(01-12-2016 05:18 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 02:43 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Nothing you are saying doesn't make sense, but I'd say a good part of it is that now that the 49ers paid for it themselves, why would they want to allow the Raiders to have in, when they could have been in it from the beginning and contributed? Again you make sense, as most people were asking the same question back when the planning started. But it's more or less too late now. Even if they did now, they would not get "equal" treatment, and would have lesser revenue streams than the 49ers. Still more than they have now, but less.

Davis was a flush on the the river card and hoped he would eventually win the pot. He never got the card he was looking for.

That's all well and good, but I guess my original point is that couldn't the NFL agree to use its clout to steamroll over some of these issues?

Like a "ok guys ... I know it didn't work out on your own and on their own, but we want the Raiders to stay in the Bay Area and this is the only feasible plan ... so what's it gonna take? *opens checkbook*"

No, they can't. The NFL does not own the individual teams, and cannot force such actions. And if it went to court they would likely lose, as they have in the past. And no other team would support such a move, less they be in the same position some day down the line.

And the 49ers would not do such a thing, because it obviously means they lose money over the long haul, otherwise there would be no point in the NFL trying to make them equal tenants. Now that they got past the risk stage, and are ready to collect the profits, they are not going to share on any terms other than as a tenant. And they really don't even seem to want to do that, though would probably bend on that topic.

You must've missed the "*opens checkbook*" part.

I wasn't saying force and I wasn't saying they'd ask them to do it for free, out of the goodness of their hearts.

No I didn't. You missed the "lose money over the long haul, otherwise there would be no point in the NFL trying to make them equal tenants." If it did not make more money for the Raiders long term (which means less for the 49ers), there would be no reason for the NFL to bother with "opens checkbook." the only way it would make sense for the 49ers, is if the NFL paid them more than they would lose out, which would defeat the purpose. This is like Facebook asking original Facebook investors to sell back half of their stock to the guy Zuckerburg pushed out, for the value of the company when he was involved, despite the fact that the levied all the risk and now are reaping the rewards.

It wouldn't defeat the purpose. It would've been like the 49ers and Raiders went in 50/50 on the stadium from the beginning, which would've happened if Davis had agreed to it.

Thus, the 49ers had already accepted getting half the yearly revenue if the Raiders had kicked in half of the costs up-front.

It'd just be the NFL rewinding history.