Skip to content

Roski can forget the Raiders

One of the teams mentioned as a possibility to fill the void in Los Angeles is one of the teams that helped create it some 15 years ago.

The Raiders.

But with Ed Roski ready to begin wooing a potential tenant for a new Southern California venue as soon as February 2010, the Raiders can be removed from the list.

The team announced today a “tentative agreement” to extend the team’s lease at their current home through the 2013 season.

The deal must be approved by the league and the relevant public authorities.

Next challenge for the Raiders?  To sell the place out on a consistent basis.  Or, you know, once.

Permalink 35 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
35 Responses to “Roski can forget the Raiders”
  1. Bob S. says: Nov 18, 2009 6:42 PM

    It will be Jacksonville or Buffalo moving to L.A.

  2. RaiderChile says: Nov 18, 2009 6:43 PM

    Sell out. Sell out? Are you kidding me? Sell out! They only way they sell out is if and when Al Davis is gone and the team is winning and relevant.
    Not for a looooooooong time will that happen.
    No way I’m paying for a poor product on the field. If they lost by 3 – 6 points and are in the middle of the pack on both sides of the ball, at least 7-9 would I go. But I can’t even get a good effort for my money.
    Screw them and the old Dodge that brought them back to Oakland.
    If they stayed in LA, decent coaches would go there just to be in LA and rub elbows with Hollywood stars and Kobe Bryant & the Lakers. I say go back. At least we’ll be able to watch the games live instead of having to see the garbage replayed online.
    Here’s to Al Davis being gone and the 4-6 years before they are relevant in the NFL.

  3. Citizen Strange says: Nov 18, 2009 6:45 PM

    “Leases?! Don’t talk about leases! Are you kidding me? Leases? — Al Davis on his decision at the time to move the Raiders from Okaland to Los Angeles and then again when he moved them from Los Angeles back to Oakland.

  4. Brewster says: Nov 18, 2009 6:47 PM

    What a waste of keystrokes.
    Florio, you know better.
    A “tentative agreement”, and with Al Davis no less. He successfully breaks written agreements.
    This is most likely the begining of building leverage to once again play Oakland against Los Angeles.
    It’s deja vu all over again.

  5. bluestree says: Nov 18, 2009 6:57 PM

    Jags or Vikes?

  6. Recc40 says: Nov 18, 2009 6:59 PM

    what are the chances al davis lives out the lease? how old is he anyway, and what is going to happen to the team when he dies, does he have kids? will it be a mess like the jets were?

  7. Contra says: Nov 18, 2009 7:03 PM

    He can forget the Vikings too! SKOL VIKINGS SKOL!

  8. Nation 86 says: Nov 18, 2009 7:13 PM

    Los Angeles should look at the UFL.

  9. The Real Shuxion says: Nov 18, 2009 7:14 PM

    Stick the Tuskers in LA.
    They could go a respectable 4-12 with their current roster. With wins over the Browns, Rams, Raiders, and Bucs.
    But then we would have the odd team disaster like before. Teams getting bye weeks in week 1 and week 17.

  10. RaiderMight says: Nov 18, 2009 7:14 PM

    Blackouts until Al steps down and gets a real personnel department!

  11. R8R_BOB says: Nov 18, 2009 7:29 PM

    As a RAIDERS fan, I’m pleased that the Oakland RAIDERS will remain in Oakland for the next 4 seasons.
    As for selling out, it is simple math
    Strong, committed players + a strong coach and staff – less meddling by the owner = sellouts
    Simple math, Florio

  12. JSpicoli says: Nov 18, 2009 7:44 PM

    They never should have been on your list. The Raiders belong in NoCal and Davis knows it.
    But of course you cant listen to reason when it surrounds the Raiders.
    FYI the Coliseum has been sold out probably a good 80% of the time since they moved back to OAK in 1995, through two bad stretches and a good stretch, and completely replacing the season ticket holders with the move. But again, continue on with your fantasy world surrounding the Raiders, as you will.

  13. 1nationraidernation says: Nov 18, 2009 8:20 PM

    who ever moves there , they will get sued by Al who will claim he paid for the rights to LA.
    so in other words to be continued.

  14. purple hay-seuss says: Nov 18, 2009 8:42 PM

    The Minnesota Vikings will not leave Minnesota. Regardless of the situation at present regarding a stadium, there will be a new stadium built in Minny for the Vikings even if they have to play a season or two in the Gophers new digs.
    The politicians will cave to the ownership and fans and you’d better believe there will be some seriously creative funding happening to make it reality. But bank on it. No LA Vikings. There will be team payroll taxes, parking taxes, beer taxes, purple taxes, hornhead taxes, hat taxes, shirt taxes, drunk taxes, tailgating taxes, you name it, it’ll happen; but the team will not leave.
    The likes of Al Davis have moved a franchise, and he’s screwed it up more than once. Baltimore Colts left for Indy at midnight to escape the wrath of fans. Cleveland left for Baltimore because nobody cared at the time; Too many people care about the Minnesota Vikings to force fleeing in the night. Too much is at stake for politicians. Elections could be won or lost based on whom voted for shutting the Vikings out of the state after 50 years.

  15. Bills=Heartbreak says: Nov 18, 2009 8:50 PM

    Bob S. you should actually do some research before you post stupid comments. As long as Ralph’s alive the Bills will remain in Buffalo and unlike Jacksonville or San Diego are fan base is actually strong.

  16. midwest says: Nov 18, 2009 9:01 PM

    So a lease through 2013 disqualifies Oakland? Newsflash…..Jacksonville has a lease through 2030!

  17. Nation 86 says: Nov 18, 2009 9:04 PM

    Los angeles wants a UFL team.

  18. JimmySmith says: Nov 18, 2009 9:10 PM

    Ed Roski has reportedly turned down Ziggy’s offer of the Vikings, he wants a professional football team.

  19. DarthPirate says: Nov 18, 2009 9:11 PM

    How about the next challenge for Big Al being winning a damn game?

  20. Bob Nelson says: Nov 18, 2009 9:35 PM

    California’s Governor wants both an NFC and an AFC team.
    vikings and Jaguars would be best.
    The vikings just rejected a proposal from their Stadium Commision for a lease extension at the Metrodome.
    The vikings are very intent on moving.

  21. R8R_BOB says: Nov 18, 2009 9:43 PM

    midwest says:
    November 18, 2009 9:01 PM
    So a lease through 2013 disqualifies Oakland? Newsflash…..Jacksonville has a lease through 2030!
    ————————————————–
    Newsflash…..stop hatin’

  22. 9erfan says: Nov 18, 2009 9:45 PM

    Well thats GREAT news LA has enough garbage out here we dont need more.

  23. TylerDurden says: Nov 18, 2009 9:45 PM

    Ladies and gentlemen…introducing your Los Angeles Chargers!!!!!!!!

  24. midwest says: Nov 18, 2009 10:01 PM

    “Newsflash…..stop hatin'”
    No hate about it…just stating fact. Don’t be so self-conscious.

  25. Raiderref says: Nov 18, 2009 10:29 PM

    Q & A following the benching of Jamarcus Russell per Jerry McDonald.
    Q: What did Al Davis say about the move, and did you go back and forth on it?
    Cable: No, no. He left this up to me; this is my decision. We talked about it and he supported it.
    Does that sound like meddling? I am so sick of people complaining about meddling and wishing the owner dead. Please before you speak, make sure you have knowledge on the subject.
    “The likes of Al Davis have moved a franchise, and he’s screwed it up more than once.”
    You need some Lombardi wax there hay-zeus. Didn’t the Lakers come from Minnesota? Thats what I thought. Hmmm seems purple works well in LA.
    “No way I’m paying for a poor product on the field.”
    We don’t need you there anyway. You might want to save your money, you sound broke.

  26. Nation 86 says: Nov 18, 2009 11:19 PM

    This is part of Als plan. He will use Oakland until the LA Stadium is completely done.
    Jaguars lease is up in 20 years….
    Rams in 3 years. 49ers is up in 2.
    Bills are not moving here-Toronto.
    Vikings neither. LA does not 4 time SB losers.
    Raiders will be here in 2013. Why else would he sign a 3 year deal?

  27. snnyjcbs says: Nov 18, 2009 11:19 PM

    The Raiders will never go back to LA. LA was the biggest mistake Al Davis ever made. It was an Oakland team that won the SB when they first moved down to LA. Once there the team turned soft and never has been the same.
    The Raiders rebirth will be where their Legacy was laid in Oakland.

  28. INVAIDUH says: Nov 18, 2009 11:38 PM

    They belong in Oakland.. Now win there….
    F##k all haters.

  29. R8R_BOB says: Nov 19, 2009 12:21 AM

    Nation 86 says:
    November 18, 2009 11:19 PM
    This is part of Als plan. He will use Oakland until the LA Stadium is completely done.
    Jaguars lease is up in 20 years….
    Rams in 3 years. 49ers is up in 2.
    Bills are not moving here-Toronto.
    Vikings neither. LA does not 4 time SB losers.
    Raiders will be here in 2013. Why else would he sign a 3 year deal?
    ————————————————-
    This is nonsense. You don’t build a stadium without a commitment from a team to move to said city beforehand. Roski could build a stadium and Al Davis tells him in 4 years “FU” and a empty stadium sits.
    No, Roski would want a team in LA when the hole is dug up. Not later. The RAIDERS signing a new deal in Oakland takes them off the LA list. Sorry LA RAIDERS fan, time for you to get a new team.

  30. Wardo says: Nov 19, 2009 12:23 AM

    10 years ago the patriots used Rhode island and Hartford CT to get their way, it was a “done deal” many times over before they built in Foxborough again. Everyone was used as a pawn for an owner to get his way.
    Don’t hink Al Davis is that stupid. Terrible team, poor turnouts and he wants to re-up??? This has a better deal in LA writen all over it. How many people in LA will back the Bills? The Jags? and now how many celebs will be on the sidelines when the Raiders make LA home again? LA belongs to the Raiders, I’m just not blind enough and 3500 miles away so i can see it.

  31. gianthinker says: Nov 19, 2009 1:49 AM

    Al Davis needs to fire Cable and hire the Giants OC Kevin Gilbride to be his new HC.

  32. tatum32 says: Nov 19, 2009 3:49 AM

    This is part of Als plan. He will use Oakland until the LA Stadium is completely done.
    Jaguars lease is up in 20 years….
    Rams in 3 years. 49ers is up in 2.
    Bills are not moving here-Toronto.
    Vikings neither. LA does not 4 time SB losers.
    Raiders will be here in 2013. Why else would he sign a 3 year deal?
    snnyjcbs said it right! Roski WANTS CONTROL of whatever team is moving…now if Davis passes and Trask (originally from LA (USC grad)) wants to go that route…ok. As was said before and if anyone is listening to THE COMMISSIONER….he wants to EXPAND the teams in California, and not move an already established team. The idea is to have rivalries in bay area SF-Oakland AND in LA – San Diego-LA . Jacksonville will move to LA. signed , sealed delivered. Its the lowest market nationally, and the newest franchise (how the hell is a lease til 2030 working with no sell outs in a bad economy?)
    Lots of teams have broken leases when someone offers more money. Ever heard of a settlement and compensation money? Vikings would be next .. and the Vikings were rumored to be moving to LA in the late 80s early 90s.

  33. R8R_BOB says: Nov 19, 2009 7:35 AM

    Wardo says:
    November 19, 2009 12:23 AM
    10 years ago the patriots used Rhode island and Hartford CT to get their way, it was a “done deal” many times over before they built in Foxborough again. Everyone was used as a pawn for an owner to get his way.
    Don’t hink Al Davis is that stupid. Terrible team, poor turnouts and he wants to re-up??? This has a better deal in LA writen all over it. How many people in LA will back the Bills? The Jags? and now how many celebs will be on the sidelines when the Raiders make LA home again? LA belongs to the Raiders, I’m just not blind enough and 3500 miles away so i can see it.
    —————————————————
    LA belongs to the RAIDERS!!!! Don’t make me laugh. I remember when “LA” belonged to the RAIDERS. Thousands of empty seats posing as fans. (Can’t forget the John 3:16 sign in the endzone with the empty seats.) The team sucked in LA
    As for using the Patriots as an example, bad example. The trick they used only works when said team is a market that they want force their hand. Since they were already in Foxbourgh, it was a win-win for the Pats. The RAIDERS could only use this trick in Oakland since it is their market. LA would be the bargain chip as it worked in getting new stadiums in Indianapolis and Seattle

  34. Outburst78 says: Nov 19, 2009 8:27 AM

    The word that jumped out at me in the article was the word “tentative”.
    I read somewhere that Roski wants to own whatever team moves to L.A. He wants to buy a portion now and buyout the current ownership when he is ready (or be able to bail if L.A. gets bored with the NFL. Deja vu!).
    Also, Roski seems to be pretty well off. Let’s say Al decides that he does not care what happens to the Raiders after he dies, that he wants his wife and son to be filthy rich after he is gone. I think Roski would gladly pay off Oakland to break the lease if it meant getting the Raiders, a team with an established fan base in L.A. and with a built in divisional and territorial rival less than two hours away (this also won’t necessitate a re-alignment of the divisions, which is something the NFL probably wants to avoid). Of all the teams on the list, I think the Raiders have always been at the top, and the Rams may be plan B. Chargers, plan C. The rest of the teams are plan Z. Until another team is locked in as the L.A. Whatevers, I’m betting on the Raiders to be back in L.A. when the dust settles.

  35. JuicyMelon says: Nov 19, 2009 12:02 PM

    The Vikings could move…Out of Minneapolis and into another city inside of Minnesota. But they will not move to LA. The Stadium deal will get done and the Vikings will remain in Minnesota. It’s only a matter of time. Gov. Pawlenty is holding us up now because he is going for a Presidental run. He doesn’t want to make any big decisions that could affect his future. It’s all politics. But just because Minnesota Politics is taken its time, this doesn’t mean that the stadium won’t be up and running before 2012.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!