Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf "had a different message" for NFL officials during Wednesday's stadium presentation in N.Y., telling them that she is "analyzing the use of public bonds -- or tax money -- to finance a stadium," according to a front-page piece by Rachel Swan of the S.F. CHRONICLE. The “lease revenue bonds” the city is looking into "would be paid back with new revenue the city would generate from leasing the stadium back to the Raiders." While such a move "doesn’t involve a direct subsidy by the city to build a stadium, it could leave taxpayers on the hook for the debt if the projected revenue didn’t materialize." Schaaf at a Thursday news conference "stuck to her promise not to spend a public cent" and described her N.Y. trip as a "chance to show her 'commitment and passion' to keeping the Raiders in Oakland." In addition to public bonds, the mayor "proposed using tax increment financing to bankroll a new stadium, and said these new tax dollars would come solely from the Raiders." Schaaf added that she was "unfazed" by the Raiders’ and Chargers’ announcement -- hours before her presentation to the NFL -- that they "had gotten new ammunition for their bid to share a stadium" in Carson with the addition of Disney Chair & CEO Bob Iger (S.F. CHRONICLE, 11/13). Schaaf said, "We do believe we have an incredible site. It is fully entitled, it has the environmental clearance and we are ready to build a new stadium for these Raiders, because this is the Bay Area. We know we can get this done without a direct public subsidy.” With a relocation vote coming sometime between January and April, Schaaf acknowledged the city has to "make up for some lost time and put together an actual proposal that the Raiders like that puts them at the center." She said, "That is going to be our best chance of keeping this team.” Schaaf said she spoke with Raiders Owner Mark Davis at the recent NFL owners’ meetings, but did not offer any other details ("Sports Talk Live," CSN Bay Area, 11/12).
FACE-TO-FACE MEETING: In St. Louis, Nicholas Pistor notes proponents of building a new riverfront NFL stadium "appeared before a skeptical" Board of Aldermen on Thursday. Members of the St. Louis stadium task force "faced stiff questions in public" from the aldermen, who "must approve financing" about $145M of the $1B project. Aldermen "questioned the specifics of the financing proposal and lamented the struggle of building football stadiums while grappling with crime and poverty." Stadium proponents "believe keeping an NFL franchise in the city is important to its overall image." Thursday’s meeting was the "first of several that will occur over the next few weeks." Aldermen will "hold a rare public input session on Saturday." It is "unclear when they will vote on the proposal" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 11/13).
NOT RUSHING TO JUDGEMENT: Chiefs Chair & CEO Clark Hunt on Thursday said that he would "not consider it a disappointment if the league took another year to assess and take advantage of that opportunity" before deciding on L.A. relocation. He said, “This has obviously been a long process, but the most important thing is to make the right decision and make sure the home markets are given an opportunity" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 11/13). Hunt said, "I don't think (January is) necessarily a hard-and-fast deadline. It's certainly a possibility that we'll take a vote in January, but it doesn't have to be January. I do think there's a point in the year when it becomes difficult to make the decision. I don't want to say March is too late because that might work as well. It's very fluid." In L.A. Sam Farmer notes it was "well-known in league circles" that Panthers Owner Jerry Richardson supports the Carson project, but it was "surprising he would say so publicly" during Wednesday's meeting. However, Richardson on Thursday "was more circumspect, saying now was neither the time nor the place to discuss site preferences" (L.A. TIMES, 11/13).
PREACHING PATIENCE: In L.A., Vincent Bonsignore writes the two decades the NFL has gone without L.A. "has taught the league a thing or two about the process of getting back." Bonsignore: "No matter what, Los Angeles will always be there. And after 20 years without it, what’s the harm in waiting another couple of months to decide how to get back?" Whether owners "have to delay a decision a month or even a year, the biggest objective is getting it right." And that has "just as much to do with the markets they might lose as the one they will gain" (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 11/13).
