Report: 49ers willing to share Levi’s Stadium for a year

Getty Images

As the Raiders continue to flail about in search of a place to play next season, their neighbor has made an offer they may be able to refuse.

According to Matt Maiocco of NBC Sports Bay Area, the 49ers are willing to work with the Raiders on a one-year stadium agreement, which would see the teams share Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara.

But they’re not willing to waive their territorial rights to Oracle Park (the baseball Giants park in San Francisco), which would effectively end the notion of the Raiders playing there.

The league’s bylaws state that the 49ers can’t play in Oakland and the Raiders can’t play in San Francisco without the team waiving its rights.

Then there’s the matter of San Francisco not seeming to want them. Mayor London Breed said in an interview with KTVU that she doesn’t want them, citing congestion from other sports teams and construction projects.

“As far as I’m concerned, the Oakland Raiders should play in Oakland,” Breed said.

The Raiders need a place to play in 2019 before their new stadium in Las Vegas is ready, but that’s not proving to be an easy process.

They have a one-year lease offer to stay in Oakland, and as awkward as their goodbye has been, it would just add another layer. But it would be a significant tail-between-the-legs return, considering the city’s pending lawsuit against the team.

35 responses to “Report: 49ers willing to share Levi’s Stadium for a year

  1. Playing in a baseball stadium is a lousy idea that smacks of desperation. 8 games isn’t going to make or break the economy in a tourist mecca like San Fran and that final Raiders home game just screams “extra security needed, potential for problems.” Can’t blame San Fran’s mayor for wanting no part of that.

  2. These politicians and team owners are ridiculously petty. It’s a one-year arrangement that’s just not a big deal. The 49ers never should have moved out of San Francisco and they can’t get past that.

  3. Doesn’t it seem ridiculous that the 49ers would allow the Raiders to share Levi’s Stadiums but deny them the right to play in a baseball stadium that they have nothing to do with?

  4. if im the raiders i look east and make the afc west travel east to them. the raiders travelling west doesnt have as big an impact as travelling east.

  5. The bigger question, isn’t where the faiders will play. The real questions is that whatever facility they chooses will they have enough tarps to cover the empty seats?

  6. The 49’ers turned down the Oracle Park option so they could make the Raiders pay them rent at Levi’s. They get nothing if they allow the Raiders to play in SF. I suspect Davis goes back to Oakland to give them the $7.5M rent payment instead of paying a similar amount to the 49’ers.

  7. Trying to type on a phone so here is the correction to satisfy the grammar cops:

    The real question is that whatever facility they select, will they have enough tarps to cover the empty seats?

  8. It’s business. The Niners own Levi stadium which means the Raiders will have to pay rent directly them. The Niners would get nothing from the Raiders being in their territory if they were at Oracle Park. Better for everyone to just leave the Raiders in Oakland for a year, as uncomfortable as that may seem. Maybe the Raiders should have payed more attention to the Niners trade offer for Mack. Instead they choose not to send him across the Bay. Now the Niners owe them no favors and have every right to block their temporary move.

  9. mackcarrington says:
    February 6, 2019 at 1:15 pm
    Doesn’t it seem ridiculous that the 49ers would allow the Raiders to share Levi’s Stadiums but deny them the right to play in a baseball stadium that they have nothing to do with?
    =================================================================
    the 49’ers get rent money from the Raiders if they play at Levi, but not if they play at the baseball stadium. it comes down to money…

  10. Raiders Stadium in Las Vegas is on time and on budget, so in a little over a year and a half from now all you smart guys who are predicting doom and gloom will see what a great move this was for the Raiders and for the NFL in general.

  11. “Doesn’t it seem ridiculous that the 49ers would allow the Raiders to share Levi’s Stadiums but deny them the right to play in a baseball stadium that they have nothing to do with?”
    ________________________

    Not at all. They’d get to charge the Raiders for using Levi’s along with getting the parking and concessions (or at least a chunk of them). They’d get nothing at all if the Raiders played at Oracle.

  12. It’s all about money. The Raiders shouldn’t have come back. I remember Frank Youell field. Great memories.

  13. I have an idea. Move the Raiders back to LA. I’m sure the city is dying for a third NFL team.

  14. Another master’s class in league management by Roger Goodell. He won’t rest until the league has a team based on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico.

  15. NFL Logic: We need to get this team a new stadium. Player safety is our top priority. They can’t play on a shared surface with a baseball team anymore.

    Also NFL Logic: It would be really nice and convenient if we could play at another team’s cities baseball stadium, since one of our own might be homeless.

    #bowlcut logic: Hey, can we borrow your territory for a season? – we’ve poo-pood the bed over here in our territory…

  16. Thanx. it was totally lost on me the financial motivation for the 49ers to block the Raiders from then Giants park.

  17. so since the 49ers are tennants, all they can say is that they are ok with it. But the real question is does the Santa Clara Stadium Authority want the Raiders. They are the ones who have to approve the deal. The Niners pay them over 24 million a year in rent, so you would have to think that is how much the Raiders would have to pay “at least” . I know I am not driving to San Jose to go to the game. Thad add’s an hour to the drive. I will save my money and go to Maui instead and watch the game on Kaaanapali Beach instead. Go Raiders!

  18. If this happens, (and I suspect it won’t) , that mess of a playing surface will be the joke of the league after 16 weeks in a row of abuse. Not to mention the potential injuries as a result of the horrible field conditions.

  19. Unless is out. Facility isn’t big enough all the way around and unlv says no

    Davis is on the hook for anyplace else to charge the same rent as Oakland if not more.

    San Diego is the real choice. Those LA fans will drive it and put 45k in the seats. Prob is, the Mexico game would have to be chargers raiders cause SD won’t have em

  20. I was kinda enjoying the thought of calling them the SF Raiders. What a predicament the franchise and Oakland created.

  21. What kind of fool is this mayor? You don’t want Oakland fans coming to your town to spend money? Did your citizens help pay for that stadium? I think getting some money back for them would be a great idea.

  22. What kind of fool is this mayor? You don’t want Oakland fans coming to your town to spend money?

    _______________________________
    Raider fans don’t have money. Why do you think the team is moving? A 20 buck t-shirt is a big investment to them.

Leave a Reply

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