Skip to content

Report: Raiders would kick in $300 million for 50,000-seat stadium

raiders helmet getty Getty Images

After commissioning a study on a new stadium, the Raiders believe a 50,000-seat complex on the site of their current home would suit their needs.

However, they do not want to pay the entire bill for the project.

These were among the details disclosed at a Monday meeting regarding the Raiders’ stadium situation, the Oakland Tribune reported Monday.

According to the Tribune, David Stone, a consultant working with Alameda County and Oakland officials regarding the prospect of a new stadium, said the Raiders’ study found a 50,000-seat complex would cost about $800 million. Per the Tribune, the Raiders have proposed paying for $300 million of the project, Stone said Monday.

“Both sides are conducting studies to determine the demand and financial viability of the project,” Raiders director of public affairs Mike Taylor told the Tribune.

The Raiders’ lease with O.Co Coliseum, their current home, is up after the 2013 season.

While 50,000 seats seems small for an NFL stadium, that’s all that would be needed, according to the study commissioned by the team, per the Tribune. Of note: the Raiders will reportedly reduce capacity in O.Co Coliseum for the 2013 season.

Permalink 76 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill
76 Responses to “Report: Raiders would kick in $300 million for 50,000-seat stadium”
  1. thestrategyexpert says: Jul 15, 2013 10:07 PM

    According to the study? WTF kind of study is that? How many fans can we get to come out for our mediocre at best team? How about design a new plan that assumes you will be a winning team, and then combining that plan with a strategy plan to be a winning team? Then you can have a study to support how more than 50k capacity is feasible and enjoy some football success at the same time. These losers should be stripped of their team. They have failed too hard and for too long, the Oakland Raiders are an embarrassment.

  2. bestbitter says: Jul 15, 2013 10:08 PM

    I think smaller stadiums are going to be the new norm, tv is way too cheap and/or convenient for most. Small stadiums work for the EPL, I’m sure they can work for the NFL. I’m glad to see the mega stadiums going the way of the buffalo.

  3. dallasfan89 says: Jul 15, 2013 10:11 PM

    Signs of large stadiums becoming a past time possibly.

  4. britishteeth says: Jul 15, 2013 10:12 PM

    In other news, I want to purchase a 2 million dollar home, but I am only willing to be on the hook for $250K. Who wants to hook me up?

  5. pflynn20 says: Jul 15, 2013 10:13 PM

    They still won’t sell that out

  6. Dennis Allen's Outgoing Persona says: Jul 15, 2013 10:15 PM

    Since the lease is up after this season, something better get done and quick. I hope that they do build on the current site, since taking BART to the game is a breeze. And what they lose on parking they make up for in alcohol sales.

  7. raiderlyfe510 says: Jul 15, 2013 10:17 PM

    Sounds good, but really it needs to be more than 50k seats. Once the East Bay realizes the Raiders will be in Oakland for good and that they don’t have to guard their emotions from them moving again the place will sell out. It sold out with Hue Jackson here.

    It was hard to go to games last year because nobody want re-live the Gregg Knapp experience we already knew how that story was going to end.

  8. wtfpft says: Jul 15, 2013 10:18 PM

    Can’t argue that the best fans in the world need a new place to call home.

  9. d0minate says: Jul 15, 2013 10:19 PM

    What a racket, 50,000 seat stadium for 800mil?? Damn thing better built with gold leaf and the landscaping watered with the tears of fairies

  10. rr2000k says: Jul 15, 2013 10:20 PM

    50K? Very lame. So much for the Black Hole.

  11. tfbuckfutter says: Jul 15, 2013 10:26 PM

    I would like a new Mercedez.

    I am willing to kick in $1500 of the cost.

    Now come on people. Let’s make this happen.

  12. emma333 says: Jul 15, 2013 10:27 PM

    As a Jaguars fan whose stadium capacity is reduced from 78,000 to 68,000 by tarps….and are constantly criticized, media moved to LA or London….how can a 50,000 capacity stadium be accepted by the NFL. I don’t want to see any current team relocated, but this doesn’t make any sense.

  13. MyTeamsAllStink says: Jul 15, 2013 10:28 PM

    Actually 50,000 would be ideal.Its not as if Oakland is a tourist destination they wouldn’t be clamoring to host other events at the stadium where they’d need a larger capacity.Theyve had issues drawing not only because the team hasn’t been very good but the stadium is a dump.

  14. raiderapologist says: Jul 15, 2013 10:28 PM

    David Stone must be a lawyer. He is probably getting 3% off the top, and the stadium seating should be closer to 60k than 50, just in case. Goodell wants Davis to sell the club, or force him to pay for the visitor’s locker room at Levi Stadium.

  15. mtheparrothead says: Jul 15, 2013 10:30 PM

    Jaguars 67k. Enough said.

  16. goraidersgospurs says: Jul 15, 2013 10:30 PM

    No more half that baseball diamond would be real great!!!

  17. justwinbaby29 says: Jul 15, 2013 10:33 PM

    Raiders badly need a new stadium. It’s a dump. The only team that shares their stadium with a MLB team!

  18. phatbuddha57 says: Jul 15, 2013 10:38 PM

    PLEASE PLEASE JUST COME BACK TO LA

  19. barbeaux says: Jul 15, 2013 10:39 PM

    They should kick in $800 million.

  20. kane337 says: Jul 15, 2013 10:42 PM

    The Raiders want the taxpayers to pay more than half of it?????

    Arthur Blank is coughing up over $800 million of $1 billion on their new stadium.

    Mr. Davis needs to anti up more.

  21. modellforprez says: Jul 15, 2013 10:42 PM

    So California will help the Lakers who would deserve with sharks giants dodgers ducks the CLIPPERS EVEN L.A Kings Sac town King.

  22. notoriousjebus says: Jul 15, 2013 10:45 PM

    The Oakland Coliseum really needs to be replaced. Would the new stadium be football only or would the A’s play there as well? $300 million from the Raiders and $150 million from the A’s would be a pretty sweet deal for Oakland.

  23. letsgolightning says: Jul 15, 2013 10:53 PM

    This current stadium isn’t working out for us. We’re gonna need taxpayers to pitch in half a billion dollars so that we can play in a smaller one.

  24. jebdamone says: Jul 15, 2013 11:01 PM

    this seems like a not very good idea. wouldn’t that automatically eliminate them from ever getting a super bowl?

  25. ggreen7 says: Jul 15, 2013 11:01 PM

    It’s all about TV now baby!

  26. decayeahranger says: Jul 15, 2013 11:04 PM

    As long as they still have the “Slip & Fall Tattoo Removal”(on the broken bottles around that area), I’m fine with ponying up some cash for a “New” Venue.

  27. mkos4513 says: Jul 15, 2013 11:14 PM

    I guess that means that OAK will not be hosting a super bowl. I read that the NFL wants a location with 70,000 plus seats.

    With OAK needing $500M and SD needing $700M it will be interesting how the state will be able to scrape together that much public money in such a short time.

  28. garyleee says: Jul 15, 2013 11:15 PM

    Sounds great!! What about the A’s?

  29. granadafan says: Jul 15, 2013 11:17 PM

    As an Alameda County homeowner and taxpayer, I will not see the taxpayers pay one single cent towards the stadium after what Al Davis adn the Raiders did to the county. He ruined the Oakland Coliseum with his hideous Mt Davis which obscured the great views of the Oakland hills and forced the taxpayers to foot the entire bill. Once is enough. No more money and no more corporate welfare.

  30. sickoe47 says: Jul 15, 2013 11:27 PM

    At first I was hoping that raiders were gonna move to LA but the raiders were born in oaktown they should die in oaktown.they deserve a stadium all to them selfeves hopefully they get this done.the rams on the other hand should come home to LA.

  31. jagwires says: Jul 15, 2013 11:31 PM

    Fact: The Jacksonville Jaguars averaged approximately 62,000 fans per game for a team that went 2-14.

    The raiders may have trouble selling out at a 50,000 seat stadium.

    Who’s more likely to move to L.A.? You decide.

  32. thatstinks says: Jul 15, 2013 11:36 PM

    50k seats is all that would be needed ? Needed for what ? Thats less than half the size of some college stadiums . I don’t get the thinking on a stadium that small .

  33. sportsbastard says: Jul 15, 2013 11:37 PM

    Just move back to LA already.

  34. Stiller43 says: Jul 15, 2013 11:45 PM

    What about when (if) they get good again?

    50k is NOT an okay size for an NFL stadium

  35. carlsbadboltfan says: Jul 15, 2013 11:48 PM

    Choo! Choo! Joetoronto!

    Only 50, 000? Think of the money they’d save on tarps.

  36. spellingcops says: Jul 15, 2013 11:52 PM

    Subpar stadium for a subpar team. It’s the only way they can prevent blackouts.

  37. reecan says: Jul 15, 2013 11:52 PM

    Why would the Raiders build a new stadium in Oakland when they are leading the league in Black Outs the last 10 years! There a few reasons for that, first off this Raider Nation doesn’t truly exist. If it did why can’t they sell out a stadium with large sections that were covered to make it look like a lot of people are there? 2nd Management agrees to bullying the opposing team fans by yelling, spitting, pushing, hitting, cursing and threatening them. Why do I say that because they Do Nothing about it! Those fan should be thrown out of the stadium and their season tickets taken away. But they do nothing, hence they can’t sell out games with just a mere 20,000+ rabid fans. I said it before and will again, Oakland is Not a Sports Town. They are losing the A’s and the Warriors are going back to SF. That Leaves the Raiders holding the 2nd worst attendance in the league at 31. I would be surprise if the league approves it since they are losing money every year.

  38. orivar says: Jul 15, 2013 11:54 PM

    Pay all or none is what I say. It’s your stadium, want it to be $50,000 seats to bring in extra cash, pay for it.

  39. tdk24 says: Jul 15, 2013 11:57 PM

    That’s seems doable. It’s a smaller market, and that stadium has seen better days. Still the only one left that is shared with a baseball team.

  40. trichbrowns33 says: Jul 16, 2013 12:01 AM

    50k seats is all thats needed? are they planning on not getting better to fill more seats?..

  41. TheWallyChamp says: Jul 16, 2013 12:09 AM

    50,000 seats for an NFL stadium is an embarrassment to the league.

  42. badmude says: Jul 16, 2013 12:32 AM

    50,000-seat stadium is all that is needed to have consistent sell outs. NFL is never going to let Oakland host a Superbowl, so a massive stadium isn’t needed.
    Oakland is a very small market team and it would be very prudent for the Oakland/ Alameda to kick in the 500 mil to build a stadium. The taxes and income the team and fans bring into the area will greatly outweigh the loss of income if the Raiders left the area. Do the smart thing Oakland.

  43. 64post says: Jul 16, 2013 12:48 AM

    So that they can play before sparse crowds with blackouts? Fix your product and attendance will take care of itself, 11+ years of garbage and counting doesn’t deserve any kind of new anything.

  44. randomcommenter says: Jul 16, 2013 12:53 AM

    This is a con by the raiders. 50,000 is not an NFL stadium. They say that’s all they need and offer to pay for less than half.

    No warm weather city will build a stadium that small and pass up the likely Super Bowl payoff that comes with a new stadium.

    So the county proposes the bigger stadium at a bigger price and the Raiders then say they will only pay the same 300 because they only want 50,000 seats and if the county wants bigger, they will have to pay the difference.

  45. andreweac says: Jul 16, 2013 12:54 AM

    Even if the NFL pitches in $200 million good luck getting any corporate welfare for billionaires in California… Much less $300 million+.

  46. jrod2go says: Jul 16, 2013 12:54 AM

    They should take a play from the NFL player contracts and come up with a funding structure based on team success. Incentives for wins, playoffs and keeping players out of jail.

  47. z561 says: Jul 16, 2013 1:08 AM

    They should really make it 20,000 seats, that way there is a small sliver of hope that all 8 games every year aren’t blacked out.

  48. bbwasright says: Jul 16, 2013 1:19 AM

    So here is an interesting idea: what if the city agrees to pay half on condition there is no blackout? If they team pays for its own stadium, they can’t afford such a big one, so the smaller stadium would result in an easier sell-out, so they wouldn’t black-out as easily. If a city is going to pay a percentage of a stadium cost, doesn’t it make sense that the game can only be blacked out if a larger percentage of the stadium is empty?

  49. raiderssf says: Jul 16, 2013 1:21 AM

    It’s better to have your own 50k stadium as opposed to sharing a 65k+ stadium with another team. Which would be the case if they moved in with the Niners at Levi Stadium or down to LA. Also, note this is not including the money that comes with naming the stadium. A lot of work that still needs to be done, but in the end, this could get done.

  50. norvturnersneck says: Jul 16, 2013 1:29 AM

    Unfortunately for So Cal, this means LA Raiders most likely.

    No way is Oakland/Alameda is going to pony up more than 200 million for this project.

  51. raider8er says: Jul 16, 2013 1:56 AM

    What will the NFL contribute? How can Alameda county and the city find a way to contribute?

  52. richiesaurus310 says: Jul 16, 2013 2:16 AM

    I don’t get why the Raiders don’t just move in with the 49ers into Levi’s Stadium. Why not pitch in that $300 million into that project instead of spending almost a billion dollars into an inferior stadium? The Niners stadium is bigger, and $400 million better. Oakland is closer to Santa Clara than San Fransico is too. Just doesn’t make any sense imo. If the Giants and Jets can share a stadium, the Raiders and Niners could as well, while saving almost a billion dollars.

  53. nativeraider says: Jul 16, 2013 2:40 AM

    Id really hope this deal gets done. The O.Co Coliseum is in a good location. I know the A’s and Raiders probably don’t wanna share a stadium but if they put up $ they can get this deal done and get a state of the art facility.

  54. blacknsilver says: Jul 16, 2013 4:16 AM

    this would be great for the Raiders

  55. kd75 says: Jul 16, 2013 6:00 AM

    50,000 seat stadium? Are the Raiders a D2 college team?

    The Mets are going to put 57,000 into CitiField today and the Mets kind of suck. It is the All Star Game, but still.

    Shouldn’t the Raiders be aiming at at least 80,000 seats? At least in that neighborhood?

  56. hawkstradamus says: Jul 16, 2013 6:16 AM

    A fifty thousand seat nfl stadium would be the smallest in the league. It would look more like the thunder dome in mad max 3. Which would be cool.

  57. csdaddy7777 says: Jul 16, 2013 6:54 AM

    It’s time for the NFL to step up and help the Raiders get a new stadium. Al is gone let it go. Otherwise disband the franchise cuz the raiders can’t compete without a new stadium. There finally moving in the right direction. They NEED DESPERATELY a new stadium

  58. nomoreseasontix says: Jul 16, 2013 8:06 AM

    The City of Oakland won’t get it done. They can’t even get control of the city.
    It’s a failed government. Heading towards third-world status.
    I’m sad to say that Oakland will soon be without a pro sports franchise, but that’s actually the least of their problems…

  59. powpow042 says: Jul 16, 2013 9:17 AM

    Good stuff…so the headline for the Chargers new stadium is “TaxPayers asked for 700 million for Chargers stadium” and for the Raiders it’s “Raiders would kick in $300 million.” Nice.

  60. kane337 says: Jul 16, 2013 10:18 AM

    They should move up north. Oregon Raiders

  61. slick50ks says: Jul 16, 2013 11:11 AM

    This pathetic franchise should be contracted.

    They’re an embarrassment to the league.

  62. steelerben says: Jul 16, 2013 11:31 AM

    The current stadium seats 53k, 63k including standing room. Taking out 3,000 seats would be an embarrassment to the NFL?

    Why not make a stadium with 50,000 seats, where all the seats are good ones, and generate a more exciting atmosphere at the games? A small stadium would lend a college like feel to the games and help area fans connect with the team more. If they are able to build a smaller and cheaper stadium, they might even be able to lower ticket prices.

    Gate sales are no longer a major factor in the revenue stream. TV money matters. If you’ve got a stadium that size then you only need to have 42,500 seats sold to clear the 85% blackout bar, without having to buy your own tickets, and start building TV money.

    The Raiders need to be a little more serious with how much money they are willing to put in, though. I understand that all the dead contracts they are carrying are a drain on the funds, but less than half? On a stadium that isn’t big enough to bring in a Super Bowl, although probably just right for a Pro Bowl and college BCS games, you are going to need to chip in more. $500 million from the team, and another $100 million for pre-sold naming rights, and you might have a chance of getting the other $200 million from either the NFL or taxpayers.

  63. aldog83 says: Jul 16, 2013 11:48 AM

    New stadiums only work with entertainment/shopping/restaurants complex being built around them.
    This brings mire daily traffic and gives consumers a reason
    To come besides the game.

    I don’t think people want to hang out spend money and experience the area that surrounds the current Oakland Stadium

    I had season tix for 7 yrs. (I was part of NFL.history! 7 yrs of 211 or more loses!)

    Once the game was over you want to get the hell out of dodge!

    This may not be the best location unless it can transform . Example LA Live in LA.

  64. clemenza58 says: Jul 16, 2013 2:46 PM

    I know the money is in the TV deals and the luxury boxes, but only 50,000 seats?! I get the fact that the Raiders want to make something work in Oakland but the team’s officials really have to start looking at the reality of the situation:

    - You’re struggling to sell out in Oakland and had to reduce seating capacity in your current venue to avoid blackouts

    - Your current building is falling apart and has sewage problems

    - Oakland, like a lot of California cities, is broke and does not have the resources to fund any part of your new stadium project

    - You’ve ruled out sharing a new stadium with the 49ers in Santa Clara

    - You are one of three teams in town that all need new venues

    - You are considering building a new stadium that would have 11,500 seats fewer than the NFL’s smallest venue (Soldier Field). Despite being in the state of California, a 50,000 seat stadium would certainly disqualify you as a potential Super Bowl host city, removing a key selling point of building a new venue.

    What does all of this point to? An NFL team that’s located in an unsustainable market.

    Based on the facts, the most logical business decision you can possibly make is to seriously consider moving back to Los Angeles, a town that overwhelming loves the Raiders more than any other NFL team. With their current lease expiring at the end of the season, the Raiders shouldn’t think twice about reserving a fleet of moving vans for February 2014. As they say, “it’s a business.”

  65. raiderapologist says: Jul 16, 2013 3:20 PM

    carlsbadboltfan says: Jul 15, 2013 11:48 PM

    Choo! Choo! Joetoronto!

    Only 50, 000? Think of the money they’d save on tarps.
    —————–
    It’s always nice to hear from the most apathetic fan base in the league.

  66. raidermick3sb3rings says: Jul 16, 2013 4:08 PM

    The fact is the Raiders have not had a blackout in 2 years…Not sure what all this other crap is from the clowns on this blog… like the charger fans. They’ve had blackouts every year. LOL!!
    And NO FREAKIN RINGS!!! that’s the funniest thing…

    Late…

  67. war27 says: Jul 16, 2013 5:45 PM

    Everyone is worried about getting a superbowl???

    Who the hell is gonna want to go to luxurious Oakland for a week? What a joke.

  68. dasmol says: Jul 16, 2013 6:17 PM

    Hey raidermick! Those two for one tickets must’ve really done the trick.

  69. carlsbadboltfan says: Jul 16, 2013 7:54 PM

    raiderapologist | Jul 16, 2013, 12:20 PM PDT
    carlsbadboltfan says: Jul 15, 2013 11:48 PM

    Choo! Choo! Joetoronto!

    Only 50, 000? Think of the money they’d save on tarps.
    —————–
    It’s always nice to hear from the most apathetic fan base in the league.
    —————————————————————————-
    Wow…facts must not be your strong point.

    And you clearly didn’t finish grade school if you don’t know what “apathetic” means. Now that’s PATHETIC.

  70. nomoreseasontix says: Jul 16, 2013 10:38 PM

    I love how many people say the logical thing for the Raiders to do is to move to L.A.

    Yes… because they’ve had, and lost, three different pro football franchises already, INCLUDING the Raiders.

    There’s no reason at all to think that the fourth time won’t be the magic bullet.

    The best option is actually to move east over the hill to the Dublin / San Ramon / Pleasanton area. They’ll sell tickets easier to people with more disposable income if they get some separation from their more hood-rat fans.

    It’s not popular, but it’s the absolute truth. Their biggest problem is that your average, upper middle class fan with money to spend doesn’t want to spend that money for the privilege of hanging around a bunch of obnoxious, drunk laborers.

  71. clemenza58 says: Jul 17, 2013 3:16 PM

    As long as L.A. doesn’t have a team, that is the most logical place for any NFL team to move to by virtue of the fact that they are the second largest media market in the country. There is no doubt that they’ve had and lost three teams but each case is different.

    - Chargers: You can’t really count them because they left after the AFL’s inaugural season. They were like the XFL or the UFL at that point.

    - Rams: I’ve never lived in L.A. but from what I’ve heard, a lot of people stopped supporting them after they moved to Anaheim. That team has been plagued by horrible ownership for most of its existence.

    - Raiders: Al Davis. Enough said.

    While Los Angeles will never be confused with football crazy markets like Pittsburgh or Green Bay, the NFL could succeed if they put the right team there. If you look at the Facebook map or other surveys, the NFL team that L.A. likes the most is the Raiders. Given this and the Raiders current situation in Oakland, why wouldn’t they consider going back to L.A.? They already have a fan base built there. Plus, they’re sure to have better attendance than in Oakland.

    When I look at the facts, it makes too much sense for the Raiders NOT to go back to L.A.

  72. pillaging4fun says: Jul 17, 2013 11:47 PM

    @clemnza 58 u are absolutely dead on right. LA is a Raiders town and the market can truly support them. Corporate sponsorship will be the key and with Al Davis out of the picture (RIP) The LA RAIDERS will be Rebranded to a top notch organization

  73. raiderapologist says: Jul 18, 2013 2:30 PM

    carlsbadboltfan says: Jul 16, 2013 7:54 PM

    Wow…facts must not be your strong point.

    And you clearly didn’t finish grade school if you don’t know what “apathetic” means. Now that’s PATHETIC.
    ————
    ap·a·thet·ic ( p -th t k) also ap·a·thet·i·cal (- -k l). adj. 1. Feeling or showing a lack of interest or concern; indifferent.

    Sounds like a typical Charger fan to me.

  74. corporate1raider says: Jul 18, 2013 4:12 PM

    Right … Apathetic … not “Pathetic.” Loser.

    The Raiders need to stay right where they are and have a new stadium. The location is perfect.

    Yes, they are not very good and upgrading their product will ameliorate their myriad problems.

    The fans, on the other hand, are a different story. While most are good NFL patrons and love their team we need to weed out all the rowdies and dumb-asses. Have a little dignity for chrissakes.

    L.A. is not an option. Why? Because, I believe, most people who live in L.A. are from somewhere else. They have moved there and if they have any football loyalties it is to the team from where they lived.

    L.A. does not need a team to move there. What L.A. needs are two expansion teams. One in the NFC West and one in the AFC West. Two home-grown teams that all the people of L.A. can truly call their own.

    L.A. Lasers and L.A. Lancers.

    I am a god.

  75. dasmol says: Jul 19, 2013 12:54 PM

    “ap·a·thet·ic ( p -th t k) also ap·a·thet·i·cal (- -k l). adj. 1. Feeling or showing a lack of interest or concern; indifferent.”

    Perfectly describes the bandwagon of bandwagons, raider nation. Or is there another reason we’re talking about trying to build a NFL stadium with only 5o,000 seats? Don’t forget those two for one tickets, had to get that apathetic nation into the seats somehow.

  76. tedigopues says: Jul 19, 2013 10:47 PM

    Since bud selig doesnt seem interested in letting the As go to san Jose even though both the team and the city already agreed to a stadium deal, The raiders should start talking to san Jose about their own deal. This way the raiders stay in the bay area.

Leave a Reply

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