Skip to content

Charles Woodson: It would be “devastating” for Oakland if Raiders left again


Charles Woodson has had two stints with the Raiders during his career, which means he’s spent a lot of time in Oakland over the years.

That’s left him with a strong opinion of what the team means to the city. He shared that opinion on Sunday when asked about Raiders owner Mark Davis’ impasse with city officials about a new stadium and his flirtations with other possible hometowns for the Raiders, who, of course, played in Los Angeles for many years before returning to Oakland in 1995. Woodson doesn’t think a choice to leave the city would go down any easier the second time around.

“I think it’d be devastating,” Woodson said, via “It’s happened once before and a lot of people are still bitter about that, and I think it would be doubling down on that bitterness if they were to leave again. I think it’d be tough for the City of Oakland.”

It doesn’t take Woodson’s long history in the city to know that a Raiders departure from Oakland would be crushing for their local fans, but the economics of the NFL don’t have much of a place for them as long as there is another town and other fans willing to welcome the Raiders with open arms.

Permalink 33 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill
33 Responses to “Charles Woodson: It would be “devastating” for Oakland if Raiders left again”
  1. ctiggs says: Aug 18, 2014 7:58 AM

    It was devastating, when you left Ohio for a terrible state called Michigan. #Gobuckeyes #Nobodyhasitbetter

  2. madmax80 says: Aug 18, 2014 8:06 AM

    I agree. The streets of Oakland would turn violent. Gun shots would ring out, possibly with stray bullets hitting innocent people and children.

    That’s not the Oakland I know!!

  3. hodag54501 says: Aug 18, 2014 8:07 AM

    I’ve never quite understood the L.A. thing with the NFL. Can you imagine no NFL franchise in New York?
    In a market the size of Los Angeles, by accident you should be able to fill a large stadium. No problem for USC and UCLA. Yet the NFL and other franchises treat LA like it has some kind of disease. When the Rams were there, especially in the ’60’s, they had great fan support.
    I think Davis would be foolish to stay in Oakland if the citizens there can’t find it to get a new stadium.

    By the way, Woodson is one of my all-time favorite players from his time with the Packers. He was a pro’s pro, and saw the game with maturity and played it with great skill.

  4. floratiotime says: Aug 18, 2014 8:08 AM

    Yeah. That paradise that is the city of Oakland would really suffer if the football team moved.

  5. Grulks says: Aug 18, 2014 8:18 AM

    I really dont know why there is any talk of teams moving to LA. LA had two NFL teams, and BOTH walked out because the city was unwilling to work with the teams in regards to financing a new stadium. Additionally, both teams had huge problems with constant blackouts since the populace wasnt supporting them.

    What has changed since then? Why all of a sudden, is there something to make anyone believe that things will be different?

  6. donchscks says: Aug 18, 2014 8:19 AM

    you have to find a way to stay Mark.

    Dopey politicians and a useless commissioner aside, you have to stay. It’s our history, our legacy. Dominate the situation. Think for them and keep home, home.

  7. 700levelvet says: Aug 18, 2014 8:30 AM

    NFL owners talk out of both sides of their mouth’s….They carry on about the community, the fan base and what have you. Bottom line is they are businessmen, they could care less about anything but money. The only thing devastating to them is a drop in income. No different than tobacco and big oil companies.

  8. SparkyGump says: Aug 18, 2014 8:38 AM

    Unfortunately, their stadium is dump and the city can’t afford to buy them a new one and there’s way too much money on the table elsewhere.

  9. araidersfan says: Aug 18, 2014 8:40 AM

    I’d also hate to see them leave Oakland again. The Raider mystique was built in Oakland (16 consecutive winning seasons from 1965 to 1980) and even during the last horrible decade the attendance has mostly been at least 80% of capacity. If/when the Raiders start winning again, I think the city would go wild.

    However, if they can’t come up with a deal with the city of Oakland then they’d have no choice but to relocate. If that’s the case, then I think the best location would be Sacramento which isn’t too far away.

    I’d have to say that anywhere else (e.g. Portland, San Antonio) would be better than going back to Los Angeles. The Raiders went Hollywood and lost their edge when they played there. Yeah there’s a base of maybe 35,000 loyal Raider fans in L.A. but when the team stopped being dominant in the mid-80s, they often played to crowds of barely over 50% of stadium capacity. It’s no coincidence that no other NFL team (including the expansion teams) have chose that city as their home.

  10. virusgvr says: Aug 18, 2014 8:42 AM

    I think the NFL takes the safety aspect very seriously, and I think I would want to leave too if I had a place like Coke-land in my back yard of the stadium too.

  11. thealzadorule says: Aug 18, 2014 8:51 AM

    I hope the Raiders can stay in Oakland, but they better not leave California

  12. tooz72 says: Aug 18, 2014 9:09 AM

    Vermont needs an nfl team

  13. abninf says: Aug 18, 2014 9:20 AM

    The team had to reduce the stadium capacity by 10,000, making it the smallest in the NFL just to avoid blackouts.

  14. silverhairedfox says: Aug 18, 2014 9:20 AM

    LA is full of people from somewhere else. They are at best fair weather fans. San Antonio is a crap shoot too. I’m thinking the best place would be New Mexico, but nobody’s talking about that.

  15. humb0lt says: Aug 18, 2014 9:29 AM

    Story in the U-T San Diego says LA region does not want the Raiders to return.

    “Pasadena doesn’t want any part of L.A. Raiders fans hanging around the Rose Bowl. USC now controls the Coliseum and can deny a lease to anyone. Popular thinking is that the Trojans don’t want the Raiders in their house, either.”

  16. harrisonhits2 says: Aug 18, 2014 9:51 AM

    No welfare for billionaires!!!!!!!

    Let them pay for their own stadiums

  17. 44mpo says: Aug 18, 2014 10:22 AM

    I’m a huge Raiders fan and would love them to stay in Oakland. But I really don’t understand the idea of Cities (public money) being used to build stadiums for professional sports teams. With all of the money generated by the NFL and even the Raiders, this really should be a non issue. I understand as a business, Davis is trying to do everything he can to improve his bottom line, and this is a tactic used by pro sports teams in every venue, to get public money to build their stadiums. But it’s wrong. Cities should stick to what they are supposed to be doing, Police, Fire, and streets. And the Raiders should focus on putting a decent product on the field that folks would support.

  18. scoochpooch says: Aug 18, 2014 10:30 AM

    You don’t just move a team to a big market (LA), if the residents aren’t interested in the product (NFL). That’s just bad business.

  19. mackcarrington says: Aug 18, 2014 10:41 AM

    Look. The United States is operating at trillions of dollars in debt. Why can’t the City of Oakland spend 1 billion dollars that they don’t have, to build a stadium to keep their team?

  20. billsfan1 says: Aug 18, 2014 10:52 AM

    As a Bills fan, I say this from the bottom of my heart, don’t leave Oakland. Admittedly I do not know of the specifics of Oakland and their passion but going through what Buffalo is going through, leave them there.

    If the NFL wants a team in LA start up a franchise…

  21. El Pollo Loco says: Aug 18, 2014 10:59 AM

    Yes because the fans in Oakland are dying to watch them lose again and all.

  22. thereisfootballwestofjersey says: Aug 18, 2014 10:59 AM

    If hurts bad having your childhood NFL team ripped out of your heart by a “relocation”. The owners who do this don’t know what that feels like. It’s brutal. The ESPN 30 for 30 documentary “The Band that Wouldn’t Die” perfectly encapsulates the scenario by telling the story of the Baltimore Colts Marching Band. It’s really, really good.

    When Al Davis moved the Raiders to LA in 1982, it crushed the East Bay

  23. idpfantasyfootball says: Aug 18, 2014 11:10 AM

    As long as Al Davis is interred in Oakland, the Raiders should stay.

    If they move, they should take Al and his tomb with them!

  24. dalcow4 says: Aug 18, 2014 11:21 AM

    Worst franchise in professional sports. They play in an overflowing toilet of a stadium and one of the worst cities in the country doesn’t want them.

  25. dasmol says: Aug 18, 2014 12:55 PM

    The fairweather fans of Oakland brought it upon themselves. Tarps don’t lie.

  26. 1nationraidernation says: Aug 18, 2014 12:59 PM

    well I would have to compare it to this. The first time in Oakland was like a fairy tale marriage.As a child I use to love going to those games…it was all good, until it came down to money issues….so they separated for a bit. During that separation they lost some of those belongings who jumped shipped. Then they reconciled and reunited. Most who jumped never came back, and because the marriage was never as good as the first one, they have not attracted to many new fans. My kids don’t want to go because as they say, “they never win”

    Once again money is the issue……If they can not work it out , it will end in divorce……..and for me I know it would hurt, just not sure if I would jump ship, but I would for sure dump the tickets, and save on airfare.

    Really winning cures all….Al was right “Just Win Baby!”

  27. feadshipman says: Aug 18, 2014 4:05 PM

    There is plenty of open spaces in Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, Concord, all along the 680 corridor, why can’t they put up a new stadium there? It doesn’t have to be in Oakland, Gillete Stadium is not in Boston, the Jets and the Giants both play in New Jersey so why not put the new stadium somewhere in the East bay along the 680? And those towns have a lot more money than cash strapped Oakland.

  28. bubbybrisket says: Aug 18, 2014 4:42 PM

    Oakland is a dump

  29. aldavis4president says: Aug 18, 2014 8:32 PM

    The Raiders just arnt the same if they’re not in Oakland. everything about LA is soft,.weak, and everything the Raiders don’t represent.

  30. 5to46hawkfan says: Aug 18, 2014 9:17 PM

    They’re going to San Antonio – maybe the spurs can teach them how to win!!!

  31. radrntn says: Aug 18, 2014 10:04 PM

    feadshipman says:
    Aug 18, 2014 4:05 PM
    There is plenty of open spaces in Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, Concord, all along the 680 corridor, why can’t they put up a new stadium there?
    – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – –
    I agree….Mark Davis article from 2012 in the Oakland Tribune..” A future that Davis insists he’d like to preserve in Oakland, where the team has operated, with mixed results, since 1995. His personal second choice also is in the Bay Area, the Camp Parks site in Dublin.

    “Oakland is my preference, though,” he said. “I see us as an urban team, being in a city. I want it to work here. I’d like to stay here.”

    So what has happened to the Camp Parks site???? I still think this is the best location , bar none.

  32. babygaga19 says: Aug 19, 2014 3:54 AM

    ? The Raiders have been soft and weak for years.

  33. jjackwagon says: Aug 20, 2014 4:15 PM

    House of Cards

Leave a Reply

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