Skip to content

Raiders situation shakes up stadium shuffle

aldavishonorx AP

On the most recent Football Night in America, Peter King of Sports Illustrated reported that, given the passing of Al Davis, many within the NFL envision the Raiders as a potential candidate to move to L.A., if the team doesn’t get a new stadium in the Bay Area.

Mike Silver of Yahoo! Sports lays out the various ways in which the dominoes could fall, and the end result could indeed be a return of the Los Angeles Raiders.  Or not.

On one hand, Mark Davis could be more inclined to consider sharing a stadium with the 49ers in Santa Clara than his father was.  The Raiders are believed to be willing to share a stadium, but the Raiders are believed to prefer a shared venue in Oakland.  The 49ers are believed to prefer pounding nails into a wooden board with their bare hands.

On the other hand, the Raiders could be lured to L.A. by Phil Anschutz or Ed Roski, leaders of the two competing Los Angeles stadium projects.  In either case, a sale of all or a substantial part of the Davis family interest in the team could be required.

On the third hand (assuming the proximity of a nuclear power plant with a multitude of code violations), the possibility of the Raiders returning to L.A. could prompt one of the other potential candidates for the nation’s second biggest TV market to accelerate its plans to invade the territory.

For now, all we know is that the Raiders situation introduces a new layer of uncertainty into an already uncertain stadium landscape, at a time when a shuffling of teams appears to be inevitable.

Permalink 45 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers, St. Louis Rams, Top Stories
45 Responses to “Raiders situation shakes up stadium shuffle”
  1. duncanthecat says: Oct 10, 2011 2:01 PM

    LA Raiders. I like the ring of it! Al Davis always spoke of returning to LA under the right conditions.

  2. raiderlyfe510 says: Oct 10, 2011 2:03 PM

    It’s funny…every time the Raiders get good the “Return to LA” rumors start. What a front running area.

    L.A. Needs an expansion team. They didn’t support the Raiders when they were there. They only supported them in the 80s when they were contending for Superbowls.

  3. NoHomeTeam says: Oct 10, 2011 2:04 PM

    The Raiders are believed to be willing to share a stadium, but the Raiders are believed to prefer a shared venue in Oakland. The 49ers are believed to prefer pounding nails into a wooden board with their bare hands.

    Now that’s funny! Great line, Mike.

    I’ll just add:
    “Football fans in the Los Angeles area are believed to prefer a shared 49ers-Raiders venue anywhere north of the Grapevine.

  4. raiderlyfe510 says: Oct 10, 2011 2:05 PM

    L.A. Raiders equals SOFT, HOLLYWOOD RAIDERS. they lost all of that Oakland Blue Collar mentality…it took 15 years to get it back.

  5. contra74 says: Oct 10, 2011 2:08 PM

    No, LA does NOT WANT that fanbase back. LA is a better place without that fanbase.

  6. tenteamparlay00799 says: Oct 10, 2011 2:10 PM

    The citizens of Los Angeles welcome you back with open arms.Goodbye “armpit Oakland” welcome to paradise.

  7. butlers91 says: Oct 10, 2011 2:16 PM

    Oh please….didn’t we try this already? Didn’t work the first time.

  8. favreforever says: Oct 10, 2011 2:16 PM

    1929-2011.

    Al is currently in a heated debate with St. Peter for “running up the score” in the game of life. “Death is always going to win the race, Al”, says St. Pete, “We know that, why rub it in with an 82 point bulge?”.

  9. radrntn says: Oct 10, 2011 2:24 PM

    Peter King never spoke to Al Davis a single day in his life, so what does he know. Once again pure speculation, and one can only hope Mark Davis keeps the raider hating media out of the raiders.

  10. snap0179 says: Oct 10, 2011 2:29 PM

    Does anybody else find it interesting that all the CA MLB teams with exception of the Dodgers have all gotten new stadiums (SF, Anahiem, SD) and yet the football stadiums in CA are all terrible (SF, OAK, SD)

  11. nesportsfan0428 says: Oct 10, 2011 2:30 PM

    raiderlyfe510 says:
    Oct 10, 2011 2:03 PM
    It’s funny…every time the Raiders get good the “Return to LA” rumors start. What a front running area.

    L.A. Needs an expansion team. They didn’t support the Raiders when they were there. They only supported them in the 80s when they were contending for Superbowls.

    ===================================

    Hey, it’s not L.A.’s fault they wern’t supporting the Raiders.

    They were too busy not supporting the Rams too

  12. warvette says: Oct 10, 2011 2:30 PM

    you’re engaging in speculation, conjecture, and innuendo, sir.

  13. firerosenthalthebastard says: Oct 10, 2011 2:31 PM

    Bill Plashcke wants the Raiders to move to LA, then change their colors and names and cease to be the Raiders at all…..

    If this happens or even if the Raiders leave the bay area the NFL will show how truly out of touch they are with their fans.

    A shared stadium with SF in the Santa Clara isn’t a terrible idea, makes the most sense… just please stay out of LA and don’t think about getting rid of the silver and black like tools like plaschke prefer.

  14. r8drbehindenemylines says: Oct 10, 2011 2:34 PM

    Even from beyond the grave, Al Davis shakes up the NFL!!!

  15. mwpugs says: Oct 10, 2011 2:51 PM

    Al Davis stadium!!!! I like the ring of that. But personally I don’t care where it is as long as mark Davis sticks it to the NFL just like his old man!!!!

  16. raiderlyfe510 says: Oct 10, 2011 2:53 PM

    Raiders move to L.A.. I’ll be done with them..so will a lot of fans…The Raiders without Al Davis..AND the city of Oakland. That’s not the Raiders anymore…at that point you’re just rooting for silver & black laundry.Raiders will be dead.

  17. cowboyhater says: Oct 10, 2011 3:11 PM

    On the fourth hand, does LA really deserve a team? Those fans, or lack thereof, have never supported a team, and LA should be dealing with real issues concerning their city, which does not include making taxpayers pay for a stadium.

  18. pack13queens0 says: Oct 10, 2011 3:12 PM

    Keep the Raiders in Oakland where they belong & concentrate on taking the Vikings out of Minnesota.

  19. cusoman says: Oct 10, 2011 3:21 PM

    contra74 says:
    Oct 10, 2011 2:08 PM
    No, LA does NOT WANT that fanbase back. LA is a better place without that fanbase.

    ————————

    Right, because your in-house fanbase is just THAT much better. Dodger fans, anyone?

  20. raiderrich510 says: Oct 10, 2011 3:24 PM

    Thats why its called RAIDER NATION! we can play anywhere and have diehard fans! L.a. oakland..vegas…it doesnt matter..Al built a legacy that will never die! And the media, or You disrespectful p.o.s. haters will never tarnish this.I would be very worried because The Raiders are gonna rise….and you cant stand it! RAIDER FOR LIFE!

  21. yzguy431 says: Oct 10, 2011 3:28 PM

    can this guy write a story , or what? loved the pounding nails with bare hands reference.

  22. ludachrisgsx says: Oct 10, 2011 3:29 PM

    “No, LA does NOT WANT that fanbase back. LA is a better place without that fanbase.”

    LOL – anyone remember what the fan base for the Raiders was like BEFORE they moved to LA. When the team moved back to Oakland, the fan base had changed significantly. Coincidence? I don’t think so. I’m not completely happy with how LA changed the image of the Raider fan. I hope they don’t go back.

    A shared stadium in the Bay Area makes the most sense. If the Giants and Jets can pull it off, the Raiders and Niners can too.

  23. bucsraysboltsfan says: Oct 10, 2011 3:32 PM

    How about taking Jax and their 40,000 tarp-covered seats instead?

  24. contra74 says: Oct 10, 2011 3:54 PM

    cusoman says:
    Oct 10, 2011 3:21 PM
    contra74 says:
    Oct 10, 2011 2:08 PM
    No, LA does NOT WANT that fanbase back. LA is a better place without that fanbase.

    ————————

    Right, because your in-house fanbase is just THAT much better. Dodger fans, anyone?
    ——–
    Those fans who beat up the Giants fans were clearly leftover fans from the Raider days. And if they weren’t, I would take that one incident at dodger stadium than multiple repeat incidents every week with the raiders back.

  25. dasmol says: Oct 10, 2011 3:55 PM

    Doesn’t matter where you move them to, the bandwagon will follow. From Toronto to Texas, and everywhere inbetween. As long as they’re playing well or seen as gangsta, the wagon will be full.

  26. brewdogg says: Oct 10, 2011 4:04 PM

    pack13queens0 says:
    Oct 10, 2011 3:12 PM
    Keep the Raiders in Oakland where they belong & concentrate on taking the Vikings out of Minnesota.
    ————————————-

    ….or further jeopardize the hopes and dreams of this pathetic little tool.

    How utterly sad it is to see so much of a person’s life wrapped up in hating a sports entity.

  27. NoHomeTeam says: Oct 10, 2011 4:05 PM

    cowboyhater says: On the fourth hand, does LA really deserve a team? Those fans, or lack thereof, have never supported a team, and LA should be dealing with real issues concerning their city, which does not include making taxpayers pay for a stadium.

    I get so tired of this misinformation, but somebody has to make the point: The Rams were here for 48 years, and held the regular-season attendance record until a stunt game in Mexico City. Raiders were here for 13 and managed to sell out the 90,000-seat Coliseum on a frequent basis .

    No matter how much Georgia Frontiere and Al Davis tried to justify moving their teams with the “no fan support” fiction, the real reason they did so was because they couldn’t get the stadium deals that they wanted. That’s the first, last, and only reason that we now have the St. Louis Rams and the Oakland Raiders.

  28. Robert says: Oct 10, 2011 4:14 PM

    Davis loved Los Angeles.

    The Raiders fit Los Angeles to a tee.

    The fan base in Los Angeles is stronger than ever.

    The team will double in value, and their gear will triple in sales.

    The Raiders were never popular until they went to Los Angeles.

    Los Angeles Raiders 2013!!!

  29. canadianhonky says: Oct 10, 2011 4:23 PM

    Keep the Raiders in O town. LA needs a cream puffy team that swaggers like a dunking french prostitute looking for a mirror. Just saying Hollywood need a softer extravagant wasted obnoxious and self indulgent team (Cowboys) that America can hate.

  30. mistersmith22 says: Oct 10, 2011 4:25 PM

    SF resident here…The Niners won’t share a stadium not because of the OAK-SF rivalry, or because of Al Davis, but because they don’t want to be in the Bay Area anymore. Ownership is committed to moving to Santa Clara, which is Silicon Valley-San Jose territory, not SF/Bay Area. It’ll never happen because the Yorks aren’t ever going to consider it.

    There’s a golden opportunity for the Niners to work with the city to throw a gorgeous, waterfront stadium up along the 3rd St. corridor, immediately south of AT&T Park. Easy in-and-out, even ferries could land there, city-owned land that’s just parking lots and empty warehouses, and it’s a part of town the city is DYING to establish and clean up. But the reasons it’s not being talked about is because the Niners would have to do what the SF Giants did — pay for some or all of the stadium themselves. It could be beautiful, it could be a crown jewel to put a new waterfront complex for one of the NFL’s most storied franchises in one of America’s most beautiful cities. Instead they’re going to slap something up in the middle of nowhere and move a team 40 miles away from its home over dollars — “some” billions aren’t enough, the Yorks want even “more” billions.

    Anyway, all this said and done, and that leaves the Raiders alone in the Bay Area. Think they’re gonna move to LA now that they don’t have to share an audience? SF residents will convert to Oakland fans over time, and the Raiders will be the only game in town. In a few years they’ll have leverage to get a new stadium out of Alameda County.

  31. fwippel says: Oct 10, 2011 4:32 PM

    L.A. Needs an expansion team. They didn’t support the Raiders when they were there. They only supported them in the 80s when they were contending for Superbowls.

    ***************************************
    Expansion isn’t coming anytime soon, nor should it be. There are an even number of teams in each conference and division, and new teams are going to upset that balance.

    In addition, take a lesson from MLB, which really needs to contract by two teams. The talent pool can only go so far before it’s stretched too thin. Look at how many NFL teams right now can’t even find a decent QB. LA will get a team, be it the Chargers, the Jaguars, the Raiders or some other club. But expansion beyond 32 teams should not be taken seriously.

  32. turdfurgerson68 says: Oct 10, 2011 4:32 PM

    The old, swashbuckling Raider swagger of the 1960s-1970s ended with the team moving to LA; never to return again.

    The team never should have returned to Oakland.

    This new era of football is perfectly suited for a return of the LA Raiders.

  33. encinitasraider says: Oct 10, 2011 4:33 PM

    The Raiders and City of Oakland should build a new stadium right new to the current one. The city needs to revitalize that area like they did Jack London. I has great transportation to the game with the Airport,Bart and Hotels…..

    Second option would be to upgrade the current statdium….

    The Raiders back in LA…no way… i am a season ticket holder that lives in San Diego and i still say no…
    The Davis family will not want to share in LA Market with another team and share revenues with Phil Anschutz ……

    Santa Clara no thanks…

  34. Shane says: Oct 10, 2011 4:48 PM

    radrntn says: Oct 10, 2011 2:24 PM

    Peter King never spoke to Al Davis a single day in his life, so what does he know. Once again pure speculation, and one can only hope Mark Davis keeps the raider hating media out of the raiders.

    ______________

    Know your facts before spouting off on the internet:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/10/08/al.davis/index.html

  35. goldrush36 says: Oct 10, 2011 4:51 PM

    @mrsmith22, You are spitting a little bit of false info there. For one AT&T park is not simply easy in easy out… It’s still a friggin traffic nightmare just less so than Candlestick. Second the city never made any true effort until a ton of money and time had already been invested in planning for other areas. Third, San Francisco wants to keep the stadium in the same general area as the Stick and the infrastructure there just isn’t going to work. Especially when considering future Superbowl bids. I would love nothing more than the 49ers to stay right in the bay, and I was born in Santa Clara. Unfortunately, the fact remains the city made a lot less effort with renovations on Candlestick, or a real viable new Venue for the 49ers than they did the Giants.

  36. granadafan says: Oct 10, 2011 6:15 PM

    As a former East Bay resident and current LA resident, I say keep the team in Oakland. That’s where the franchise started and ought to remain. I saw firsthand how people’s hearts were ripped out when greedy Al moved the team to hated LA. Then when he moved the team back (tearing the hearts out of LA gangbangers), he demanded a king’s ransom, which Alameda County residents are STILL paying off while putting a below mediocre product on the field.

    I hold no illusions that Al’s heirs are any less greedy and would demand public money and location costs to move the team to LA. I would love to have a football team here, but not the Raiders. They belong in Oakland.

  37. stanmackley says: Oct 10, 2011 6:58 PM

    @canadianhonkey i completely agree. Thats what makes the chargers such a great fit for LA.
    BOOM!

  38. blancodiablo says: Oct 10, 2011 9:07 PM

    bucsraysboltsfan says: Oct 10, 2011 3:32 PM

    How about taking Jax and their 40,000 tarp-covered seats instead?

    —————————–

    That’s hilarious coming from a Bucs fan. How many blackouts have the Bucs had in the last couple of seasons? Now compare with the Jags, Einstein. And we are no where near a playoff team.

    My guess is you dont go to Bucs games (or Rays for that matter) like the vast majority of people in your town.

    Dont think your boys arent on the LA list. Wouldnt matter to Tampa since they stay home and prune their flower beds anyway.

    Considering you have a playoff caliber team means Tampa=worst sports fans in the nation.

  39. pack13queens0 says: Oct 10, 2011 9:53 PM

    brewdogg says:
    Oct 10, 2011 4:04 PM
    ….or further jeopardize the hopes and dreams of this pathetic little tool.

    How utterly sad it is to see so much of a person’s life wrapped up in hating a sports entity.
    ___________________________________
    If you were a Packer fan living in Wisconsin but weren’t able to see every game on local TV where it should be you would understand how I feel.

  40. nationalmediacansuckit says: Oct 10, 2011 10:31 PM

    bucsraysboltsfan says:
    Oct 10, 2011 3:32 PM
    How about taking Jax and their 40,000 tarp-covered seats instead?

    You can’t be serious, really. The Bucs 36,000 opening day against Lions (blackout) and 42,000 at division rival Falcons(blackout). This will be your 3rd season of continuous blackouts. As you can tell by the numbers Bucs are the by the greatest fans in the league. Keep up the good work.

  41. weneedlinemen42 says: Oct 11, 2011 6:22 AM

    If Los Angeles is such a great place for a team why did the Chargers leave? Why did the Rams leave? Why did the Raiders leave? Could it be that it is not some money tree lined Nirvana.

    I would have thought that the 16-years without an NFL franchise will have weakened the areas appetite for an NFL franchise rather than strengthening it. Still, you never know, maybe this time it will work.

  42. joetoronto says: Oct 11, 2011 6:47 AM

    What allot of people don’t understand is that Raider Nation is TRULY global.

    I would feel bad for fans in Oakland if the Raiders moved again, of course, but no matter where they play, they’ll always be the Raiders.

    L.A., Oakland, Erindale, it doesn’t matter.

  43. savannahrose44 says: Oct 12, 2011 1:37 AM

    “On one hand, Mark Davis could be more inclined to consider sharing a stadium with the 49ers in Santa Clara than his father was.”

    Mark Davis can dream if he wants, but a dream world is the only world in which the 49ers will ever share a stadium with Oakland, and most definitely NOT in Oakland. If Oakland wants a new stadium Oakland is going to have to pony up the cash and build their own.

  44. stanmackley says: Oct 12, 2011 8:28 AM

    Buffalo uselessly tagged in another LA story. I think we’ll all soon see why Goodell was in Buffalo this past weekend.

  45. dasmol says: Oct 12, 2011 3:19 PM

    “What allot of people don’t understand is that Raider Nation is TRULY global.

    I would feel bad for fans in Oakland if the Raiders moved again, of course, but no matter where they play, they’ll always be the Raiders.

    L.A., Oakland, Erindale, it doesn’t matter.”

    _________________________________

    Too bad a globe’s worth of bandwagon riders can’t fill up a stadium but a few times a year. Unless, the raiduhs are doing well of course.

    What a joke of a fan base.

Leave a Reply

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