Raiders May Exit by Same Door They Entered

Ironically, the very legal decision loudly applauded in Los Angeles because it enabled the Raiders to move south seven years ago from Oakland has opened the way for the team to seek yet another new home.

By limiting the power of National Football League owners to block team moves from city to city, the decision left all teams much freer to relocate. At the same time, it encouraged the kind of bidding war now going on among four cities--Oakland, Sacramento, Los Angeles and Irwindale--for the Raider franchise.

Maxwell Blecher, the attorney who represented the Los Angeles Coliseum Commission in the suit to allow the Raiders to move, remarks now, of the result:

“It enhanced the value of every pro franchise. People are now laying money at (Raiders owner) Al Davis’ feet, and he’s quite open in saying that he’ll go to the place that best lures him.”

Certainly, there are signs of resistance to giving him everything he might want, and nowhere more than in Los Angeles, where even some of Davis’ biggest boosters are distancing themselves a bit.

Asked, for instance, what Mayor Tom Bradley’s attitude is to the negotiations, Deputy Mayor Mike Gage said a week ago, “We want to keep the Raiders, but we don’t want to be raped.” Some city councilmen have cautioned against allowing public money to be used to make any cash payments to Davis, and there have been pledges by the Coliseum’s private business managers that it won’t be.

In Oakland, as well, the use of public money in the proposed deal remains controversial.

But this resistance occurs against a backdrop of ever bigger offers--like the ones that brought new teams to Indianapolis and Phoenix in recent years--by cities seeking to lure NFL teams to a new home.

The suit that brought the Raiders to Los Angeles has even worked out to the financial benefit of the league, according to Frank Rothman, the attorney who represented the NFL in the court proceedings.

Rothman points out: “Now, the NFL takes the position that when a franchise is moved from one city to another, if the new city is worth more as a property than the franchise given up, then the NFL is entitled to be compensated. All of these cities that do not have NFL teams are expansion opportunities that have economic value, and they belong to the NFL.”

Out of this concept comes the “franchise fee,” and cities desiring NFL franchises are often told they must pay such a fee, amounting to $30 million or more in cash. But just whether this will be paid to the owners bringing in the team or the NFL as a whole, remains a matter of negotiation. Most of the time, it has gone to the owners.

Apparently, no one is readier to take credit for the turn of events than Davis himself.

Irving Azoff of MCA Inc., one of the Los Angeles Coliseum private managers attempting to keep the Raiders in the Coliseum, says Davis tells how other owners frequently compliment him, saying:

“You invented the franchise fee. You improved the value of every NFL franchise by $50 million.”

And this may be an understatement considering that in the present bidding for the Raiders, Davis has been offered stadium projects and cash inducements totaling more than $150 million each in Irwindale, Sacramento and Los Angeles, and a reported $82 million in Oakland for what would amount only to a stadium expansion plus a “franchise fee” for moving back to the city.

“This is not something that’s bad,” Davis’ attorney, Joseph Alioto, commented last week. “It’s a free enterprise system now. Anybody has a right to move to improve his situation. Prior to our case, the NFL was like a cartel. But since, there have been some marvelous deals. Indianapolis is perhaps the best example, with its 10-year guarantee to fully reimburse the Colts for anything less than full attendance.

Of course, the Raider-Coliseum lawsuit ruling against the NFL is not the only factor that has enhanced the value of league franchises.

A close observer of professional football who asked not to be identified points out that the NFL has not expanded in 15 years and that, at most, only two expansion teams are contemplated now, at an uncertain date in the future.

The restriction of the number of available franchises has worked to drive up the prices of existing franchises, he asserted, as cities without pro football teams that desire them bid ever higher for them.

In the most recent bidding war, Davis has proven an adept strategist. He sits back and waits for competing cities to make ever more lucrative offers for his team. Just this last weekend, the San Francisco Examiner reported that Sacramento interests had increased their cash inducement from $35 million to $50 million in an effort to outdo Oakland.

Negotiating Tactic

“Davis knows how to keep his mouth shut,” says one local sports journalist who has dealt with him a long time. “Like (the late) Carroll Rosenbloom (of the Los Angeles Rams), when he negotiates, he never makes a proposal.”

At the same time, Saturday night’s extremely low attendance of only 31,135 at the Raiders’ first exhibition game in the Coliseum, and the team’s 37-7 shellacking at the hands of the San Francisco 49ers, may put pressure on Davis to come to a quicker decision. As long as reports proliferate that the team may move, attendance and interest in Los Angeles, and the morale of the team, are likely to suffer.

Marshall Grossman, the attorney representing the Los Angeles Coliseum Commission in its pending $57-million breach-of-contract lawsuit against the Raiders, nonetheless remarks: “Davis seems to have a history of out-negotiating whoever is on the other side. . . . He was successful in that with Irwindale. He got $10 million in his pants pocket from them before the financing for that deal was arranged.”

Now, it appears likely that Irwindale may never come up with adequate financing for its proposed stadium, and the Raiders owner in those circumstances is likely to keep the $10 million.

The chore of the Coliseum Commission, Grossman declares, “is to try to keep Davis (as a tenant) and not give away the store to him.

“But that becomes very difficult in today’s environment, where money is simply thrown at these professional teams. . . . Davis is simply playing everyone off against another, doing it very skillfully. When he sees what everybody is offering, he will pick the proposal that is best for the Raiders. As long as the bidding continues to go up, there’s no reason for him to pick.”

Could Explain Inaction

Grossman’s theory, if correct, explains why Davis has not chosen among bidders yet, despite frequent press reports that he is on the verge of moving north and has refused to say publicly when he will make up his mind.

Despite last week’s new break in Los Angeles Coliseum-Raider negotiations, and reported negotiating hang-ups in his dealings with both Sacramento and Irwindale, the chairman of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, George Vukasin, was extremely cautious last week in predicting when Davis may make up his mind on the Oakland offer.

Asked if an announcement of a Raider move back to Oakland might be made Aug. 26, when the Raiders are scheduled to play an exhibition game in Oakland against the Houston Oilers, their first return to the Oakland Coliseum since the 1981 season, Vukasin said:

“Anything’s conceivable, but I anticipate they will take a sufficient time to fully review the document (a tentative agreement) we have submitted to them, and to look at alternatives they have of playing elsewhere.”

The Oakland official said he has invited Davis and his wife to speak at a dinner being given in Oakland the night before the exhibition game that will honor six former Raider players who are in football’s Hall of Fame, but that so far no reply has been received.

In any case, Vukasin added, “I would expect that the L.A. Raiders probably would remain in Los Angeles to the end of their contract (with the Coliseum).”

That would put off any move to the 1992 season.

Davis, as has been the case for months, was “unavailable for comment” on what he will do.

Quite aside from which bidder offers the most, however, Davis will probably be asking himself which party is most likely to make good on its promises.

Purported Promises

The Raiders owner frequently points to promises that he contends were made to him in 1980, 1981 and 1982 as proof that the Coliseum failed to perform for him. He says these broken promises are what led to his break with the Coliseum Commission two years ago. (A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has questioned whether oral promises were made to Davis about Coliseum renovation by Los Angeles and has declared in any case that they would not be binding.)

More recently, Davis has found that Irwindale encountered all kinds of obstacles in performing on its 1987 memorandum of agreement with the team, with a changing lineup of city officials frequently seeking to renegotiate the terms.

Even now, Irwindale has a financing offer on the table, but sources acquainted with it say it is contingent on so many things that Davis is dubious about its acceptability.

“They’ve got a big Japanese land development company involved, and they hope to get the land for the stadium and other planned developments for $50 million,” remarks a businessman who is conversant with the proposal. “I don’t think they’re going to ever get it for close to that. And condemnation would take a long, long time at least. And this is just the land. The $125-million loan for the stadium construction, and the cash advances to Davis, are extra.”

In Sacramento, Gregg Lukenbill, a partner in the Sacramento Kings basketball franchise, has spearheaded plans to build a stadium for Davis, but he and his associates reportedly want a share in the ownership of the team that Davis and his Raider partners are reluctant to give.

In Oakland, initial City Council reaction to a proposed $32-million cash payment to the Raiders as a “franchise fee” was negative, and concern has been expressed by some officials about a report that part of the offer would put up public money for any shortfall in ticket sales necessary to sell out the stadium for Raider games.

Efforts at Secrecy

Since the skepticism emerged, those Oakland officials negotiating with the Raiders have done their best to keep the details of their latest offer secret. “It is totally inappropriate to negotiate in the press or to discuss any negotiations until they’re finalized,” Vukasin said last week.

Complicating matters, the owners of the San Francisco 49ers have demanded they be compensated if the Raiders move back into the Bay Area. But Alioto said last week he has already informed the 49ers no compensation would be paid.

In Los Angeles, Azoff, the Coliseum private management official, has talked of assembling $155 million in private money to underwrite the offer to be made to Davis, assuming that negotiations resume.

Last week, when the talks were broken off as a result of inability of the parties to agree on keeping their discussions from being used in court proceedings on a Coliseum Commission lawsuit against the team, Azoff was openly discouraged. “We’re down to desperate time,” he remarked.

There are questions about whether Los Angeles can deliver on the offer it is planning to make. Can private funding be found? Will an environmental impact report be required on the Coliseum renovation? Would preservationists try to block the project, which would demolish all but the historic east peristyle of the present Coliseum facility, the host to the 1932 and 1984 Olympic Games? Would there be community opposition? These factors might result in considerable delays.