Skip to content

San Diego joins San Antonio as NFL leverage against Oakland

imrs.php Getty Images

As the Chargers negotiate an arrangement that would move the franchise to Kroenkeworld (even though it possibly makes sense to stay put), the NFL has a problem. With both spots in L.A. taken, the league has no leverage to squeeze public money or other favorable terms out of Oakland in connection with the construction of a stadium for the Raiders there.

Immediately after the Rams received the first golden ticket to Los Angeles, San Antonio re-emerged as a potential destination for the Raiders. And now that the Chargers may be clearing out of San Diego, someone is floating the notion that the Raiders could fill the vacancy south of L.A.

Adam Schefter of ESPN reports, citing an unnamed source, that a San Diego backfill by the Raiders becomes “very viable” if the Chargers leave.

While it’s not the first time the idea has emerged (PFT spitballed the possibility more than a month ago), the stakes are raised now that the Raiders definitely won’t be moving to L.A. With Oakland already doing nothing of real consequence to assist with the construction of a new stadium for the team, Oakland needs a shot across the bow.

The prospect of a San Antonio is met with a shrug, especially since anyone who understands anything about the league realizes that the Cowboys and Texans would never stand for that. But San Diego could scare Oakland; a departure of the Chargers could make the powers-that-be in San Diego more determined than ever to build a stadium, and the possibility of luring Oakland’s arch rivals to town introduces a revenge mindset that could help sway voters, if a stadium initiative ever heads to the ballot box.

Look for the Raiders to keep treading water (hopefully not from overflowed toilets in a dilapidated stadium) in Oakland until the Chargers decide what to do. If they join the Rams in L.A., look for the Raiders and the league to rattle the cage as hard as possible about a departure from Oakland until Oakland does something to help pay for a new stadium there.

Permalink 63 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers
63 Responses to “San Diego joins San Antonio as NFL leverage against Oakland”
  1. boknowsall says: Jan 24, 2016 11:26 AM

    Build that new stadium in San Diego in the northernmost part of the county on the border of Orange County, and you will fill that stadium weekly. There are more Raiders fans in all of SoCal than the Rams\Chargers combined. It’s not even close.

  2. seahawksbmx says: Jan 24, 2016 11:27 AM

    San Diego Raiders?

    Chicago Packers, Baltimore Steelers, Santa Clara Seahawks, etc.

    Does not compute.

  3. spiffybiff says: Jan 24, 2016 11:29 AM

    Are We supposed to take this seriously?

    1. Explain how in a revenue sharing model a 3rd team in Texas hurts the Cowboys (Americas team right?) and the irrelevant Texans? Who combined have metro areas exceeding 13 million people. Answer is it doesn’t

    2. Why would San Diego agree to give the raiders half the concessions they want when they just stonewalled their team for the last 40 years?

    3. Explain how and why mark Davis would be indifferent to owning a stadium and sky rocketing not only his teams value but position among the leagues owners as chairmen of one it’s more storied franchises?

    4. Thought the league agreed a third steam in so cal would be negative to a team in San Diego. If that is not the case then explain how a third team in Texas is an issue

  4. nextmanup81 says: Jan 24, 2016 11:31 AM

    I’m not from SoCal, but I have to imagine fans would be pretty ticked off if legislatures wouldn’t support a stadium deal for the Chargers, but end up getting one done for the Raiders. If that ends up being the case, why ever let the Chargers walk in the first place? Doesn’t make any sense to me.

  5. nyloco619 says: Jan 24, 2016 11:32 AM

    Again, why are billionaires asking for public money?

  6. zerotrophiessince1961 says: Jan 24, 2016 11:34 AM

    I hate pro sports owners so much. Build your own damn stadium and pay for it all yourself like any other person.

  7. thegame2love says: Jan 24, 2016 11:39 AM

    The golden goose is dead. No city is going to shudder at the NFL threats and this whole London thing is laughable.

  8. hippieway says: Jan 24, 2016 11:44 AM

    Come on wake up, you are not a billionaire by spending your own money. Other peoples money is the only way to go and other people are always willing to help the rich. Taxing them at reduced rates and building them palaces, it’s the American way.

  9. blumustang says: Jan 24, 2016 11:45 AM

    Being from west Texas I would love having the Raiders in SA and I’m sure there are plenty more in Texas that would like that too. If Dallas and Houston don’t want a team in SA they should put better teams on the field instead of just wanting to fill their pockets!

  10. faithful49er707 says: Jan 24, 2016 11:53 AM


    I find it hilarious that SeeCawk fans are always thinking about the 49ERS. Constantly mentioning them in posts or threads where nobody had said anything about the 49ERS.

    It sure is amusing to know that we OWN beach front property in your pathetic little fan bases mind.

  11. sfctyler says: Jan 24, 2016 11:56 AM

    The NFL is really ruining their image. All this moving teams here and there after all the fans have supported their teams for years. As soon as one team gets a new stadium then other owners want new stadiums and if they do not get it, they threaten the city to move their teams. The NFL and the owners make billions of dollars off of all the loyal fans and other things as well. The owners should be responsible for building their own stadiums and quit robbing the fans and the cities.

  12. glac1 says: Jan 24, 2016 11:58 AM

    Great move for either. Texas is a much tax friendlier state for owners and players alike…

  13. fanofpft says: Jan 24, 2016 12:02 PM

    Why isn’t St. Louis in this mix?

  14. boknowsvt says: Jan 24, 2016 12:05 PM

    I’m assuming Jerry and McNair are republicans. Isn’t the GOP always saying how great competition is? Are Jones McNair afraid of competition? Wimps.

  15. captainwhodat says: Jan 24, 2016 12:08 PM

    ah, Mark Cuban’s statement re the NFL rings truer and truer…it’s also the American way to overextend yourself…just look at the National Debt and our elected leaders (both Congress and the Presidency)…

  16. guitarmaninks says: Jan 24, 2016 12:12 PM

    Texans and Cowboys also might not like being taken to court by the city of San Antonio concerning infringements of their right to pursue any business they desire.

  17. ispeakthetruthraiders says: Jan 24, 2016 12:17 PM

    Late article.. they been talking about San Diego for at least a week

  18. clashpoint says: Jan 24, 2016 12:25 PM

    It may not have much to do with the topic, but I firmly believe that when an NFL team leaves a city, they should have to leave the team’s name with it. The Chargers should have to leave that name in San Diego for the next team that resides there – and if the Raiders go to San Diego, they have to take the name Chargers and leave Raiders in Oakland.

    When the Cardinals moved out of St. Louis they should have left the name behind, when the Rams went there they should have left Rams behind (not that it matters, ironically) etc etc etc.

    When the Browns moved to Baltimore, they did the right thing and changed their name. When the new Cleveland team started up, they took up the name Browns, and that was also the right thing. As a Steelers fan, I think both franchises are utterly ridiculous, but it’s still the truth.

    I don’t think we’d see as many teams moving, either.

    Just my .02, anyways.

  19. yyc2phx says: Jan 24, 2016 12:26 PM

    Expand to San Antonio…. They can and will support a team…I’m not sure where the league will be in 5 years with costs and tv….

  20. quicktaker says: Jan 24, 2016 12:31 PM

    I am tired of the owners and the NFL squeezing the cities. It is time to start squeezing the penny pinching owners who don’t want to build their own buildings. San Diego and Oakland need to stand tough and raise the rent on their public funded stadiums. San Antonio needs to stand tough and not put public funds towards a new NFL stadium.
    Cities need to get out of the stadium business.

  21. mpcny says: Jan 24, 2016 12:47 PM

    Why not throw St. Louis in mix

  22. dtroxallday says: Jan 24, 2016 12:53 PM

    San Diego moving Oakland’s arch rivals to town? Oakland’s “arch rivals”, as you put it, (I’d argue that would be either Den or KC before SD), just bolted SD.

  23. learysdisciples says: Jan 24, 2016 12:55 PM

    Racine Wisconsin Raiders

  24. leboffee says: Jan 24, 2016 1:10 PM

    You’re so brilliant, Florio. None of this is news, it’s all been talked about for months in San Diego

  25. davew128 says: Jan 24, 2016 1:11 PM

    boknowsall says:
    Jan 24, 2016 11:26 AM
    Build that new stadium in San Diego in the northernmost part of the county on the border of Orange County, and you will fill that stadium weekly.
    Umm, where? To the west is Camp Pendleton and the east along I-15 is privately owned farm country and NO public transportation.

  26. davew128 says: Jan 24, 2016 1:12 PM

    nextmanup81 says:
    Jan 24, 2016 11:31 AM
    I’m not from SoCal, but I have to imagine fans would be pretty ticked off if legislatures wouldn’t support a stadium deal for the Chargers, but end up getting one done for the Raiders.
    It’s not the state legislature, its city government for San Diego and Oakland.

  27. minormillikin says: Jan 24, 2016 1:16 PM

    Tijuana Raiders. Make it so.

  28. ReligionIsForIdiots says: Jan 24, 2016 1:16 PM

    faithful49er707 says:
    Jan 24, 2016 11:53 AM

    I find it hilarious that SeeCawk fans are always thinking about the 49ERS. Constantly mentioning them in posts or threads where nobody had said anything about the 49ERS.

    It sure is amusing to know that we OWN beach front property in your pathetic little fan bases mind.

    Irrelevant franchises have no place on these message boards.

    BTW, thanks for Chip.

  29. xavier179 says: Jan 24, 2016 1:24 PM

    PFT is wrong, San Antonio does not have the economy to support an NFL team. They need to stay with the Spurs, who they back profusely.

  30. alonestartexan says: Jan 24, 2016 1:26 PM

    The whole reason Spanos wants to move in the first place is because his territory was being invaded and he didn’t think two (let alone three) teams could exist and be financially viable in Southern California.

    Pre-1980’s the NFL in So Cal was fine, when the Rams moved to Anaheim and the Raiders to LA, it obviously didn’t work as two teams ended up leaving.

    Moving the Raiders to San Diego would not only be stupid for financial reasons, but moving to the city that’s hosted your bitter rivals since 1960?! Having the now LA Chargers coming back to San Diego every year?

    The NFL is about to lose this fan, this whole scenario is completely ridiculous. I won’t even go in to the fact that the league allowed the team with the best stadium of the three relocate, JUST because they had the wealthiest owner.

    St. Louis may be a declining crime filled city, but they didn’t deserve to lose their team.

  31. superlarz says: Jan 24, 2016 1:29 PM

    If the Chargers move to LA, they will instantly be the most hated team in SD. If the Raiders moved here they would be embraced by many of the season ticket holders I have spoken with, including myself. If there is no team in SD, go Rams.

  32. ebhaynz says: Jan 24, 2016 1:37 PM

    I don’t think the Raiders are going anywhere but San Diego and eventually the Jags will probably move.

    Eventually there will be a backlash or the NFL will just become only for the 5%. I’m sure the folks at the NFL HQ know exactly what will happen.

  33. intrafinesse says: Jan 24, 2016 1:41 PM

    If I was an owner and could rip off a city and con them into building a stadium for me, and I could rip off PSL holders to pay teh rest, then why wouldn’t I move, provided I could make more money.

    Think of it this way – GE will move a factory to where it’s cheaper to operate – why shouldn’t an NFL owner move the team to where it’s more profitable (i.e. a new stadium has more luxury boxes for example) , and less expensive the city and PSL holders build it for me,

    What does a factory, or a business own a city and the “fans”?
    Nothing. Move to where the money is.

    On the flip side – why is a city spending a dime of tax money on a private enterprise? Why not spend that same money to subsidize movie theaters or restaurants or whatever (it shouldnt do any of that). Why should a city favor one form of entertainment (NFL) over another?

    As for PSL buyers – why should I care about you? Buy your PSLs and attend the games. If the team moves, you are out of luck.

    For most fans, its better to watch on TV, the only missed fun is tail gaiting, which you can do at home. The NFL has made going to games a hassle, and with PSLs its fairly expensive.
    I’m content buying a ticket if I want to go, rather than buying PSLs and season tickets.

  34. raiderapologist says: Jan 24, 2016 2:12 PM

    nyloco619 says:
    Jan 24, 2016 11:32 AM

    Again, why are billionaires asking for public money?
    Again, Davis is no billionaire.

  35. kevsdomain says: Jan 24, 2016 2:18 PM

    Well, San Antonio and San Diego are certainly possibilities , but, Dallas and Houston might not like it, nor would Kroenke and Spanos like the Raiders in San Diego. The NFL wants them in Oakland. Should things move forward in either area, could we see another owners meeting that ends up giving the Raiders more money towards a stadium in Oakland??
    Perhaps Mark Davis is a little more savy then everyone thought, and is him firing a shot across the bow of the NFL.
    Quite frankly, I thought the L.A. process just left the Raiders dangling and the NFL/owners should have and could have made a better consolation prize that would have made a new stadium in Oakland closer to reality.

  36. mark0226 says: Jan 24, 2016 2:18 PM

    “…and the possibility of luring Oakland’s arch rivals…”

    I think you are suggesting San Diego has the possibility of luring San Diego’s arch rivals, not Oakland’s.

    The problem with this is that the Raiders have been despised by Chargers fans for so long, it would be very hard to embrace them now.

    Also, SoCal is cannot support three teams. It makes the most sense for Chargers to stay in San Diego and the Raiders to stay in Oakland or go to San Antonio. Unfortunately, the NFL screwed up by giving the Raiders permission to move to LA if the Chargers don’t. This puts the Chargers in a bad spot. They are practically being forced to move to LA because if they don’t, then the Raiders will and there will be three teams in SoCal.

  37. barnlit5652 says: Jan 24, 2016 2:44 PM

    I’ve grown tired of hearing that Southern California cannot support three teams. Newsflash: There were THREE teams in Southern California in the ’80s and ’90s. It was a different time back then and a new generation of football fans has emerged along with a very different NFL. Two teams leaving the SoCal market was never a San Diego problem. It was a Los Angeles problem. If there is anyone who needs to prove they can support a football team, or teams…it’s Los Angeles. But there were three teams way back then and it was never an issue. So why is it an issue now? Makes no sense, even if it’s about TV revenue streams. The league should have rectified the relocation problem by having the Raiders and Chargers remain in their home markets and only the Rams relocate to Los Angeles. Los Angeles doesn’t need two teams.

  38. hiflew says: Jan 24, 2016 2:49 PM

    “They are practically being forced to move to LA because if they don’t, then the Raiders will and there will be three teams in SoCal.”

    It was that way for almost 20 years with the same three teams. The only reason the Rams and Raiders moved then was because of stadium issues. The Chargers are also not really forced to move to LA. They could move somewhere else or stay in SD, like I said it worked for 20 years the last time.

  39. Richard Burns says: Jan 24, 2016 2:56 PM

    The reason to let the Chargers walk and to welcome the Raiders is that the Chargers want 100% of the money to be paid by the public, even though at this point the NFL has offered to pay $200 million of the costs, with all PSL money going into their billionaire owner’s pocket.

    The Raiders offered a deal to Oakland in which $500 million of the costs of a new $900 million 55,000 seat stadium would be paid by the team and PSLs paying another $150 million. The city of Oakland turned it down because they still owe money on the loan to upgrade the stadium the last time. ALL the city of Oakland was willing to offer was $90 million in infrastructure improvements.

    Does that offer sound familiar? It should, it’s very similar to what the what the city and county of San Diego offered the Chargers. Although with the $200 million the NFL is willing to kick in, the Spanos’ would only have to kick in $350 million of the $1 billion stadium in San Diego. Dean Spanos and his brothers are the problem.

    They should get used to empty seats if they move to LA. There are more Raiders fans in LA that would travel to San Diego to see home games for the Raiders if they move there, than there are Chargers fans. If you have ever been to a Chargers vs Raiders game at Qualcomm you understand what I am saying. It’s been like a home game for the Raiders at Qualcomm for the last 20 years.

    The Rams will be welcomed in LA as returning heroes. The Chargers will become 3rd class citizens in LA. And Spanos will pay nearly $2 billion for the privilege.

    Good riddance Chargers. Hello San Diego Raiders.

  40. joetoronto says: Jan 24, 2016 3:11 PM

    All of California belongs to the Raiders, not just SD, whether people like it or not is irrelevant.

  41. Richard Burns says: Jan 24, 2016 3:11 PM

    @alonestartexan You have never been to a game in San Diego when the Raiders were in town have you? More Raiders fans than Chargers fans for the last 20 years. The fans in San Diego would not only support the Raiders in San Diego, they would welcome them and want them to kick the Chargers behind twice a year for abandoning them even after the city put a great deal on the table. In San Diego, we have gotten to see what scum Spanos and his hired lawyers have been through this entire process and it will be nice to see them get their comeuppance.

    Spanos wanting to move the Chargers to LA has to do with DMA. LA is the 2nd largest one in the nation. That means more value for the team when the Spanos brothers sell it in a few years.

    Southern California from San Diego to Ventura has more population than any other state. Of course, they can support 3 teams.

  42. alonestartexan says: Jan 24, 2016 3:59 PM

    Richard, most of the fans at the Raiders @Chargers game is once a year, not 10 times.

    Sure, there are a lot of Raiders fans in LA but some will become Rams/Chargers fans (fans that cheer for their city) and others won’t be willing to drive from LA and pay top dollar (new stadium) 10 times a year.

  43. rockymountainoysters says: Jan 24, 2016 3:59 PM

    I don’t see how Jerry Jones has any ground to stop any team from moving anywhere after he shepherded the Rams out of St. Louis

  44. alonestartexan says: Jan 24, 2016 4:01 PM

    Also, I see “Southern California” has an estimated population of about 23 million.

    Texas has 27 million. 😉

  45. justwinsomeday says: Jan 24, 2016 4:06 PM

    I don’t understand why people think it’s not appropriate for a city who has a pro sports franchise to assist in funding a stadium. It’s no secret that Davis does not belong to the NFL billionaire club and if a city has a pro team, that has to generate good revenue for the city in tourism that would help offset their investment. Seems like a shared responsibility in which everyone benefits….but what do I know.

  46. spiffybiff says: Jan 24, 2016 4:19 PM

    It’s really the Chargers who should be looking at San Antonio. No fan base to lose in California and all to gain in Texas

  47. mdintino1420 says: Jan 24, 2016 5:12 PM

    How is Mark Davis going to afford the 550 million dollar relocation fee?

    If San Diego is unwilling/unable to come up with a stadium plan for the Chargers, how will they come up with one for the Raiders?

    Spanos shoud try for a new stadium in S.D. If no progress is made by the end of March, he should pack up and move to San Antonio. He can change the name to the San Antonio Outlaws or Gunslingers.

  48. sdcharger123 says: Jan 24, 2016 5:40 PM

    Also, I see “Southern California” has an estimated population of about 23 million.

    Texas has 27 million.


    Let’s compare an entire state’s population to a section of another state.

    Makes sense.

  49. spiffybiff says: Jan 24, 2016 5:44 PM

    The re lo fee varies by market and its size. San Antonio would be a fee of at least half that of la

  50. justanotherfan101 says: Jan 24, 2016 9:24 PM

    Since the NFL wants so much for relocation fees, they sort of have shot themselves in the butt. Where is the leverage of moving to a new city when a team has to pay these immense fees.

  51. ivanpavlov0000 says: Jan 24, 2016 11:01 PM

    The bottom line is that the good citizens of San Diego have zero intention of subsidizing the NFL by funding a stadium with public (taxpayer money). And San Diego ain’t Milwaukee — a stadium won’t get built without citizen approval of the funds.

    Unless the team owner(s) want to buy their own stadium, San Diego is a non-starter.

  52. fulltimemedia says: Jan 25, 2016 3:54 AM

    by far San Antonio the home of the best franchise in pro sports is the best option for raiders, the san antonio, austin metro area is perfect. so funny how people think san antonio is sold for life to the cowboys, you have any idea how fast them jerseys will go in a box in the closet or even in the trash…. even share the same black and silver tradition, is perfect. texas billionaire red mcombs and san antonio native told davis he has the $$$ to help if nfl has a fee to move i gotit… davis needs to stop this L.A sentimental crap … is 2016 cali had a chance time to hit that reset button

  53. mrznyc says: Jan 25, 2016 9:41 AM

    The city kicks in money because it aids tourism – I think that’s the way it goes – I am not a young man and in all my years I have never heard of a tourist going to Oakland.

  54. stlouisfan says: Jan 25, 2016 10:50 AM

    Anyone tired of this subject ? Does anyone really care where these owners go just to make more money ? I guess the fans in SD and OAK do but outside of that , who does ? The leverage talk is old. Its like crying wolf. Davis is going to San Antonio . No wait , he is staying in Oakland, Hold on he might go to SD. No ,LA if SD doesn’t go. He might go to London or Toronto. Spanos might go to LA. No staying in SD. NO thinking about San Antonio. The greed that the NFL has is unmatched . Hey don’t forget about STL. Maybe we can use them to get what we want. Really have no intention of going anywhere just want to squeeze as much money as we can out of the city we are in. I think the NFL is overestimating what cities are going to do. I think they are near the end of public money. Cities and states simply can not afford to put in millions of dollars to finance stadiums for such little return. Ask SF how much its costing them for the “privilege” of hosting the SB. BTW………. The relocation fees will be paid by the cities they are going to. That will be part of the deal. If you want a team , this is the way you get one.

  55. radrntn says: Jan 25, 2016 11:20 AM

    maybe North Dakota, or New Mexico…perhaps Montana, or South Carolina…Maybe Alaska, or Hawaii…Maybe Mexico City or London……where ever it might be I do know this …if the visiting team flushes a bunch of towels down the toilets , they might back up.

    All I know is next year I will be watching Carr throw a TD pass to Cooper, after Murray just picked up a first down from a 30 yard run, right after Mack caused a fumble on a sack. All from Sec 117 in Oco……nothing better than the Oakland fans and the Raider Nation, that just makes all others hate. stay by the bay!

    Go Raiders…..Go Reggie..

  56. timotheewhealon says: Jan 25, 2016 12:10 PM

    Hey Oakland, Don’t offer the NFL or the Raiders one red cent. The team has stunk for 13 plus years now… don’t subsidize the greed of this organization. Let them build their own facility… just like is being done in LA.

  57. stlouisfan says: Jan 25, 2016 12:20 PM

    justwinsomeday…………… Its not appropriate when the owner is keeping all the profits. The city pays to help build a stadium and gets little of the reward. If a city should help with the financing to build a stadium , the city should get part ownership of the team. If Davis cant afford to keep up with the King Of California ( Stan ) maybe he should think of selling the team. Its not the responsibility of the city to make sure he keeps getting richer and is taken care of at the expense of the city. There are many bad stadium deals financed by cities. STL was one of them. Cin. gave about $ 700 million. Minn. about $ 400 million. Im sure their are many more.

  58. adztheman says: Jan 25, 2016 1:41 PM

    There are laws in California that forbid the use of public money for the construction of stadiums and arenas…

    The Raiders are essentially Dead Man Walking until Mark Davis can decide what he chooses to do, as the custodian of a franchise that has no money, and little value.

    Each of the 30 owners gets a share of over a billion in relocation fees from Stan and Dean; throw in $100 or so from the Shield, see if BofA or somebody can loan the Raiders a ton of cash, or sell the franchise to somebody, and then you get your stadium…

  59. Sinuous Sausage says: Jan 25, 2016 4:58 PM

    Texas’s population arrow is pointing up. California’s is flat, maybe even downward. And it’s not like the two states differ that much in population at the moment, anyway (~28m in Texas and ~38m in California).

    Texas is also huge geographically and can’t really be partitioned into north or south. San Antonio is bigger than you expect and I guarantee Austinites would gravitate towards a rough-and-tumble Raiders team playing just down the road in lieu of the cake-eaters in Dallas and Houston. Hispanics also seem sympathetic to the Raiders brand for some reason. Throw in the rest of football-mad west Texas and I think it’s a viable option, notwithstanding Jerrah and McNair’s machinations.

  60. pemory says: Jan 26, 2016 12:12 PM

    Just call ’em the California Raiders and Mark Davis can decide each week where he wants to hold a “home” game: Oakland? LA? San Diego? It’ll be just like selecting that week’s uniform. ***Sarcasm***

  61. ashhole420 says: Jan 26, 2016 8:34 PM

    The Raiders should really move to Portland, Oregon!!!!
    That is by far the best place for the Raiders to move to and make a huge impact both in profits and in the amount of hardcore fans that would be created!!!

    Plus Portland makes the most sense for the Raiders to play there with the city’s history of shanghai kidnappings turning men into pirates and such.

    The Oregon Raiders has a great ring to it.

  62. ashhole420 says: Jan 26, 2016 8:39 PM

    i bet if the Raiders would move to Portland, Oregon the rivalry game against seattle would be very very heated.

  63. ashhole420 says: Jan 26, 2016 8:45 PM

    No One Else Thinks that 4 teams in a state is overKill as is 3 teams. Move the Raiders to a football rabid state that does not have a team but has some of the most hardcore rabid fans.

    TX HAS 2 TEAMS ALREADY AND RIGHT NOW CALI HAS 4. THATS INSANE and is way too many teams watering down the market values

Leave a Reply

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