Raiders executives sniff around San Antonio for new stadium

[spuwho]

Interesting that a "dump" is anything built between 1958 and 1998 now. Wrigley and Fenway have less amenities than any pro sports stadium in use today. And they seem to work OK.

Oakland is constrained by the fact it is one of the last multi use stadiums still around.

Portland has already come out and said they have no interest in NFL.

San Antonio has some things that drives the interest. ATT HQ and the Austin TV market.  I could think of several mid size metros that could support NFL just as easily as SA.

Birmingham comes to mind first.

NFL won't allow the west coast to lose 2 teams, so if anything its leverage to get a deal back into LA.

[BridgeTroll]

The Oakland Coliseum is truely a D-U-M-P.  The Bay areas other Dump (Candlestick) has been replaced in the South Bay (Santa Clara).  The Raiders have been trying to get a new stadium for decades... Both the A's and Raiders play in very sub standard facilities... screw Oakland.

And the Golden State Warriors are moving back to San Francisco in 2018.

Lol... I forgot about THAT dump!  The sports teams of Oakland have put up with substandard facilities for decades...

[Wacca Pilatka]

Birmingham comes to mind first.

Yep.  If Birmingham could get a stadium funded, it would make perfect sense, even though it's not a high-growth area.  It has football passion and the only-game-in-town factor very much in its favor.

[Wacca Pilatka]

Portland has had a bad track record of supporting major league football, I think the WFL averaged about 4,000 per game. San Antonio has been in this quest at least as long as Jacksonville. I don't know about Austin, but it would seem to me to be an even better choice due to growth. San Antonio should be great for Futbol however... If they can pull it off, more power to them.

I think we should rename that team 'THE USA RAIDERS' hell just a couple more cities and 'they've been everywhere!'

Portland also didn't support the USFL Breakers well, nor did San Antonio take to the Gunslingers.

I remember seeing a joke years ago suggesting the Raiders be renamed the Atchison, Topeka, and the Santa Fe Raiders.

[BridgeTroll]

London Raiders? 

[duvaldude08]

Interesting that a "dump" is anything built between 1958 and 1998 now. Wrigley and Fenway have less amenities than any pro sports stadium in use today. And they seem to work OK.

Oakland is constrained by the fact it is one of the last multi use stadiums still around.

Portland has already come out and said they have no interest in NFL.

San Antonio has some things that drives the interest. ATT HQ and the Austin TV market.  I could think of several mid size metros that could support NFL just as easily as SA.

Birmingham comes to mind first.

NFL won't allow the west coast to lose 2 teams, so if anything its leverage to get a deal back into LA.

If your house was built in 1958 and not properly taken care of, it would be considered a dump. Thats the issue. The Saints dome was built in the 70's (correct me if Im off), and the dome is by far a dump. You have to put money into these facilities. Everbank field is nearing 20 years old. Had we not renovated it and added amenities multiple times, it would be complete DUMP

[pierre]

Interesting that a "dump" is anything built between 1958 and 1998 now. Wrigley and Fenway have less amenities than any pro sports stadium in use today. And they seem to work OK.

Oakland is constrained by the fact it is one of the last multi use stadiums still around.

Portland has already come out and said they have no interest in NFL.

San Antonio has some things that drives the interest. ATT HQ and the Austin TV market.  I could think of several mid size metros that could support NFL just as easily as SA.

Birmingham comes to mind first.

NFL won't allow the west coast to lose 2 teams, so if anything its leverage to get a deal back into LA.

That is because the Oakland Coliseum is a dump. It has been poorly maintained. It has constant sewer problems.

Al Davis did major renovations on it less than 20 years ago and it actually made it worse.

[Tacachale]

The bar has been set a lot higher in the last 20 years by all the Taj Mahal stadiums that have been built. College football stadiums are almost without exception "dumps" compared to NFL stadiums, and generally much older, but it doesn't hurt them at all. In fact, a number of them draw even bigger crowds. The big leagues are monopolies so they can get what they want from the host cities.

I think San Antonio would be a great NFL market. However, it's hard to see this as anything but a power play to work a stadium deal of some sort back home. And I'm with Bridges, I don't take any joy in another city potentially losing its team.

[Wacca Pilatka]

Other than Soldier Field and Lambeau, which have been so heavily renovated in the recent past as to have been virtually rebuilt, Oakland's Coliseum is the oldest stadium in the NFL now that the 49ers get to go to their new palace.  It was built in the 60s, shortly before the Chargers' stadium.

An older stadium can stay competitive with extensive renovations.  The Saints and Chiefs are proof of that.  But Buffalo, Oakland, and San Diego's stadiums have been looking pretty ratty, especially Oakland with the sewage issues.  Candlestick also looked awful in recent years.

It's also possible for a not-very-old stadium to lose its competitiveness.  The best description I've read of the Rams' stadium is that of a "poorly lit Costco."  The Falcons are looking to replace the Georgia Dome, and San Antonio's Alamodome is no longer NFL-grade either.

1920s: Bears (but saying Soldier Field was built in the 20s is almost like saying EverBank Field was built in the 20s)
1950s: Packers
1960s: Raiders, Chargers
1970s: Bills, Chiefs, Saints
1980s: Dolphins
1990s: Ravens, Browns, Jaguars, Titans, Redskins, Panthers, Bucs, Falcons, Rams
2000 to present: Patriots, Jets/Giants, Bengals, Steelers, Colts, Texans, Broncos, Cowboys, Eagles, Lions, Vikings, 49ers, Seahawks, Cardinals

[BridgeTroll]

Lambeau is constantly being upgraded...








Seating capacity

32,500   (1957–1960)
38,669   (1961–1962)
42,327   (1963–1964)
50,852   (1965–1969)
56,263   (1970–1984)
56,926   (1985–1989)
59,543   (1990–1994)
60,890   (1995–2001)
65,290/66,110   (2002)
72,515   (2003)
72,569   (2004)
72,601   (2005)
72,922   (2006)
72,928   (2007–2010)
73,128   (2011)
73,094   (2012)
80,750   (2013)
80,978   (2014)