{"id":7193,"date":"2016-11-30T18:09:31","date_gmt":"2016-11-30T23:09:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lastwordonprofootball.com\/?p=7193"},"modified":"2021-05-20T18:20:02","modified_gmt":"2021-05-20T22:20:02","slug":"new-details-emerge-oakland-stadium-plan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lastwordonsports.com\/nfl\/2016\/11\/30\/new-details-emerge-oakland-stadium-plan\/","title":{"rendered":"New Details Emerge on Oakland Stadium Plan"},"content":{"rendered":"

Some details have come to light on a new Oakland Stadium<\/strong> via Matier and Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Reportedly here are the figures we know.<\/p>\n

$600 million from Fortress Investment Group<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

A $200 Million dollar infrastructure only loan from Oakland\/Alameda<\/strong>, paid back through revenue bonds. These have a higher interest rate than go bonds.<\/p>\n

$300 million from the NFL<\/strong>, a $200 million G4 loan and $100 million offered from the January NFL Owners<\/strong> meeting in Houston<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

$300 million from Mark Davis<\/strong>,\u00a0with $200 million\u00a0coming from personal seat license sales.<\/p>\n

New Details Emerge on Oakland Stadium Plan<\/strong><\/h2>\n

On the surface, this appears to be a decent proposal. However, there are a lot of strings attached. The Fortress Investment Group will want a stake in the Oakland Raiders<\/strong>, somewhere in the range of 20%.<\/p>\n

Additionally, Oakland and Alameda want a cut of the stadium revenue on all non-football events. This despite the fact that\u00a0the money they are providing is in the form of a loan. Seriously. There is also no firm way any of the public and private money will be financed. There are suggestions, but nothing inked.<\/p>\n

Last, but not least, is the stadium capacity. It comes in at an underwhelming 58,000 maximum.<\/p>\n

The Oakland City Council<\/strong> should\u00a0vote on December 7th and it should pass.<\/p>\n

Alameda County<\/strong> is a different story though. There are serious rumblings that a few of the\u00a0Alameda Board of Supervisors<\/strong> feel that Oakland\u00a0Mayor Libby Schaaf<\/strong> is using this as political cover. There are a few also who are requesting the finances, including the debt on the land which, by the way, has not been resolved.<\/p>\n

Not only that, but sources close to this are telling me the NFL feels the city needs to bring more money to the table. One even said that requiring Davis to sell a percentage of the team was dead on arrival. Remember my article<\/a> last week<\/p>\n

NFL Insider\u00a0Tells Me This Deal is DOA<\/h2>\n

If the city and county approve of this deal, Mayor Schaaf<\/strong> will present it to the NFL owners. However, from what I am hearing there will be little enthusiasm. Owners do not like uncertainty. They want hard figures that have been vetted and stress tested, which has not happened with this plan. They are also not\u00a0excited about a stadium in the Bay Area that only seats 58,000 people. To be a Super Bowl<\/strong> venue, a stadium needs to be able to adjust to over 70,000 capacity.<\/p>\n

Honestly, I am very unimpressed with the “framework” numbers that have been reported. I was not expecting Oakland to match Las Vegas<\/strong>, nor do they have to. But these numbers are horrible. If any fans expect this plan to keep the Raiders<\/strong> in Oakland, they are in for a rude awakening.<\/p>\n

\n
Embed from Getty Images<\/a><\/div>\n