Just Move, Baby?
Will the Raiders leave Oakland again in search of greener grass (and more greenbacks)?
The rumblings of this rumor are getting louder with the upcoming demise of the Coliseum lease combined with the recent lack of sellouts.
I don't believe it, but stranger things have happened, such as the first move to Los Angeles and losing our past 13 games against the Chargers.
Anyhow, this rumor has given rise to a peculiar perspective that has been voiced in the comments section here at Raider Take. Essentially, some folks are saying, "If you don't put your butt in the seats, you'll all get what you deserve if the Raiders hit the road."
Huh?
I'm not buying the "You MUST spend your hard-earned cash on awful football performances in PERPETUITY or ELSE the Raiders will move" reasoning, as if it's all on the fans to keep the team in Oakland, and as if the Raiders have no responsibility in matters of marketing or performance.
What arrogance.
If the most loyal and ardent fan base in the NFL is no longer showing up to your games, then it's time to look in the mirror, not call the moving trucks. Hopefully, the OAKLAND Raiders realize this.
The Raider Nation doesn't deserve a move of the Raiders. The Raider Nation deserves a competent football product. The Raider Nation has done its part, but is losing patience, and rightfully so.
It's up to the OAKLAND Raiders to do something about, not vice versa.
The rumblings of this rumor are getting louder with the upcoming demise of the Coliseum lease combined with the recent lack of sellouts.
I don't believe it, but stranger things have happened, such as the first move to Los Angeles and losing our past 13 games against the Chargers.
Anyhow, this rumor has given rise to a peculiar perspective that has been voiced in the comments section here at Raider Take. Essentially, some folks are saying, "If you don't put your butt in the seats, you'll all get what you deserve if the Raiders hit the road."
Huh?
I'm not buying the "You MUST spend your hard-earned cash on awful football performances in PERPETUITY or ELSE the Raiders will move" reasoning, as if it's all on the fans to keep the team in Oakland, and as if the Raiders have no responsibility in matters of marketing or performance.
What arrogance.
If the most loyal and ardent fan base in the NFL is no longer showing up to your games, then it's time to look in the mirror, not call the moving trucks. Hopefully, the OAKLAND Raiders realize this.
The Raider Nation doesn't deserve a move of the Raiders. The Raider Nation deserves a competent football product. The Raider Nation has done its part, but is losing patience, and rightfully so.
It's up to the OAKLAND Raiders to do something about, not vice versa.
posted by Raider Take at 8:10 AM
114 Comments:
Very well said RT! I agree with your take 100% and its the RAIDERS that need to commit to the fans not the reverse. Talk of the team moving to LA is too real if you look at how it is lining up. A bunch of millionares building a stadium in the city of industry for "some" team is odd in itself. Is it like, build it and they will come mentality? Would you spend a Billion Dollars then hope any team moves there......I think not. There is some deal done or close to being already and the Raiders are primed for the move. No extention on the contract for the Coliseum. No denial for the move and lack of marketing the team here in Oakland. The Huge fan base in LA is another good reason.....The list goes on As evedance I hold the worst record in our history leading to the worst attendance sense they returned. The Glaring lack of attention to the teams problems ie management, draft picks and the obvious void of action to change it. For me this adds up to moving and perhaps its what Al Davis has planed. To sell the team as his son is NOT a Raider fan and would prefer to own the Warrors as he has stated in the past. I will always be a Raider fan and when they move it will not change that....It will leave me with more change in my pocket and a 50 inch plasma to watch the games that are blacked out in LA.
Raider Greg
Calico:
I wasn't arguing about what power an HC should have. I was mere arguing your point that Gruden earned it. He did not. He mismanaged the roster. Granted he built a Super Bowl team, but he also doomed the team to a lengthy rebuild.
RT:
Let's not forget the intangible here. There is the City of Oakland to deal with, and the city has botched Raider deals every step of the way. Raider fans and the Raiders organization can wish all they want for a new deal, a new stadium, etc., etc., but it all goes to piss if the City of Oakland doesn't play along.
If the city balks at cooperating to bring about a new deal, and another city comes to the fore with a complete stadium deal, where would you go as an owner?
I'm not saying it's all on the city, nor the fans, nor the Raiders. It's a three way deal and all have to agree at the end of the day.
RT, you are scraping the bucket for takes.
If the Raiders move, then I will be off the wagon, it would be the last straw. I would get an Al Davis toilet seat and shit in his face every day.
The only thing I see making the Raiders not move is the fact that even L.A. isn't that stupid, are they? IF they get a stadium, why would they want the Raiders? Really, what city would be so stupid to set themselves up for the very real possibility of empty seats and lawsuits?
L.A. has tasted Al's bullshit, why would they want to go there again? Oakland accepted Al back, has put up with his incompetence and shit product. Oakland has given as much as you can give, has Al Davis? I really hope he is trying to move and all he gets is hangup's from city after city.
Al can't run forever, sooner or later he is going to have to understand that you can't keep cutting the legs out from under the fans. He needs to take responsibility for the horrible product he keeps serving up. It's not the city, it's not the fans, it's not the players, it's not the coaches....man up Al, it's YOU.
If L.A. or any other city wants him so bad.....YOU CAN HAVE HIM and GOOD FREAKIN LUCK.
JONES
"He mismanaged the roster. Granted he built a Super Bowl team, but he also doomed the team to a lengthy rebuild."
Oh my, so it's Gruden's fault that Al can't rebuild the roster for 7 yrs? How long does it take other teams to "rebuild"? This is the longest rebuilding project I have ever seen in pro sports. Blanda, don't be so absurd.
JONES
Al has burned his bridges. The Chargers or Vikings would be far more welcome than the Raiders. This team isn't going anywhere physically or in their development.
Ai, yi, yi.
Hey, I've an idea:
Let's take potshots at each other while the ship is sinking. That's the most productive idea I've seen yet.
---Jeff
What's wrong with this take? It's timely, it's a topic that is gaining traction out there, and it addresses a very real phenomenon facing the Raider Nation.
The sad part is not discussing a potential move, the sad part is that no city wants or would take the Raiders. There is no way LA does another deal with Al.
Roy
Take, I don't see anyone complaining about the topic. I was just saying that you leave out an important ingredient to the situation.
Here's something else. We all knew the following facts going into season: 1) We have no serious depth in our OL, 2) We have very little experience among our WRs, 3) Our defense was going to have to come together under a new defensive staff.
During the first half we had two key injuries on our OL, forcing a third to play out of position. The WR we were depending on the most was lost for the first half during the preseason. We have built on our defense, and it's showing signs of coming together.
Additionally, we're shuffling between injuries to McFadden and Fargas, we lost our starting FB for the season, and the man that we counted on for return duty hasn't yet taken the field. All of the injuries in the face of little or no depth.
The time to see what Cable is building is in the second half. Now he has all of his few available tools back. How many teams can lose four starters on their offensive unit and still compete? A few elite teams could, but the Raiders are a young rebuilding team.
Sometimes you have to look at what you have. Not what you want to have, or what you once had.
Roy, I don't know where folks get the idea that it was Al who screwed LA. Davis contracted for a fully rebuilt and modernized stadium. That never happened. In fact, the reason that Al left is because he had nowhere to play. The LA stadium wound up being condemned. In answer to that, Al had arranged for private financing for a whole new stadium and asked for a contribution from the NFL. The NFL's response was to demand that an expansion team share the stadium at Al's expense - collapsing the whole deal and chasing away the contributors.
I know that we are all supposed to be in our "Al can do nothing right - and Al is evil" mode. But let's at least try and stick with established facts.
I hear you, I just wanted to counter those who are wagging their finger at the Raider Nation, as if the Raider Nation isn't doing its part by selling out the Coliseum.
The Raider Nation has done its part, and then some, by showing up strong for year after pathetic year. But even the Nation has its limits.
Have the Raiders done their part in getting serious about fielding and marketing a competent product? No. There's still no GM, and the marketing is still abysmal.
So the ball's in their (and the city of Oakland's) court, not the Nation's.
Thing is, Al Davis took the team away from Oakland. He then took the team away from L.A., Blanda's side of the story is always onesided so his take is worthless. It's always someone elses fault hey Blanda?
Blanda talks of Al having setup a stadium deal in L.A. when he was there, why hasn't he setup a deal in the Bay? California is way past broke, I realize this, the Bay area needs a stadium for 2 teams. The Bay area has proven for decades that they are true NFL fans. L.A. has shown they don't really give a shit either way. Why is the "Terminator" pushing for a stadium in L.A.? The Bay area deserves that money and Al should be pushing for that.
I wrote long ago that Al Davis should be working on a stadium deal, but instead, he mucks up the team and shows no progress to a stadium deal in the Bay. Does Al Davis even like Oakland as a home? Or is he just exploiting it until he can find a new home?
\
JONES
Blanda, as far as getting "starters" back...it won't be an improvement, the 'starter" is at the same level as the 2nd and 3rd string, so does it matter?
I think most of us are looking at what we have and this is why we wish we HAD SOMETHING ELSE. Don't start Blanda, you are going down that road you just can't stay off.
JONES
Jones, your hatred of facts doesn't remove them. When Davis left Oakland, the established facts are that Davis had a negotiated deal on the table with Oakland when Rosell stuck his nose in and told Oakland not to sign it because he'd never let Al move. That's why Al won that law suit, or have you forgotten. It's not that nothing is Al's fault, it's just that not EVERYTHING is Al's fault. Making up your own facts is a worthless enterprise.
If you wrote a long time ago that Al should be working on a stadium deal then you should also know of the reports (this past off season) that Al Davis' son was scouting locations for a new stadium in the bay area.
But in spite of such ignorance, it's good to know that even you can appreciate that the Bay area has far more interest in professional football than LA.
I agree with most people here, especially this take RT. The ball is with the Raiders, not the fans, to decide who and where they want to be. After shelling out $$ (even in TX) to watch the Raiders play live, fans (myself included) have done our part to support the Raiders. Put a winning product in the organizational front office, and on the field; and the fans will swarm back.
But in Al's mind, he can do whatever he wants! In his mind, he feels he still "owns" the Raiders, the LA Market, the Oakland Market, the winningest record in the League, the "team of the Decades" title, and the AFL (hence the tribute to Al Davis video on the official site).
I don't think Al ever wanted to leave the LA Market, especially with the Lambs moving. He had a stadium project starting in Irwindale (near the spot where this new stadium proposal is. It may be the same spot in fact), and for whatever reason the League blocked it, wouldn't support it, whatever; and Al had for years (until like 3 or 4 years ago) filed suit after suit against the League for "tampering" with "his stadium". You can still drive by this hole in the ground, and I bet there is still a sign that reads "Future home of the Raiders" there too.
So until the delusion of Al Davis' mind comes to the reality that he has nothing, he will continue to live in his delusion that he holds all the cards to return the "RAIDAHS TO GREATNESS" his way.
This is the dilemma that EVERY Raider fan faces at this moment. How much of this can you take personally? For me, I wish this agony was over. I love this team, and will always love this team (good or bad); but that doesn't mean I have to monetarily support this team by buying tickets to games, and gear.
"If the Raiders move, then I will be off the wagon"
Promis?!?!?!?!??
If moving the team is seriously considered, I would assume attendance would play some role in the decision. Although how much I'm not sure.
LA is huge. So even if only a small fraction of the population follow the team, it will be enough to pack the stadium and sell shitloads of merc. There is a risk of a backlash from LA though, because the haters will GREATLY outnumber us there.
My understanding on the 'hollywood park' deal was that Al had it all privately financed and ready to go and needed NO money from the nfl.
The NFL kept tacking on more and more requirements until Al finally pulled out. I wish he would pull out now, but that's another type of pulling out.
The should build an Island Stadium in the bay and call it Alcatraz, and let the Raiders and the Niners play there.
Or Maybe Jerry will let us move in with him in Dallas?
-moshbucket
oh, hey. How about moving the team to London? I bet Al would be all over that, groundbreaking and whatnot.
I think it's stupid to consider a team overseas, and I sure as hell hope it isn't us!!!
-moshbucket
Thanks, moshbucket, for proving that you can be a disgruntled fan, but still be aware of facts.
It would make sense in some ways for the Raiders to move back to Southern California to the City of Industry to be exact. So would they become the Los Angeles Raiders of the City of Industry?
However nothing is as simple as that.
There are five (or 6) teams: Jags, Bills, Vikings, Rams, Chargers or Expansion Team in the mix. I believe the Niners are out until Santa Clara negoiations are off the table.
Some things working against the Raiders, Roski wants at least (a non-controlling) 40% ownership stake in any team that moves there. With Al Davis already selling 20% of his ownership share recently to raise capital; I believe his share total is at 47%. Assuming he would have to give up more than 7% of his shares to make up the 40% minimum Roski is asking, he would no longer be a majority owner.
For the life of me I cannot see that happening. But I guess stranger things have.
Fair or not Mr. Davis has a reputation of being difficult so all things being equal I would assume whomever makes the decision would have the Raiders as not the first choice.
Raiders, Rams and Chargers all have built-in fanbases in SoCal. Jags, Vikings are two teams that seem to be very well run. Bills would probably cause the most disruption in terms of team realignment with in the divisions.
Speaking just in terms of the Raiders, winning cures a lot of ailments, it is one thing to deal with Mr. Davis when he's winning it would be an entirely different proposition to deal with him when he's been losing at the rate the Raider's have been losing. From the POV of Roski, even if he says he wants a non-controlling interest, those really, really rich folk tend to have egos. It would be a dicey situation for Mr. Davis to put himself in... no longer being the majority owner.
Another factor in all of this is the A's are probably leaving the Coliseum, either to San Jose or Middle Harbor Point (is the latest rumor). The Coliseum really is in a great spot in terms of transportation and access. It surely needs another renovation but with the A's desperately wanting to leave, maybe the City, County and the NFL can get some creative financing together and make it a gem.
Blanda,
The facts of why Al left LA or Oakland are irrelevant. I never stated that Al screwed the cities. However, the fact remains that leave he did. LA can have other teams and as a betting man I will bet they want no part of the Raiders, period.
Roy
I think you're wrong there Roy. I used to live down there, and I still have ties there. There is a very large appreciative base for the Raiders there - which doesn't get too much voice in the local media. Also, any city acquiring a team from another city generally expects that the team will have been losing some - otherwise the lost ticket sales prompting the move doesn't make sense.
Roy, have you ever noticed that when the Raiders play the Chargers in SD there always seems to be more Raider fans than Charger fans? Where did you suppose those people came from? SD? No, they come from LA.
The Raiders get most of their income from the fans. Many teams collect a good portion of their money from corporate partnerships. Al resists corporate partnerships because it diminishes his power. The partnered corporation can bring financial pressure to bear in controlling who plays and team identity. That is why you see so few "fan appreciation" events during the season. Those generally are conducted by a corporate partner as a marketing tool for their own products as well.
So if the fans fail to show up, this creates a genuine financial hit on Al Davis and the Raiders. So the fan base does have some pressure to bring.
But here's our dilemma. That reduces also the financial room for the Raiders to secure winning tools, players and coaches. Alternatively, we can send the Raiders into bankruptcy and force Al to sell the team - but that will probably guarantee a losing team for many more years to come.
The best solution - and I don't know exactly how you go about it - is to convince Al that he needs the help, and he needs it fairly soon.
I try to make one game per year, usually on the east coast, but I've made the trip to Oakland. Regardless, I can count on one hand the number of games I’ve missed since the advent of satellite TV. Even with that record, I’ve almost reached my threshold with the current degraded product, as I know a lot of fans have.
I can't image the Raiders are marketable in any city right now, including Oakland.
IMO, the miserable failures of this team have lost any traction the franchise might have had for a new stadium deal. It’s bad business... not that the Raiders care about that.
Think of the time and effort it must take to work on this project alone... forget about being the team’s GM, Director of Scouting and Player Personnel, etc. Al Davis truly is a superhero to handle all these jobs.
BR,
I state the facts, I wrote that Al took the Raiders from Oakland and L.A......like Roy said, what transpired doesn't mean squat. Thing is, Al has done it twice, will another city trust Al to stick around? This will be a HUGE factor in another city wanting the Raiders. It will also look at the leadership structure of the team and see an organization not in touch with todays market.
As for L.A., they have shown indifference to the NFL, Raiders always had mediocre crowds in L.A. IF the Raiders were to move there in a new stadium, the crowds might be good for the start just because it is new. If the product that Al serves up continued, the team would be in big trouble again.
L.A. has already proven that they aren't big on the NFL, no matter who it is. SOOO, taking this into account, the Raiders would be a poor choice for L.A., IMO, the L.A. politicians aren't THAT dumb to make such a poor business move.
BR, THOSE are the facts, you condescending Al worshipper.
JONES
NYRaider, that's why the LA deal is so attractive. The NFL will make the determination of which team(s) go there (they want two), not the city. Second, it's a paid for deal. It doesn't cost the city or the fans, and the team moves in for free.
Sounds to me like that might be Al's best option if he gets pushed into a corner.
Jones, to you, facts are things you just make up. Get a few real ones and then we'll talk.
Don't make false accusations BR, show the quotes that are "made up facts". Show them, don't paint a picture, show the FACTS.
JONES
"L.A. has already proven that they aren't big on the NFL, no matter who it is. SOOO, taking this into account, the Raiders would be a poor choice for L.A., IMO, the L.A. politicians aren't THAT dumb to make such a poor business move."
The LA politicians have nothing to do with it. It's a private deal in conjunction with the NFL because the NFL thinks that LA is the biggest TV market in the country and doesn't want it to sit empty.
"I wrote long ago that Al Davis should be working on a stadium deal, but instead, he mucks up the team and shows no progress to a stadium deal in the Bay. Does Al Davis even like Oakland as a home? Or is he just exploiting it until he can find a new home?"
Then why is Marc Davis searching for a new stadium site in the East Bay? Wouldn't that be working to stay here?
"Oh my, so it's Gruden's fault that Al can't rebuild the roster for 7 yrs? How long does it take other teams to "rebuild"? This is the longest rebuilding project I have ever seen in pro sports. Blanda, don't be so absurd."
Where in the statement you quoted to me did I state a time frame for how long a rebuild should take? I merely stated that Gruden guaranteed that we'd have to go through a rebuild by only signing aging players and failing to develop the younger players. But it's typical for you to misrepresent what someone has said so you can "strongly" disagree.
"Oakland accepted Al back, has put up with his incompetence and shit product. Oakland has given as much as you can give, has Al Davis?"
The fact is that Oakland demanded to control ticket sales, promising sellouts. Because of the city's incompetence in selling and marketing tickets, the Raiders couldn't even sell out when they were winning division championships. The last two years, even after four miserable years and continuing with two more, the Raiders only failed to sell out one game. They are having a great deal more trouble this year, but that's after two more years of losing.
Want more?
Oh, hell... One more...
"Thing is, Al Davis took the team away from Oakland. He then took the team away from L.A., Blanda's side of the story is always onesided so his take is worthless. It's always someone elses fault hey Blanda?"
Al moved out of Oakland because the city renegged on a fairly negotiated deal - that's why Davis won that lawsuit. Al completed his contract in LA in spite of the fact that LA fully breeched its side of the deal by failing to rebuild and modernize the stadium. When that stadium was condemned, Al continued his attempt to stay in LA by negotiating a private deal that the NFL ruined. Which is why he sued the last time.
I think any city negotiating with Al will look at all the facts, not just your Kawakami engineered versiion of them.
Jeesh, and that's just this page.
And just for kicks...
"As for L.A., they have shown indifference to the NFL, Raiders always had mediocre crowds in L.A."
Typically the attendance at Raider games in LA exceeded the attendance of games in Oakland. LA sized crowds in Oakland would guarantee sellouts. But the un remodeled LA stadium seated nearly 100,000 so sellouts there were almost impossible. The new proposed stadium in LA would be sold out with the same crowds the Raiders were drawing at the Coliseum.
Avg Attendance in L.A. = 54,000
Al could have stayed in Oakland, he wasn't "forced out" that is a pure lie. If there was no intent for Al to leave Oakland, then no move.
Politicians, I will give you that one, instead of politicians, I should have wrote that the LEAGUE isn't that stupid, my bad.
When I say " Oakland has given everything they have" I'm talking the FANS, not City Hall. Stop spinning.
Stadium in the Bay should have already been a done deal. Davis JR. doesn't show a serious attempt at a stadium in my books.
Got to do better than that Blanda, don't know what site you been going to, but that won't work on me.
JONES
Pigs will fly before the league helps the Raiders remodel/ modernize the stadium in Oakland.
The likelihood of the city of Oakland or the state of CA helping to finance stadium improvements simply will not happen in the current economy times.
The chances of Davis opening his own wallet or getting financial backers to help renovate the stadium is extremely remote at best.
So where are we? What are the viable options?
Moving to the city of Industry?
Nope. Billionaire Roski and Davis simply could not co-exist. The only way I see this move happening is if Davis wakes up one morning in February (post SB) and says "F it. I'm cashing out and will enjoy my retirement in solitude" Don't hold your breath on this scenario.
What Raiders fans will need to come to grips with is a continually deteriorating stadium structure that is antiquated, un-fan friendly, and half filled.
Personally I could deal with this scenario if the organization did everything humanly possible to field the most competitive team.
What is happening with many "Joe Fans" is the realization that a state of the art flat screen TV in HD in the comfort of your home is more enjoyable with less hassles and lower costs. The reason "Joe Fan" would make the effort and investment in going to Oakland and continue to make the investment is to see a top notch product LIVE.
Ask yourself this ... would you spend the $ and make the trip to attend a concert for a mediocre band with limited talent at a run down facility?
To take a phrase from RT "the margin for error is getting smaller and smaller." This is true with each double digit loss season that stacks up. It is also true as the revenue shrinks due to poor marketing, ticket sales, and shoddy performance on the field. It will become even tougher to climb the hill. How do you pay for all of the best resources (players, coaches, GMs, scouts, administrative staff, facilities, technology, etc) if you are pressed financially?
BR - In reference to your statement, "I was mere arguing your point that Gruden earned it. He did not. He mismanaged the roster. Granted he built a Super Bowl team, but he also doomed the team to a lengthy rebuild."
We have a difference of opinion. Gruden did what former coach George Allen did with the Redskins. The Raiders of 2001 were built to win and win now with many veterans. We got 2 legitimate cracks at the SB once losing to the Ravens in the AFC Championship and once losing with Callahan at the helm largely the players from 2001.
How do you know what would have happened in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 under Gruden as Head Coach. We all know that Gruden got the most out of his players and found a way to work in partnership with Bruce Allen and Davis. If Gruden remained, why wouldn't this partnerhip continue to thrive and make the necessary adjustments from 1 season to the next?
For the record, I believe the argument that the city of Los Angeles would not support an NFL team is ridiculous.
LA is the entertainment capital of the world.
It is the 2nd largest market in the US.
The weather is near perfect for attending games in the fall.
There is a huge population of sports fans with disposable income who consume entertainment like fiends.
The difference between the Roski project in Industry and the previous 2 shit pile stadiums in Anaheim (Rams) and Los Angeles (Raiders) is like comparing a mansion with an outhouse.
A first class, fan friendly, state of the art stadium in Industry will do just fine regardless of the tenant.
My hunch is that it will be the LA Jaguars.
Just going by prior history, this is usually how you make deductions, isn't it? L.A has proven to be indifferent to the NFL. They had chances before to get a stadium and to get a team. The interest wasn't there from the people and the City. Don't blame me for the facts...Just because a private building will be made, doesn't guarantee that their attitude will change.
JONES
"The chances of Davis opening his own wallet or getting financial backers to help renovate the stadium is extremely remote at best."
..If he would just dump the Big 4 salaries...wouldn't be missing much..DHB, JR, McFad, Huff....that could be a partial payment in savings, 49's throw in, ask the state to put in a 1/3rd...pick a spot and off you go....share a stadium.
JONES
Jones: In rebuttal to your statement of
"Just going by prior history, this is usually how you make deductions, isn't it?"
No. Comparing the current situation with the past situation is downright silly. There are many different variables involved. Each situation needs to be evaluated on it's merits, context, and outlying factors.
The current situation with Roski's group requires ZERO assistance from the league, city, or anyone.
The current situation is to build a state of the art facility with first class amenities, shops, beer garden, restaurants, suites, and corporate sponsorships. Comparing that to the LA Colisieum or Anaheim Stadium which was a baseball stadium is the equivalent of the mansion to outhouse analogy I made earlier.
L.A has proven to be indifferent to the NFL. They had chances before to get a stadium and to get a team. The interest wasn't there from the people and the City."
LA was indifferent to old, antiquated, unsafe, un-fan friendly shit piles. You see Jonesy, in LA (where I've lived for 45 years) the consumer of entertainment EXPECTS to be entertained and go to a sport site that is fan friendly, modern, and family oriented like the Staples Center, Dodger Stadium, and the new Angels Stadium. The previous attempt to get a stadium was blocked by the league and the city. This time, the city and state have appoved Roski's project (see The Terminator) and doesn't have to shell out a single penny. Wouldn't you that is a BIG FN difference?
"Don't blame me for the facts...Just because a private building will be made, doesn't guarantee that their attitude will change."
Facts? You argument is based on very faulty apples to oranges comparisons. To act like the Roski project is the same as the LA Colisieum or Irwindale is downright silly.
Jones: You know it and I know it that the Niners and Raiders will not be sharing a stadium in the Bay Area. Talk about delusional thinking ... keep dreamin'.
There is about a 99.9% chance that the Raiders will continue to play in a deteriorating, antiquated, un-fan friendly, half-empty stadium.
That .1% is any improved situation on the above. If you can give me 1 solid, viable, reasonable alternative, I'm all ears. If the league, Davis, and the city of Oakland aren't going to pony up for renovations, who is going to do it ... the fairy tooth mother?
Jack, take a pill, you can't wait to crawl up BR's ass, that makes you go over the top....chill man.
What I presented for a stadium is my thoughts, I'm not saying it is going to happen. AHHHH, the jack is on me, AHHHH, get em off.
As far as I can remember, even when the Rams were good in the 70's, the crowds sucked, same as the 60's....That was when the coliseum was still acceptable. All your huffing and puffing about living there...who cares. History shows the L.A. market to be indifferent, stop crying about it....wanna hanky?
JONES
I love the idea that Gruden didn't "earn" the right to control the 53 man roster because he didn't develop young players. Does anyone think he might have done a better job developing the young players if he actually held that hammer in his hand?
I do.
Jones:
No worries or hanky required. I understand I have a vastly different opinion than you about the viability of the LA market. Obviously the land developer, the league, the NFL owners, the state of CA also have a different opinion than you. Not a big deal.
If you want to compare the LA Colisium to the Roski/Industy Stadium, go right ahead. I have been visiting the LA Colisieum since the early 70's for Rams, Raiders, and Trojan games. It is and has been nothing more than an old, ugly slab of concrete.
Indifferent fans? No
Fans that expect a first class, state of the art facility that is safe for the family? Yes
I'm all for the move because the League will put conditions on Al and if he's stubborn enough to says no the S&B will stay in Oakland. Besides, I would love to fly to LA to see the Raiders play in a NEW stadium.
If the Raiders move to L.A., their attendance numbers would spike in the very short term. But the fact is that the product as is, with Al in charge, is of very low quality. He will continue to have problems selling out games, despite a higher market share. People in L.A. don't put up with losing very well: it's the least sports-dedicated of any major metropolitan area in the country, and they certainly won't put up with Al's crap, despite his loyal group of cultist who worship Al more than they care about the team itself.
Let's straighten something out here. In the last 20 years, there are only a handful of worse organizations in the NFL from a W-L perspective. Here's a breakdown in August of 2007:
=======================================
Rank Team Hits Percentage
=======================================
1 PATRIOTS 136 49.82%
2 EAGLES 135 49.45%
3 STEELERS 135 49.45%
4 CHIEFS 134 49.08%
5 PACKERS 133 48.72%
6 BRONCOS 133 48.72%
7 CHARGERS 133 48.72%
8 TITANS 133 48.72%
9 GIANTS 130 47.62%
10 BILLS 127 46.52%
11 BUCS 126 46.15%
12 COWBOYS 126 46.15%
13 SAINTS 124 45.42%
14 FALCONS 124 45.42%
15 BEARS 124 45.42%
16 LIONS 122 44.69%
17 BENGALS 122 44.69%
18 COLTS 122 44.69%
19 JETS 121 44.32%
20 VIKINGS 121 44.32%
21 SEAHAWKS 119 43.59%
22 DOLPHINS 117 42.86%
23 49ERS 117 42.86%
24 REDSKINS 117 42.86%
25 CARDINALS 117 42.86%
26 JAGUARS 114 41.76%
27 PANTHERS 112 41.03%
28 RAMS 111 40.66%
29 RAIDERS 106 38.83%
30 BROWNS 102 37.36%
31 RAVENS 99 36.26%
32 TEXANS 45 16.48%
------
38.83%???? It's even worse now! And yet all of those who continue to defend Al act like the problem has only been the last 7 years! Wake up! This Raider disease of losing is endemic to the NFL for over 2 decades, with a slight reprieve ONLY when Al gave up running most of the organization. It started in fact when Al put himself above a class guy like Marcus Allen, who was all about winning. Despite Al's bullshit, not one player who played with Marcus ever had anything bad to say about him.
When we started winning under Allen and Gruden's leadership (at a time Al was embroiled in more lawshits), Al's ego could take no more, and he tried to wrestle control from Gruden in their contract dispute. Game over.
Digression aside, Al has made so many pathetic business moves over the years that have screwed so many people over, he's lost sight of the fact that he's only screwed himself, and more importantly, the fans of what was once a great product. It's indefensible and I can no longer take seriously all the revisionist history regarding Al. The facts speak for themselves.
And BTW, anyone who tells me I'm not a real fan: GET A CLUE. I was born and raised in Oakland, CA. I attended many of their games throughout the 70's and 80's. This team was a part of my community and blood. The only reason why I stuck with them when they moved to L.A. is because I ended up moving there myself. Al definitely screwed Oakland, who was a rabidly supportive fan base before the move. All the trendy 'fashion fans' (my name for them) that jumped on board when they moved to L.A. fell in love with Al because he gave the middle finger to Rozelle and they loved Al's renegade image. No, I'm not saying that is true for everyone that jumped on board when the team moved to L.A., but there were more than a few.
It was never about that for me. It was about East Bay football; the working class having a great football team that we could call our own. Al destroyed that notion. People believed he was in their corner. Time and time again, we have seen that Al is about greed and his own twisted sense of what power means. And look what's it's got him: a video on the Raider home page once again bragging about Al's past glories. His merry band of yes-men cater to his ever delusion, and that's exactly why no legitimate NFL coach want to coach here. Hell, he's still got fans who think that drafting fast guys without any sense of their football skill-set is a winning formula. DHB? Come on; that was a guaranteed bust from day 1. I said it. Sad, but true.
LA is a poor market for the NFL unless the team there is in the playoffs every year. That's personal experience from living in LA. Make of that what you will.
The Raiders would do well there again in the short term, as would any other team. No team wins forever.
The Raiders will not go to LA because, as Calico says, Davis and Roski couldn't co-exist. Nor could Al accept corporate sponsors who could diminish his power.
But all of this is way premature, and I, for one, have not written off the season for anything other than the playoffs. I said very plainly in the pre-season that our team has improved but we have no depth. Four key injuries on offense, linemen playing out of position, and starting two rookies at WR is going to have an impact even on New England. Crying and demanding that you want your pony now isn't going to change a thing.
And Calico, you're wrong that the 49ers and the Raiders could not co-exist in the same stadium. The 49ers and the Raiders have never had animosity toward each other. The animosity that existed was strictly between Carmen Policy and Al Davis. The Davis' and the Debartolos have been friends forever. Davis was even a mentor for Eddie. The rest is just media crap.
Most likely, as the bay area gets closer to losing both teams, a deal will be made to house the both of them.
Re: our starters coming back... Look, McFaddden can't even break a single tackle. That was my beef on him coming out of college. I was hearing all this talk of him being the next Petersen. I mean, come on: all you have to do is compare their college reels and there's no comparison at all. McFadden was a speed back who ran through gaping holes untouched. Reggie Bush broke more tackles in college for chrissakes, and he's never going to be an every-down back in this league. How is it that a dope like me can figure this out, but not Al? On top of all that, someone should have scouted this kid's ability to read blocks, because to me, he just like Fargas in that he doesn't have enough patience or vision to cut at the point where the defender is being blocked. In my experience watching the NFL, you either have that ability or you don't (it's a 6th sense); just as if a QB either has pocket presence or he doesn't (JaMarcus can't feel pressure at his backside and nothing will change that). These things can't be taught. But if we had good scouting, we wouldn't have overlooked these points. All is not lost with McFadden. I think he could be a very effective third down back if he can catch the ball with regularity.
All that said, I think Bush has potential, despite his poor showing so far. I'd like to hand this kid the ball 30 times a game for 4-5 games and see what he can do. He has vision and he can break tackles. There's something there. Maybe he'll flourish once Al trades him to the Patriots!
Not true, John C. Al negotiated a deal with Oakland, but the City of Oakland pulled it off the table. The facts presented in the law suit showed clearly that Oakland and Al had negotiated in good faith and that Rozelle interfered with the contract. Make up new facts if you want, but them's the facts. I'd take your ire to the City of Oakland for listening to Rozelle and not the advice of their own negotiators.
Not that I blame you, John C., but the media has been pushing the story you're selling ever since 1980 which has nothing to do with reality.
Just because Al won the lawsuit, doesn't mean that he acted in good faith. That wasn't the question of the trial. I'm more than open to entertain facts if you have a solid source. But I know THIS for a FACT: Al Davis has been involved in more lawsuits than any owner in the NFL. Just because he's won several of them doesn't make him an innocent. Most of the deals he negotiated with any city have been untenable: Al was always sly and tricky enough to fool naive and desperate local politicians. Take Irwindale for instance.
While Al has spent the last 20+ years filing lawsuits and refusing to give back money to the likes of coaches like Shanahan and Kiffin, we've been one the 'losingest' organizations in football. It's more important to Al to show up someone like Kiffin in court than to just pay him and be over with it. It's going to cost Al far more to bring this to trial; in money, in time AND energy. Now there's a FACT that I can't overlook. Al's ego always comes first. The sad thing he overlooks it that he lost more money by going this route and he's in the process of completely destroying his own legacy as well as the reputation of the Raiders. He is not just the laughing stock of the NFL. He is becoming a cultural icon for failure in pop culture even. Think about it.
BR comes back and dishes his version of "facts". Isn't obvious he is an Alameda boy? He gets paid to troll sites and spew his version over and over, trying to convince everyone that they are wrong about Al and how shitty the team is.
Give it up Blanda, you and the CREW are done, no one believes that shit anymore. I see you gave up on trying to discredit my facts, your drive by's do not go unnoticed. Every time you commit a drive by, it just lowers your credibility, if it could get any lower.
John C, GREAT takes, you ARE a true fan. BR needs to go back under his Alameda rock and rot with the ass kissers that are in Alameda.
JONES
You know, one of the things pissing me off about this site is that if the Raiders are losing the "fans" attack each other. What a team.
Jones, piling crap in your hands and slinging it against a wall to see how much of it sticks doesn't really accomplish anything, does it? You don't need to make Al the losest thing to crawl the Earth in order to make a point that he's insufficient as a GM. You actually discredit your own opinion.
None of this has ANYTHING to do with what prompted Davis to move to LA or to return to Oakland. This has to do with what help the Raiders need to turn things around. And I think we can all have a serious and honest discussion about that without making Davis the biggest low-life in the history of mankind.
Jones, your insults amd "anger" are stupid, unnecessary, and disingenuous. Promoting falsehoods in order to make Al worse than he is lazy and not very thought provoking. They are just a waste of my time.
"You know, one of the things pissing me off about this site is that if the Raiders are losing the "fans" attack each other. What a team."
Yes, BR, you are one of the worst offenders.
"None of this has ANYTHING to do with what prompted Davis to move to LA or to return to Oakland."
Then why do you keep bringing it up? FACT is, Al moved the team twice, what city wouldn't take that into account? Just because I tell the truth about Al Davis...that's what makes you mad, you want to keep telling the world a glorified story of Al, when in TRUTH, your stories are just that.
"Jones, your insults amd "anger" are stupid, unnecessary, and disingenuouse"
Again BR, you are just as guilty as anyone else....stop with your picture painting and stick with facts.
JONES
Calico, to your point that the Coliseum is a run down piece of concrete slab; you're absolutely right. Further proof, USC currently looking for a new stadium as well. This may be the one thing that strays any NFL team away from the LA market; the possibility of sharing the new stadium with USC. But I will say the junky Coliseum fits in nicely with the junky neighborhood it sits in. Having been to many games to watch USC and the Raiders growing up, I didn't care much for the Coliseum.
The problem with the LA Market is the uncontrolled gang violence that continues to take over the city. This is a reason why Dodger Stadium (even in the playoffs) have a hard time selling out. Gang violence constantly surrounds the stadium, Griffith Park, and the LA Zoo. That is also a big problem with the LA Coliseum. If you remember, the LA Raiders' fans are still considered the most violent fans outside of soccer (which isn't really a sport). That is a potential problem with the stadium in the City of Industry as well; that you can bet that the NFL is considering.
LA may be a large entertainment market, but a lot of that entertainment are looking to locate a "more suitable" location to film, build sports teams, etc. If you notice, a lot of movie studios are moving to Florida, Texas, and overseas because of the current economic state with California; as well as the uncontrolled gang violence in the LA area.
A big reason why I say it's uncontrolled (because yes, most large cities have gang violence) but LA is the only city where the police are outnumbered; and are at a disadvantage due to the "legal" system in California to take proper action to take a stand against it.
Nate, L.A. sports fans didn't even support the Lakers when they were struggling, yet they did so with gusto when the team was at Inglewood in their winning years. And I have to disagree about Dodger stadium. It has great access and is completely isolated from any gang violence. It's probably one of the best 'older' family parks in the country. I never had a bad experience there when I attended games or concerts.
I just looked it up, because I was kind of skeptical. L.A. doesn't rank highly in either murder rate, poor safety or gang violence per capita. Oakland in fact rated much higher. Then you have big cites like Chicago, Detroit and NY. L.A. is relatively safe in comparison to other larger cities. Now, if you want to narrow it down to Compton, then yeah. But I've never been afraid to walk at night in most areas in L.A. Oakland is a different matter.
Nate, I don't know why you think the LAPD is inadequate in terms of size and capability. Are you aware that they are the only (I think) police department to have a tank? It is one of the most corrupt police departments in the country. It always has been. Not as bad as New Orleans though.
I went to a lot of games at the colosseum when I lived in LA. I never once had a problem with the people in the surrounding neighborhood. Yes, there are a lot of poor black people there, but that does not make them criminals. The colosseum has no parking, so I used to pay locals to let me park on their lawn. No tampering ever with my car. Folks all over the neighborhood would ask me about the game when I came out of the stadium. That's my own personal experience.
That said, the colloseum is still a pit. And as for gang activity, that's always on the rise in bad economic times. Hell, we even have a lot of it going on right now on the peninsula, and gangs dump dead bodies at Hunters Point (where they've considered building a stadium for the 49ers).
Jones, you make my case for me.
I never said Dodger Stadium is a bad experience. I said the surroundings of Dodger Stadium is not good. Even though it sits at the top of a hill (or small mountain) in LA, the gang violence surrounding the area is uncomprehensible.
You will hear the news at least once a day in LA of a visitor getting lost around that area, and being shot for turning the wrong way. It is also becoming more frequent that gang fights/shootings occur in the parking lot of Dodger Stadium, Griffith Observatory Park, the LA Zoo,and surrounding area.
There is an interesting article on CBS on Sept 22nd of this year, on the LAPD and Federal Authorities making a huge gang sweep in this area. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/22/national/main5329320.shtml
Gang violence is a major problem in the LA area that does keep that potential market all that it could be in regards to having a valid sports fan base. I know a lot of loyal Dodger fans who will not go to games unless it is in San Diego, or against Anaheim.
BR said, "Yes, there are a lot of poor black people there, but that does not make them criminals."
I never made that connection. You accuse people of putting words in your mouth, and distorting what you say; but yet you do the same.
I said the surrounding neighborhood of these stadiums are riddled with gang violence; and some of those neighborhoods are places the LAPD will not go. The LAPD may have a "tank" but they do not have the adequate forces to combat gang violence; which is why even when they have significant evidence to move, they have to call for Federal agents to help. Did you know that San Bernadino County is the only county in the US where the police are legally allowed to fire from a helicopter? Does it make them the safest county in America? No, that county is probably worse than LA.
Yes, the LAPD is corrupt, and always has had that reputation; but it doesn't take away from the officers trying to make a difference (several of whom are close friends of mine that I have remained in contact with).
I've been to many games at the Coliseum; and paid to park on the USC campus and walked to the game. Never had a problem with my car being looted either. But I have had to walk through my share of fights (related to the game) in the Coliseum, and in the surrounding neighborhoods (not related to the game) to get to our car.
John C, you are going to have to narrow it down by cities in the LA County, not the City of LA. Compton receives the bad rep for gang violence; but Northeast LA county, Carson, Torrence, Bellflower, Lakewood, Culver City, Commerce, and Gardena that are worse than Compton. There are areas outside of LA County that are worse than Compton as well (Buena Park, Cerritos, Long Beach, La Mirada, San Bernadino, Moreno Valley, etc). Which btw, Compton does fall into LA County.
Nate, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything. I'm just saying that my experience with the folks in that neighborhood tells me they are more upset by the gangs than anyone else. And I also made the point of saying that there is plenty of gang activity in the bay area, even on the peninsula, and even in places where the 49ers are considering building a stadium.
Re: Compton, I'm going by pure statistical data, not subjective opinion. Compton rates #14 in the 'most dangerous cites to live' category as of 2007. I'm well aware of the reputations of the areas you've suggested, but I can certainly walk around in Culver City without being hassled. Have you ever stepped foot in Compton at night? There's no place in L.A. more dangerous, and statistical data backs that up.
Detroit, followed by St. Louis are the most violent cities. Oakland is at #4 as of 2007. In the 10+ years I lived in L.A., I was never mugged, robbed or threatened, other than having a gang sign flashed at me once. Can't say the same was true growing up in Oakland, as much as I love the place.
Blanda, I'm still waiting to see what proof you have that Al negotiated "in good faith" with the city of Oakland. I don't know of anyone who believes that to be the case. If you're only proof is a won lawsuit; well, that doesn't really tell the story. The truth is that the court made the right decision in letting Al move the team. This is America after all. That doesn't mean that it was a classy move by Al. It wasn't. Meanwhile, he didn't even make the gobs of cash he thought he would, and ended up in court with just about everyone thereafter. Maybe it all went to his head? He's sure been more interested in lawsuits than winning over the last 20+ years. The facts bear that out to a very high degree of certainty.
John C asked, "Have you ever stepped foot in Compton at night?" I used to work for a party rental company that delivered tables and chairs, and other party equipment; and I was sent into Compton alone, a month after the Rodney King Riots in 1992. I was 18 at the time, and scared. So to answer your question, yes.
For the majority part, if you're just walking around, you probably won't be hasselled; and that depends on where you're walking at within those respective areas too. So that is nothing to base on, and doesn't make you more immune to violence. Most people think if you walk alone you will be hasselled more, but that isn't true. If you have several (3 or more) friends with you, then you will more than likely be hasselled with. Not to say that you won't be hasselled alone, but you're more prone to that if you have people with you.
I grew up and lived in that area 12+ years out of my (going on) 36 years of life. Know the area well, and what to expect. My opinion is based on experience, not "reports or statistics."
This comment has been removed by the author.
I respect your opinion Nate, but I'm going to have to go with the statistics here. The stats compiled that I pointed to include rape, violent theft, murder and car jackings. It's straight numbers, so there's no subjective opinion to fuss over.
Anyway, it's not all that important. I think we all agree that the Raiders won't do too well in So Cal over the long term unless they're winning. At this point, if Al moves the team AGAIN, I'm done. I've had it with this guy. His legacy is dead to me at this point. He needs to adjust quickly and firmly, and then he MIGHT gain my respect again.
Wow! Why is there so much dissatisfaction with the idea of the Raiders back in L.A.? A majority of the troubles the Raiders had in L.A. was due to the location and venue they played in. After traveling up and going to a Raider game in Oakland, I must say that it felt dirty, old and stale especially the lame dark green seats that are colored for the A's, not the Raiders. Lost all motivation to attend another game there. My first memories of the Raiders as a kid were the '83 Superbowl winners. "Oakland" to me was just part of their historic past. The LOS ANGELES RAIDERS were the only Raiders i ever knew until they moved back to Oakland. I was pretty bummed about it but it had no effect on my loyalty to the silver & black. All you "Oakland" fans that say you will be off the wagon if they move back to L.A. need to suck it up, AGAIN, and be glad by the fact that the Raiders are "CALIFORNIA'S TEAM". The new proposed stadium is amazing and can give the Raider Nation a new fresh and "Green" image.
-SoCalRaider805
The move to L.A. killed the identity of the OAKLAND Raiders. The bruising, kick your ass style became "we are Hollywood". Nahhh, Kick me once, maybe, kick me twice, you better run. It will be a bad day if they move again and it will soilidify that this isn't the Raiders I fell in love with. A move to L.A again...may as well be the L.A. tweakers cause it won't be the team I grew up with. Loyalty? MY ASS, no loyalty from the Head office, that will become very apparent. Like I said, Kick me once.....
JONES
#1, the Raiders aren't likely moving to L.A. #2 is that it was a travesty that Al moved the team in the first place. It was pure greed at the time, and he paid the price for that greed ultimately.
Al Davis was the first owner in the NFL to disown his fan-base, and he did so ruthlessly, without thanks for fan support. Al broke a longstanding code between fans and team and it's never been the same since really.
Ultimately, I forgave him for that. However, 20+ years of silly lawsuits and being one of the 'losingest' organizations in football makes it hard to stomach another Al Davis move that takes the focus off of building a real team. And as an LA Raider fan, you should be damn angry that Al handled the Marcus Allen situation the way he did. He was the last true clutch playoff performer we had on this team. The fact that he didn't retire as a Raider is absurd, and that's on Al. I don't blame Marcus one bit on that count. He deserved better, both from Al and his merry band of Al cultists.
al davis should move the raiders to the city dump.
they can play all their games there.
and they would fit right in with all the garbage.
i don't have time to read all of the takes but jones and blanda, don't you see what's going on here? it's the major league (the movie) syndrome of course!
remember the scene where the cleveland indians recently widowed owner is trying to make the team and the conditions so very bad so the fan's will stay away and she could move the team to florida (i think)?
well? same deal! how do we know that al hasn't already cut a deal with that stadium guy?
seriously, it's the same tired old story. we fans get ALL the blame and al's always right!
i know he did Marcus wrong. He also did a lot of right for other players. its just the way it goes unfortunately. for those against a Raider move back to L.A., what is there to look forward to in Oakland if they stay? i understand that it's the origin of the franchise and its great history but to possibly share a stadium with the niners?!! in santa clara?!! that is almost as wack as talk of the niners in L.A.!!! niners are SF, Raiders are California. makes more sense for the Raiders to move... again.
As much as I value the East Bay, I'm probably one of the few Norther Cal folks who sees good in Los Angeles. It used to be devastating to a community to lose their football team, but times have changed and players move around so fast, sometimes to hated rivals (eg, Brent Farve), that we've lost the romanticism that came from a true team/community identity. So, that's not my biggest beef. My beef is that Al spends an inordinate amount of resources and time in court and entertaining idea of moving all the time when things don't go the owner's way. He needs to take responsibility for this shit product he's put out the last 20+ years. That's what I care about. Moving isn't going to solve his problems.
Wow, I learned a lot from the comments here, good food for thought, different perspectives, personal experiences, all thoughtfully articulated. Interesting stuff.
The LA market will support a team if it is a safe, fan friendly, family oriented, modern facility.
Baseball attendance: 2000-2009
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/2000-03attendance.htm
#1 attendance:
NYY 37,781,051 (3.7M+ per season)
#2 LAD 34,497,148 (3.4M+ per season)
#4 Angels 29,564,455 (2.9M+ per season)
The Lakers had rabid support at The Forum in Inglewood and continue to have a solid fan base at the Staples Center in LA. Yes, it is a franchise with a continuous winning tradition which helps quite a bit. But it also helps tremendously when LA County alone has over 10M people and the Lakers are playing in a first class facility developed by Roski.
The stadium in the city of Industry would pull from LA County and numerous other cities outside of LA County such as North Orange County (ie. Anaheim). A conservative estimate is that there would be 15M people within a reasonable driving range to the stadium.
A 15,000,000 pool of potential customers to fill up a stadium with 75,000 capacity on 10 Sundays, where gang violence is a non-issue, in a state of the art facility, privately financed and ready to break ground ... hmmmm, sounds like a tough one to wrap your brain around.
Found this site interesting which tracked each NFL team's fan loyalty:
http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/pages/34.html
Oakland:
53,041 avg attendance 1995-2005
84.17% capacity
The Dodgers and Lakers are winning teams. If they weren't winning attendance would be shit. It would take a couple of years with the Lakers, but it would happen. I've lived long enough in L.A. to know that it's not a die-hard sports town. The Bay Area has far more dedicated fans.
John C. - Don't put all of your argumentative points in 1 basket. I realize like any sports fan that a winning team & winning tradition is critical to filling the joint. That is only part of the equation.
Tthe stats I gave you on the Dodgers & Angels is over the last 10 years. The Dodgers were #2 in attendance and the Angels #4. The Dodgers & Angels have had some success over the past 10 years but not every single season.
Check the record of the Dodgers the past 10 years and tell me why it has averaged 3.4M fans per season?
Check the record of the Angels the past 10 years and tell me why the Angels avg. 2.9M per season.
How is it that the 2 teams are in the top 4 in attendance in all of MLB? It isn't rocket science ... Management dedicated to winning, a fan friendly, modern stadium, and a cities with a HUGE population of sports fans with disposable income.
Of course attendance is higher in a season where you have a team winning on a consistent basis. This is true in any city in the USA.
The point I have been trying to make for the past 2 days is rather simple and it has nothing to do with the Raiders. It is strictly focused on the LA Market, the NFL, and the stadium in the city of Industry.
To boil it all down in simple terms:
* The NFL is the #1 sport in the US
* Los Angeles is the 2nd biggest city in the US
* The stadium in the city of Industry by all standards is a first class facility
The arguments about LA sports fan indifference, gang violence, how the city didn't previously support the Rams & Raiders doesn't hold water in the current context.
There are MAJOR differences in the past landscape and the current one.
The biggest differences are the location, the stadium itself, the vision of the developer, and the overall overwhelming data that backs up the viability of the LA Market to support an NFL team.
Jack, you give impressive #'s, You are leaving out a very big part of the picture. L.A., known to follow the flavor of the day, so much distraction, they only flock to what is "cool". This is very true, the fact that L.A. never looked at NFL as being something that is a huge attraction. I think you might be denying this part because of your loyalty to L.A. You said yourself that you lived there for 40 some odd years and obviously your heart is still there.
It takes more than a fancy stadium to get the L.A crowd happy, it's got to be trendy and it HAS TO HAVE a winner. If USC didn't win like they do....that stadium would be half empty. They don't live and die football, they live and die for what they perceive as "cool".
Raiders represent gang activity in a lot of inner cities. L.A. people try to avoid that atmosphere, it is too barbaric and , as Paris Hilton would say...UNHOT.
JONES
Jones:
Take 2 minutes, go to this site
http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/ and tell me this wouldn't work in LA.
Another important element that would allow the City of Industry stadium to stay at capacity crowds even during "down" seasons are the corporate sponsorships.
Many of you seem stuck in what you know about the Raiders and remember about past LA NFL teams. My arguments above have NOTHING to do with the Raiders.
Wow, some very interesting takes. State-of-the-art is definitedly the way to go; however, when I visited Oakland they could have been playing on a high school field. The experience was amazing, and I didn't even take notice of how old and antiquated stadium appeared. But that's just me.
It's probably not a reach to think that the Raiders will renew some agreement to stay in Oakland until (A) the economy picks up, and (B) the Raiders can actually field an NFL-caliber team.
Calcio - the LA Stadium is a pretty amazing concept, but at what point will Davis actually bring his team into the 21st century to warrant such a stadium?
This might be a reach, HA, but if I was LA (and the NFL), I'd make any deal contingent upon Davis relinquishing control of the Raiders' day-to-day operation. Force him to hire a GM. Enough is enough already.
John C., what better proof do you want than a won law suit. The word of sports "journalists" who have proven already to be footlose with the facts?
You say you agree with the court's decision to allow Davis to move. Does that mean that you don't agree with the rest of that decision - to grant Davis just under 50 million in damages for interference in contractual relations? That, after all, is the money that paid for his move.
I would say that the courts have a far better engine for finding the truth than the current media. That isn't to say that I believe every conclusion of the court (or jury) is correct. But I'll take the court's word for something sooner than Tim Kawakami's.
"To no one’s surprise, the Raiders failed to sell out Sunday’s game against the Chiefs and will be blacked out locally for the fourth consecutive time.
With Cincinnati, Washington and Baltimore remaining on the home schedule, it appears likely, barring a remarkable reversal of fortune, that the Raiders will finish the season with seven consecutive regular-season blackouts after having only six in the three previous seasons combined."
Everybody's got their limits. Many in the Raider Nation have reached theirs. Only REAL change will turn the tide.
Are we committed to excellence--or are we more committed to doing it our way (no GM, etc.), results be damned?
A few telling statistics about the Cable tenure;
He has coached 20 games
The Raiders have won 33% of these games (6)
In the 14 losses, 8 were by a margin of 20 or more points.
10.12.08 3-34 New Orleans
11.02.08 0-24 Atlanta
12.04.08 7-34 San Diego
12.11.08 26-49 New England
09.27.09 3-23 Denver
10.04.09 6-29 Houston
10.11.09 7-44 NY Giants
10.25.09 0-38 NY Jets
In other words, in 40% of the games where Cable has been Head Coach, the Raiders were not remotely competitive.
It is one thing for a team to struggle and have a poor won/loss record. It is an entirely different thing when a team gets blown out on a regular basis.
Blowouts are caused by a coaching staff that fails to make adjustments, is coaching a talentless team, a team that is using an archaic playbook, fails to play with passion, fails to execute the most rudimentary elements of football.
I would gladly swallow a 6,7,8 win season when the team is competitive in most of the losses. Half of our games this year were over by halftime. Not a good sign.
Telling stats, Calico. Sometimes, the difference between a winning season and a losing season is a couple bounces of the ball. There is an element of luck involved in the game. But when you get blown out 40% of your games, that's not bad luck.
Personally, I'm sick of hearing the players say they need to "get back to the basics" (as cited just this week by K. Morrison). Exactly how many years of getting "back to the basics" will this disaster of a team need to figure out "the basics?" ...cause that line is getting really old.
In seven years my five-year-old son will be doing differential equations... he won't still be in kindergarten.
Calico, it would be interesting to know if the stats you gave about the Dodgers and Angels venues in the last 10 years are based on ticket sales, or actual fans in the seats. There is a big difference.
sorry about the fuzzy math ...
it should read:
He has coached 20 games
The Raiders have won 30% of these games (6)
CJ
AMEN TO THIS ARTICLE BY EVERYONE'S FAV - GLENN DICKEY.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sports/Dickey-Raiders-set-up-for-years-of-failure-69942282.html
you know it's true!
the al davis who moved the raiders in 1981 is not the same al davis today.
whatever he does today, he will screw it up, and it will be a disaster for the raiders.
From J-Mac: "According to NFL game books, Russell has completed 25.7 percent his passes attempted to Heyward-Bey and Murphy (16-for-63) for 248 yards, one touchdown and five of his nine interceptions (three intended for Murphy, one for Heyward-Bey). That’s a 15.7 passer rating."
So much for the decoy theroy for DHB.
Maybe the Raiders should consider altering their conventional offensive formations to exclude WRs.
Meanwhile, Crabtree looks pretty darn good despite being surrounded by a mediocre cast. Four more grabs last night, plus one amazing catch that was ruled out of bounds.
He was right there...and once again we tried to outthink the room by taking DHB. I mean, if you were going to pick a receiver, pick the one who's shown he can catch.
DHB's current production number pro-rated to 16 games: 10 catches.
Crabtree's current production number pro-rated to 16 games (after zero training camp): 72 catches.
Ouch.
Do you really think Crab would have many catches in our offense?
The Niners aren't there yet, but Mike's got them WAY ahead of us.
The proposed LA stadium looks pretty cool. ANYTHING would beat playing on a f-ing baseball field below sealevel.
You would thing that stinking sandtrap would be a home field advantage, but over the years, I've seen WAY more raiders loose thier footing than opponents (just me???)
-moshbucket
As many grabs? No. Way more than DHB? Yes. The Niners' offense is no great shakes, not by a longshot. Yet he's able to make things happen. DHB hasn't made anything happen. Look at it this way, do you think Crabtree would have five catches in eight games with us? No way.
Crabtree would struggle in our offense but he does 3 basic things that DHB does not;
He runs precise routes
He gets open
He catches the ball
Peronally, I don't think it is EVER wise for a struggling team to take a WR with their 1st pick but the draft "value" analysis is for another day.
It was the home game against KC last year that Cable called perhaps single-worst boneheaded play ever... the fake FG that the chiefs returned for a 67-yard TD and, ultimately, the win.
In case you forgot, with the score 3-3 and well inside Jano’s FG range, Lechler lateraled the ball between his legs from his holder stance to Seabass on the run, who was then supposed to run 10+ yards for a first down. Here’s a video link.
http://tinyurl.com/m382p3
Not only did Cable not get fired for this stunt, but he managed to survive it and become HC.
Chiefs have won 6 straight in Oakland.
PS Russell passed for 132 yards. In 8 games this year, he’s only exceeded that number twice.
CJ's prediction:
Chiefs 10
Raiders 23
Enjoy your weekend. :D
How the hell would Crabtree "struggle in our offense?" It not even like we have a QB who throws deep routes (mainly because he can't throw downfield with any accuracy), nor have we even game-planned for that. Fact is that whatever speed H-Bey has with his pads off, I haven't seen it in games at all. Crabtree gets open. That works in ANY offense.
Yes, Crabtree would have more catches with us. He actually gets open.
This just in from an undisclosed Bay Area reporter. After the Super Bowl in 2003 Al Davis accidently broke a mirror in his office at the Colliseum when the realization of getting whopped on by Jon Gruden took an emotional toll on him. So there it is. Seven years bad luck baby. We'll be 10-6 next season as long as Al avoids black cats and openning umbrellas indoors.
Raiders 24 Cheifs 14
(I think we will actually score some TDs today)
RaiderMike
And you guys thought it was just a case of high level mis-management. Silly.
Doomed?
Chaz said the most important thing is scoring fast.
When we had that offense with Gannon, that was the most important thing.
In this clown car, the most important thing is CONTROL THE BALL!!!!
Were we trying to score fast when we dropped Russell back to pass in our own endzone at the beginning of the game, and next thing you know we're down 21-0 because of our inept offense?
We CAN win with this D, but not if the O puts them in holes all day long.
-moshbucket
For the record, I thought it was a ballsy call, and it would have worked if Jano had executed it correctly (the fake punt last year).
-moshbucket
PS: I know, I must be a stupid idiot F-wad who doesn't know anything.
"For the record, I thought it was a ballsy call, and it would have worked if Jano had executed it correctly (the fake punt last year)."
Mosh - go back and watch the clip. If Jano catches the ball, he's still tackled behind the LOS... even after his "best" move. The call was stupid then, and it's stupid now. Hopefully, we can avoid that kind of stupidity today.
2 teams that mirror each other..MAN IS IT UGLY. Penalties, drops, over throws by a mile....these 2 teams stink.
JONES
It's amazing how Al's viral stench is endemic throughout the Raider organization. Where to start?!
DHB giveth, and DHB taketh away.
Looks like another 11 loss season.
When we move, we should just go ahead and change the name to:
"The 3-N-Outs"
-moshbucket
PS: Yea, crabs probably would have made some of those catches.
PPS: Zebras should gave called PI when murph was interfered with with about 5min in the 4th.
JaMarcus Russell is preventing this team from winning.
Other major offenders include DHB and Tom Cable (ala Al Davis).
Well, back to the basics!
Truth is, H-Bey didn't even make that sideline catch. I watched the replay in slow motion in hi-def. Clearly out of bounds, Guess the refs felt sorry for Al. That's how bad it's gotten! Does AL really believe H-Bey is still going to be a star?
Al Davis is preventing this team from winning, first and foremost.
Where's the clown wagon? Just bench Russell for the rest of the season. What a baffoon!!! The f...er doesn't even give a f..k.
PISSED OFF RAIDER FAN
"On the next play, DHB got wide open inside the ten-yard line, came back for a perfectly thrown Gradkowski ball. Instead of catching it, Heyward Bey set it like a volleyball player in the air, tipped it again, then watched as Chiefs safety Mike Brown picked off the interception. And that play, ladies and gentlemen, neatly sums up the 2009 Raiders"
But wait...Al says he'll be a great player one day.
DHB, with the pass thrown to you by Gradkowski for the game winner, was there any adjustments that needed to be made?
"Na you see, your not always gonna catch the ball you know what I mean. I felt I had a great game today and ran my routes fairly well too. Its just timing man. Coach knows I'm the guy. Mr. Davis knows I'm the guy. That's why I was drafted."
AL Davis come on down, your today's guest on the Price Is Right.
What's you bid for DHB?
"$23.5 million guarantee?"
Thank God, I didn't watch the game.
ROTFLMAO.
Now that's funny! Sounds exactly like something H-Bey would say. Do we ever scout for intelligent players?
Al loves to pay big money for busts, but he won't open his pocketbook for a top-level GM and coach. Amazing. He doesn't need to because in his mind that's 'easy' work. Uh, uh.
I tell ya, if Al ever wakes up, he's going to have to dole out 'no recourse' contracts to get legit personnel in here. With all the people he's screwed out of money over the years, I don't think anyone who isn't desperate would work for us.
I told you MAROONS that the faidas would be in last place in the afc west! The Chiefs should actually have swept the fizzlers this year, but due to their ineptitude in the first game they mismanaged the clock before halftime and managed to miss an easy FG, and they missed another in the 2nd. half, so technically I have the Chiefs at 3-6 while the lowly faidas should actually be 1-8!!!Just cringe babies, Gooooo "nation", long live big smell the genius (MR.) davis!
I'm sure everyone knows about this by now but visit www.messagetoal.com
They're trying to get big Al to pay attention to the fact that he needs help. They're trying to get a billboard up next to the Coliseum. Petition to sign, etc.
It was the best device used in those days for inhaling vapours with specific herbs to give them a nice time [url=http://best-vaporizers.net/]portable vaporizers[/url] After which, you go to the pot, lean over it and cover your head and the pot with a towel mini vaporizer It is recommended as best remedy for all time colds http://best-vaporizers.net/ silver surfer vaporizer This will help get rid of any manufacturer oils and gets rid of any moisture in the heating element :-)
The fleshlight is easygoing to clear and considered one of many of us. [url=http://fleshlightx.blogspot.com/]fleshlight[/url] just now you and they experience less of an assassination orchestrated by security system forces on behalf of the prostate gland is a unharmed reach of fleshlight, but so do our senses thirst to be the ultimate climax. fleshlight A lot of offspring men surviving In concert, but it's old and new hormones, the kids are not genetic beyond your bundle for rig Furthermore do this in full from your darling fleshlight young lady fleshlights. http://fleshlightx.blogspot.com/ fleshlight When you beginning started expalining how she moved to ignore Barratt as gelid fleshlight. ?
Post a Comment
<< Home