Skip to content

Rooney on Raiders’ situation: “Something is going to have to give”

Art+Rooney+II+8Pvngm9JPGnm Getty Images

Long-time rivals on the field, the Raiders and Steelers could be allies when it comes to the current stadium situation in Oakland.

Appearing on SiriusXM NFL Radio, Steelers owner Art Rooney II addressed the challenges currently faced by Raiders owner Mark Davis, who plays in a dilapidated venue with periodic sewage problems and a baseball infield for half of football season.

“The Raiders have a stadium situation that’s difficult,” Rooney said.  “Something is going to have to give.”

Rooney, who serves as Chairman of the NFL’s Stadium Committee, took a direct role in the Minnesota stadium situation in 2012, helping to persuade the local politicians that action was needed.  Neither Rooney nor any other league officials have taken a public role in persuading the powers-that-be in Oakland to solve the stadium situation.

The Raiders have a one-year lease, which in theory allows them to leave Oakland after the current season.  Davis is currently flirting with San Antonio.

Davis would still need to persuade 23 other owners to approve of a move.  It’s unclear whether Davis could ever conjure the votes.

Permalink 110 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Oakland Raiders, Pittsburgh Steelers, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
110 Responses to “Rooney on Raiders’ situation: “Something is going to have to give””
  1. swagger52 says: Aug 1, 2014 10:17 PM

    Hopefully Oakland sets a new standard for the NFL..

    Build your own dan stadium. You don’t build my place of work, why should I pay to build yours.

  2. JMClarkent says: Aug 1, 2014 10:17 PM

    I feel like the NFL/Mark Davis is taking crazy pills. They REALLY want a team in LA. Oakland REALLY wants a home, and I am sure high revenue.

    How does 1 + 1 = San Antonio?

  3. silverandblack052099 says: Aug 1, 2014 10:19 PM

    The Raiders are not moving to San Antonio. If it’s a good idea or not for whatever reason is not the point. They just won’t be moving there. If they move anywhere it’s L.A.

  4. realitycheckbaby says: Aug 1, 2014 10:20 PM

    Steelers and Raiders still have teams?

    Huh

  5. raydahhs75 says: Aug 1, 2014 10:26 PM

    He would easily get the votes if it becomes clear the city won’t work with him. Mr. Davis can sum up his rock solid case for moving with the following nine words, “we play half our season on a baseball infield”. Can’t argue with that.

  6. dalcow4 says: Aug 1, 2014 10:26 PM

    It’s nobody’s fault but the Raiders themselves.

    They moved back and forth at will and they’ve stunk for two decades. No city can trust them to a) not leave and b) put a good team on the field.

    And if you can’t trust them, why build them a billion dollar stadium?

    Once great—now truly one of the worst franchises in the history of American sport.

  7. buffaloisadumpsterandtheirfansaremorons says: Aug 1, 2014 10:31 PM

    They can’t keep playing in that dump, meanwhile moving to the Alamodome isn’t any better, it’s probably worse.

  8. greenbaydean says: Aug 1, 2014 10:31 PM

    Marks dad Al never waited for the other owners to approve moving the team….. If Oakland can’t build a state of the art stadium he should move to San Antonio or anywhere that gives him and the team what it needs to compete…..

  9. csbanter says: Aug 1, 2014 10:32 PM

    How about the NFL build a stadium in a neutral part of California and let the Raiders play there.

  10. troy43mvp says: Aug 1, 2014 10:32 PM

    As long as L.A. is an option San Antonio will always be 2nd. The Raiders do need their own stadium. If any team deserves one its them.

  11. jollyjoker2 says: Aug 1, 2014 10:38 PM

    no, the Vikings fans said enough. It will have to happen in Raiderland also.

  12. wyrdawg says: Aug 1, 2014 10:39 PM

    Looking back in NFL history.. you can pretty much draw the line to what’s happening. Al moving his team around was a precursor. I’m surprised they’ve stayed in place this long.

    Perhaps the “young” Davis is about to pull the trigger on what Al couldn’t? I mean.. Al was (in all deference to Mr. Brandt) the Godfather of the NFL. Go interview Parcells, Brandt… the rest of the old guard that’s still alive. Rooney. Those guys tempered Al’s “firecracker” ways… with the occasional law suit that happened to go no where…

    … Rooney.

    San Antonio makes a LOT of sense for the Raiders.

    Kraft expounding on a team in LA is, basically, the NFL running scared in the LA market. But, he wants a team in LA… Hmmm… Is he trying to wear the mantle of the old guard?

    I love how the media put up the “colors” mentality when it came to moving an NFL team. “SAME TEAM COLORS?!?!? NO WAY!!!!”

  13. squashstroup says: Aug 1, 2014 10:40 PM

    There is a brand new stadium in Santa Clara.
    I’m just saying they really don’t have to go anywhere.
    If the Jets and Giants can share why not the 49ers and Raiders.

  14. nomoreseasontix says: Aug 1, 2014 10:41 PM

    As always, the Raiders are the NFL’s step child.
    There’s a zillion dollars floating around out there in NFL land. You can’t convince me that the league can’t help the team in this situation.
    They’re trying to limit Mark’s options so he has no choice but to sell the team. It’s collusion by a different name.
    I’m hoping he learned from pops. The elder won his lawsuit against the league. In similar circumstances.

  15. gsomatt says: Aug 1, 2014 10:42 PM

    Business climate and taxes are a lot friendlier in TX.

  16. Most of you would be rapturous if your team won just one measly Super Bowl. We won it once, then again, and again, and again, yet again, oh, look, another one. You shrivel in our shadow. We define greatness. We built the NFL. We are the Steelers. says: Aug 1, 2014 10:43 PM

    A Rooney has never been wrong.

  17. thestrategyexpert says: Aug 1, 2014 10:45 PM

    Mark Davis will have more leverage if he wins the Super Bowl this season. Sometimes you don’t have any better choice than to win.

  18. handsofsteelhartofstone says: Aug 1, 2014 10:45 PM

    Say what you want about the owners and the blind greed that overruns their existence, Art Rooney is about as philanthropic as a man can get. What he has done for the city of Pittsburgh is immeasurable. The finest, kindest man I’ve ever met in my life.

  19. partmachine says: Aug 1, 2014 10:55 PM

    Modell > Rooney.

  20. 64post says: Aug 1, 2014 10:55 PM

    The NFL should contract 2 teams, the Raiders and the Jaguars. Problem solved.

  21. reptar310 says: Aug 1, 2014 10:57 PM

    Although I personally don’t want the Raiders back, a new stadium at Hollywood Park in Inglewood (Los Angeles) still makes the most sense. San Antonio is feasible only if the Alamo Dome could be repaired enough to house the Raiders for 2-3 seasons while a new stadium is being built.

  22. clashpoint says: Aug 1, 2014 10:58 PM

    Rooney should get Davis one of those caps to hide his hair.

  23. ajd4 says: Aug 1, 2014 11:04 PM

    Does Texas really need a 3rd crappy team? That was a joke….kind of.

    I respect the history of the Raiders and would feel bad for their fans if they moved to Texas.

  24. bigtimebrownie says: Aug 1, 2014 11:04 PM

    As a Browns fan who knows how this works,; Sorry Oaland

  25. irishlad19 says: Aug 1, 2014 11:05 PM

    They should play in San Jose; time for the league to tell the Giants to help the rest of the league!

  26. gpclaw says: Aug 1, 2014 11:11 PM

    Wouldn’t moving the Raiders back to LA be the most obvious answer?

  27. dabears2485 says: Aug 1, 2014 11:11 PM

    I think I’d really like to see the Raiders move to San Antonio. I don’t know why. The “San Antonio Raiders” has a nice ring to it.

  28. 4thqtrsaint says: Aug 1, 2014 11:12 PM

    I personally would hate to see them leave Oakland. They were there in the beginning. It just sounds right.
    That said, I can’t believe the NFL aren’t all over Mark Davis to help them push their agenda by trying to lock the Raiders into LA or London.

  29. rdrfan says: Aug 1, 2014 11:12 PM

    Pay back time.

  30. uglydingo says: Aug 1, 2014 11:15 PM

    Billionaire owners can afford to buy and build a new stadium. Kraft did it at Foxboro. Ross is spending over $350M of his own money in Miami upgrading his facilities. In contrast, the Raiders have the worst stadium, an owner who won’t spend a cent on it and threatening to move the team unless government provides a new stadium.
    Message to Mark Davis – taxpayers shouldn’t have to provide for you. Either share the 49ers new facility if you can’t afford to build something decent or please sell the team to an owner who is prepared to invest in the future.

  31. socatra says: Aug 1, 2014 11:15 PM

    Force a city that is facing huge financial problems to give subsidies to the NFL, aren’t they merciful?

  32. pantherpro says: Aug 1, 2014 11:22 PM

    What city would want the trash known as Raider Fan. I guess there are enough in every city to support the team with exception of Oaktown!

  33. taintedsaints2009 says: Aug 1, 2014 11:32 PM

    Gahhhhhhh Paul George!!!!

  34. texansdan says: Aug 1, 2014 11:36 PM

    San Antonio would welcome the Raiders with open arms, and be instant die-hard fans for life.

  35. thevikingslol says: Aug 1, 2014 11:38 PM

    That’s all well and good but GOD are the Vikings a pathetic franchise.

  36. augustjf says: Aug 1, 2014 11:49 PM

    As a Chiefs fan, I hope the Raiders get a new stadium in Oakland or upgrade the current one to be comparable to some of the league’s other stadiums. If, as a last resort they had to move, I would hope that it would be LA because at least that’s part of their history. To see them in San Antonio would be such a shame. The San Antonio Raiders…it just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

  37. hungbob says: Aug 1, 2014 11:51 PM

    It should be easy to get the votes, go around the league;
    San Diego should vote yes they need one also, badly.
    Niners might vote yes just to get them out of the Bay Area
    Seattle ?
    Minnesota should vote yes
    Chicago just got one themselves, should vote yes
    Cincinnati ?
    Buffalo yes, they need one in a few years and the Bills have historically voted with the Raiders
    New England ?
    New York (Jersey jets and gints) yes they are playing in a new one
    Wash ?
    Philly ?
    Miami yes recently new stadium
    Charlotte yes
    Atlanta yes, new stadium
    Saints yes , another team that really needs a new home turf
    Cowboys ? should vote yes, another recent new home
    KC ?
    Denver ? but leaning to yes if Bowlen was voting
    Phoenix ? but is that not a new stadium they are playing in so leaning yes
    Tennesee ?
    GB ?
    Jack ?
    Tampa ? 24
    Houston should vote yes
    Cleveland yes
    Rams they also want a new stadium should vote yes
    Steelers sounds like a yes to me
    Indy recent new stadium, reason why they got the SB, should be a yes
    Baltimore should be a yes, recently new digs
    Detroit ? should be a yes

    That is 21 votes in agreement.
    Overall given that the owners are all smart businessmen realizing that a good venue is vital to drawing fans, even though the stadium revenue is all gravy, every owner wants it.

  38. capn0bvious says: Aug 2, 2014 12:00 AM

    Move the team.. anywhere would be a step up.

  39. leo133074 says: Aug 2, 2014 12:07 AM

    Just win baby

  40. pbeddoe says: Aug 2, 2014 12:13 AM

    Black and Yellow standing up for the Silver and Black.

    Thank you Steelers, much respect from the Raider Nation!

  41. dirtydrew says: Aug 2, 2014 12:14 AM

    Seeing that no one has commented…no one cares…just like Oakland.

  42. babygaga19 says: Aug 2, 2014 12:16 AM

    You know it’s bad when a team that hates you, take pity om you.

  43. lunarpie says: Aug 2, 2014 12:24 AM

    Stay in Oakland and build another stadium. Why is this so complicated????!!!!!!

  44. nicofthenorthstar says: Aug 2, 2014 12:25 AM

    Well, California’s economy is in the dumper, so the taxpayers should probably pony up and build a stadium for the billionaires that own the NFL. Seems logical to me.

  45. campcouch says: Aug 2, 2014 12:50 AM

    I bet silver and black would do well in San Antonio, but the Raiders belong to Cali.

  46. herrcules13 says: Aug 2, 2014 12:51 AM

    He’s “showing interest in San Antonio” to either force a fix in Oakland or push a move BACK to LA. I prefer the latter. Makes more sense than trying to compete with America’s Team and/or that other team in the great state of Texas.

  47. toddsage1billsfan says: Aug 2, 2014 12:55 AM

    Football is the number one sport in America and NO team should have to share a stadium with a baseball team.

  48. p4hbiz says: Aug 2, 2014 1:09 AM

    The most storied franchise in the NFL and don’t have a real stadium. SMH

  49. therealbillybuffalo says: Aug 2, 2014 1:09 AM

    If the Raiders fielded a better team, they wouldn’t be in this situation.

  50. heeeeelzfan says: Aug 2, 2014 1:38 AM

    Simple solution: Move to Jacksonville after the Jags haul their jumbotrons to LA.

  51. squackduckhawk says: Aug 2, 2014 1:48 AM

    Huge Raider fanbase in Las Vegas…just putting it out there

  52. boogerhut says: Aug 2, 2014 2:37 AM

    Won’t matter where they play. Plenty of ghetto ganstas buy their gear no matter what. Hint: increase the range of the home arrest ankle monitors and they might sell out a game if it’s scheduled for the first of the month.

  53. cribbage12 says: Aug 2, 2014 3:40 AM

    I’m a Packer fan living in the Bay Area. It’s about time the Oakland community and politicians embrace this team and find a way to keep them here long term. You have to love what Reggie McKenzie is doing, but it’s about time the local politicians step up and embrace the Raiders, particularly since the NFL has made significant leaps and bound in popularity across the US. It’d be a shame if the Raiders were not welcomed by the city- let’s get it done Oakland!

  54. thefox61 says: Aug 2, 2014 3:48 AM

    Running water and flush toilets would be a nice start.

  55. joetoronto says: Aug 2, 2014 4:35 AM

    “Davis would still need to persuade 23 other owners to approve of a move. It’s unclear whether Davis could ever conjure the votes.”

    I can’t believe PFT keeps saying this, Al Davis proved that NFL approval isn’t needed when he moved the Raiders from Oakland to L.A.

  56. coachbeck says: Aug 2, 2014 4:37 AM

    They should move. Oakland is doing nothing to keep em. Same exact thing Cleveland did to the browns. To force modell to Baltimore .

  57. thisdamnbox says: Aug 2, 2014 4:52 AM

    I love it…Al ruins the stadium and Mark wants to leave it…

  58. dcapettini says: Aug 2, 2014 5:42 AM

    San Antonio is the seventh largest city in the US. By East Coast standards, it is not near any other team. The local business people have shown tremendous support to the Spurs. San Antonio over Oakland is a no-brainer.

  59. jgintx says: Aug 2, 2014 7:45 AM

    Living in Austin, I think it would be cool to have the Raiders in San Antonio. We are already fans of the silver and black with our Spurs.

    But there will have to be a personality transplant for the Spurs fans to mesh with the Raider fans. The Spurs and their fans are pretty much the opposite of the Black Hole Raiders. Would be fun to see which traditions make it and which ones get lost in the move.

    The State Championship for the NFL would also be a lot of fun.

  60. shoeflypie says: Aug 2, 2014 8:04 AM

    I have heard a number of folks say that the owners of the other two teams in Texas wouldn’t accept it because of the “proximity”. Wonder if those sages have actually been to Texas. I suspect you could just about fit the distances between the Landover team(can’t remember their name) and Baltimore, on to Philadelphia ending in New Jersey into the distance between Houston and San Antonio. “Proximity” is overvalued in most cases. Let them move.

    Too many easterners have no concept of the distances out west.

  61. queenlivekillers says: Aug 2, 2014 8:10 AM

    San Antonio has to know they will never get the Raiders. They are being used as a bargaining chip to force Oakland/Los Angeles/The League to knuckle under.

  62. ravensbob says: Aug 2, 2014 8:42 AM

    Move the raiders to Pittsburgh so that city can have an NFL team.

  63. campcouch says: Aug 2, 2014 8:52 AM

    Isn’t it stadiums that caused the Raiders to move to LA and then back to Oakland? I’m the last guy who wants any city to lose their franchise, but Raider Nation needs to get your forces together and fight, if not, you might get bitten a second time.

  64. leatherface2012 says: Aug 2, 2014 9:02 AM

    meanwhile, packer fans think the vikings are still moving to los angeles.

  65. raidadon says: Aug 2, 2014 9:29 AM

    The Raiders would transform SanAntonio. First off they gonna call em the S.A. RAIDERS! Esse!

  66. tomthebombtracy says: Aug 2, 2014 9:42 AM

    When Modell moved the Brownies to Baltimore, the owners voted 30-1 to allow the move.

    The only dissenting vote: Dan Rooney.

    The “Raaiiidrs” move only after every option to stay is exhausted. Oakland is already losing the Warriors to a new arena in San Fran. Won’t happen twice.

  67. ytownjoe says: Aug 2, 2014 9:46 AM

    Move the Raiders to London. They can play in Wembley or one of the smaller capacity stadiums if they cannot fill it.

    The Raiders calling Europe home will bring instant creditability to the NFL.

    And no problem selling tickets at prices unimaginable in the states. $1,000 a game for choice seats and $200 each for the nosebleed section. London has more high rollers and overpaid bankers than any city in the world.

    And like here, Murdoch’s media empire will promote the league.

  68. nflgreedleague says: Aug 2, 2014 9:54 AM

    “Rooney, who serves as Chairman of the NFL’s Stadium Committee”

    So the NFL has a “Committee” that strong arms politicians into voting in their interests.
    GANGSTERS

  69. El Pollo Loco says: Aug 2, 2014 10:00 AM

    How’s the gang situation in San Antonio?That will determine whether or not they’d get support there

  70. pastabelly says: Aug 2, 2014 10:28 AM

    Rooney helped keep the Patriots in greater Boston after it looked like Kraft would move them to Hartford, Connecticut. Come to think of it, Oakland is a bit like Hartford. Maybe the Raiders should move.

  71. harrisonhits2 says: Aug 2, 2014 10:35 AM

    No welfare for billionaires !!!

    Let him pay for his own stadium.

  72. araidersfan says: Aug 2, 2014 10:52 AM

    dalcow4 says: Aug 1, 2014 10:26 PM

    It’s nobody’s fault but the Raiders themselves.

    They moved back and forth at will and they’ve stunk for two decades. No city can trust them to a) not leave and b) put a good team on the field.

    And if you can’t trust them, why build them a billion dollar stadium?

    Once great—now truly one of the worst franchises in the history of American sport.

    ========

    It’s all about glass houses. When was the last time anyone could mention greatness and the Dallas Cowboys in the same sentence?

    While Jerry Jones never moved the Cowboys, he disgracefully fired one of the greatest HCs in history. And after a very short period of glory, the Cowboys have been mediocre for almost 20 years now.

    But the worst is yet to come for Dallas, because like Al towards the end, Jerry is getting more senile by the minute and very soon the Cowboys will transform from mediocre to wretched – just as the Raiders did in Al’s last years. And while I wished that Al had retired a long while back, at least he had a previous legacy of great accomplishments. But what good has Jerry done as Cowboys owner aside from riding on Jimmy Johnson’s initial accomplishments?

    The Cowboys will remain a laughing stock long after the Raiders return to prominence.

  73. SparkyGump says: Aug 2, 2014 11:12 AM

    San Antonio Outlaws

  74. kane337 says: Aug 2, 2014 11:36 AM

    Not sure why you people keep mentioning Los Angeles. There’s currently no stadium for them to move to there. Los Angeles has the same problem as Oakland. Neither wants to fund a ton of tax payer money for a new stadium.

  75. sportsfan18 says: Aug 2, 2014 11:40 AM

    JMClarkent says:
    Aug 1, 2014 10:17 PM
    I feel like the NFL/Mark Davis is taking crazy pills. They REALLY want a team in LA. Oakland REALLY wants a home, and I am sure high revenue.

    How does 1 + 1 = San Antonio?

    51 7
    Report comment

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    It doesn’t equal San Antonio.

    He’s using San Antonio as leverage and to “scare” L.A. and Oakland into thinking he has other options to try and get the best deal he can get.

  76. sportsfan18 says: Aug 2, 2014 11:57 AM

    dalcow4 says:
    Aug 1, 2014 10:26 PM
    It’s nobody’s fault but the Raiders themselves.

    They moved back and forth at will and they’ve stunk for two decades. No city can trust them to a) not leave and b) put a good team on the field.

    And if you can’t trust them, why build them a billion dollar stadium?

    Once great—now truly one of the worst franchises in the history of American sport.

    38 61
    Report comment

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    a lot of thumbs down…

    but the Raiders do have the worst record in the NFL over the past 10 seasons…

    the Lions made that hard to do considering they were 0 & 16 in 2008 and 2 & 14 in 2009 and that was after going 3 & 13 in 2006

    yet the Raiders still have fewer wins than the Lions over the past 10 seasons.

    Oh, the Raiders were LAST in attendance last season in the NFL too as well’

    NFL attendance rank

    2013 Raiders were last
    2012 Raiders were last
    2011 Raiders were 29th
    2010 Raiders were last
    2009 Raiders were last

    In 1991, “On September 11, Davis announced a new deal to stay in Los Angeles, leading many fans in Oakland to burn Raiders paraphernalia in disgust.[34][35]”

    If the team moves from Oakland again soon (within few yrs I mean), it will be their 3rd move within 30 something years.

    Not good when they move 3 times in 30 something years.

    Not good when they lose more than anyone in the past 10 yrs.

    Not good when they have the fewest fans show up.

    They have many things going for them in the contest for being the worst pro sports team.

  77. raiderbeat says: Aug 2, 2014 12:16 PM

    I hate to be original in any way but the more obvious move is to COTA. Which is part owned by, Red McCombs, and sits in-between Austin and San Antonio. It would draw from two of the largest cities in the US without a team, it was built to hold such venues and the team could play at UT until the new stadium was completed. San Antonio blows, but Austin is a great city and the one roadblock is Jerry Jones having a sh!t fit that the Raiders would be taking the attention off of his star. Those of you blowing smoke over the worst pro sports team… need to go look at what the Clippers just sold for, $2 billion for the JV NBA team in Los Angeles without a stadium. Clue in and stop acting like anything but TV revenue really matters.

  78. dallascowboysdishingthereal says: Aug 2, 2014 12:17 PM

    I remember the Cowboys played a preseason game with the Raiders on that baseball field a year ago and it was just awful. A risk for the football players in some spots of the field.

    For at least the preseason games seems they could play on a College football field in the area.

  79. seadawgs72 says: Aug 2, 2014 12:17 PM

    They should stay on the west coast & check out Portland. Atty one time it was the largest AMERICAN city without am NFL franchise (population wise that is). All those Seahawk fan haters could have another team in the northwest to hate & most Oregon hawk fans would probably change allegiances overnight.

  80. theageofquarrel says: Aug 2, 2014 12:28 PM

    partmachine says:
    Aug 1, 2014 10:55 PM
    Modell > Rooney.

    Yeah,the Steelers never had to move.
    And you don’t see anyone urinating on the Chiefs grave,so there’s that.

  81. dejadoh says: Aug 2, 2014 12:28 PM

    Football stadiums in high cost real estate markets make no sense. They are a net loser. Look at the Giants and Jets. Do NFL teams get any cheaper than those two? They share because the cost of a square foot would bankrupt the teams. And municipalities have figured out how better to use the land they own (and it’s not about building a billion dollar stadium used 15 times a year). The two billionaire chumps in LA are not going to take the team from Davis. Davis should buy out Roskie and build that stadium in Industry (Grand Crossing), and move the Raiders there. It’s 10 times better than the AEG deal in downtown LA as you skip the LA City politics.

  82. pancaketaco says: Aug 2, 2014 12:32 PM

    Convince the politicians equals, screw the tax payers. This is how you fix the stadium issue…The NFL sets aside 1 billion dollars a year to build 1 stadium a year, ever team would have a new stadium every 32 years and the league obviously would own each of them after the first rotation. Owners would have the option to pass and PRIVATELY finance them selves NO tax increases, bonds, no public financing period. Or if the price tag was more they can kick in and own what ever percentage to invest.

    Just a thought but as a fan and taxpayer I’ll never vote YES to a stadium EVER!!!

  83. dididothat4 says: Aug 2, 2014 12:41 PM

    The best chance of the Raiders negotiating a new stadium in Oakland is getting jean quan out of the equation and hiring Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson to get the deal done. Or just move the Raiders to Sacramento

  84. Deb says: Aug 2, 2014 12:54 PM

    To be clear, I don’t want to see the Raiders leave Oakland. The franchise has great fans and tradition in its home city. But it makes more sense for Texas to have a third team in San Antonio than for Florida to have a third team in Jacksonville. Putting the Jaguars franchise in North Florida still stands as one of the sillier mistakes the league has made. However, it would be somewhat absurd to move the Raiders to San Antonio when a stadium is ready and waiting in LA. Ultimately, though, I hope the Raiders can work out their issues with Oakland.

  85. NoHomeTeam says: Aug 2, 2014 1:45 PM

    hungbob says: Aug 1, 2014 11:51 PM

    It should be easy to get the votes, go around the league;

  86. radrntn says: Aug 2, 2014 1:53 PM

    trying to make something out of nothing eh……sewage problem…thats funny…..yes when visiting teams flush a bunch of towels down the toilets the sewage backs up in the visiting team locker room…..i guess if the home team did the same idiotic thing the sewage would back up in their locker room as well.

    I also get a kick out of the oldest stadium….i believe the Mt Davis half was just built in 1995….less than 20 years ago, but how many NFL teams play in stadiums built since 1995…so why not just blow up the old half, and make it half as high, and we can call it Mt. Davis JR.

  87. huck222 says: Aug 2, 2014 1:54 PM

    The Raiders will be in LA next year! The NFL will make sure of it and a deal for a new stadium will get done for either the site off the 60 free way or down town LA! Guarantee!

  88. rocoop says: Aug 2, 2014 2:00 PM

    Raiders should just move to the Oracle Arena..They don’t draw any more fans than the Warriors do…CHOO CHOO

  89. slick50ks says: Aug 2, 2014 2:31 PM

    Nothing will happen on a new stadium front until the team is sold to competent ownership.

    This league is done dealing with the worst ownership group in professional sports. They’re above these people.

  90. dbara43 says: Aug 2, 2014 2:47 PM

    Raiders to San Antonio

    Chargers to LA

    Rams to LA

    Jags to St. Louis

  91. steelcurtainn says: Aug 2, 2014 3:42 PM

    Sewage and the Raiders. Fits far to well.

  92. NoHomeTeam says: Aug 2, 2014 3:43 PM

    Not sure what happened up there with my first post, so I’ll try again. My apologies in advance for the length of this post.

    hungbob says: It should be easy to get the votes, go around the league;

    Hungbob waaay up there raises an interesting aspect of this discussion. Kudos for attempting a team-by-team breakdown. That said, I think he may have missed the mark in his reasoning with more than a few teams. Bear in mind that the “vote” in question is not whether or not the Raiders should have a new stadium; it’s to determine whether or not they should be allowed to move with the blessing of the NFL.

    San Diego should vote yes they need one also, badly.

    I could see the Chargers voting to allow the Raiders to move to San Antonio. It would take them out of the running for the Los Angeles market, which the Spanos family thinks they are entitled to. If the move is to L.A. – not a chance. 1 “Yay” vote. Conditionally.

    Niners might vote yes just to get them out of the Bay Area

    There might just be something to this. I don’t know how well the fanbase would transfer, but there is something to be said for being the only game in town. 1 “Yay” vote

    • Minnesota should vote yes. • Chicago just got one themselves, should vote yes. • New York (Jersey jets and gints) yes they are playing in a new one. • Cowboys ? should vote yes, another recent new home. • Indy recent new stadium, reason why they got the SB, should be a yes. • Phoenix ? but is that not a new stadium they are playing in so leaning yes

    I can’t agree with this line of thinking. The fact that each of these teams managed to get a new stadium in their existing markets would, I think, make them more likely to oppose allowing the Raiders to move (“Well, we got it done, why can’t Davis Jr.?”). Jerrah might be inclined to vote yes if the move was to L.A., as he’s publicly on record as saying the League needs a team here, but San Antonio would be a no-vote for multiple reasons. I’d say that this would be 6 likely “Nays,” with a 7th conditional one.

    Buffalo yes, they need one in a few years and the Bills have historically voted with the Raiders

    I don’t know that you can’t count on what the Bills have done “historically.” There will in all likelihood be new ownership by the time a move would come before the League. If that ownership harbors designs on eventually moving the team, then I could see a yes vote. If they intend to keep the team in Buffalo, I think a no vote would make more sense. Call this one up in the air.

    Miami yes recently new stadium

    Except they don’t have a new stadium. What they’ve got is an old stadium with some upcoming renovations, which are being paid for by the team because the city refused to pony up. If Steven Ross didn’t play the relocation card, I can’t see him voting to let some other owner do it. 1 “Nay”

    Rams they also want a new stadium should vote yes

    Again, I think this is really conditional. If San Antonio is the declared destination, then I could see the Rams voting yes; it would provide an additional sense of urgency for St. Louis. If the declared destination is L.A., then I think they might be inclined toward a no vote, as it preserves the market for a potential move of their own. Call it 1 conditional “Yay”

    Atlanta yes, new stadium

    I’m assuming this means that the Falcons want a new stadium, and thus would be inclined to vote yes because it intensifies the “build or we’ll move” threat the League loves so much. 1 “Yay” vote.

    Houston should vote yes

    I can’t think of a reason the Texans would do so. A move to L.A. wouldn’t affect them, and a move to San Antonio would affect them negatively. 1 “Nay”

    Denver ? but leaning to yes if Bowlen was voting

    But he won’t be voting, will he? I could still see a yes vote, however, if for no other reason than reduced travel times for Division games. 1 “Yay”

    Saints yes, another team that really needs a new home turf

    After the whole Katrina-San Antonio-Come-to-Jesus moment, I just can’t see the Bensons voting to let some other team leave their market. 1 “Nay”

    Baltimore should be a yes, recently new digs

    I don’t think that stadium is really “new” digs anymore. More to the point, there are some marketing issues to be considered. Given the history of the team, how does Bisciotti vote to deny permission to move? How does he vote yes? 1 Abstention.

    KC?

    I could see a yes vote here. See Denver, above. 1 “Yay”

    Steelers sounds like a yes to me

    I didn’t get that impression from the article. The Rooneys have always steeped themselves in concepts like “Tradition” and “Loyalty,” neither of which is exactly synonymous with “back up the Mayflower.” I’m thinking that this is more likely another Abstention.

    New England?

    Kraft is on record as saying that the League needs a team in L.A. If that’s the destination, then the Patriots would be on board. If it’s San Antonio? Maybe? Call this one a conditional “Yay” vote

    Charlotte yes • Detroit ? should be a yes

    I don’t really see why these would be yes votes. I would have to put these into the “Could go either way” category, along with Seattle, Cincinnati, Washington, Philadelphia, Tennessee, Jacksonville, and both Bays. That’s 10 open votes.

    Cleveland yes

    I can’t see any conceivable way that franchise based in Cleveland would vote to allow a team to relocate. This is an absolute, no-brainer “Nay.”

    So let’s tally it up. If San Antonio is the destination, we’re looking at:
    7 probable “Yay” votes
    11 probable “Nay” votes
    11 “Open” votes
    2 Abstentions

    If L.A. is the destination, we’re looking at:
    6 probable “Yay” votes
    12 probable “Nay” votes
    11 “Open” votes
    2 Abstentions

    Either way, even if all the teams that wouldn’t seem to have a leaning throw in with Davis Jr., it looks like he would have to persuade the likely abstainers and 2 or 3 of the owners who would be inclined to vote “no” to change their minds. That’s a tall order.

  93. rocoop says: Aug 2, 2014 4:07 PM

    The only people that care about this issue are the 6000 die-hard Raider fans that shell out the coin to watch this crap franchise…Oh yeah, and the massive tarps that cover the entire upper deck of the stadium at home games..DUMPSTER FIRE FRANCHISE

  94. mailcall2 says: Aug 2, 2014 4:14 PM

    was just wondering if Trump wins the bid for the Bills, will there be room in the League for both those hair-do’s…

  95. alonestartexan says: Aug 2, 2014 4:16 PM

    San Antonio would be a good city.

    The NFL will NOT allow the Raiders to move back to Los Angeles, it would turn into a PR nightmare as there would be beatings and stabbings at games once again.

    The Raiders move to Texas would clean up their image, besides LA will get the Rams. Stan Kroenke already bought the land at Hollywood Park.

  96. mullman76 says: Aug 2, 2014 4:41 PM

    The Rooneys, Maras, most of the owners and league have always had it in for the Raiders.
    They will continue to make things difficult for the Raiders until the Davis family sells.
    It’s the way it is and the way it always will be.

    Go RAIDERS

  97. r8rmann77 says: Aug 2, 2014 5:02 PM

    A move to London would be moronic. It is a logistical nightmare, having to travel a minimum of 6 hours by air to play any road games, jet lag sets in, it makes for a disaster for any team located in another continent. as far as keeping the name Raiders tied to only an Oakland team, well if the league does eventually expand it will not be in Oakland. I would love to see the team stay in Oakland and I am not from Oakland, but if the team is in LA, Portland, Vegas or San Antonio I will always be a lover of the Raiders and only the Raiders. If the NFL looses the Raider legacy and name I will no longer support the NFL. I don’t understand why the NFL is sitting on their ass at this point anyway. The league is not supporting helping a stadium build, they are not supporting a move to LA nor are they supporting a move anywhere else for that matter. Any other franchise in the league they would be going out of their way to get something done somewhere. I think Davis need to file a lawsuit just like his father and get real leverage to move to Vegas.

  98. slippery1 says: Aug 2, 2014 5:33 PM

    A little history here……every NFL team that has ever been in LA has left, and basically for one reason…..LA does not support NFL football. And what’s sad about it is that the NFL wants a team, maybe two, in LA and no one wants to relocate there. Davis doesn’t want to go back to LA, he wants to stay in Oakland and if that can’t be worked out…..next stop San Antonio.

  99. raiderfan77 says: Aug 2, 2014 5:56 PM

    The city management of Oakland perceives the A’s as a priority over the Raiders, (81+ games vs. 10) The problem is the A’s ownership has no interest in staying in Oakland long-term but has the ability to affect a delay in the Raiders’ plans short-term so that is exactly what is taking place. Commissioner Goodell must now decide if he is Ok with MLB teams dictating when, where, and on what surface his NFL franchises will play.

  100. crownofthehelmet says: Aug 2, 2014 6:07 PM

    Every raider fan breathed a huge sigh of relief when they read the ambassador of the Royal Family of the NFL was helping.

  101. nclrbrt says: Aug 2, 2014 7:07 PM

    squashstroup says:
    Aug 1, 2014 10:40 PM
    There is a brand new stadium in Santa Clara.
    I’m just saying they really don’t have to go anywhere.
    If the Jets and Giants can share why not the 49ers and Raiders.
    ———————————————————–
    The Niners don’t want the Raiders coming in and stinking up their field.

  102. theravenlives2 says: Aug 2, 2014 7:42 PM

    When Modell moved the Brownies to Baltimore, the owners voted 30-1 to allow the move.

    The only dissenting vote: Dan Rooney.

    The “Raaiiidrs” move only after every option to stay is exhausted. Oakland is already losing the Warriors to a new arena in San Fran. Won’t happen twice.
    ===================================

    Wrong: The only dissenting vote was Ralph Wilson. Check your “facts”…

  103. raiderapologist says: Aug 2, 2014 9:44 PM

    slick50ks says: Aug 2, 2014 2:31 PM

    Nothing will happen on a new stadium front until the team is sold to competent ownership.

    This league is done dealing with the worst ownership group in professional sports. They’re above these people.
    ————–
    Meanwhile, the Hunts amassed their vast wealth on the principle of philanthropy.

  104. zedanski says: Aug 3, 2014 9:10 AM

    The San Antonio DREAMers, yet another Obama era fail.

  105. vpettibone57 says: Aug 3, 2014 4:33 PM

    why cant the Raider Organization raise the money for a new stadium privately. like the SF Giants did. then get a politician on their side to lobby for them with the city. wont come out of taxpayers pocket. that may work better. …the Oakland A’s should do that also raise the funds privately.

    as to San Antonio location omg no no. and no to LA also. just keep it in the bay area but maybe move to santa rosa.

  106. dididothat4 says: Aug 4, 2014 12:03 PM

    The NFL is a multi billion dollar entity. Mark Davis is throwing in 400 million for a new stadium. The third largest real estate investment company is allegedly on board. Let’s do seventh grade math…
    NFL + MLB +MARK DAVIS+ LEW WOLF+THIRD LARGEST REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY – ALAMEDA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF OAKLAND = NEW STADIUMS FOR RAIDERS AND A’s
    How did Kevin Johnson get Sacramento a new arena for the Kings without housing the taxpayer?

  107. jjackwagon says: Aug 5, 2014 2:53 PM

    …he should move to San Antonio or anywhere that gives him and the team what it needs to compete…

    Moving the team won’t do anything concerning their ability to compete. Better drafting will.

  108. daneeghen says: Aug 10, 2014 5:56 PM

    slippery1: LA strongly supported the Rams for decades until they moved to Anaheim. Even then they had strong support until fans stayed away to protest Georgia Frontiere and John Shaw’s bad managing of the team. The Rams were embraced in LA when the NFL was struggling nationally.

  109. daneeghen says: Aug 10, 2014 6:01 PM

    dejadoh: Mark Davis cannot buy out Roskie. Comparatively speaking, Davis is the least wealthy owner in the NFL.

  110. daneeghen says: Aug 10, 2014 6:09 PM

    uglydingo: Mark Davis is not a billionaire. And he has made it clear that he is willing to spend all the money he has to help finance a new Oakland stadium. The city government ignores him.

Leave a Reply

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