. NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported Saturday the Raiders would file their relocation paperwork within days. It is the first step in a relocation process that won't become official until the Raiders receive 24 votes from NFL owners to formally make the move.
It oils not shock me if the league couldn't get thousands of people to pay $1,000 for the right to enter a lottery to pay that $1 on behalf of the team.http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/raiders-want-to-play-in-1-9-billion-las-vegas-stadium-for-1-per-year/
One dollar a year for rent. They may have to start a gofundme account.
Can't believe Adelson called in so many favors to get that tax package through, only to have the deal founder over his ownership stake. Gotta assume he's got a plan to address this that enjoys the support of the league's usual power brokers.http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/raiders-want-to-play-in-1-9-billion-las-vegas-stadium-for-1-per-year/
One dollar a year for rent. They may have to start a gofundme account.
You would think, but they seem to be very still pushing for the stadium, this is the President of the Raiders and key Sands man andy Aboud both saying the stadium is going to happen with or without Sands.Can't believe Adelson called in so many favors to get that tax package through, only to have the deal founder over his ownership stake. Gotta assume he's got a plan to address this that enjoys the support of the league's usual power brokers.
The real action was on the Strip, where two tough negotiators had been arguing for weeks over naming rights, stadium operations and more. There was friction, but a deal was still possible.
Then it happened.
The Raiders presented what Sands officials are portraying as a Pearl Harbor document, which The Nevada Independent’s Jackie Valley first reported: $1 annual rent and total control.
Adelson, chatting with Davis in his office high in his hotel, had no idea. Abboud, having chauffeured Badain to the meeting, had no clue.
The Sands snookered? Sheldon the sucker? The Venetian victim? For all intents and purposes, the partnership ended that moment.
Despite weekend attempts to salvage the deal, sources say, with Abboud and Clark County Commission Chairman Steve Sisolak trying to play peacemakers, a furious Adelson decided Monday to walk. “He said today, ‘I’m done. I’m out. I’m not negotiating.’” said one insider.
The Sands chairman, known as a negotiator with no mercy, told people he believed the Raiders and their partners-in-waiting, Goldman Sachs, had dealt with him in bad faith. And hell hath no fury like an Adelson scorned.
Another possibility is that Adelson moved the goalposts and tried to get Davis to give him a better deal (more equity, etc.) than they had discussed informally, prompting Davis to explore alternate sources of financing.One of two things is happening. Either Mark Davis is one fuck of a good poker player and he bodied Sheldon Adelson out of the deal because he needed to in order to get the NFL to approve the move, or Davis really overstepped when the Raiders dropped. I think the most likely scenario is that Davis really does have Goldman Sachs set up to finance the $650M and that he winds up having to make nice with UNLV and the governor to get across the finish line.
The only thing about that scenario (Adelson moves goalposts) is that it's not clear when GS would have gotten enough info to provide a reasonable proposal, right? If Adelson moved the goalposts it was within the last week or so, seems like.Another possibility is that Adelson moved the goalposts and tried to get Davis to give him a better deal (more equity, etc.) than they had discussed informally, prompting Davis to explore alternate sources of financing.
It sounds like the Goldman Sachs deal is going to be some kind of debt arrangement -- which makes sense, as buying equity in an NFL franchise at today's valuations without the ability to force a sale of the club down the road (which Davis would never accept) is more of a vanity project than any sort of reasonable investment. But that's going to be a big pinch on the Raiders' cash flows; I wonder how the other owners will feel about that.
The legislative package passed in October. I assume there has been near-constant action behind the scenes since then.The only thing about that scenario (Adelson moves goalposts) is that it's not clear when GS would have gotten enough info to provide a reasonable proposal, right? If Adelson moved the goalposts it was within the last week or so, seems like.
This is the article to read, quotes below.
One of two things is happening. Either Mark Davis is one fuck of a good poker player and he bodied Sheldon Adelson out of the deal because he needed to in order to get the NFL to approve the move, or Davis really overstepped when the Raiders dropped. I think the most likely scenario is that Davis really does have Goldman Sachs set up to finance the $650M and that he winds up having to make nice with UNLV and the governor to get across the finish line.
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/inside-sheldon-adelsons-withdrawal-raiders-stadium-deal
Here are what some observers are saying:
I think keeping distance from the casino/gambling industry is overrated. All the league cares about is growing revenue. Right now, Vegas presented a bigger opportunity than Oakland does.NFL is probably secretly happy about this
Paging Dean Spanos??I think keeping distance from the casino/gambling industry is overrated. All the league cares about is growing revenue. Right now, Vegas presented a bigger opportunity than Oakland does.
For the purposes of this project, Goldman Sachs' money is probably not any greener than another big investment bank. ... The choice of that bank will thus matter to the NFL (as will those particular covenants - I wouldn't want to be negotiating those terms! Talk about BSDs on both sides of the table), but I imagine any bank to whom that's not an enormous amount of money would be fine in their eyes.
...GS pulling out doesn't kill the deal, so long as Davis has the Governor making the right calls for him.
Well, I don't know too much about how Adelson operates or whether he holds grudges, but a few weeks ago it was reported that Bank of America has pledged the financing that GS withdrew from. And apparently there was plenty of interest, especially after Nevada passed the law authorizing the public financing.If Instaface is correct, and there are alternate path to funding, I am not sure the Raiders would still want to continue in Vegas with Addelson as an enemy.
Might be a nit, but where would the Raiders practice in August when it's 108 degrees in Vegas? I don't know where the 3 Florida teams practice pre-season either. It is a dry heat (Vegas), but so is an acetylene torch.
Edit, Cardinals are the comp. for weather of course. Maybe they keep it indoors, but it's good to practice in outdoors conditions too. The field the Cardinals play on, the University of Phoenix stadium, has a grass field that comes in on rails for games. Wonder if Las Vegas would copy that.
That makes sense (Reno), but it is at 4,500 feet, like Insta is saying.Part of the deal is that training camp will be up at (cooler) altitude in Reno. I imagine they will build am indoor facility in Vegas. That aspect locked in the northern Nevada votes needed to get the funding for SB-1. $100M of the stadium plan is dedicated to building the Raiders a headquarters and practice facility.
The best combinations for where competition is, e.g. train at altitude / compete at sea level, live at altitude / train at sea level, etc., are still not quite sorted yet, I don't believe.training camp at altitude? You'd really want to have your @DEN game be week 1, then, huh? An interesting concept though.