HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

OT: Oakland Raiders want a small new stadium...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-16-2013, 10:56 AM
  #1
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,829
vCash: 500
OT: Oakland Raiders want a small new stadium...

http://www.insidebayarea.com/breakin...tadium-oakland

Quote:
OAKLAND -- The Oakland Raiders want to build the NFL's smallest stadium at their current home, but the team might not be able to cover even half the costs, city and Alameda County officials learned Monday.
A team-commissioned study found enough demand in Oakland for a 50,000-seat football stadium that would cost roughly $800 million, said David Stone, whose firm, AECOM, is advising Oakland and Alameda County officials on stadium construction.
Stone said the Raiders have proposed contributing about $300 million toward the project. If the NFL agreed to provide $200 million from its stadium loan program, that would leave an estimated $300 million shortfall, Stone said Monday during a meeting of the joint Oakland
I thought the Raiders had a large fanbase?

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:00 AM
  #2
Boba Fettuccine
Pastafarian
 
Boba Fettuccine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Location,Location
Posts: 28,035
vCash: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breakin...tadium-oakland



I thought the Raiders had a large fanbase?
yeah, this doesn't make much sense. they had the worse attendance in the league in 2012 and that was an average of 54,216

Boba Fettuccine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:03 AM
  #3
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
Does this turn into yet another "build us a new stadium or we're moving to (insert city here, but they'd want LA of course)?

Tinalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:08 AM
  #4
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dingo View Post
yeah, this doesn't make much sense. they had the worse attendance in the league in 2012 and that was an average of 54,216
Did these people not sell out Alameda county not even 20 years ago for this?

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:09 AM
  #5
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13-15
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 34,696
vCash: 5113
Kind of makes sense to me. Build a stadium with less supply than demand so that the prices can be jacked up in the good times and your place doesn't look cavernously empty during the bad times.

Also might just be recognition of the fact that they need a new stadium and can't afford anything more than that, too.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:11 AM
  #6
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breakin...tadium-oakland



I thought the Raiders had a large fanbase?
The 'Winnipeg Jets' approach to stadium building perhaps?

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:16 AM
  #7
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The 'Winnipeg Jets' approach to stadium building perhaps?
I wondered that too-and IF that were the case (big IF), would that start a trend among other NFL franchises who may not have full attendance to follow suit?

Tinalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:23 AM
  #8
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
Does this turn into yet another "build us a new stadium or we're moving to (insert city here, but they'd want LA of course)?
I think this the endgame. This is the only franchise that can displace the Lakers in LA

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The 'Winnipeg Jets' approach to stadium building perhaps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
I wondered that too-and IF that were the case (big IF), would that start a trend among other NFL franchises who may not have full attendance to follow suit?
I think that would hurt the NFL, but not as bad because of the TV contract.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:28 AM
  #9
hisgirlfriday
Moderator
 
hisgirlfriday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 14,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Kind of makes sense to me. Build a stadium with less supply than demand so that the prices can be jacked up in the good times and your place doesn't look cavernously empty during the bad times.

Also might just be recognition of the fact that they need a new stadium and can't afford anything more than that, too.
It also has to do with the NFLs awful blackout rules and ensuring all Raiders games get on tv.

Really think $300 million in taxpayer support to a franchise as crazy and incompetent as the Raiders would be a travesty.

hisgirlfriday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:47 AM
  #10
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hisgirlfriday View Post
It also has to do with the NFLs awful blackout rules and ensuring all Raiders games get on tv.

Really think $300 million in taxpayer support to a franchise as crazy and incompetent as the Raiders would be a travesty.
Agreed. Go back to LA. They bay area should not have two teams.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:48 AM
  #11
Boba Fettuccine
Pastafarian
 
Boba Fettuccine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Location,Location
Posts: 28,035
vCash: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by hisgirlfriday View Post
It also has to do with the NFLs awful blackout rules and ensuring all Raiders games get on tv.

.


Not having a team, I forgot about the black out rule.

Boba Fettuccine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:51 AM
  #12
canadiancreed
Exiled from paradise
 
canadiancreed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canadas Black Hole
Country: Canada
Posts: 614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Agreed. Go back to LA. They bay area should not have two teams.
Sounds like win-win? Get a new stadium or get to move to a market with over ten million people? I'm missing something I'm sure.

canadiancreed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:57 AM
  #13
Brodie
to the hall
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 13,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Also might just be recognition of the fact that they need a new stadium and can't afford anything more than that, too.
This is my take as well. I wonder if this is going to become a standard part of NA sports now... call it the MLS model, build what you can afford and what you can reasonably expect to sell out.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 12:15 PM
  #14
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiancreed View Post
Sounds like win-win? Get a new stadium or get to move to a market with over ten million people? I'm missing something I'm sure.
In LA they are number 1 before the Lakers. In the bay area at best they are number 2 at worse number 5. Thing is Bay area has as much money as LA, but the team is being run into the ground.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 12:22 PM
  #15
Big McLargehuge
Global Moderator
Bitter Buffalo
 
Big McLargehuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Iceland
Posts: 58,806
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breakin...tadium-oakland



I thought the Raiders had a large fanbase?
They do...just most of it lives in LA.

__________________
“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent. If we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death, our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” - Stanley Kubrick
Big McLargehuge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 12:25 PM
  #16
hisgirlfriday
Moderator
 
hisgirlfriday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 14,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
In LA they are number 1 before the Lakers. In the bay area at best they are number 2 at worse number 5. Thing is Bay area has as much money as LA, but the team is being run into the ground.
Well that and the bay area money isn't in oakland or near it any more. A move to san jose with the a's could make sense for a new stadium that can actually get corporate suites sold.

But like others my preference would be the raiders landed back in la so that when la gets a team again it won't screw up the alignment too much like if the Jaguars somehow landed there.

hisgirlfriday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 12:29 PM
  #17
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hisgirlfriday View Post
Well that and the bay area money isn't in oakland or near it any more. A move to san jose with the a's could make sense for a new stadium that can actually get corporate suites sold.

But like others my preference would be the raiders landed back in la so that when la gets a team again it won't screw up the alignment too much like if the Jaguars somehow landed there.
True. But the 49ers already have moved the SJ area, so I guess Oakland could share the Santa Clara stadium?

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 12:42 PM
  #18
MrSZ56
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
True. But the 49ers already have moved the SJ area, so I guess Oakland could share the Santa Clara stadium?
That option does not really work at this stage of the game because the Raiders would essentially be stuck as "tenants" due to the Suites being sold already.

MrSZ56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 12:47 PM
  #19
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13-15
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 34,696
vCash: 5113
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSZ56 View Post
That option does not really work at this stage of the game because the Raiders would essentially be stuck as "tenants" due to the Suites being sold already.
Yeah, absolutely. I could see the Raiders maybe getting stuck in Santa Clara a la the Isles in Barclays as a secondary tenant, if no other options arise, but it would be a that or relocation option and nothing else.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 01:23 PM
  #20
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSZ56 View Post
That option does not really work at this stage of the game because the Raiders would essentially be stuck as "tenants" due to the Suites being sold already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Yeah, absolutely. I could see the Raiders maybe getting stuck in Santa Clara a la the Isles in Barclays as a secondary tenant, if no other options arise, but it would be a that or relocation option and nothing else.

Thanks guys. They're going to LA.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 01:58 PM
  #21
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 13,218
vCash: 500
A lot of NFL teams have downsized with their newer stadiums. Going for fewer higher quality seats over pure quantity on seats. But usually those new stadiums have been towards the mid 60k seating. Going down to 50k would be a huge shift.

Some recent examples with new and previous stadiums.

Arizona 2006 - UofP Stadium 63k - Sun Devil Stadium 72k
Cleveland 1999 - FirstEnergy Stadium 73k - Cleveland Stadium 81k
Detroit 2002 - Ford Field 65k - Silverdome 80k
San Francisco 2014 - Levi's Stadium 68.5k - Candlestick 70k
Seattle 2002 - Centurylink Field 67k - Husky Stadium 72.5k
Tampa 1998 - Raymond James 66k - Tampa Stadium 74k

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 02:03 PM
  #22
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 6,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
A lot of NFL teams have downsized with their newer stadiums. Going for fewer higher quality seats over pure quantity on seats. But usually those new stadiums have been towards the mid 60k seating. Going down to 50k would be a huge shift.

Some recent examples with new and previous stadiums.

Arizona 2006 - UofP Stadium 63k - Sun Devil Stadium 72k
Cleveland 1999 - FirstEnergy Stadium 73k - Cleveland Stadium 81k
Detroit 2002 - Ford Field 65k - Silverdome 80k
San Francisco 2014 - Levi's Stadium 68.5k - Candlestick 70k
Seattle 2002 - Centurylink Field 67k - Husky Stadium 72.5k
Tampa 1998 - Raymond James 66k - Tampa Stadium 74k
CenturyLink has more than the Kingdome. They only played at Husky Stadium because the Kingdome was demolished.

AdmiralsFan24 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 02:05 PM
  #23
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
A lot of NFL teams have downsized with their newer stadiums. Going for fewer higher quality seats over pure quantity on seats. But usually those new stadiums have been towards the mid 60k seating. Going down to 50k would be a huge shift.

Some recent examples with new and previous stadiums.

Arizona 2006 - UofP Stadium 63k - Sun Devil Stadium 72k
Cleveland 1999 - FirstEnergy Stadium 73k - Cleveland Stadium 81k
Detroit 2002 - Ford Field 65k - Silverdome 80k
San Francisco 2014 - Levi's Stadium 68.5k - Candlestick 70k
Seattle 2002 - Centurylink Field 67k - Husky Stadium 72.5k
Tampa 1998 - Raymond James 66k - Tampa Stadium 74k
Correction on the seattle. They played at the old kingdome prior to moving to husky's stadium (temp facility) while clink was being built on the old kingdome site. Kingdome had a 66k capacity for the seahawks. So actually they increased the seating.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 02:06 PM
  #24
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 21,386
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
A lot of NFL teams have downsized with their newer stadiums. Going for fewer higher quality seats over pure quantity on seats. But usually those new stadiums have been towards the mid 60k seating. Going down to 50k would be a huge shift.

Some recent examples with new and previous stadiums.

Arizona 2006 - UofP Stadium 63k - Sun Devil Stadium 72k
Cleveland 1999 - FirstEnergy Stadium 73k - Cleveland Stadium 81k
Detroit 2002 - Ford Field 65k - Silverdome 80k
San Francisco 2014 - Levi's Stadium 68.5k - Candlestick 70k
Seattle 2002 - Centurylink Field 67k - Husky Stadium 72.5k
Tampa 1998 - Raymond James 66k - Tampa Stadium 74k
'New' Soldier Field is smaller than 'Old' Soldier Field as well, but that was mainly due to the fact they wanted to build the new one within the old one. Terrible decision, should've built a new stadium somewhere with a retractable roof.

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 02:08 PM
  #25
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 13,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
'New' Soldier Field is smaller than 'Old' Soldier Field as well, but that was mainly due to the fact they wanted to build the new one within the old one. Terrible decision, should've built a new stadium somewhere with a retractable roof.
Yeah, forgot to mention that one. Always thought it looked like a flying saucer landed in Soldier Field.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:17 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.