Skip to content

Raiders relish hosting a Super Bowl, too

The decision to play the Super Bowl in the potentially frigid air of North Jersey in February 2014 has prompted other cold-weather cities to consider the possibility of scoring a cold-weather game of their own.  The outside-the-box maneuver by the league also has prompted a certain West Coast team to ponder hosting the big game, too.

According to Bob Glauber of Newsday, Raiders CEO Amy Trask said that Oakland will pursue a Super Bowl if/when it gets a new stadium.

“I think Oakland
would absolutely be a terrific site
for a future Super Bowl and we’re
working closely with the city and the county and all sorts of exciting
ideas with a new Bay Area stadium,” Trask said.

Though she didn’t elaborate on whether “a new Bay Area stadium” would be the only new Bay Area stadium, some believe that the 49ers and Raiders could share a venue, possibly in Oakland.

“We like the site of our existing
stadium,” Trask said.  “It’s very centrally located in the Bay Area as a whole.  It’s on
a freeway, and there are two public transport options that drop off
right at the stadium.  Where other stadiums are trying to figure out how
to bring public transportation to their site, the Oakland site has [Bay Area Rapid
Transit], Amtrak, and the Altamont Commuter Express.”

The 49ers currently are exploring the construction of a stadium in Santa Clara.  Some believe that the proposal ultimately won’t work unless both teams play there.  And the Raiders by all appearances want to play in Oakland.

In the end, the carrot of a Super Bowl could help nail down public funding for a new stadium, given the dramatic financial impact of the NFL’s title game.  The NFL last played a Super Bowl in the Bay Area in 1985, when the 49ers beat the Dolphins at Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto.  (That night, the low temperature in North Jersey was 14 degrees below zero.  Just sayin’.) 

So how strongly does Trask feel about the Bay Area as a site for a future Super Bowl?  Asked for her views on the process that resulted in Super Bowl XLVIII being awarded to New York/New Jersey, Trask told Glauber, “I voted for Oakland as a write-in candidate.”

She was joking.  We think. 

Permalink 46 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
46 Responses to “Raiders relish hosting a Super Bowl, too”
  1. DcNinerFan says: May 25, 2010 10:20 PM

    That’s just asking for many, many muggings to occur…

  2. Cushing Will Kill You says: May 25, 2010 10:23 PM

    This is ridiculous. Hell, I’d like to host a Super Bowl. The neighbors and I can get the local cops to halt traffic on our street, and the two teams can play two-hand touch on the street and tackle in the grass, just like we did when we were kids.
    Seriously, when will this end?

  3. urabozoo says: May 25, 2010 10:26 PM

    Like I heard a radio host say today, “The real outcry about the NY/NJ Super Bowl will be from the media type that will have to cover it. Instead of a nice warm vacation type assignment, they will now have to be inconvenienced.” As a football fan, I totally agree. Some of the best football games were played in the snow, it adds to the drama. Seeing Marino having to go to Buffalo for a playoff game made it even more intriguing.

  4. CanadianVikingFan says: May 25, 2010 10:26 PM

    “I think Oakland would absolutely be a terrific site for a future Super Bowl ”
    ——————————-
    Ya, if you want you and your entire family stabbed in the stands, if the people of Oakland delay your inevitable stabbing that long.

  5. Calir says: May 25, 2010 10:27 PM

    That’s so cute of her.

  6. WCRaider says: May 25, 2010 10:28 PM

    Amy Trask was not kidding about writing in Oakland as a host candidate.

  7. Brewster says: May 25, 2010 10:34 PM

    A Super Bowl in Oakland?
    Yeah sure, sometime after the ole cryptkeeper is six feet under the ground. It ain’t happening while Al Davis is alive.

  8. The Wishbone says: May 25, 2010 10:35 PM

    @ Florio,
    So now you’re comparing the low temperature on one day in January 1985 to an afternoon/early night temperature in February 2014? Even the damn accuweather people proved today that the weather shouldn’t be a problem. The last few years it’s been an average of 40something degrees that day, with no precipitation at all, just partly cloudy.
    And if it is bad weather, people at the game won’t actually freeze to death. They’ll just need another layer or three of clothes. Millions of people live in climates worse than North Jersey in February, and they do just fine. It’s about time the Super Bowl was played in inclement weather.
    Maybe you should concentrate on Arena Football, it seems more your style. Weak.

  9. Evpimp says: May 25, 2010 10:48 PM

    What so AL can see one before he dies??

  10. Brewster says: May 25, 2010 10:49 PM

    “In the end, the carrot of a Super Bowl could help nail down public funding for a new stadium, given the dramatic financial impact of the NFL’s title game.”
    _________________
    Whoa I read over that post so fast the first time I missed this gem of a comment.
    “the dramatic financial impact of the NFL”s title game?
    Not so fast Florio, and not without some facts.
    Bloomberg news had this to say about the recent Super Bowl in Miami:
    Bloomberg business week
    Re: Impact of Super Bowl spending on local economy
    However, even though local organizers stubbornly insist they’ll hit the $400 million economic-impact mark—thanks mostly to the addition of the Pro Bowl to the weeklong slate of activities this year (the Pro Bowl drew a record 70,697 attendees)—a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers released last week indicates that direct spending will be down around 27% from three years ago, putting that specific economic indicator at $153 million.
    ____
    So with a 5-7 city Super Bowl rotation, unless the New York decision allows it to be expanded to say 10-12 cities, that means a revenue stream of $150-$200 million every 5-7 years. So $22.5M to $40M, while not chump change to a locality is not exactly a valid financial reason to support the construction of a new stadium just to host a Super Bowl every few years.

  11. Outcast says: May 25, 2010 10:56 PM

    Every city with an open-air stadium will want a Super Bowl now, and there is a case to be made that every city should get consideration.

  12. DoesNotCompute says: May 25, 2010 10:57 PM

    Yeah, you’re right StupidCanadianVikingFan – Oakland is the only stadium on the planet where bad things happen. I’m sure there have never been any fights or stabbings at the Metrodome or any of the other fine facilities, such as in Philly or New York or Chicago…do us all a favor and stay the F in Canada.

  13. MasterShake says: May 25, 2010 10:59 PM

    Maybe Oakland is just trying to “Ketchup” to everyone else.
    There’s no way a SB is played anywhere near Oakland. It’s not central to anything but crime. I could go on and on from unfortunate personal experience, but if you don’t know, well, good for you.

  14. jackybadass says: May 25, 2010 11:10 PM

    this arm pit of cal should get nothing! high draft picks forever you losers! 4- 12 tops!

  15. AutumnWind999 says: May 25, 2010 11:47 PM

    Prediction: Oakland will be awarded a Super Bowl in the near future, only, …
    During the resulting celebration Walt Coleman will step up to the podium and announce that the Patriots will instead host due to some minor, shady, unknown sham of a technicality that doesn’t even apply to the given circumstances anyway. The league will whitewash it. Bob Kraft will pay millions to keep pics of him handing a giant bag with a $ sign on it to Coleman.

  16. City_Native says: May 25, 2010 11:57 PM

    In other news …. the new Niner stadium plan is currently up by 16% of likely voters. So while the Raiders dream of having a Super Bowl in a new stadium, they have no plans for one in the Bay. You have to get to step one before you get to step ten. It kind of sounds like their football team…draft sexy positions of WR & CB with no like offensive line or QB.
    Remember the optimistic answer that Al Davis gave the ESPN 30 for 30 special on the Raiders when asked if he would move the team back to LA?
    Raiders get the 2016 Super Bowl . . . in LA.
    Go Niners!

  17. dogma1 says: May 26, 2010 12:08 AM

    I think every team should get to hold a Super Bowl, lets me fair.

  18. peterGriffin says: May 26, 2010 12:16 AM

    we will all be dead by 12/21/2012 anyways so it dosent matter

  19. OLDCRACKER says: May 26, 2010 12:31 AM

    If Oakland gets a Superbowl, I’m investing in Jonson & Johnson (bandages), the Colt 45 brewery, and maybe a knife company.
    I can only imagine the Viqueen fans running and screaming like little girls as drunken Raider fan, with 3 heads, chases them with a machete.

  20. thumper says: May 26, 2010 12:47 AM

    don’t think this will happen,,,, crime…. seen what happened to chicago on the olympics …..and see where there gona be now,,, even worse…. greenbacks talk,, and bs walks

  21. Mike_in_Texas says: May 26, 2010 1:09 AM

    Isnt New Orleans full of black gangs too? How about the poor small city of Jacksonville and its small stadium?

  22. ZennyandtheBrets says: May 26, 2010 1:12 AM

    Lambeau Field – 2015.

  23. dwatkins says: May 26, 2010 1:12 AM

    Why would anyone waznt to go to that stadium for a SB. The A’s are trying their damndest to move out of that pit

  24. Rasta says: May 26, 2010 1:58 AM

    Maybe twenty years after AL dies.

  25. Michael LaRocca says: May 26, 2010 2:52 AM

    If I say the Raiders won’t have home field advantage in the Super Bowl, is that just waaaaaaaaaaay too obvious?

  26. ja says: May 26, 2010 3:28 AM

    i thought only raider fans log in to raider news, all this raider haters logging in to our news are stupid stick to your team news and STFU! if your scared to come to our house stay the F out punks!

  27. millionwatts says: May 26, 2010 4:37 AM

    Al is exploring some other options to watch a good football team. that Raiders thing of his doesn’t seem to work out

  28. bwisnasky says: May 26, 2010 7:17 AM

    What so AL can see one before he dies??
    ——————————————-
    I’m pretty sure I remember old Rozell having to bite his tongue as he handed the old man 3 of those Lombardi things…. Al surely doesn’t have to host a Superbowl to get a look at the thing.. he looks at 3 of them every day he goes in to the office….. which is a lot more of those trophies than most teams in the NFL have….

  29. shadowman1433 says: May 26, 2010 7:55 AM

    You would be safe at the game. The average raider fan wouldn’t be able to afford tickets to the game. In the parking lot after the game is a different story though.

  30. 36mongor says: May 26, 2010 8:37 AM

    “Maybe Oakland is just trying to “Ketchup” to everyone else.
    There’s no way a SB is played anywhere near Oakland. It’s not central to anything but crime. I could go on and on from unfortunate personal experience, but if you don’t know, well, good for you.”
    This is moronic. Oakland is a far more central location than East Rutherford, New Jersey, as you can easily BART to Berkeley, San Francisco, Marin, or drive down to San Jose. The whole Bay Area is in play if you host the game in Oakland. This is the exact argument that the Giants and Jets used to snag their game.
    Crime in Oakland is not nearly as bad as it’s being made out to be in the comments here. I went to a Bears-Raiders game in Oakland wearing a Bears jersey and opposing fans were an absolute non-issue. I guarantee that the people posting about crime here haven’t even been to Oakland, or that if they have been to Oakland they did something retarded that resulted in their ass getting kicked or them getting robbed. This can happen in every stadium/big city if you don’t act right. Oakland is less dangerous than Miami or New Orleans, get a clue.

  31. jb10 says: May 26, 2010 8:38 AM

    # Mike_in_Texas says: May 26, 2010 1:09 AM
    Isnt New Orleans full of black gangs too? How about the poor small city of Jacksonville and its small stadium?
    ————-
    i guess you missed the part about the raiders wanting to host a sb AFTER they get a new stadium?

  32. BroncoBourque says: May 26, 2010 9:07 AM

    If they can get a new stadium in the Bay area, they should get consideration for a Super Bowl. Southern warm weather cities shouldn’t have a monopoly on holding Super Bowls. If a city/team has a suitable stadium, they should be able to hold the big game. All these owners and cities paid big money to buy teams and build stadiums, they should get the right to have the financial benefit of a Super Bowl.

  33. ampats says: May 26, 2010 9:10 AM

    Amy Trask knows to ask for Oakland to host a Super Bowl since that will happen before the Raiders playing in another SB.

  34. jbraider says: May 26, 2010 9:20 AM

    DoesNotCompute says:
    May 25, 2010 10:57 PM
    Yeah, you’re right StupidCanadianVikingFan – Oakland is the only stadium on the planet where bad things happen. I’m sure there have never been any fights or stabbings at the Metrodome or any of the other fine facilities, such as in Philly or New York or Chicago…do us all a favor and stay the F in Canada.
    _________
    Well said.

  35. Junior says: May 26, 2010 9:26 AM

    There are some ignorant MF’s on this site. Talking bad about an area you’ve never even been. I forgot that Oakland is the only city in America that has issues with crime.
    Well said 36mongor.
    Then there’s this:
    dwatkins says:
    May 26, 2010 1:12 AM
    Why would anyone waznt to go to that stadium for a SB. The A’s are trying their damndest to move out of that pit
    ————————————————
    Given that you can write, I’m guessing you can actually read too. So do yourself a favor and read the article before you make such a stupid comment. This article is clearly talking about a new stadium.

  36. Justin says: May 26, 2010 9:31 AM

    Have to agree that worrying about crime near this stadium is for whiners or people who just flat out never been there but want to voice their disdain for Oakland. Sure, it has a bad rep, but the stadium isn’t exactly in a haven of Bloods/Crips. I just wasted my time reading through some of these misinformed comments that are made to only stir up BS because the people who say them are just ignorant lowlifes that should actually experience a place before offering an opinion on it.
    Of course, it’s fitting that a DC Niner fan and a Vikings fan are worried about rowdy crowds. As for Master Shake, he just seems bitter about something. Maybe it’s a lack of parental guidance in his youth.

  37. Big Tex says: May 26, 2010 9:32 AM

    I’m guessing this is just a ploy by Al Davis to at last be able to have a sell-out in Oakland. Some of those “crowds” last year looked as if Uncle Al could have walked around to personally thank every individual for coming and not spent more than a half hour doing it.

  38. Ray Guy says: May 26, 2010 10:40 AM

    Call me pessimistic, but with our luck it will be the only Super Bowl in history that is blacked out locally.

  39. raidertg says: May 26, 2010 11:05 AM

    I love it! All the NFL fans that need to hate on Oakland. Oakland is a great site for a Superbowl. There is the local trans plus it is located in the midle the three major freeways and there is more then enough to do in the area with SF and San Jose near by. Oakland has a bad rep but the games are not anything like the Haters make them out to be. I will be take my 1 year son with me to all the game. You see that is who Raider fan do it. We are born and die Silver and Black. We don’t jump from one wagon to the other like alot of people.
    As for the Al Davis comments you are kinding yourself if you don’t think Al is respected in the NFL by all the major plays. The man has done a lot of great thing for the NFl and many of you just need something to hate on.

  40. Big Tex says: May 26, 2010 12:24 PM

    “I will be take my 1 year son with me to all game. You see that is who Raider fan do it.” Also “Al is respected in the NFL by all the major plays.”
    So tell me raidertg, did the “1 year son” dictate that mess?

  41. Shanahan's Rat Teeth says: May 26, 2010 12:56 PM

    dwatkins says:
    May 26, 2010 1:12 AM
    Why would anyone waznt to go to that stadium for a SB. The A’s are trying their damndest to move out of that pit
    –Junior beat me to it, but just in case you weren’t able to comprehend his reply…READ THE FRICKIN’ ARTICLE BEFORE YOU POST!
    Big Tex: Jamarcus Russell is gone, and fair or not, he was a MAJOR reason fans stopped going last year. After the city of Oakland relinquished control of ticket sales to the Raiders following a settlement in 2005, the team sold out 18 of 24 games from 2006-2008, despite winning only 11 games during that span. Compare that to 25 sellouts (although many games were sold out at kickoff, but not before the blackout deadline) while the disaster that was the OFMA was in charge of ticket sales from 1995-2005.
    Obviously, eliminating PSL’s and actually having a staff and budget to advertise and sell tickets, which anyone can tell you wasn’t the case w/ the OFMA, was a no-brainer for the team. The Raiders got a lot of bad press and unwarranted criticism for the PSL fiasco, as many placed the blame on the team instead of the city. Even now, many in the media and the majority of NFL fans point to the blackouts as evidence of a lack of fan support, which is inaccurate.
    The Raiders were terrible from 2003-2005, yet had the 3rd highest increase in attendance in the league from 2006-2008, despite the aforementioned struggles and economic climate. Why? Because the team was no longer handcuffed by the OFMA. In 2009, the years of losing came to a head, and the poster boy was Jamarcus Russell due to his indifference and lack of effort. Attendance was awful, but by cutting Russell, the team has renewed optimism and indirectly shown fans that their protests were heard loud and clear.
    I am willing to bet that this season’s attendance numbers are more along the lines of 2006-2008, instead of 2009. A competitive team would obviously help even more, as would a new stadium. But the bottom line is the fans are there, have always been there, and will support the Raiders even when they struggle…but only if they are getting an honest, competitive effort in return.

  42. Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam says: May 26, 2010 2:42 PM

    This isn’t the first time this idea’s been floated. In 2002, then-Oakland mayor Jerry Brown made a presentation before NFL brass on the appeal of a joint Oakland/SF Super Bowl: Oakland would host the game, SF the festivities (SF has more hotels, entertainment, etc.). It’s not as farfetched as some would seem to think.
    At the presentation, Ol’ Moonbeam famously couldn’t name the starting QB in that year’s Super Bowl: Rich Gannon of the Oakland Raiders!
    Before anything like this can happen, however, CalTrans would have to fix all the potholes in I-880 (presuming the present stadium site) . That stretch of freeway is the most treacherous thing about an Oakland Super Bowl.

  43. raidertg says: May 26, 2010 3:37 PM

    Give Big Tex a break he has no life and like to talk out his a$$ and clown on people for there typing.

  44. 1nationraidernation says: May 26, 2010 4:49 PM

    It’s ok, 90% of these haters couldn’t even afford the median home price of 450K in Oakland.
    so you don’t have to get knifed, or mugged by the ceo, or the attorney that have season tickets next to me. We are all criminals because we love the raiders.

  45. LeeB says: May 26, 2010 4:57 PM

    OK Al, here is how it goes. The going trend is that you build a new stadium and you get the SB at some point thereafter.
    Quid pro quo. Now, go back to bed.

  46. Steve says: May 29, 2010 3:21 AM

    Evpimp… Funny… Except he’s seen his team in 5 of them… and has won 3 of them… More than most NFL teams can say…

Leave a Reply

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