Refusing to “budge on providing lucrative stadium subsidies to the Raiders," Oakland leaders submitted an updated stadium financing plan to the NFL yesterday that "could set the stage for a protracted fight if the team is not allowed to move” to L.A., according to a front-page piece by Matthew Artz of the OAKLAND TRIBUNE. Oakland's plan “included no new offers of public money for the team and paled in comparison to a roughly 400-page document submitted by St. Louis, which detailed” a $1.1B stadium plan, funded 50% by city and state taxpayers. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said the league and Raiders fans “understand that Oakland does not have a big check to write.” She added, “I don’t think this letter will surprise the NFL.” Raiders Owner Mark Davis, who “received a draft version of the letter, took it as a sign that the city wasn't serious about reaching a deal.” Davis: “They just don't want to play with us. I don't know why. I don't understand it.” Artz noted what is “especially upsetting to Davis was the city’s offer of 60-acres of land on the south end” of the O.co Coliseum. Davis said that this parcel “wouldn’t provide for the team’s parking needs.” Davis: “They're trying to say (build) in the corner of the parking lot, and we'll guarantee you parking, but we won't tell you where. That does not work for us.” Davis “offered his own blueprint for getting a new Oakland stadium built, saying he could potentially bring aboard someone to invest in both the team and a new facility if he gets full control over the 120-acre Coliseum complex.” Davis: “I want a clean template to build one of the nicest places in the Bay Area. The acreage and the land is the starting point. If we get a commitment on the land, we can go out and market this thing” (OAKLAND TRIBUNE, 12/30).
FAR FROM DONE? In S.F., Rachel Swan notes Schaaf has “no such lavish plan” like St. Louis to “keep the Raiders in town.” Schaaf: “Are we on an ideal time frame? No. But we are making good progress.” Schaaf said that the city “needs more time to iron out a deal with the Raiders, negotiations that are made complicated” by the A’s 10-year lease on the Coliseum. Swan notes that the letter sent to the NFL detailing Oakland’s plan “also praises the current Coliseum site.” However, Davis insisted that his plan to move the team to Carson, Calif., is “proceeding smoothly.” He said, “Everything’s good. We got the land. We’ve got the entitlements.” Swan notes Davis “seemed unshaken by San Diego’s push to retain the Chargers,” with whom he partnered on the Carson project.” Davis: “Congratulations to them if they can get a deal done in San Diego” (S.F. CHRONICLE, 12/30).
SHOW-ME STATE OF MIND: In St. Louis, David Hunn in a front-page piece reports the city’s financing plan is “largely unchanged from that proposed to city aldermen two weeks ago.” However, it “spells out a few key specifics: The new stadium could expand to accommodate up to 72,000 seats for events such as a Super Bowl, 10,000 more than normal game-day operations.” The public stadium authority would “cooperate with the Rams on stadium design” and the new plan allows the Rams to “get all stadium revenue, including naming rights -- but would pay all stadium operating and capital expenses.” St. Louis stadium task force co-head Dave Peacock said of NFL owners, “This is a very challenging task in front of them. ... If you want to pick between two projects in L.A., that’s challenging. Then if you throw in a one home-market variable, it makes it more challenging. I’m glad I’m not an owner” (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 12/30). ESPN.com’s Nick Wagoner wrote St. Louis’ plan is the “most comprehensive and actionable plan of the three” cities with teams wanting to relocate to L.A. St. Louis proposes the Rams pay annual rent of $1.5M plus a 3% “annual boost over the life of the proposed 30-year lease.” Among “potential sticking points,” the $300M from the NFL’s G4 program “would be unprecedented for a one-team stadium.” The G4 “traditionally offers up to” $200M (ESPN.com, 12/29).
CALIFORNIA DREAMING? San Diego officials said that their plan “won’t include any new offers or proposals beyond a term sheet they submitted to the NFL in September for a new stadium in Mission Valley on the Qualcomm Stadium site.” In San Diego, David Garrick in a front-page piece reports the city’s plan includes $350M in “public money” -- $200M from the city and $150M from the county. The remainder is $200M from the league, $362.5M from the Chargers and $187.5M “from seat licenses” (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 12/30).
TOUGH TO SAY GOODBYE? The MMQB.com’s Robert Klemko looks at the possible final home games in all three markets and wrote, “Emotions ranged from wistful to angry at the final home games in St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland. At least one of those fan bases will soon be abandoned by the NFL -- and the worst part is that even now, no one knows which” (MMQB.SI.com, 12/29).
