Skip to content

The Oakland leverage play already has begun


For years, Los Angeles has served as the leverage for NFL owners hoping to squeeze maximum public money from their current localities in order to build new stadiums. Now that L.A. is off the table, NFL owners need to find new “or else” options if they hope to shake taxpayer dollars from the trees on which money doesn’t grow.

Enter San Antonio.

It’s no coincidence that media reports linking the Raiders to San Antonio emerged immediately after the door was slammed shut on the Raiders moving to L.A. With the very real threat of the Raiders bolting from the Bay Area back to Southern California, the folks in Oakland did nothing meaningful to assist with the construction of a new stadium. Now that the Raiders: (1) can’t go to L.A. unless the Chargers choose not to partner in Kroenkeworld; and (2) have an extra $100 million for the purposes of building a stadium in Oakland, will the powers-that-be in Alameda County feel more compelled to act? Or less?

That’s why San Antonio is back in play. But it won’t be as easy as owner Mark Davis thinks.

“We don’t have a lease right now at the Oakland Coliseum,” Davis said Tuesday. “America, the world is a possibility for the Raider Nation.”

The lease in Oakland is only part of the equation. Davis still needs 23 other owners to approve any move to a new city. Unless Davis plans to take a page from his late father’s playbook, it means that it will take only nine other owners to freeze him out of a given market, like San Antonio.

And two strong “no” votes surely would come, quickly and loudly, from the state of Texas. Neither the Houston Texans nor the Dallas Cowboys will want to see another NFL franchise wedged into their territory.

“Well if they go there, we have a suburb called Plano, Texas right outside of Dallas,” Cowboys owner Jerry Jones told PFT Live last March. “There’s a higher percentage of Cowboy fans in San Antonio than there is in Plano; 97 percent.  So it’s a great hotbed for us down there, we do a lot of things down there, we train down there.  So if they go down there they’ll be surrounded with a lot of Cowboy fans and that’s good, that’s good.”

On the surface, Jones acts like he isn’t worried about the Raiders causing that 97-percent saturation in San Antonio to fall. At a deeper level, he surely is. While he would have no qualms about the Raiders using San Antonio as a crowbar to get something/anything from Oakland, Jones would drop the hammer if/when Davis tries to move to San Antonio.

And Jones, who had the vision, leadership, and commitment to help make Kroenkeworld a reality for the NFL, undoubtedly has the juice to get at least eight other owners to tell Davis that the Silver and Black will never be infringing upon the Blue and Silver.

Permalink 137 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Chargers, Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
137 Responses to “The Oakland leverage play already has begun”
  1. gregbrotz95 says: Jan 15, 2016 11:31 AM

    Politics rules all. Again teams won’t be voting for the best interest in the league, which would be allowing the Raiders to move, but in their best interests with the fear of losing a little bit of revenue.

  2. mcjon22 says: Jan 15, 2016 11:32 AM


    There’s nothing the NFL can do to stop any team from moving anywhere, as the courts ruled 32 years ago when AL Davis moved the Raiders to L.A.

  3. jimmyt says: Jan 15, 2016 11:33 AM

    Oh just move to St. Louis already. The logo will look great with the Arch around it.

  4. SparkyGump says: Jan 15, 2016 11:33 AM

    Jerry doesn’t want anyone to horn in on his Al Davis delusion, especially the Raiders.

  5. tomtravis76 says: Jan 15, 2016 11:35 AM

    It’s a tad bit embarrassing of this league to have two franchises trying to rob local governments while prostituting itself to the rest of the country.

    What viable markets could support an NFL franchise? OKC, Portland, Memphis,return to St. Louis ?

  6. barneyrumble says: Jan 15, 2016 11:35 AM

    Are there any legitimate discussions about London England?

  7. buds4grant says: Jan 15, 2016 11:35 AM

    Jerry jones, a Davis and possibly Red McCombs….what could go wrong?

  8. coltzfan166 says: Jan 15, 2016 11:36 AM

    I live in Texas and I can promise you there are lots of people here that hate the Cowboys and aren’t Texans fans either. But if Jerruh doesn’t want a team in San Antonio, then there won’t be one

  9. webofbelief says: Jan 15, 2016 11:37 AM

    Believe it or not, that’s the best haircut I’ve ever seen on Mark Davis.

  10. dasmol says: Jan 15, 2016 11:38 AM

    Classic NIMBY

    No problem wedging teams into other areas, but oh no, don’t mess with Texas.

  11. camdenyard says: Jan 15, 2016 11:39 AM

    And two strong “no” votes surely would come, quickly and loudly, from the state of Texas. Neither the Houston Texans nor the Dallas Cowboys will want to see another NFL franchise wedged into their territory.


    Funny, Jerry Jones has no problem suggesting what other teams do (e.g., LA and London)…but don’t dare mess with him.

  12. solgoode says: Jan 15, 2016 11:39 AM

    Since they want their independence, they should move to London and become the Redcoats! Their first game will be against the New England Patriots with the band Boston playing at halftime. The Clash will have a cameo and play London Calling…

  13. 3menandablog says: Jan 15, 2016 11:40 AM

    The NFL needs to chill on putting fans through this. I get the leverage game, but it’s a bad look. Billionaire bullies. STL already had their hearts ripped out for your shiny LA stadium. You’ve held countless other cities hostage using LA. You’ve gotten so many new stadiums from this already. Oak and SD deserve their teams. Force those owners to work with their cities. You have enough power and money to make it happen, and make it profitable.

  14. bcs7blog says: Jan 15, 2016 11:41 AM

    How about Mars?

  15. JSpicoli says: Jan 15, 2016 11:41 AM

    We are staying in OAK and it makes Mikey’s head hurt

  16. redrew says: Jan 15, 2016 11:41 AM

    I don’t think Jerrah has the juice….I think Jerrah has been hittin the juice.
    Exhibit A…….a dysfunctional Cowboys team with a wretched roster.
    Exhibit B…Jerrah’s delusional understanding of the term “leadership qualities.”
    By the time the Raiders make any move, Jerrah’s kids will have vanquished the old coot to the Ponderosa Retirement Village that show’s endless loops of Jimmy Johnson’s great Cowboy teams…..aka…..eternal damnation

  17. tmainj says: Jan 15, 2016 11:41 AM

    St. Louis?

  18. i thumbs down your comment says: Jan 15, 2016 11:42 AM

    Is it possible that NO market wants the trash franchise Raiders?

  19. bleck5 says: Jan 15, 2016 11:42 AM

    Unlike LA which has way way way too much competition in the entertainment sphere. San Antonio like the rest of Texas has football as a religion nearly.

    The Raiders would do great in SA and SA actually wants them….a lot.

    Better than trashy Oakland that is doing nothing for the team.

  20. joetoronto says: Jan 15, 2016 11:44 AM

    Jones has no problem letting the good people of San Diego and St Louis lose their team in the interest of making more money for himself by moving them to LA. He also had no reservations about supporting a Bills move to LA or Toronto, because it served to make him more money.

    But heaven forbid someone infringed on his territory.

    He is as slithery of a snake as they come.

  21. warrensip says: Jan 15, 2016 11:44 AM

    San Antonio has been laying in the weeds for much longer than the door slammed shut on LA.

    Mark Davis has seemed to keep his options open. He wanted LA but has been working the San Antonio angle for months.

  22. petersjeffrey36 says: Jan 15, 2016 11:45 AM

    being that oakland has no intent on building anything, and st louis had a plan in place for a stadium that only required an extra 100 million from the league, seems that should be pretty viable.. and the nfl should also waive the relocation fee

  23. rickywatts80 says: Jan 15, 2016 11:45 AM

    How ’bout the $100 million goes back to St. Louis to pay for the stadium they built for the NFL?

  24. spittake1 says: Jan 15, 2016 11:45 AM

    Jerry Jones apparently controls all aspects of relocation now and I doubt he would allow another team to move into Texas

  25. kane337 says: Jan 15, 2016 11:46 AM

    Oregon seems to make more sense to me. It’s still on the west coast and sets up a nice line teams from Arizona, San Diego (maybe), Los Angeles, San Fransico, Portland, and Seattle.
    They could play their games in Eugene, Oregon (home of the Oregon Ducks) until a new stadium in Portland is ready.

    Oregon Raiders. Similar to Oakland Raiders. 🙂
    That is unless the Seahawks owner doesn’t want this and tries to block it.

  26. floratiotime says: Jan 15, 2016 11:47 AM

    Shut down the school lunch program. The billionaire wants more money.

  27. psubeerman21 says: Jan 15, 2016 11:49 AM

    So. Can’t get a stadium from Oakland, can’t move to LA, won’t be able to move to city that actually wants them because colleagues won’t let them. Is sitting out a year an option?

  28. august589 says: Jan 15, 2016 11:49 AM

    Yet, Florida–a state not even half the size of Texas–has three NFL teams. Jerry Jones, I’ve been a Cowboys fan since 1970, but you’re all wet on this one. Let the Raiders move to San Antonio if they want. Besides, 10-15 years later, they’ll move somewhere else.

  29. fumblenuts says: Jan 15, 2016 11:50 AM

    Portland, Oregon!

  30. typicalnipple says: Jan 15, 2016 11:50 AM

    This situation needs Big John Football.

  31. drunkraider says: Jan 15, 2016 11:50 AM

    sounds like Jones should pony up some money for a oakland stadium if he doesnt want to deal with raider nation in texas.

  32. j0esixpack says: Jan 15, 2016 11:51 AM

    Any politician who wants to be re-elected would never give $1 of public money to help corrupt billionaires “afford” a stadium – let alone tens of millions.

    Road improvements? I can see that as a legitimate role for tax dollars – but if Robert Kraft can self-finance a stadium there’s no reason why everyone else can’t either

    Keep in mind – we have an NFL commissioner – and thus owners – who have established a confirmed practice of cover-ups, attempts to frame and slander, and lying under oath before US District Court judges

    You might as throw public tax dollars down the toilet when giving them to these folks

  33. typicalnipple says: Jan 15, 2016 11:55 AM

    Jerry is focused on the accusation of Big John Football.

  34. phluffyclouds says: Jan 15, 2016 11:55 AM

    San Antonio? Not an NFL city. Just like Jacksonville isn’t.

  35. 32raiderfan34 says: Jan 15, 2016 11:57 AM

    Sounds to me like the Raiders will be in Oakland at least another year. But i don’t see them staying there. I’m an east coaster so I can’t speak for the city of Oakland but it doesn’t seem like they can / will be able to take the hit of a new stadium. I hope I’m wrong for the sake of the fans out there. I can’t imagine having a team move and leave me hanging.

  36. warrensip says: Jan 15, 2016 11:57 AM

    Jerry Jones pushed for two teams to move to LA leaving one out in the cold.

    He will not get support to leave the one team he left out out of SA.

  37. granadafan says: Jan 15, 2016 11:58 AM

    Oakland and Alameda County residents are STILL paying for the renovations made back in the early 2000s when Mark’s dad, Al Davis, moved the team back to Oakland. The politicians of Oakland and the county have a financial responsibility to not put the county into further debt by caving in to the whims of a billionaire. As proven by Kroenke, the NFL owners are perfectly capable of paying for their OWN stadiums.

  38. youaresimple says: Jan 15, 2016 11:58 AM

    Obviously, I would love for them to stay in Oakland but if not then Marky Mark should just move the team to San Antonio and forego the votes. What’s the worst that happens, you can’t host a SB for 3 years…oh woe is me. Eeveryone knows that the NFL isn’t going to win that battle in court since there has already been precedent been set by this very team! Stick it to Goodell and Jones for pushing you out of the LA deal, serves them right.

  39. Rdog says: Jan 15, 2016 11:59 AM

    The Rams, despite playing in a big dome, were obviously dead last in attendance this year, but they were also near the bottom last year too. It’s like the UAB football situation. The fans generally didn’t really care about the team until it was gone. The NFL wouldn’t try St. Louis a third time, at least not any time in the foreseeable future.

    I don’t know how an NFL team would do in San Antonio. I feel like Texas is Cowboys country, and San Antonio sports fans are spoiled by the Spurs, so I’m not sure how they would handle a team like the Raiders.

  40. 12brichandfamous says: Jan 15, 2016 12:00 PM

    There are three potential outcomes for Oakland: Win, Lose, or Do Not Play.

    Seems to me the City of Oakland already chose the Do Not Play option, therefore there is no leverage as there is no game.

    The Raid Uhs play in Oakland this year. I hope the city fleeces them with an exorbitant lease. What are the they going to do: move? Love to see the city exercise their leverage.

  41. araidersfan says: Jan 15, 2016 12:04 PM

    Clearly the best solution for the Raiders would be for Son-of-Al to sell his portion of the team (at least in part) to an investor with the cash to finance a new stadium in Oakland. Or if he doesn’t want to sell, then he should share Levis (with the league acting as a go-between so he doesn’t have to directly deal with York). San Antonio would certainly be feasible but as the article states, he may not be able to do this….which makes the 2 other options I mentioned the best way.

    A logical person would seriously think in this manner. But Son-of-Al is not at all logical and possesses zero business acumen let alone contact with reality. He’s basically behaving like the kind of spoiled brat he is – who has never had to work in his life and who doesn’t realize how lucky he was to inherit an NFL team in the first place.

    And his public whining to get sympathy from the fan base by playing some kind of ‘victim’ card are truly lame and sad. And it doesn’t work on this Raider fan.

  42. DerekCarrsGoldenArm says: Jan 15, 2016 12:04 PM

    Mark doesn’t have the street sense of his father (most don’t) but he can play this to get most of what he wants, which is a new, smaller stadium in Oakland:

    Tell the other 32 owners he has no current viable option but a temp to perm home in San Antonio. That he WON’T put the value of his franchise and the well being of his family in their hands AGAIN. If he doesn’t get the 24 necessary to go to San Antonio, he’s going anyway.

    My guess is that Mayor Schaaf will somehow find an acceptable parcel of land and the owners will somehow find additional funds to “lend” Mark to build a stadium. Jerrah doesn’t want another dog, even if it is a smaller one, wandering in his back yard.

  43. Getoffmylawn! says: Jan 15, 2016 12:06 PM

    The NFL was using Los Angeles for years as a threat get taxpayers in other cities to pay for their stadiums. Thanks to Stan, that threat is now eliminated. He was going build there no matter what the NFL said. Only an owner willing to put up his own money was going to claim the LA market. Now that Los Angeles is gone, what city is the NFL going to try to use as their threat to get taxpayers to give millions to these poor billionaires? San Antonio? It will be interesting to see what city the NFL chooses as its next pawn.

  44. libertyandunion1994 says: Jan 15, 2016 12:09 PM

    In all seriousness, why not Portland, Oregon?

    Still on the west coast. Adidas has their North American HQ there.

    Major technology firms located there.

  45. zaphod424242 says: Jan 15, 2016 12:09 PM

    San Antonio makes a lot of sense, but Jerruh to block. Portlandia?

  46. bleck5 says: Jan 15, 2016 12:10 PM

    Also San Antonio and Oakland actually have somewhat similar cultures. They would fit in much better in SA than they would in say…Portland or St Louis (which already expressed disintrest for further NFL teams)

    San Antonio’s area is also the fastest growing in Texas if I recall correctly. It is a large market that would definitely work.

    Plus they are silver and black just like the Spurs.

  47. mrbgood315 says: Jan 15, 2016 12:12 PM

    Unless San Antonio is willing to plunk down $1billion+ for a new stadium or at least put a few hundred million+ into the Alamodome, I fail to see how this is much of a serious threat. People talk about San Antonio as if the Alamodome was a brand new, state of the art facility. It was opened in 1993, with only a few million dollars in enhancements since. Move the Raiders there and they’ll be threatening to leave within 5yrs without a new stadium that will “maximize revenue”…

  48. hawlbs says: Jan 15, 2016 12:15 PM

    Attendance was good in the STL until they went through the worst fire year span, record-wise, in the history of the league. Combine that with the worst owner in the league and of course attendance was going to go down. I, for one, gave up my season tickets in the last season because I didn’t want to give a-hole Walmart Stan any more money.

    Davis already said he wasn’t interested in St. Louis. Good luck trying to move to Jerry’s back yard. He is not going anywhere. Just trying to squeeze $$s from Oakland. Good luck with that too.

  49. vipod4ever says: Jan 15, 2016 12:16 PM

    Unless M.Davis wants to spend his days in court, SD & San Antonio are not viable options.

    Las Vegas would be interesting, but again, court days.

    So, here are the best options for the Raiders & Davis (in order of preference):

    #1) Get a deal done in the Oakland
    #2) Get a deal done in one of the other Bay Area communities
    #3) Get a deal done in Sacramento & join forces with the Sacramento Republic FC and create a stadium similar to Century Link.

    #4) Now, there is a market out there with the largest metropolitan population (8.5Mil) without a (american) football team.

    Obviously not NYC.

    Mark Davis needs to look at London. That might be exactly where he makes the rest of the greedy NFL owners very happy and elevates the franchise net worth above all others.

    Didn’t Davis say, “America, the world, is a possibility for the Raider nation”.

  50. ravensfan56 says: Jan 15, 2016 12:17 PM

    Hey Jerrah, YOU LIKE THAT!

  51. @Cereal_5 says: Jan 15, 2016 12:18 PM

    LA was a layup for the Raiders if they had a competent owner

  52. rhymeswithpunt says: Jan 15, 2016 12:18 PM


  53. lscottman3 says: Jan 15, 2016 12:18 PM

    how about Montreal?

  54. upperdecker19 says: Jan 15, 2016 12:18 PM


  55. harrisonhits2 says: Jan 15, 2016 12:20 PM

    No city or state should be giving a single penny to the disgusting greedy owners.

    Not only do they all have the funds to easily build their own stadiums, the league does too. Not to mention the billions they are likely pulling in from the shadow ownership of the daily fantasy rip off leagues.

  56. cuttyplease says: Jan 15, 2016 12:20 PM

    This is magnified with Texas oil money being ROUTED. Oil is the basis of the Texas economy (especially Dallas). Less than 3 years ago, oil was at just under $100 a barrel. Right now, the commodity is down under $30 a barrel. You know what the Texas oil big shots are thinking right now? (Hint: NOT GOOD THINGS). Jerruh knows well and good that another team coming to his territory, while oil is in the tank (with no signs point up), would be a big hit to his enterprise. McNair is thinking the same thing. These guys would drop the hammer on Davis trying to move to SA.

  57. bullcharger says: Jan 15, 2016 12:21 PM

    If Mark Davis can’t move the team he can always play Lloyd’s brother in the next Dumb and Dumber movie.

  58. vottorific says: Jan 15, 2016 12:22 PM


  59. goingthextramile says: Jan 15, 2016 12:23 PM

    Mexico Raiders


  60. collectordude says: Jan 15, 2016 12:26 PM

    Play wherever you want, mark davis.
    Ignore what the commissioner has to say, just like your dad.
    We need more of this with the current shape of the NFL.

  61. borbinski says: Jan 15, 2016 12:29 PM

    Oracle Raiders

  62. packerstexansfan says: Jan 15, 2016 12:29 PM

    I’m in San Antonio. I’ll always be a Packer fan first, and I’ll always love me some Texans, but if this were to happen, I would love it! I’ll add, I initially became a Texans fan out of my hate for the Cowboys, and was so happy to finally have another team in Texas lol

    And I’ll add, he is delusional (big surprise there!) with that 97% figure. It is majority, but I’d say it’s more 70-80% maybe. And with the way he has run his franchise to the ground, it wouldn’t surprise me to see a big chunk of the fanbase here to embrace the Raiders.

    One more thing, I originally wasn’t expecting much out of all this. But I heard the other day on local radio, Red McCombs said he, and many other of the big shots in the city are ready to invest in this. He said the only question is “Does Mark want to move his team?” So it’s definitely going to be interesting!

  63. alwaters9 says: Jan 15, 2016 12:29 PM

    London Raiders

  64. silvernblacksabbath says: Jan 15, 2016 12:34 PM

    You can build a stadium in my backyard.. If all else fails, OKC Baby. I’d trade the Thunder to bring in the Raiders 🙂

  65. spiffybiff says: Jan 15, 2016 12:34 PM

    San Antonio and Austin combined can’t be ignored much longer. A stadium between the 2 cities is very doable, you have stadiums in Austin and San Antonio that can host the team while it’s being built not to mention the 4 million plus people in the region loaded with tech and dfw are dollars and only the Spurs as the other game in town. Gonna happen eventually. If I am Bob McNair I call the Adams and ask to buy the oilers logo back and rebrand immediately. Gonna need all the help he can get

  66. largent80 says: Jan 15, 2016 12:36 PM

    I can’t take this guy seriously when he looks like Rowley from Diary of a Wimpy Kid.

  67. stonedwhitetrash says: Jan 15, 2016 12:37 PM

    Professional Football = Pay for play. So everything is about money and the fans which supports each team.

  68. The Almighty Cabbage says: Jan 15, 2016 12:40 PM

    As others have mentioned, my guess is that London will be the leagues new “weapon with which to extort.” If not London, Mexico City, as they’ve already made mention of playing a few games there like they do in London.

    As for the Raiders, they’re The Oakland Raiders and always should be. I was okay with the Rams moving back to LA because that’s where they came from to begin with (although I do feel badly for the St. Louis fans).

  69. thraiderskin says: Jan 15, 2016 12:43 PM

    Vegas… This is the time to make it happen. Las Vegas Raiders.

  70. nflfolly says: Jan 15, 2016 12:43 PM

    Raiders should just move to the CFL where they might be able to compete. Their hack GM ruined the team.Nothing but losing football games since he took over.

  71. solgoode says: Jan 15, 2016 12:47 PM

    They should just homestead in the St. Louis Stadium, as is, right now. It has artificial turf instead if the green-painted grass/dirt they play on now and the toilets work. It has to be an automatic upgrade to the Coliseum.

  72. competitivecompetitioncompeter says: Jan 15, 2016 12:48 PM

    Mark davis could take out a kickstarter for a haircut and just make a new oakland stadium one of the stretch goals.

  73. yyc2phx says: Jan 15, 2016 12:53 PM

    San Antonio would be a great spot… football crazy fans in Texas would love the San Antonio gunslingers

  74. randygnyc says: Jan 15, 2016 12:57 PM


  75. raider8er says: Jan 15, 2016 1:03 PM

    If Mark Davis does not want to sell a portion of his team he needs to bite his pride and move into Levi’s stadium.

    Yeah, he does not want to be the second team in the stadium but there is one way to not be the #2 team at Levis. That way is to win on the field and prove the Raiders are the better team playing on that field and not the 49ers.

  76. bondlake says: Jan 15, 2016 1:03 PM

    NFL: Please just fade away.

  77. possumsauce says: Jan 15, 2016 1:03 PM

    Poor, dumb Roger: San Antonio is much too small and comparatively poor to serve as a reasonable stand-in for Los Angeles in league’s shameful ongoing stadium racket. I get that you have such high hopes for pressing huge and rich London into L.A.’s old role of bogeyman, to bludgeon and bully cash-depleted municipalities and their taxpayers into footing the bill for your billionaire scoundrels, but the problem is that exactly no one is buying it, due to the logistics and tax issues. The correct answer answer for your relocation threat was always Toronto (2nd highest population of individuals w/ >$30M in North America, ahead of even L.A., Chicago and Washington), I’m just glad you were too dumb to see it in time, and that the Bills’ on-again, off-again dalliances w/ the city have basically wrecked that for you. Hold fast, Oakland.

  78. abninf says: Jan 15, 2016 1:04 PM

    olgoode says:
    Jan 15, 2016 11:39 AM
    Since they want their independence, they should move to London and become the Redcoats!

    Heck, their taxes might be lower than in Cali.

  79. clickablecontent says: Jan 15, 2016 1:06 PM

    I have to admit, Raiders roaming the seas for a home kind of fits their mystique.

  80. dexx57 says: Jan 15, 2016 1:19 PM

    Looks like an old Jon Gruden in the photo

  81. ringheadcrusher says: Jan 15, 2016 1:22 PM

    This isn’t a power play against the city of Oakland. Oakland has already made it clear they’re not contributing a thin dime.

    This is a power play (albeit a weak one) against the NFL. Mark wants more that the $100M the league promised for a new stadium. And given 1) the mad cash that’s being waved around in this moving process and 2) the fact that OAK’s stadium is by far the WORST in the league, he should get it. So if the owners are going to slap the Raiders down and tell them to stay put, they need to cough up more cash. They need to double or triple their little bribe, because $100M doesn’t put nearly enough of a dent in the cost of a new stadium.

  82. ducknichols50 says: Jan 15, 2016 1:25 PM

    Virginia Raiders

  83. gotitan says: Jan 15, 2016 1:36 PM

    You said the same think a couple of years ago with Silent Stan started this whole mess. And he did exactly what he wanted. That is what the ultra rich do.

  84. pancaketaco says: Jan 15, 2016 1:38 PM

    Earth to NFL your revenue is at least ~9 billion a year…figure out how to finance your stadiums on your own.

    NFL owner and brass…stop the emotional blackmail and the ruse that the team is part of the community…you are a business like any other in your region…therefore no more public money or hotel tax increases to build your stadiums.

    If a city wantsto use tax breaks or give you a sweet land deal I have no problem with that it is done everyday to lure businesses from one state to another.

  85. 191kfd says: Jan 15, 2016 1:50 PM

    The population of San Antonio is 7th largest in country and Austin is 11th in the country. Between the 2 cities there are almost 7 million people. Oakland has population less than a million (although I’m sure the surrounding 50 miles add much more). This is a state with great economy and good tax encentives who love football. I’m a cowboys fan and I hope it happens. Seems like the most logical choice. Oakland hasn’t been good to them, Vegas is dying, St. Louis wasn’t feet to their franchise.

  86. peopletrains says: Jan 15, 2016 1:53 PM

    Move to Vegas.

  87. a1b24312 says: Jan 15, 2016 1:59 PM

    The Cowboys brand is so strong – nationally and within state – that there is nothing Jones would or should fear by the Raiders going to San Antonio.

    And, it would be a great boost to Texas, so I suspect Jones would get political pressure from within Texas to let them do it.

  88. jonathankrobinson424 says: Jan 15, 2016 2:06 PM

    …..Davis jr has had this as plan B for years now….just a reminder to everyone between San Antonio and Austin TX you have a population over 2.3 million people….that’s number 6 o7 on the biggest cities in the US. Of course Davis want’s in and jerry and Bob want him out. The folks in San Antonio/Austin WANT the Raiders but I hope the NFL will pay off Davis and get him a shiny new stadium in Oakland.

  89. pbeddoe says: Jan 15, 2016 2:12 PM

    Anyone wonder why the NFLPA hasn’t gotten involved in this? The safety of the players is at risk, the Raiders still share with the A’s (only team in the NFL) and they players play on a dirt field which is a safety risk.

  90. givemethehighgear says: Jan 15, 2016 2:19 PM

    Rich people looking for large bags (about this big, this wide) filled to the brim with money…is this what you call a hand-out?

  91. daytontriangles says: Jan 15, 2016 2:23 PM

    How about Arizona?

    Ship the Cardinals back to St. Louis and let Arizona have the Raiders or Chargers

  92. brickwilly says: Jan 15, 2016 2:23 PM

    Could this be the time to get an NFL team in Canada or Mexico ?? The league has been hinting at this in the past.

  93. sariff420 says: Jan 15, 2016 2:31 PM


  94. dogsweat9 says: Jan 15, 2016 2:35 PM

    Sacramento has said no, they put their money into the Kings.

    Las Vegas is perfect and ready for the Raiders, plus they could poach the L.A. Market.

    Most of the people living in Vegas came from L.A. and their is a huge Raider fan base, they can play at UNLV Football venue until a stadium is built.

    Or play at the Vegas venue and add some seats.

  95. dacableguy35 says: Jan 15, 2016 2:37 PM

    Oakland screwed the pooch on this by not build a new stadium. They either want an NFL team or they don’t. So far it looks as if they don’t…

    After bending the Raiders over in the LA deal, the league really can’t deny letting Davis move anywhere that’s viable.

  96. headwoundharry says: Jan 15, 2016 2:38 PM

    San Antonio “or else!!”

    Wake up and smell the coffee. The City of Oakland didn’t care when the team moved to LA and they don’t care now. Oakland is broke.

    Raider Nation will be as loyal as always, watching the games from their double wides wearing their twenty year old t-shirts. Hey Davis, Mexico City is calling your name! You would thrive down there! MC Banditos has a nice ring to it and the burrito economy is something you already understand.

  97. r8rmann77 says: Jan 15, 2016 2:45 PM

    Davis has investors in San Antonio including Red McCombs and several of his pals. He should say hell with Jones, hell with NFL and their $100,000,000, take the Raiders to Texas and dip into Jones fan base, get an incredible new stadium with all the bells and whistles. No need to hold Super Bowls or anything the NFL can hold back on them. No they will never be the DALLAS Cowboys but if they continue to improve they will win over many fans that Jerry J0nes holds so dear. Make him pay!!!

  98. mogogo1 says: Jan 15, 2016 2:47 PM

    Such a huge percentage revenue is tied to the TV deal that teams moving in next door to each isn’t that big an issue in terms of money. If it were, Kroenke wouldn’t be so open to sharing his stadium in LA.

    Another team in Texas might actually increase TV viewership so by the time revenue was split the Cowboys and Texans might actually make money off of a San Antonio team.

  99. JSpicoli says: Jan 15, 2016 2:53 PM

    I wish there was a oddsmaker for this. So many fools who know it all.

    See you in OAK in 10 years.

  100. keithdylan says: Jan 15, 2016 2:55 PM

    Hey I live in Plano, can’t wait to get my Raiders season tix.

  101. puntonfirstdown says: Jan 15, 2016 3:02 PM

    Cue the Mark Cuban quote.

  102. packerstexansfan says: Jan 15, 2016 3:06 PM

    It’s funny that JJ has become the face of opposing a move to SA. McNair actually has a lot more to lose in this than Jerry Jones. With Raiders and Texans in the AFC, the Texans would more than likely have most of their games taken away to show Raiders games. As it is now, at least one Texans game a year isn’t shown because Cowboys take precedent over the Texans here, which is so damn annoying.

  103. vegasgreek says: Jan 15, 2016 3:07 PM


  104. southsidesteve86 says: Jan 15, 2016 3:11 PM

    What about Oklahoma City? Close enough sounding to Oakland.

  105. cuttyplease says: Jan 15, 2016 3:12 PM

    People citing the population of Oakland proper in arguments is nonsense. Oakland sits at the geographic center of three major markets:

    SF-Oakland-Hayward 11th nationally at 4.6 million people.
    About 45 minutes south, San Jose area is 34th at 2.0 million people. Add these two and you are up to 6.6 million, which is top 5 by metro area.

    THEN, just over an hour northeast is the Sacramento metro area, which is 27th in the U.S. at 2.2 million.

    So the Raiders addressable market in Northern CA is 8.8 million+ people.

    This does not include the ease of which their fan base can travel from Southern CA, where they have a secondary core fanbase (hour flight) or other nearby regions. The current location has a tram directly from the airport, along with regional mass transit (BART) and Amtrak (which runs directly to Sacramento), which both have stations yards away from the site.

    There is no better location in the Bay Area or Northern CA for an NFL stadium than the current site. Bay Area is the wealthiest metro area per capita in the U.S. and literally hundreds of major corporations are based in the Bay Area.

    If/when the Raiders ever COMMIT and build a stadium in Oakland, the franchise would FINALLY have a sound business footing to capitalize on the major market potential in the area.

  106. sdcharger123 says: Jan 15, 2016 3:18 PM

    They’re also closely watching (and ready) to jump on the San Diego market if/when Spanos moves to LA.

  107. somethinghappeninghere says: Jan 15, 2016 3:30 PM

    Well if “Jerrah” won’t go with San Antonio, maybe El Paso–I mean after all, it takes over a day to get from Dallas to El Paso, right? And is El Paso even in Texas? 😉

    If Raiders move to El Paso (only a 2 hour drive from me), then I just might start rooting for the Raiders….I just love Derek Carr…

  108. stlouisfan says: Jan 15, 2016 3:31 PM

    The NFL wants Davis out. They will make it tough on him so he has to sell. He will not be moving to San Antonio. Jerry will never let that happen. He doesn’t want STL. London ? no one is going to London. Oakland is not building a stadium for him. He really is running out of options. The King of California ( Stan ) started this mess ,he and his buddy Jerry made sure they got what they wanted . They left Spanos and especially Davis to fend for themselves. The NFL should just tell Davis this is what we would like you to do. That’s what they are going to do anyway.

  109. dejadoh says: Jan 15, 2016 3:42 PM

    Once the Chargers commit to LA, San Diego needs to invite the Raiders. Qualcom is better than

  110. fxejohn says: Jan 15, 2016 3:52 PM

    I stated on an earlier posting the Raiders have possibly more fans across North America than any other team. Therefore the available options for them are limited by a city/county initiating a proposal.
    A ‘force’ play would be for the SD city/county to offer the Raiders the same deal they offered the Chargers. Force Spanky to make a move either back to the table or to LA. My favorite idea is Chargers stay in SD.
    Negotiations with Davis would be made easier as a vast fan base already exists, they stay in California and Davis would only have to stay in the OCC for a couple of years while the new construction goes forth.
    I would offer this; if a home game for the LA Chargers & a home game for the new SD Raiders occurred at the same time slot the number of fans in SD would far outnumber those at a LA Charger venue.

  111. c2excellence says: Jan 15, 2016 3:59 PM

    San Antonio/Austin is ready for a team. Jerry can’t deny that with a straight face, even if it is full of botox.

  112. kvt7280 says: Jan 15, 2016 4:03 PM

    The NFL will give a city the Raiders as long as they get a shiny new stadium. They still need the Raiders to complete the AFC West and to compete with a full schedule. One less game means a loss of viewership and revenue. No raiders for 2016? No, 2016 Raider Amari Cooper, Derek Carr, Khalil Mack Nike jersey sales. NFL gets a piece of everything that is licensed by the NFL. Raiders have their choice of city, it’s just not going to be in Oakland, if they don’t give them a new stadium or LA since they approved two teams. Raiders will play but just not in those two markets, even without a lease, they can always negotiate a contract with UC Berkeley to use their stadium.

  113. madmaxx87 says: Jan 15, 2016 4:04 PM

    Ok, let’s try something new here and look at a map. All distances are from Googlemaps.

    Oakland is 43 miles from the nearest NFL opponent, which plays in Santa Clara (49ers).

    If the Raiders try to move to San Antonio, the nearest NFL opponent is 197 miles away (Texans), and the reason they can’t move is because of an owner who declares San Antonio “his territory,” even though his team (Cowboys) plays 247 miles away?

    The Redskins play 42 miles away from the Ravens, who play 101 miles from the Eagles. So that means there are three – count ’em, three – NFL teams playing 143 miles apart, and two more (Giants and Jets) who share a stadium playing 98 miles further up the road than that.

    Even in the NFL, Jerry’s logic makes no sense.

  114. madmaxx87 says: Jan 15, 2016 4:52 PM

    Say what you want, but if someone builds a stadium between San Antonio and Austin (80 miles apart), the combined estimated population of both is 4,271, 951 (according to Metropolitan Statistic Area data). That makes that market bigger than the following NFL markets now:

    Seattle, Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Diego, Tampa, Baltimore, Denver, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Nashville, Buffalo, New Orleans, and Green Bay.

    Tell me again why this area can not support and NFL team….

  115. vegasgreek says: Jan 15, 2016 4:58 PM


  116. theevillain says: Jan 15, 2016 5:05 PM

    mcjon22 says:
    Jan 15, 2016 11:32 AM

    There’s nothing the NFL can do to stop any team from moving anywhere, as the courts ruled 32 years ago when AL Davis moved the Raiders to L.A.


    Actually after Al sued the league, there was a legal agreement that no other team can sue to move their team. It is why Mark had to play by the rules with regard to moving to LA, so in essence yes they do have a legal precedent to stop any team from suing their way to a city.

  117. fanofpft says: Jan 15, 2016 5:54 PM

    This guy is giving out free Pete Rose haircuts to all as a PR move.

  118. donshaw2000 says: Jan 15, 2016 6:39 PM

    Though the San Antonio/Austin market is clearly big enough and rabid enough (after all, this is football, in Texas) to support an NFL team, there are two major strikes against such a relocation: a) There is no stadium that meets NFL standards, no local government has the money to build one, it is unlikely that any owner (especially after paying the 500 million dollar NFL relocation fee) would be willing to put up the money to build one, and b) There would be significant opposition from the Dallas Cowboys and the Houston Texans, two very powerful and influential franchises, both of whom would contend that their markets are being encroached upon by any relocation of an NFL team to the San Antonio/Austin area. Though the area could support an NFL team, it does not seem like a viable option at this time.

  119. youaresimple says: Jan 15, 2016 6:52 PM

    Do most people in here not read? People keep saying Jones can keep him out of Texas or that he will be tied up in court…he can move the team no matter what! Jones can’t do squat legally and the NFL can take them to court but they won’t win, just like in the early 80s. PLUS, and this is what everyone seems to be overlooking, haven’t you all wondered why the NFL put a rule in place that penalizes a team for moving without approval??? It’s because you can do it and get away with it!!!! Sure you take a small hit but there is literally NOTHING they can do to stop you, litigation won’t even hold it up since the courts can’t legally stop a business from making money for no reason. This is civil folks not criminal.

    People need to get a clue. Mark may not move the team without approval but people saying he can’t are absolutely ignorant to the facts.

  120. boltdaddy says: Jan 15, 2016 6:53 PM

    San Diego long before San Antonio sez me

  121. youaresimple says: Jan 15, 2016 7:00 PM

    theevillain says:
    Jan 15, 2016 5:05 PM

    mcjon22 says:
    Jan 15, 2016 11:32 AM

    There’s nothing the NFL can do to stop any team from moving anywhere, as the courts ruled 32 years ago when AL Davis moved the Raiders to L.A.


    Actually after Al sued the league, there was a legal agreement that no other team can sue to move their team. It is why Mark had to play by the rules with regard to moving to LA, so in essence yes they do have a legal precedent to stop any team from suing their way to a city.

    WHAT? There is an article out there (on SB Nation) where JERRY JONES himself says a team can move without NFL approval! You, my friend, do not know what you are talking about. Jones addresses exactly what you refer to…plus legal precedent IN COURT sides with the team, not the NFL. There is no case law that dictates a team cannot move. Agreements are fine and dandy but they are never set in stone.

    What’s funny is, Jones made that comment in reference to Stan moving to LA saying the NFL couldn’t stop the Rams even if they wanted to!

  122. docboss says: Jan 15, 2016 7:07 PM

    Just stop the talk about STL. They have had two, actually three if you include expansion, bad experiences with the NFL. No one wants another rental, especially the poorest owner in the league. Davis would be another Bidwill Jr. If expansion is ever in the offing, STL will listen, but I doubt it will ever happen. Go Seahawks! There are no bad NFL cities…only bad owners.

  123. hbvandamme says: Jan 15, 2016 7:25 PM

    Raiders to LA when Chargers stay in SD, or invade the Q with no relocate fee and take the mission valley stadium Spanos dont want. They would sell out for decades.

  124. raiderapologist says: Jan 15, 2016 7:36 PM

    granadafan says:
    Jan 15, 2016 11:58 AM

    The politicians of Oakland and the county have a financial responsibility to not put the county into further debt by caving in to the whims of a billionaire. As proven by Kroenke, the NFL owners are perfectly capable of paying for their OWN stadiums.
    Most are. But Davis is not married to a Walmart heir.

  125. radrntn says: Jan 15, 2016 7:46 PM

    well davis might think the Raider Nation is a global thing, but I know when I say it’s Davis that can go to Texas.. no way will the Raider nation follow the Raider to San Antonio.

    really the only other option for Mark is if plan A in Oakland does not materialize would be to go to plan B, and hook up with the guy in Sacramento. He is trying to get MLS expansion team there and will contribute up to 250 million for his own needs. If the NFL kicks in 300 to 400, and Davis kicks in 250, and City of Sac kicks in the land…they should be able to build smaller 55,000 seating venue for less than a billion dollars. 25% of current season tickets holders already live on 80 or 680 corridor, and about the same or less drive. Sac metro area is 27th in US, and when you add the less than 2 hour drive from Bay Area demos, you have over 10,000,000 population. 3rd largest in US.

    Golden State Raiders would be much better than San Antonio Raiders.

  126. r8dernation says: Jan 15, 2016 8:13 PM

    Until he hops on the revenue sharing train, he should have no say in where teams move to.

  127. headwoundharry says: Jan 15, 2016 9:03 PM

    Where ever Oak goes, I give them 5 years before they come crawling back to Oakland begging to play in that outhouse of a stadium. History will repeat itself.

  128. headwoundharry says: Jan 15, 2016 9:05 PM

    San Antonio, the broad no one would look at until closing time.

  129. kevsdomain says: Jan 15, 2016 9:36 PM

    I thought I read that the 100 million compensation was only available if the Raiders build in their current market. If so they would lose that money by going to San Antonio, however I also hear a rumor that the Raiders have purchased land in San Antonio. That extra money seemed to spark a renewed interest by Oakland though, backing out of their plan for high rise parking, and going for what Mark Davis wanted as far as design. But money will still be an issue, Oakland just doesn’t have it, or not enough and will not put it on the taxpayers , who can’t afford it either.
    Absolutely the Raiders really need a new stadium, more so than the Rams or Chargers, and it’s my opinion that they should remain in Oakland.
    Mark Davis was all smiles for the cameras after the decision was made about L.A. But, maybe he is now channeling a bit of his father, and intent on ruffling some feathers by talk of San Antonio.
    It’s for sure that neither the Cowboys or Texans want them there, and it’s for sure that it was those owners that were part of getting him shot him down in L.A.
    Perhaps Mark will twist this issue enough, that Jerry Jones goes to the other owners and says” You know that 100 million wasn’t enough, we need to up it more” And there is the money to start building in Oakland.
    This could get interesting, if Mark Davis is as mad as heck, about the L.A situation as I think he is.

  130. sonoma99 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:29 AM

    I was a student at the University of Arkansas in
    Fayetteville at the same time as Jerry Jones. I
    recall that he was starting his business career
    then. A sports reporter asked him if he had a
    difficult time at the beginning. Jerry replied
    “well, getting the first million dollars was the
    hard part. So my daddy gave me the million”.

  131. ritchiesraiders says: Jan 16, 2016 5:09 PM

    I am from NY and I have been a die hard Raider fan for over 40 years…….How about they come to NY….We really only have Buffalo, Jets and Giants play in New Jersey……..The New York Raiders!!!! I like it!!!!

  132. silvernblackpride says: Jan 18, 2016 2:10 PM

    San Diego Raiders

    There a Cali team and always will be

    Every time they play in Diego all the LA Raider faithful FILL the stadium its a no braineeeer….. anyways the Dolts wont fill a stadium in LA when they cant t fill one in Diego !!!

    RAIDER4LIFE !!!!!!!

  133. craiggeerts says: Jan 18, 2016 3:37 PM

    I not trying to offend anybody from Oakland I’ve been a Raider fan for 41 years, but visiting Oakland, going to the Packer/Raider game I can certainly see why Davis doesn’t want to build a new stadium in that market. The A’s can only draw 15k per night on average, the Raiders sell out only because of the tarp covering 15-20k seats. Raider fans are always going to support there team, no matter where they play, luxury boxes are now the future and high priced tickets that most cannot afford. Just an opinion, I hope they do stay in Oakland and give the “original” fans a team to support.

  134. jjackwagon says: Jan 19, 2016 11:14 AM

    They should move to East St Louis, it’s about the same as Oakland.

  135. jjackwagon says: Jan 19, 2016 11:26 AM

    Say what you want, but if someone builds a stadium between San Antonio and Austin (80 miles apart), the combined estimated population of both is 4,271, 951 (according to Metropolitan Statistic Area data). That makes that market bigger than the following NFL markets now:

    Seattle, Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Diego, Tampa, Baltimore, Denver, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Nashville, Buffalo, New Orleans, and Green Bay.

    Tell me again why this area can not support and NFL team….

    Since you are using two cities that are 80 miles apart, go ahead and use an 80 mile radius around the rest of those cities and get back to us with the numbers.

  136. bpav68 says: Jan 19, 2016 12:12 PM

    Regarding San Antonio, I’ve read a lot of “Jerry will never let that happen.” Jerry’s one of 32 owners. He can’t do anything to stop it without 8 other owners blocking it. And even with that, they can still move, should they decide to… If the Raiders think San Antonio is their best option, they will move there. End of story.

  137. blottailgate says: Jan 20, 2016 2:09 AM

    32 years ago the courts let Al move, you don’t think the owners and the NFL patched the language up to fix that? Besides, Mark doesn’t have the satchel his old man did and he doesn’t have the money to even pay the relocation fee.

    Fact is, why would the owners let the Raiders leave the #5 or 6 TV market for anywhere else in the country and lose all of those ad dollars. Notice how the #1 and #2 markets now have TWO teams each? All the teams split those TV dollars.
    The purpose of a business is generate revenue, not lose it.

    Oakland isn’t helping the Raiders because the NFL told Schaaf that they weren’t going to let them move anywhere. The NFL owners still have a hard-on for Al because he stole his team and every penny he made was from the NFL.

Leave a Reply

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