If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Sports)   Raiders' owner threatens to leave Oakland if new stadium isn't built. If only another city in California needed a pro football team   (cbssports.com) divider line 66
    More: Interesting, Raiders, Oakland  
•       •       •

1111 clicks; posted to Sports » on 27 Feb 2014 at 12:09 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-27 12:11:40 AM  
fark that. Move the A's and make the Raiduhs stay until every dime of Mt. Davis is paid off. Because fark those people, seriously.
 
2014-02-27 12:12:07 AM  
Sacramento Raiders? They can just hold the games at Folsom.
 
2014-02-27 12:12:55 AM  
God gawd Mark. Lose the prince valiant haircut before making any more ultimatums OK?

Also moving to Los Angeles is a good idea if they'll build you stadium.
 
2014-02-27 12:18:34 AM  
Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.
 
2014-02-27 12:32:27 AM  
I really don't think the problem with the Raiders is their stadium.
The Warriors are going to move, the A's are going to move, go ahead and leave Raiders.  That way Oakland can get back to doing what it does best... shooting each other.
 
2014-02-27 12:33:20 AM  

kevinatilusa: Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.


LA's not going to allow itself to be without a team forever. Sooner or later they're going to swipe somebody.
 
2014-02-27 12:33:31 AM  
stream1.gifsoup.com
 
2014-02-27 12:40:18 AM  
Their stadium does have a dumb name.
 
2014-02-27 12:41:05 AM  

Uzzah: [stream1.gifsoup.com image 320x180]


Seconded.
 
2014-02-27 01:00:02 AM  
I love the baseball diamond on the football field.
It gives it a unique character.
 
2014-02-27 01:14:47 AM  

Gosling: kevinatilusa: Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.

LA's not going to allow itself to be without a team forever. Sooner or later they're going to swipe somebody.


LA's never going to get a team until they prove they can prove at least one of their fanbases (Lakers, Kings, whatever) can stay through an entire game.
 
2014-02-27 01:15:11 AM  
Move to Kansas City, Kansas. Call yourself the Rams.

Confuse everyone.
 
2014-02-27 01:15:43 AM  

TheZorker: LA's never going to get a team until they prove they can prove at least one of their fanbases (Lakers, Kings, whatever) can stay through an entire game.


Better than not showing up at all.
 
2014-02-27 01:16:43 AM  
The 9ers already beat them to the Silicon Valley, the exodus of Oakland teams is almost if full effect.
 
2014-02-27 01:20:25 AM  

CipollinaFan: I love the baseball diamond on the football field.
It gives it a unique character.


It's official. I'm farking OLD!

 MOST of the fields had a diamond in them when I was growing up, young man.
 
2014-02-27 01:36:16 AM  
Wait, subby was referring to LA?  I thought he meant San Francisco.  Candlestick is available.
 
2014-02-27 01:38:07 AM  

TheZorker: Gosling: kevinatilusa: Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.

LA's not going to allow itself to be without a team forever. Sooner or later they're going to swipe somebody.

LA's never going to get a team until they prove they can prove at least one of their fanbases (Lakers, Kings, whatever) can stay through an entire game.


If they put a decent team on the field there won't be a problem. The weather is too nice and there's too much fun to be had in and around LA. I'm sure there will be some that feel a since of pride at watching their team go 5-11, I won't know though because I'll be at the beach.
 
2014-02-27 01:38:50 AM  

Bane of Broone: TheZorker: Gosling: kevinatilusa: Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.

LA's not going to allow itself to be without a team forever. Sooner or later they're going to swipe somebody.

LA's never going to get a team until they prove they can prove at least one of their fanbases (Lakers, Kings, whatever) can stay through an entire game.

If they put a decent team on the field there won't be a problem. The weather is too nice and there's too much fun to be had in and around LA. I'm sure there will be some that feel a since sense of pride at watching their team go 5-11, I won't know though because I'll be at the beach.


FTFM
 
2014-02-27 01:40:00 AM  

kevinatilusa: Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.


That begs the question, what is the new "LA boogeyman"?

Toronto? Vancouver? Mexico city? London?

No place within the US I can think of is scary enough to strong arm municipalities into building new stadiums like the NFL is used to.

Cheyenne? ABQ? There is nothing left. Except contraction, that's it.
 
2014-02-27 01:42:33 AM  

Craw Fu: Wait, subby was referring to LA?  I thought he meant San Francisco.  Candlestick is available.


Oakland can play in San Francisco while San Francisco plays in Santa Clara. Sounds like a perfect arrangement.
 
2014-02-27 01:46:39 AM  

Foxxinnia: Craw Fu: Wait, subby was referring to LA?  I thought he meant San Francisco.  Candlestick is available.

Oakland can play in San Francisco while San Francisco plays in Santa Clara. Sounds like a perfect arrangement.


That would be hilarious.
 
2014-02-27 01:54:58 AM  

Ryker's Peninsula: I really don't think the problem with the Raiders is their stadium.
The Warriors are going to move, the A's are going to move, go ahead and leave Raiders.  That way Oakland can get back to doing what it does best... shooting each other.


W/o the Raiders, they won't be able to shoot each other at the same level they're all used to.
 
2014-02-27 02:01:46 AM  

Trocadero: Ryker's Peninsula: I really don't think the problem with the Raiders is their stadium.
The Warriors are going to move, the A's are going to move, go ahead and leave Raiders.  That way Oakland can get back to doing what it does best... shooting each other.

W/o the Raiders, they won't be able to shoot each other at the same level they're all used to.


Less Silver and Black on Silver and Black crime?
There's only one color that matters, and that's money green.
 
2014-02-27 04:35:44 AM  
That stadium is a shiathole... literally. How many times last year alone did the dugouts and clubhouse fill with raw sewage?
 
2014-02-27 05:01:00 AM  
sports.cbsimg.net
i295.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-27 05:11:13 AM  
Geez, this sounds familiar....I've heard this before....

a.espncdn.com
 
2014-02-27 07:32:16 AM  
They may end up moving to L.A., stay there for 15-20 years then return to Oakland when things don't go their way in SoCal.
 
2014-02-27 07:39:10 AM  

pregerstheHobo: kevinatilusa: Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.

That begs the question, what is the new "LA boogeyman"?

Toronto? Vancouver? Mexico city? London?

No place within the US I can think of is scary enough to strong arm municipalities into building new stadiums like the NFL is used to.

Cheyenne? ABQ? There is nothing left. Except contraction, that's it.


OMAHA!

/Or maybe San Antonio
//Or OKC
 
2014-02-27 07:45:07 AM  
They would be stupid to move. With prices skyrocketing in the East Bay, it's only a matter of time before the flatlands get gentrified, forcing the hood rats into the valley or something.
 
2014-02-27 08:01:29 AM  
What a farking con the pro leagues have going.
 
2014-02-27 08:09:34 AM  
There was a time in the recent past that LA had a professional team. It was called USC. Then Lane Kiffin went and Zorned it up.
 
2014-02-27 08:28:55 AM  
What do the Raiders have to do with pro football?
 
2014-02-27 08:49:15 AM  

TommyDeuce: pregerstheHobo: kevinatilusa: Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.

That begs the question, what is the new "LA boogeyman"?

Toronto? Vancouver? Mexico city? London?

No place within the US I can think of is scary enough to strong arm municipalities into building new stadiums like the NFL is used to.

Cheyenne? ABQ? There is nothing left. Except contraction, that's it.

OMAHA!

/Or maybe San Antonio
//Or OKC


Vegas
 
2014-02-27 09:05:23 AM  

JSam21: That stadium is a shiathole... literally. How many times last year alone did the dugouts and clubhouse fill with raw sewage?


I love it. I've been attending A's games there since their move from Kansas City, and it's home. The Raiders have done their damnedest to fark it up, and have largely succeeded in bleeding the charm from the place, but I'll always think of it as home.

I can get cheap tickets the day of the game, watch quality baseball unadulterated by circus sideshows (unlike across the bay), and I can get there and leave by using well-designed and efficient rapid transit. I don't need a palace or monument to baseball, I just need a green ball-yard, and a place to sit. What's not to love?
 
2014-02-27 09:19:43 AM  
If I were smart and rich (hint: I'm not either), I'd buy the Raiders and move them to Brooklyn. fark it, even Queens.

Having an NFL team actually inside New York City, that New Yorkers could actually get to would be huge.
 
2014-02-27 09:54:44 AM  

Lost Thought 00: TommyDeuce: pregerstheHobo: kevinatilusa: Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.

That begs the question, what is the new "LA boogeyman"?

Toronto? Vancouver? Mexico city? London?

No place within the US I can think of is scary enough to strong arm municipalities into building new stadiums like the NFL is used to.

Cheyenne? ABQ? There is nothing left. Except contraction, that's it.

OMAHA!

/Or maybe San Antonio
//Or OKC

Vegas


Not a chance. The NFL loves having gambling as its dirty little open secret, but they'll never have a team in a place where it can be actively promoted.
 
2014-02-27 10:35:20 AM  

organizmx: If I were smart and rich (hint: I'm not either), I'd buy the Raiders and move them to Brooklyn. fark it, even Queens.

Having an NFL team actually inside New York City, that New Yorkers could actually get to would be huge.


Ignoring the fact that the NFL will do everything it can to prevent you from putting a third team in the NYC area, you'd still have to find a place to build it.  When the Jets were looking for a new stadium (before they decided to cohabitate with the Giants), they tried to build a stadium in Queens.  It failed because:any large scale construction project in NYC proper requires a lot of political support to get done, which the Jets couldn't get.  This meant they couldn't get a location and couldn't build their stadium in NYC.  The same thing would happen to you (or someone else) if they tried to build a football stadium.
 
2014-02-27 10:47:15 AM  

TheZorker: Gosling: kevinatilusa: Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.

LA's not going to allow itself to be without a team forever. Sooner or later they're going to swipe somebody.

LA's never going to get a team until they prove they can prove at least one of their fanbases (Lakers, Kings, whatever) can stay through an entire game.


It doesn't matter if they stay for the whole game, or even bother to show up at all as long as enough tickets are sold to keep the games from being blacked out on local TV.
 
2014-02-27 10:49:29 AM  
It would be great if politicians and fans would tell owners "You want a new stadium, you build it" instead of holding cities hostage. Around here they are talking about moving the Redskins back into DC. One of the ideas for the new stadium will be a dome, so Snyder can have his superbowl and a waterpark.
 
2014-02-27 10:53:59 AM  

Ryker's Peninsula: I really don't think the problem with the Raiders is their stadium.
The Warriors are going to move, the A's are going to move, go ahead and leave Raiders.  That way Oakland can get back to doing what it does best... shooting each other.


the warriors aren't moving for a long time, all kinds of issues with the proposed arena in SF.

I was hoping they move on schedule and then the whole oracle and o.co area would be renovated.

Anyhow fark you Lord Farquaad and your threats, if you you move the team again I'm not going to give a fark.
 
2014-02-27 11:00:27 AM  
sports.cbsimg.net1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-27 11:00:46 AM  

Gosling: kevinatilusa: Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.

LA's not going to allow itself to be without a team forever. Sooner or later they're going to swipe somebody.


The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.  It didn't work the first two times they tried having a team in Los Angeles so its not going to work out the third time.
 
2014-02-27 11:04:25 AM  
Then maybe he should build one...
This is especially hilarious is fiscally-challenged California. How many municipalities have millions of dollars just laying around?

Maybe I should petition our local government and say "HEY, I want a new office! If the taxpayers don't build me one, I'm moving!"
 
2014-02-27 11:05:46 AM  

TheZorker: LA's never going to get a team until they prove they can prove at least one of their fanbases (Lakers, Kings, whatever) can stay through an entire game.


Bullshiat.  The Kings max capacity year in and year out, the Dodgers and Angels draw over 3million a year, the Clippers and Lakers sell out the vast majority of their games, and the Galaxy even do alright.  The problem with football in LA has never been the fans, it's been the owners.  When your teams are owned by Al Davis and Georgia Frontiere you wouldn't attend games, either. Fark giving those tools even a dollar of my money.
 
2014-02-27 11:10:25 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Gosling: kevinatilusa: Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.

LA's not going to allow itself to be without a team forever. Sooner or later they're going to swipe somebody.

The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.  It didn't work the first two times they tried having a team in Los Angeles so its not going to work out the third time.


It has been updated to "doing the same crappy thing over and over and over knowing you will get the same crappy results".
 
2014-02-27 11:14:28 AM  

Bane of Broone: TheZorker: Gosling: kevinatilusa: Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.

LA's not going to allow itself to be without a team forever. Sooner or later they're going to swipe somebody.

LA's never going to get a team until they prove they can prove at least one of their fanbases (Lakers, Kings, whatever) can stay through an entire game.

If they put a decent team on the field there won't be a problem. The weather is too nice and there's too much fun to be had in and around LA. I'm sure there will be some that feel a since of pride at watching their team go 5-11, I won't know though because I'll be at the beach.


I'm so tired of the "there's so much stuff to do in X market" bullshiat

Oh, there's museums and beaches and clubs and blah blah blah.  I can guaranfrickin' tee you the majority of people in these markets are sitting on their damn couches on a Sunday afternoon and probably never even leave their neighborhood, let alone go to a museum, a beach or a club.  I would love to know the actually percentage of people who "go to the beach" on a Sunday.  There would be no place to put a towel if 5 million people all "went to the beach" at the same time.  You either have a rabid fan base and can fill seats for 8 home games or you don't.  Quit making excuses.
 
2014-02-27 11:23:17 AM  

bhcompy: TheZorker: LA's never going to get a team until they prove they can prove at least one of their fanbases (Lakers, Kings, whatever) can stay through an entire game.

Bullshiat.  The Kings max capacity year in and year out, the Dodgers and Angels draw over 3million a year, the Clippers and Lakers sell out the vast majority of their games, and the Galaxy even do alright.  The problem with football in LA has never been the fans, it's been the owners.  When your teams are owned by Al Davis and Georgia Frontiere you wouldn't attend games, either. Fark giving those tools even a dollar of my money.


So they won't support a Raiders team that was owned by Al Davis but will support a Raiders team owned by Mark Davis?  Even though the current Raiders are a lot worse than the LA Raiders ever were (this is Al's fault, though)?
 
2014-02-27 11:33:13 AM  

Warlordtrooper: The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. It didn't work the first two times they tried having a team in Los Angeles so its not going to work out the third time.


But there's a big difference.  Building a new 60k stadium would be much easier to fill than the 90k rose and memorial.
 
2014-02-27 11:47:40 AM  

llortcM_yllort: bhcompy: TheZorker: LA's never going to get a team until they prove they can prove at least one of their fanbases (Lakers, Kings, whatever) can stay through an entire game.

Bullshiat.  The Kings max capacity year in and year out, the Dodgers and Angels draw over 3million a year, the Clippers and Lakers sell out the vast majority of their games, and the Galaxy even do alright.  The problem with football in LA has never been the fans, it's been the owners.  When your teams are owned by Al Davis and Georgia Frontiere you wouldn't attend games, either. Fark giving those tools even a dollar of my money.

So they won't support a Raiders team that was owned by Al Davis but will support a Raiders team owned by Mark Davis?  Even though the current Raiders are a lot worse than the LA Raiders ever were (this is Al's fault, though)?


Pfft. They won't support any teams. They don't support the teams they HAVE. This is why there will never be an LA football team. The only thing that embarrasses the NFL is empty seats.
 
2014-02-27 12:07:01 PM  

kevinatilusa: Los Angeles doesn't need an NFL team.

On the other hand, plenty of NFL teams need Los Angeles, mainly as a tool to provide leverage to get other cities to give them more money while never seriously considering actually moving there.


But that list of places that want new stadiums is drying up pretty quickly now that the Falcons and Vikings blackmailed themselves into new stadiums.
-Oakland
-San Diego
-Buffalo
-St. Louis
-Wasington
are all that remain.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report