Skip to content

Report: Raiders close in on stadium deal in Oakland

Raiders Getty Images

So much for San Antonio and Los Angeles.  The Raiders could be on the verge of striking a deal to stay put in Oakland.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the team and the city have reached a tentative agreement on the construction of a new home for the Silver and Black.

“I expect it to be executed soon,” attorney Zach Wassrman said.  Wasserman represents the developers of Coliseum City, a sports, housing and retail complex that would be constructed near the new venue.

The Chronicle characterizes Raiders owner Mark Davis as having final say over whether the arrangement will proceed.

The stadium would be built with funds generated by the Coliseum City project, resulting in a reduced (and possibly non-existent) financial obligation for taxpayers.  However, the public would be on the hook for the $120 million still owed as a result of the O.Co Coliseum expansion that brought the Raiders back to town more than a generation ago.

So where does the $120 million come from?

“That’s a great question that we will probably not say anything about,” a spokesman for Oakland mayor Jean Quan told the Chronicle.

Land also would be transferred from the city at no charge, but the new stadium — expected to cost between $900 million and $1.2 billion — would be paid for separately.

It’s unclear how this arrangement would affect the A’s, who recently signed a 10-year lease to play at a place that will be blown up, sir if/when the deal goes through.

So this one is far from being resolved.  But at least it shows that progress has been made to keep the Raiders from leaving town, again.

Permalink 85 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
85 Responses to “Report: Raiders close in on stadium deal in Oakland”
  1. harrisonhits2 says: Sep 3, 2014 10:11 AM

    No welfare for billionaires.

  2. bonnovi says: Sep 3, 2014 10:11 AM

    Next man up on the move to Los Angeles…

  3. echech88 says: Sep 3, 2014 10:13 AM

    If this process has shown anything it is that it is not done until it’s done. This will just re-ignite the A’s side of the drama and stall everything for everyone again.

  4. andrejohnsonforpresident says: Sep 3, 2014 10:14 AM

    Thank god. The NFL is by far the highest grossing sport in this country and competes with the rest of the world and soccer. The fact that ANY team is still sharing a stadium with a baseball team is laughable. Thought you guys were suppose to spread the wealth? Yet we have to see the infield at Raiders game year in and year out. ABOUT TIME!

  5. catfanatic1979v1 says: Sep 3, 2014 10:17 AM

    I would leave Oakland if another city was willing to build a stadium. The city is embarrassing. It is run down and crime riddled. Its reputation is awful inside and outside of the state. Beyond that, I am sure there are states with better tax structures for both businesses and individuals that have cities that look cleaner and have less of a crime problem.

  6. isaidjoemontegna says: Sep 3, 2014 10:17 AM

    And the best thing is, it has a sky bridge leading directly from the local prison.

  7. raiderssf says: Sep 3, 2014 10:19 AM

    As a current and a potential new season ticket holder this makes me happy. Let’s get this done! Potential stable starting QB, and a potential new stadium, it would be nice.

  8. elwaysteeth says: Sep 3, 2014 10:20 AM

    This is the way it should be. The Raiders belong in Oakland.

  9. bender4700 says: Sep 3, 2014 10:20 AM

    Wait, an NFL team NOT making the city pay for THEIR venue?!

    WHAT!

    WHAT!

    Oh wait. That’s what SHOULD happen. Oh man. Crazy.

  10. gojags says: Sep 3, 2014 10:21 AM

    So no more sewage leaks? Any conditions added to the new terms

  11. hanspard says: Sep 3, 2014 10:21 AM

    Make sure the sewage system works, eh?

  12. billswillnevermove says: Sep 3, 2014 10:22 AM

    They could play in that dump in Toronto called Rodgers Centre.

  13. usdiveteam says: Sep 3, 2014 10:23 AM

    I was really hoping they would go to SA!

  14. straydogg7571 says: Sep 3, 2014 10:23 AM

    Good! I am all for the raiders to move back to LA for selfish reasons (shorter drive) but they belong in Oakland!

  15. raiderrob21 says: Sep 3, 2014 10:24 AM

    RAIDER NATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  16. fordmandalay says: Sep 3, 2014 10:26 AM

    So free land and $120 million that the mayor refuses to explain where it will come from? More welfare for billionaires and sucking resources from a poor city that needs all the help it can get. I’m sure they’ll probably take the money from repairing infrastructure and education – who needs that crap when there’s a football team to pay for?

  17. espy70 says: Sep 3, 2014 10:26 AM

    Zero chance it gets done, Z E R O

  18. uncletuna says: Sep 3, 2014 10:30 AM

    I’d rather see them move to Los Angeles…

  19. sportsfan18 says: Sep 3, 2014 10:31 AM

    But, but, but… us looking at San Antonio was REAL and not just to spur things along in Oakland…

    Oh, since we’ve been last in the NFL in attendance in 4 out of the 5 last seasons, our new stadium will only seat 50,000…

    Don’t want it to look so empty on TV… and the sun is so darned hard on the tarps we’d have to use on the empty seats…

    $1.2 billion? yeah, gotta say a low number to con folks into moving forward with the project… we’ll sail above that long before completion…

  20. pats3rings says: Sep 3, 2014 10:32 AM

    Raiders belong in Oakland and the Rams need to go back to LA.

  21. coachbeck says: Sep 3, 2014 10:32 AM

    Why raiders….. Why stay in Oakland …..

    There is a few teams that is really pointless to be where they are ….. Raiders being one of them.

  22. weepingjebus says: Sep 3, 2014 10:35 AM

    According to the blueprints, the new stadium will share a field with cricket and steeplechase teams.

  23. nowillrepeat says: Sep 3, 2014 10:39 AM

    Congrats Oakland

  24. gregw2011 says: Sep 3, 2014 10:40 AM

    why can’t they just move in with 49ers?

  25. kgun80 says: Sep 3, 2014 10:41 AM

    Keep the Raiders in Oakland! They have a loyal fan base they deserve to keep their team.

  26. nyyjetsknicks says: Sep 3, 2014 10:41 AM

    Which “group of individuals who may conduct illegal activities” will be sponsoring the stadium?

  27. beattention says: Sep 3, 2014 10:42 AM

    Darn, I was wanting them to go to London or Baghdad.

  28. r8dernation says: Sep 3, 2014 10:44 AM

    Will this be dubbed the house that Carr built?

  29. jwbraiderdan says: Sep 3, 2014 10:46 AM

    It’s time to get out of Oakland!

  30. araidersfan says: Sep 3, 2014 10:46 AM

    Excellent news IF this results in a finalized deal. The vast majority of the Raiders’ glory period was in Oakland and that’s where they built the Silver & Black mystique (16 straight winning seasons from 1965 to 1980). Al Davis’ biggest mistake was moving the team out of Oakland in the first place.

    And I hope that this cancels any notion of them going back to Los Angeles. The Raiders became a Hollywood/glitter team in that city and lost their blue-collar edge (yet to be recaptured on a long-term basis). And when they stopped being dominant after 1985, the L.A. Coliseum was typically half-empty. There’s a very valid reason why no other NFL team has chosen to locate there over the last 20 years.

  31. El Pollo Loco says: Sep 3, 2014 10:50 AM

    Another boneheaded move by Mark Davis.The revenue they could of generated by moving to LA would triple what he would make in Oakland.The Raiders once again look like fools and will still remain an afterthought in the Bay Area.

  32. dickshotdogs says: Sep 3, 2014 10:53 AM

    Nice “Stripes” reference. Great movie!

  33. jjackwagon says: Sep 3, 2014 10:55 AM

    Will the new stadium filter the sewage before it drains onto the field?

  34. Getoffmylawn! says: Sep 3, 2014 10:55 AM

    Please build this new stadium above sea level! Just a thought so they can play in dry shoes.
    Now the Chargers can move to LA and share the new stadium with the Rans.
    Win-Win!!!

  35. oakfolk says: Sep 3, 2014 10:56 AM

    With today’s technologies, is it not cheaper to just renovate the existing stadium with modern accommodations?

  36. 3yardsndust says: Sep 3, 2014 10:58 AM

    Oakland is a pit. They should’ve tried San Antonio.

  37. bert1913 says: Sep 3, 2014 11:06 AM

    OAKLAND Raiders
    SANTA CLARA 49ers

  38. dtr3e says: Sep 3, 2014 11:06 AM

    $120mil and they won’t tell us where it’s coming from? I don’t know…. sounds kinda sketchy…
    Just another case of Politicians being the biggest crooks

  39. rocoop says: Sep 3, 2014 11:11 AM

    How does a 2,700 seat stadium cost 1 billion??

    CHOO CHOO

  40. Grinds My Gear says: Sep 3, 2014 11:12 AM

    I think $120m is a small price to pay. The Bay Area is so gentrified right now and Oakland’s level of development is so far behind. The state has so much in coming money, the city needs to do something to draw investors.

    Oakland needs to show that they are interested in developing. Lets face it, stop listening to the people that don’t contribute to the city. You want lower crime rate? Let the city gentrify.

  41. The Steelers are embarking on The March®. The league trembles. Goodell and his goons will stop at nothing to halt our 7th and final Super Bowl victory. They will fail. SFL 2015 is God's will. We must restore the game we invented. March® with us. #7 says: Sep 3, 2014 11:13 AM

    Not going to happen.

  42. kane337 says: Sep 3, 2014 11:14 AM

    They would be better off moving to Portland

  43. radioactivechimp says: Sep 3, 2014 11:16 AM

    Great News!
    The Raiders belong in Oakland as the Bills belong in Buffalo.

  44. jayniner says: Sep 3, 2014 11:18 AM

    Thank god! We don’t want the Raiders anywhere near SoCal….

  45. orcahawk says: Sep 3, 2014 11:21 AM

    I was kinda hoping for the Portland Raiders…

  46. raiderlyfe510 says: Sep 3, 2014 11:23 AM

    It’s the right place for the Raiders. I know The big market of LA is alluring, but it’s fools gold. Once a new stadium is built there it’s going to eventually be a two team market again. After the little honeymoon period LA will reveal herself as a city that doesn’t really like pro football.. IMHO.

  47. chunkderrrty says: Sep 3, 2014 11:23 AM

    Just make a tax increase on all the pot dispensaries around the city and that’s where you’ll get your revenue from.

  48. lurkerkerker says: Sep 3, 2014 11:40 AM

    California’s state government would make Stalin blush. Anyone who thinks a stadium can get built on time and budget is delusional – optimistic, but delusional. Double the price and construction time, and hope that there’s no endangered woodlouse or something to halt the project entirely.
    I’ll believe it when I see it.

  49. mrgroovesd says: Sep 3, 2014 11:43 AM

    How is that possible to strike a deal so fast. Something is fishy and I think the taxpayers is going to get screwed.

  50. rawdog2013 says: Sep 3, 2014 11:52 AM

    Congrats Raiders & fans. No team with the credentials the Raiders have should have to move nor play in a crappy stadium.

    If it was the Chokers, Chiefs or that criminal organization in Santa Clara I would say something different. We can do without those 3 teams in the NFL.

  51. r8rsfan says: Sep 3, 2014 11:53 AM

    As long as it has a bronze statue of The Godfather out front I’m good. RIP Al Davis.

  52. hrnandz24 says: Sep 3, 2014 11:56 AM

    Everyone complaining about the $120 million didnt read the article fully or worse didnt understand. The $120 million was borrowed and used in 1995 to renovate the coliseum when the team came back to Oakland. The city is on the hook for the money even if the team moves

  53. yate3097 says: Sep 3, 2014 11:58 AM

    That makes the Rams most likely to be the franchise that moves to LA.

  54. napavalleyshaun says: Sep 3, 2014 12:13 PM

    Wow. That’s a lot of coin for semi-pro football.

  55. babygaga19 says: Sep 3, 2014 12:21 PM

    This article doesnt indicate squat. Same old same old with Raiders. Move them to Mexico, they would be a major hit!

  56. rodd1 says: Sep 3, 2014 12:31 PM

    Sell the Field of Jeans to the Raiders and build a new 49ers stadium in The City !!!

  57. runningoutofboundsisforgringos says: Sep 3, 2014 12:38 PM

    The NFL is just cooler with an Oakland Raiders in it

  58. dalcow4 says: Sep 3, 2014 12:43 PM

    Presumably the new stadium will have new toilets and plumbing.

  59. corvusrex96 says: Sep 3, 2014 12:48 PM

    So the Kabul Raiders isn’t happening ?

  60. radrntn says: Sep 3, 2014 1:03 PM

    all good in the hood…..Go Raiders!

  61. nomoreseasontix says: Sep 3, 2014 1:04 PM

    The agreement to build it won’t mean anything without an agreement to pay for it.

  62. williamwallacewouldhavebeenaraider says: Sep 3, 2014 1:19 PM

    Did the 9ers get state tax money to build there new stadium

  63. granadafan says: Sep 3, 2014 1:39 PM

    As an Alameda County homeowner, I’m STILL PAYING for Al’s last extortionist move back from LA in taxes. I’m happy the Raiders are staying but this is ridiculous. There’s no word if the multibillionaire Raiders and Davis are putting up a single cent for this lavish palace. I’m with McCain. No more blackouts if a single cent of public money goes towards stadiums. Its not as if the area benefits much anyways. There are worthwhile bars or restaurants in the immediate area. Everyone tailgates and then leaves

  64. jmc8888 says: Sep 3, 2014 1:41 PM

    The title says ‘close in on’, and at the end it says it’s still far apart. Umm, that’s completely different.

    900 million to 1.2 billion + free land + 120 million to pay off a doomed stadium, and of course they are expecting not to have to pay for it because mysterious funds are going to pay for it?

    I’ve seen taxpayers raise tourist taxes and even a 1/4 or 1/2 cent sales tax raise to get a stadium built. But of course that was for a 300-400 million dollar stadium.

    This seems like a much smaller revenue vehicle for a 3.5-4.5x more expensive stadium and other costs.

    Doesn’t sound like it’s anywhere close to being a deal. More like a really rough outline that has a lot of potential holes and setbacks in it. Don’t count those chickens just yet.

  65. RegisHawk says: Sep 3, 2014 1:43 PM

    This one promises to have hot AND cold running sewer backups…

  66. sportsfan18 says: Sep 3, 2014 1:57 PM

    Not a Raiders fan, but they belong in Oakland.

    L.A. has shown on more than one occasion that they won’t support a pro football team.

    It’s not about population or money either as they have that in spades out there.

  67. pantherpro says: Sep 3, 2014 2:02 PM

    How about 25,000 capacity and naming rights go to the largest trash company in the area?

  68. longsufferingkcfan says: Sep 3, 2014 2:10 PM

    As a resident of Los Angeles, this is great news!

  69. th56 says: Sep 3, 2014 2:25 PM

    So the Davis family is going to foot over 1 billion dollars to keep the team in Oakland, while their out of pocket money if they move the team would be at most half that? Who would invest that kind of money in Oakland? People are delusional if they believe that any owner or business man would do that deal.

  70. buckyhamm says: Sep 3, 2014 2:48 PM

    Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo !

  71. thegonz13 says: Sep 3, 2014 3:43 PM

    We sort of knew this was coming, didn’t we? I mean, we all figured that the visit to San Antonio was just posturing on Mark Davis’ part and that he was only using that city as leverage to get a better deal from Oakland.

    In a way, it’s a good thing for San Antonio because it won’t be some guy’s second choice and somewhere down the line, hopefully the city can get a franchise on its own merits and not inherit some crappy team.

  72. slick50ks says: Sep 3, 2014 3:45 PM

    How could a 50,000 capacity stadium cost that much? On free dump land to boot? Must be major skim going on here.

  73. JSpicoli says: Sep 3, 2014 4:00 PM

    Told you so.

    So many laureates on here spewing their thinly veiled Raider bias. So little time to slam them all.

    Staying Home. Oakland Alameda County Coliseum II.

  74. carp0056 says: Sep 3, 2014 5:00 PM

    Get ready to grab your ankles Season ticket holders. It’s so sad that the long term season ticket holders with not be able to afford the PSL’s that they will charge. :(

  75. fanasaurus says: Sep 3, 2014 7:44 PM

    As a Patriot fan whose team is hated by Oakland California. I say it’s good news to hear. I sincerely hope the Raiders get a new stadium and stay in Oakland FOREVER. Their fans have earned it and deserve it.

  76. raider24eric says: Sep 3, 2014 8:35 PM

    I LOVE It!!!!..Just Build It Baby!!!!..Go OAKLAND RAIDERs!!!!

  77. westcoastraider79 says: Sep 3, 2014 9:52 PM

    Wow look at all the haters!!! We run the Bay!!! Raiders all day every day!!!

  78. pillaging4fun says: Sep 3, 2014 11:02 PM

    Oakland fans trust me: its not gonna happen.. Pure
    smoke

  79. wayneflores says: Sep 3, 2014 11:57 PM

    The NFL has a stadium fund that they were willing to pull from if the Raiders moved with the 49ers. The 49ers added PSLs to their season ticket prices to compensate for the loss revenue that the Raiders would have added. No reason the league can’t pull from their Piggy bank to keep the team in Oakland.. To lose the team would economically destroy the city.

  80. Sam Sneed says: Sep 4, 2014 12:05 AM

    I’m raider fan, but I’m giving up the NFL, I’m sick of watching refineries moving teams up and down the field, giving the illusion that there is an athletic event going on, calling penalties when they feel like nut……but as far as using public funds to build a stadium where a non-profit NFL franchise that pays it’s staff in millions that will only use that stadium 8 days out of the year goes, is an outrage and Oakland citizens should be angry at their representatives. Oakland is a big fat ghetto, and I’m sure there are better ways to spend tax payer money then provide a playground for the rich millionaires….

  81. droopy925 says: Sep 4, 2014 2:06 AM

    Screw the raiders. If one team stays let the silver and crap kick rocks. Take your commitment to excuses somewhere else. Oakland is now and always will be all about the green and gold. Just leave baby

  82. tinman44 says: Sep 4, 2014 6:36 AM

    who would want to go to Los Angeles anyway ??? nobody down there was to support a football team…there’s a reason why there isn’t any teams there right now

  83. tinman44 says: Sep 4, 2014 6:38 AM

    just remember the Alamo…LOL…

  84. oushaka2 says: Sep 6, 2014 1:18 PM

    It’s been been a few days since this article was posted, and we have learned a few more things. Raiders officials still went to a football game in San Antonio to experience game day operations and tailgating experience. The funding for this stadium sounds fishy, and the city acts like they are doing the Raiders a favor by paying off a $120 million loan, that the community owes anyway. First word from a Raiders representative about what this article is reporting, is there is “no new deal in Oakland.”

    The longer this goes toward the end of the season. The more likely they are not staying in Oakland. The City of Oakland has no real way of preventing this, while a city in Texas keeps buying them drinks and putting them up in the Grand Hyatt.

  85. oushaka2 says: Sep 7, 2014 7:08 AM

    STUBBLING BLOCK: Closing This Monday, not the City of Oakland but Alameda County is buying up 11 acres of this proposed land for the Coliseum-City Project. The county ISN’T buying to build ballparks or anything like that, but to move their offices there! Anyone have a guess that the City of Oakland didn’t know about this? …or did, but just floated the deal last week to the press to get ahead of this new story.

    Similarities of this story sound eerily similar to the Farmer’s Feild proposal in LA. But, the City if Los Angeles decided to expand their convention center in to the 30-acre proposed site.

    Same thing happened in a sense. No movement was ever initiated private on the side, where majority of the money was suppose to come from.

    I think the rep. from the county said, “The property’s been sitting there. If they were interested in it, they should have bought it. If it was serious, they should have made an offer on it.”

Leave a Reply

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