Skip to content

Raiders rent skyrockets under new lease in Oakland

Zz1iNTlhN2U3NDM3NzM2MDM3MzE3OTU3N2M4MzNjNjk5ZA== AP

With the Raiders shut out of Los Angeles and having no immediate options to relocate elsewhere, Oakland had the upper hand in short-term lease negotiations. And Oakland used it.

According to David DeBolt and Rebecca Parr of the Bay Area News Group, the Raiders will pay $3.5 million to play at O.co Coliseum in 2016. That’s a dramatic increase over the $925,000 the team paid in 2015.

Given that the Raiders will be exporting a home game to Mexico City, the per-game rate has increased to $388,888 — up from $92,500 in 2015. That’s a total increase of more than four times the price paid last year.

A year ago, the Raiders negotiated a one-season lease at a time when the Raiders had a potentially viable path to Los Angeles. With that door slammed at least for now, the Raiders had no leverage, especially since they don’t want to play at the 49ers stadium (and because the 49ers don’t want them there).

Meanwhile, owner Mark Davis continues to flirt with other cities, presumably in the hopes of squeezing Oakland to cough up favorable terms on a new stadium deal. But at least one member of Oakland City Council has reached the point of ambivalence regarding the possibility of a move.

“I’m ready to kiss and say goodbye and help him pack his bags,” Noel Gallo said regarding Davis.

That won’t happen at least for the next year, and possibly for up to three years under the terms of the new lease. At some point sooner than later, however, the Raiders will have a new stadium. The only question is where it will be.

Permalink 90 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
90 Responses to “Raiders rent skyrockets under new lease in Oakland”
  1. tackleberries says: Mar 25, 2016 11:15 PM

    I totally took the title to mean something else.

  2. upby3 says: Mar 25, 2016 11:18 PM

    Sheesh, City of Oakland and that wonderful county just gave Mark a big F U. As a fan that effin sucks.

  3. muthafknzeus says: Mar 25, 2016 11:22 PM

    Because the city council of friggin oakland is so wise. I hope Oakland ends up losing all of its teams if they’re going to act like children. The Raiders leaving will be bad for the city anyway you look at it.

  4. raiderssf says: Mar 25, 2016 11:29 PM

    No different than the rest of us in the Bay Area. If Davis wants a new home for the team, he should start by going to the bank instead of city hall. BTW, there’s a waiting list for Raider season tickets.

  5. ronfai says: Mar 25, 2016 11:47 PM

    Partially correct , Jed York would love bowlcut’s money.

  6. jagsfanugh says: Mar 25, 2016 11:47 PM

    Wow, way to stick it the team. I bet they are out of Oakland soon and can’t blame them.

  7. charger383 says: Mar 25, 2016 11:54 PM

    when I first looked at headline, I thought Raiders were going to have to rent fireworks launching machines
    That’s what they need; a pirate ship to fire cannons

  8. cribbage12 says: Mar 26, 2016 12:02 AM

    Live in the Bay Area and like the Raiders but an NFL team paying less than a mil for 8 home games is a steal. Pony up Raiders, especially now that you’re getting good. And please stay!!!!!

    GoPackGo!!

  9. dretwann says: Mar 26, 2016 12:05 AM

    If I’m Mark Davis, I would see this as a long term positive outcome.

    1. The increase in rent, in a substandard arena, bolsters his argument for new digs.
    2. It strengthens his fight to relocate to a better place.
    3. The city has pretty much confirmed they want the Raiders out which further weakens the NFL’s power to try and force them to stay.
    4. Should he decide to channel good old dad and go against the league and owners and move where he wants to, the league would have a difficult uphill battle in court defending their position that he should’ve stayed put, effectively eliminating any fines they impose.
    5. This likely will move enough members of the ownership group to support their relocation come 2017, especially if the increase in rent but not necessarily an increase in revenue, affects the total NFL bottom line.

    Mark will just have to be patient and it will all line up for him accordingly.

  10. therealraider says: Mar 26, 2016 12:14 AM

    NFL team ownership is an exclusive club.. A club is a group of people who have each others backs. Why do you think Oakland lost the revenue of a home game and Mark Davis didn’t. All for 1, 1 for All.

  11. therealraider says: Mar 26, 2016 12:18 AM

    As a multiple season ticket holder I can say proudly Mark Davis didnt pass that cost off on me.. In fact the cost was prorated to reflect the lost game and my tickets cost less this year. The people’s owner.

  12. gmoney52 says: Mar 26, 2016 12:19 AM

    Just Vegas Baby

  13. namriverrat69 says: Mar 26, 2016 12:21 AM

    All thanks to Al Davis.

  14. harrietknutczak says: Mar 26, 2016 12:24 AM

    The City of Oakland had no choice but to do it. The cost of pumping the raw sewage onto the field has skyrocketed!

  15. citpyrc says: Mar 26, 2016 12:25 AM

    Oakland is a dump. I can’t believe they still have a team. I would never go to Oakland to see the Raiders. If they were in Vegas I would be there in a heart beat and I don’t even like them.

  16. thegreatgabbert says: Mar 26, 2016 12:37 AM

    Whew! When I read the headline I thought the Raiders were renting skyrockets to give out to the fans as a promotional item. That wouldn’t go well.

  17. thegreatgabbert says: Mar 26, 2016 12:39 AM

    “The skyrockets red glare” will come from the bottom line of the team’s financial statement next year.

  18. JSpicoli says: Mar 26, 2016 12:49 AM

    Staying in OAK definitely. Every reason to stay at home. Money, location, fan base, league support.

    But thanks for the constant barrage of every stupid rumor you can float about us leaving.

  19. cotroutslayer says: Mar 26, 2016 1:15 AM

    Oakland needs a new city council. If they cannot see the benefits of having a profootball team in their city then maybe it’s time to vote them out of office.

    I’d love to see the Oakland Raiders stay the Oakland Raiders but it aint gonna happen so long as these clowns are in office.

    Mark, Vegas baby! I’ll be fly’n in from Denver to watch my Raiders if you make the move…..

  20. lukedunphysscienceproject says: Mar 26, 2016 1:28 AM

    We love you and never want you to leave, but we’re never going to help you build a new stadium AND we’re to triple the rent you pay to play in this miserable sinkhole of a stadium. Have fun wading in the raw sewage the next time the pipes break.

    But I am sure when they do leave, everyone will come on here and scream about how “greedy” the Raiders are.

  21. jdrewsy says: Mar 26, 2016 1:30 AM

    $3.5 Mil for the worst stadium in the NFL?

    Las Vegas Raiders….here we come!

  22. jayhawk6 says: Mar 26, 2016 1:45 AM

    What would the rent be if the stadium was something other than an open sewer?

  23. ttommytom says: Mar 26, 2016 2:03 AM

    The price of a starting Will Lbr?

    Fer shame…

  24. bradblackandgold says: Mar 26, 2016 2:06 AM

    meh rent has been skyrocketing everywhere else in the bay area. oakland can’t afford a new stadium and even if they could, the average raider fan wouldn’t be able to afford the ticket to the new place.

  25. bearflagfan says: Mar 26, 2016 2:09 AM

    Mark has all of the quirks but none of the ruthlessness of Papa Al. He should sell before he’s forced to dump the team.

  26. steelbreeze676 says: Mar 26, 2016 2:12 AM

    Honestly Oakland shouldn’t give them a dime. No more NFL owner welfare. Ever. They can’t be trusted.

  27. bigwinintx says: Mar 26, 2016 2:32 AM

    That’ll come back to bite the city!

    The Raiders move and Oakland will lose all of it’s Sunday TV shares to L.A.
    While on the surface that might not seem like much, but with the off season moves the Raiders are making and with the Rams sticking with Fisher as the head coach, after a few games of stinking up the joint, more eyes will be tuned to the Raider Nation.

  28. intelligent cement says: Mar 26, 2016 2:45 AM

    Dear Mr.Davis,
    1.) Pack up your team and go to Vegas.
    2.) Get a haircut from one of the last few decades.

    Not in that necessary in that order.

  29. pondbridge says: Mar 26, 2016 2:59 AM

    Hopefully the Mexico City game is part of a Son of Al strategy aimed at attracting fans– especially Hispanic fans- to the NFL in central Texas. San Antonio Raiders has a great ring to it. Now that LA market is checked off with one and possibly two teams, the Austin-San Antonio market becomes one of largest and most important market in the nation without a present NFL team. Fans there have shown in the past that they will support a team (Saints, temporarily) and two natural in-state NFL rivalries exist already. They’ll get a stadium done. Almost a no-brainer. Hope that there’s someone ELSE in NFL HQ who might be attracted at the prospect of setting himself up in a cushy future job with a new relocated franchise by steering the Raiders towards their best next home. Yee haw.

  30. ProFootballRealignment says: Mar 26, 2016 3:03 AM

    The “San Francisco” 49ers no longer play in San Francisco. They play in San Jose. They should be renamed the San Jose 49ers. San Jose is a bigger city anyway. As for the Raiders, they should move to Las Vegas.

  31. ithasfourtoes says: Mar 26, 2016 3:27 AM

    Haha based on the title I was trying to figure out why the Raiders would need to rent skyrockets.

  32. yesyesyall87 says: Mar 26, 2016 3:42 AM

    Move to China. I’m sick of this never ending crap.

  33. irkjames says: Mar 26, 2016 4:03 AM

    Should have gone to LA

  34. stewart09 says: Mar 26, 2016 4:36 AM

    So the raiders been fleecing them for years? Under 1m is crazy considering over 50% of players get that from the team a year.

  35. araidersfan says: Mar 26, 2016 5:06 AM

    What would serve the best interests of the Raiders would be for Son-of-Al to sell a portion of his share of the Raiders to an investor who can finance a new stadium. Unfortunately this won’t happen because Son-of-Al has never had to work a day in his life and therefore has no business acumen. And despite his pretensions, he doesn’t give a damn about the fanbase. The Raiders are a toy that he’ll hold onto regardless of the consequences.

  36. psj3809 says: Mar 26, 2016 5:33 AM

    Davis wants to stay in Oakland but from this alone you can see how difficult they are making it for them

    Either LA if the Chargers don’t move or Vegas. Oakland city council are a major pain

  37. gadgetking2010 says: Mar 26, 2016 5:54 AM

    WOW !! Rent Skyrockets !!! Dramatic Increase !!!!
    To a whole HUGE amount of 3.5 MILLION !!!!
    That’s with a M people !!
    How will they ever afford this ?!?!?!?!?!?

  38. savior72 says: Mar 26, 2016 6:17 AM

    At first I misinterpreted the headline thinking the Raiders had rented skyrockets.

  39. illnagas says: Mar 26, 2016 6:38 AM

    Sundays in Oakland will be an afternoon delight.

  40. joeflaccosunibrow says: Mar 26, 2016 6:51 AM

    That’s pretty funny. I bet it’s safe to assume Oakland and Raiders will not coexist in 3 years. This is something you do when you want someone gone.

  41. badmude says: Mar 26, 2016 7:02 AM

    As a Raider fan, wish they could stay in Oakland. But at this point the city of Oakland and the stadium are nothing more than slumlords. Who ever Noel Gallo is and his cohorts are, the city is going to regret losing out when the Raiders move on and Warriors too.
    Davis should sell part of the team to a Vegas investor with ungodly amounts of $$$ and move the team there, no matter how the other hypocritical owner feel about it. Pops would already have done it.

  42. moseszd says: Mar 26, 2016 7:03 AM

    He should move to Vegas, tell the NFL to stick the $500 million relocation fee up their ***es and sue the NFL like his father if they get froggy about it.

  43. bert1913 says: Mar 26, 2016 7:52 AM

    the niners don’t want to play in Santa Clara

  44. jimnaizeeum says: Mar 26, 2016 7:55 AM

    It will be the 2nd time they leave Oakland…good riddance seems an appropriate sentiment.

  45. bigace73 says: Mar 26, 2016 8:09 AM

    I think there should be something done. As a Broncos fan, well i cant stand the Raiders, but squeezing them for that much of an increase is just wrong. lt should be illegal!

  46. dynastyposeiden says: Mar 26, 2016 8:15 AM

    seeing as how the greedy owners squeeze the last penny out of every customer it seems like a fair move when doing business.

  47. kevinoc63 says: Mar 26, 2016 8:31 AM

    Great to see a local government stick it to the NFL for a change.

  48. spiffybiff says: Mar 26, 2016 8:45 AM

    San Antonio come on down

  49. spiffybiff says: Mar 26, 2016 8:45 AM

    Would love to see another Texas team but the raiders will be in LA after next year

  50. whooligun says: Mar 26, 2016 8:48 AM

    This comes out the same day as the “Raiders to Vegas a possibility” story? What a coincidence!

  51. thetwilightsown says: Mar 26, 2016 8:52 AM

    How much did the NFL hate Al Davis?
    Enough that they would continue to blame the son for the sins of the the father.
    The one team that had any real reason to go back to LA (and only because the city of Oakland and O.Co is just a big fat mess)
    So far, Mark has done what Al could never do – patiently step away from things till the team could take it’s stripes, do the hard work, and fight back to relevance. Now, he needs to pull one move from his ol’ man’s playbook and walk that team across state lines to Vegas – damn the NFL’s approval and damn the officials of the city of Oakland.

  52. megaroad1 says: Mar 26, 2016 8:56 AM

    I really don’t want to read/hear the classic “we did everything we could to keep them” line if/when they leave.

    It’s frustrating to see how the new mayor gives the A’s every conceivable advantage and privilege, and then just pulls the rug under the Raiders.

  53. 2016StockMarketCrash says: Mar 26, 2016 8:59 AM

    Nobody cares about the Raiders any longer the 1970s and 1980s are long gone.

  54. tooz72 says: Mar 26, 2016 9:03 AM

    Al would have sued the NFL and won and would have been in Vegas by now

  55. iandemartino says: Mar 26, 2016 9:11 AM

    Probably the first time I don’t mind rent gouging. The owners have been using every bit of leverage go get whatever they can squeeze out of their fans and cities.

    Kind of nice to see a city hit back.

    “Oh the nice city of Los Angeles told you to get lost Mr, Davis? Well, we will take you back, rent has gone up though, you understand, O.co is such a nice place to live.”

  56. chesswhileyouplaycheckers says: Mar 26, 2016 9:18 AM

    Imagine that, a municipality using leverage on a team for a change. The Raiders may have gotten stiffed by the league but they sure had a short money lease prior to this. At least if they do extort a deal out of Oakland for a new stadium some of the money they get will be their own coming back. Good on ya Oakland!

  57. abninf says: Mar 26, 2016 9:26 AM

    if I were the owner of any business I would flee California as fast as I could. The Las Vegas Raiders does have a nice ring to it. And I would ask no permission nor pay any relocation fee.

  58. vetdana says: Mar 26, 2016 9:29 AM

    Normally,…I support a team sitting tight and not moving because of the local Fan Base interest in THEIR Team,..but
    this is a situation whereby the Majority of the fan base, the City Council and Sports Authority clearly, by their actions, want no part of the Oakland Raiders !..My Uncle, now deceased,one of the greatest Oakland Raider fans of all time, would turn over in his grave , if he knew what has happened to this Franchise and how they have been slapped in the face by the powers that be in Oakland.!…Good Rhythms and Good Bye Oakland and welcome the new Las Vegas Raiders !

  59. thetooloftools says: Mar 26, 2016 9:34 AM

    Las Vegas Raiders !

  60. bigbroncomama says: Mar 26, 2016 9:47 AM

    Marky Mark should stay in the sandbox with his plastic army men. Negotiating business deals just aint his thang!

  61. jimnaizeeum says: Mar 26, 2016 9:58 AM

    if I were the owner of any business I would flee California as fast as I could. The Las Vegas Raiders does have a nice ring to it. And I would ask no permission nor pay any relocation fee

    Sure you could just move with no permission/relocation fee, but you would no longer be in the NFL…what teams would you be playing?

  62. ppc50 says: Mar 26, 2016 10:06 AM

    Still a bargain. The Raiders make a lot of money, this amount is more than fair

  63. daramsman says: Mar 26, 2016 10:09 AM

    Finally a city that tells the NFL and a an NFL team to go screw itself. Take your team and go fleece another city. I imagine someway the league has told Davis either get a stadium deal done in Oakland or sell the team. They WILL NOT be in Las Vegas. And there is no way Jer ruh Jones and Bob McNair is going to share Texas with a 3rd team.

  64. waldogrey says: Mar 26, 2016 10:09 AM

    I read elsewhere that the higher rent came with a series of one year deals. So, the team will pay more (which is really a drop in the bucket to an NFL team), and can then get out next year if they want. If they were going to get similar per year prices, they likely would have had to sign a longer deal, which would have cost them just as much if they then tried to leave earlier.

    You pay more to have the option to get out earlier. And, that money is pretty trivial for an NFL team, so this is more of an interesting tidbit than a real story.

  65. psubeerman21 says: Mar 26, 2016 10:22 AM

    I think it’s hilarious some people actually think think the Oakland city council is in the wrong. All this guy does is try to leverage other cities against Oakland, and this process has now been going on for two years (and will continue for the foreseeable future). So don’t think for one second Davis wouldn’t turn the screws on the taxpayers of Oakland, since that has been his plan all along.

  66. corvusrex96 says: Mar 26, 2016 10:25 AM

    I am sure there was a lower rate if they signed a longer lease

  67. harrisonhits2 says: Mar 26, 2016 10:31 AM

    Good don’t give these nfl scumbags a single dime.

    Its not enough they make billions every year from the league, its not enough they are making further hidden billions from shadow ownership of the daily fantasy gambling sites, they still want taxpayers to give billionaires free buildings.

    Enough is enough. The league can easily afford to pay for its own buildings.

  68. stacanova says: Mar 26, 2016 10:41 AM

    Thanks Noel Gallo, we all now know the Frustration that Mark Davis has been dealing with!
    By comparison, the A’s pay 2 million a year for over 81 days of usage.
    The Raiders are now paying 3.5 Million for 10 games (including Preseason).

    The A’s ownership has the money to build a stadium, the Raiders don’t.
    Mark Davis is treated as a villain, because he is keeping other options open and exploring alternatives in case they can’t get something done in Oakland.
    The only reason the A’s are still in Oakland is because MLB wouldn’t let them move, if it was up to them, they would be gone already!
    I also will have to see about the Raiders having a “waiting list on season tickets”?
    I’ll have to see the attendance numbers before I believe that.
    Last season, when factoring Cost Of Living, the Raiders had the cheapest NFL ticket prices by far!
    Without the PSL charge.
    Their attendance was one of the worst in the NFL, they only averaged selling about 80% of what is the lowest capacity NFL stadium.
    That is pathetic.
    They also improved to 7-9 and were competitive & entertaining in all
    but one game.
    STILL NO ONE SHOWED UP!
    The freaking Jaguars, who were worse last year and haven’t been good in 8 years and have never sold anything averaged 5,000 more fans a game!
    They also have a beach!
    Where the water is warm all year!

  69. goldfisheater says: Mar 26, 2016 10:43 AM

    Is this per game or for the season? If for the season it is a total steal. Assuming building a stadium is $600 million, interest on that alone at 3% is $18 million a year.

    That assumes these guys put up any of their own money to build a stadium, which I guess is the problem.

  70. JaminJake says: Mar 26, 2016 11:11 AM

    I don’t think this city council understands what the Raiders mean to not only Oakland, but Football in general. Al Davis, love him or hate him, played a significant role in shaping the league and they had some of the best teams ever.

    The thought of them leaving Oakland just doesn’t seem right.

  71. hempoilcures says: Mar 26, 2016 12:35 PM

    Of course the article has no mention of the money owed to the city from the Raiders. When they built mount Davis, the team still owes the city for that construction. The deal was made and never paid off…..what this increase is, is the paying off of that debt. It’s all a game and it’s the fans who are being played….the media, the league, it’s all a game people and you are IT.

  72. slomyke says: Mar 26, 2016 12:44 PM

    Mark Davis has options other than Oakland that he’s choosing not to explore.

  73. inozwetrust says: Mar 26, 2016 12:54 PM

    Love to see a city taking from the NFL team instead of being blackmailed into giving the team everything. The Oakland politicos know the Raiders are leaving and they are going to suck every penny they can out of them before they leave. That’s great!!

    Go Oakland!!

  74. swedishfish14 says: Mar 26, 2016 12:58 PM

    $3.5 million is still a fabulous deal for the team.

  75. bigbroncomama says: Mar 26, 2016 1:10 PM

    Marky Mark, please stay in the sandbox with your plastic army men. Negotiating big business deals aint your thang!

  76. goodguyattorney says: Mar 26, 2016 1:11 PM

    Somebody could get hurt with all the pre-game skyrockets.

  77. boogerhut says: Mar 26, 2016 2:19 PM

    Tell me this won’t affect Marks hair stylist budget. One penny less than what he’s paying now and there’s no telling what we’ll be forced to glance at.

  78. dejadoh says: Mar 26, 2016 2:38 PM

    Actually $3.5 million in rent is pretty cheap, compared to laying out $1+ billion for a stadium and all the associated maintenance.

  79. trailerparkking says: Mar 26, 2016 2:44 PM

    Make Las Vegas or San Antonio apply for expansion teams. Stop robbing cities and fans!

  80. trailerparkking says: Mar 26, 2016 2:47 PM

    If the move the Raiders Oakland should fight to keep the name and team history like the Cleveland did with the Browns. Why does Green Bay get public ownership options but no other team does?

  81. realtruthteller100 says: Mar 26, 2016 3:14 PM

    rents are goin up every where around the bay. before i thought it wasnt a big issue cause it was mostly just poor losers getting evicted from there “homes”. but now it is clear that this is a serious issue since its effecting a nfl team. imo the local gov needs to pass a ordinance to make sure the responsible partys foot the bill for this, local taxpayers.

  82. patriotsticketssince1978 says: Mar 26, 2016 3:46 PM

    I thought the title meant the Raiders were improving their pyrotechnic display.

  83. senatorblutarsky says: Mar 26, 2016 5:47 PM

    Viva Las Vegas!!!!

  84. radrntn says: Mar 26, 2016 5:52 PM

    meanwhile the Oakland A’s who use oCo for 81 games a year, got 10 one year deals, with concessions in their favor for a total of only about 20 million..Libby Schaff is so in bed with Lew Wolff its pathetic, but Oakland politicians for the most part always have been. Time will tell what Oakland does ,but we do know this….Sheldon Aldelson can afford to build his venue, and would love to have the Raiders as tenants.

  85. bigbroncomama says: Mar 26, 2016 6:35 PM

    OMG! Do they get to keep the tarps or is that extra?

  86. jimmysee says: Mar 26, 2016 8:13 PM

    If the Raiders were in Las Vegas they could go double or nothing.

    :-)

  87. xviixxiixxvi says: Mar 26, 2016 8:31 PM

    Let me illustrate something for you…

    “Raiders Rent Skyrockets…”

    is not the same thing as…

    “Raiders’ Rent Skyrockets…”

  88. mdintino1420 says: Mar 28, 2016 4:34 PM

    It is a shame that the A’s didn’t move to Freemont like they were supposed to. They are in the way bigtime of the Raiders getting a new stadium. Isn’t there a suburb east of Oakland that would have the A’s or Raiders??

    I can’t understand why the A’s would sign such a long lease to stay in an outdated dump of a stadium.

  89. raiderjefe says: Mar 28, 2016 7:51 PM

    Noel Gallo is the chair of the public safety committee in Oakland, and has served on the Public School board there. That just goes to show what he knows about anything. BTW, Oakland homicide rates were up for 2015. Great Job Noel. Oakland residents will help you pack and carry your bags to International Ave so you can leave town. What a Slapd!!ck.
    Coliseum land is co-owned by the City of Oakland and the Alameda County. They will never get their crap together before they lose both teams that play in the Coliseum. The Warriors are already going to cross the bay an play in SF soon.

  90. silvernblacksabbath says: Mar 29, 2016 9:43 AM

    The Raiders will get a new stadium if we can just get in the playoffs this year… Then it will be a piece of cake…

Leave a Reply

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