RAIDERS TALK BOARDS > Raiders and NFL Talk

Stadium Issues

<< < (24/31) > >>

raider kyle:
I heard that the chance the raiders move to la has been shot down....YES!!!! I didn't think it was fair to move back to LA especially since the fan base is so good in oakland

Randy:
Raiders likely to remain in Oakland
by Just Blog Baby

http://justblogbaby.com/2012/02/04/raiders-likely-to-remain-in-oakland/

Randy:

--- Quote from: RaiderWildeStyle on February 04, 2012, 02:23:40 AM ---Tidbit from everyone favorite mercury blogger TIM KAWAKAMI in regards to the Santa Clara Stadium

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2012/02/02/jed-york-on-the-49ers-200m-stadium-allocation-from-the-nfl-nothing-tangible-with-the-raiders-and-more/

And York said he worked out with Mark Davis earlier today, and had lunch with him, but said that they didn’t really talk about anything except football.

Folks, now that the 49ers are locking up financing without Raiders involvement, the chances of the Raiders sharing a Santa Clara are almost nil.

The only way the 49ers were going to contemplating sharing a new stadium with the Raiders is if they couldn’t get the money any other way. They’re getting the money.

And I don’t think Mark Davis is very interested in sharing a stadium, anyway.

--- End quote ---

I still don't understand how a $200 Million loan (not gift) from the NFL makes this a slam dunk that the 49ers wouldn't want to share the stadium. If the money is just a loan, as I've read that it is, they'll have to pay it back...probably with interest. The stadium will cost a Billion dollars or more. So even with this loan, they still have to come up with a full Billion dollars or more eventually. How does this loan make it less likely that the 49ers would want to save a half billion dollars if they can?


Here's an article about the "loan":
http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_19878108?source=autofeed#



well, maybe it's NOT a loan (even they they refer to it as one)....read this
Here is an exerpt from the above article:

"...The 49ers owner, however, rejected characterizing the NFL's contribution as a straight loan, saying it amounted to "NFL support" for the project, composed of a "fairly intricate" combination that will go toward financing construction of the stadium

There had been speculation the NFL would press the 49ers and Oakland Raiders to share the Santa Clara stadium in order to secure the financing, but York said there is no link to the $200 million contribution. "We've been asked to keep the communications open," said York, adding that he worked out and had lunch with Raiders owner Mark Davis earlier Thursday in Indianapolis.

Amy Trask, the Raiders CEO, declined to comment because she's tied up with NFL business in Indianapolis, but she has said in the past the team is exploring all options for a new stadium, including the possibility of joining the 49ers."



Here's how much club seats in the new stadium will cost. The cost of the cheaper seats won't be released till this summer:

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_19697974

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_19853863?source=pkg

RaiderWildeStyle:
Tidbit from everyone favorite mercury blogger TIM KAWAKAMI in regards to the Santa Clara Stadium

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2012/02/02/jed-york-on-the-49ers-200m-stadium-allocation-from-the-nfl-nothing-tangible-with-the-raiders-and-more/

And York said he worked out with Mark Davis earlier today, and had lunch with him, but said that they didn’t really talk about anything except football.

Folks, now that the 49ers are locking up financing without Raiders involvement, the chances of the Raiders sharing a Santa Clara are almost nil.

The only way the 49ers were going to contemplating sharing a new stadium with the Raiders is if they couldn’t get the money any other way. They’re getting the money.

And I don’t think Mark Davis is very interested in sharing a stadium, anyway.

Randy:

--- Quote from: RaiderWildeStyle on February 04, 2012, 01:45:27 AM ---
--- Quote from: Randy on February 04, 2012, 01:40:52 AM ---
--- Quote from: RaiderWildeStyle on February 03, 2012, 10:18:01 PM ---I don't want the league to expand to 34 teams... How the hell do we figure out how many teams in a division??? 34 divided by any even number 4 thru 8 just doesn't compute.

--- End quote ---

If they expand the league to 34 teams, they could have two divisions with 5 teams each and the rest would stay at 4 each. It's been done before.

--- End quote ---

That would effect the tiebreakers?

Do they go on a percentage for conference/division wins or total games? (obviously it would have to be percentage if each division had a different amount of in conference games)

--- End quote ---

I don't know how they handled the tiebreakers when they had those other configurations. I'm sure they'd figure something out. It sure is nice now though, with 4 teams in each division. The rotation system is perfect now.....having each team play each other team once away every 4 years and once home every 4 years. When they had less than 32 teams in the league, there was NO rotation really. Remember how some teams wouldn't play each other for years and other played pretty often. I'd hate to go back to that.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version