With the players off for another day, talk centered around where the Raiders would play for the remainder of this year and long term. The ownership group was scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss the San Leandro proposal, but there were no indications as to which way the owners would vote. There was also talk that the group would discuss a reorganization of the team’s management.
While San Leandro was still on the table, it was a good bet that the team would not be playing in a local college stadium. With regard to Stanford Stadium or Memorial Stadium in Berkeley,Stanford assistant athletic director Chuck Taylor said, “I don’t believe this will happen here in the foreseeable future. There might possibly be a one-shot deal worked out some time, but not for this year. There are a lot of problems to be solved, among them the tax difficulty were we to use our facilities for activities not related to educational purposes.”
Unattributed rumors continued to circulate that the team was considering a move to Seattle, Portland, or San Diego.
In addition to the owners’ confab, there was also a joint meeting planned on the 9th between the Alameda County Supervisors and the Oakland City Council to discuss the Oakland stadium proposal. There were two sites to discuss. The first, the Peralta site, would be built on 72 acres south and east of Oakland Auditorium and Exposition Building between Oak Street and Fifth Avenue at a cost of $20,940,000. The second, the Hegenberger Road site, would be built on 140 acres between 66th Avenue and Hegenberger Road and between the Nimitz Freeway and Southern Pacific railroad tracks at a cost of $17,530,000.
A funding plan was put forth by Robert Nahas, a recent president of the Oakland Chamber of Commerce. The city and county would acquire the land jointly in a lease-purchase agreement and a non-profit corporation would be formed by local business leaders to gain funding and build the stadium. Income would be derived through rental of the stadium to the Raiders and other parties who wished to use it. These rents would cover expenses and pay down the loan. Shortfalls would be made good by tax revenues from the general funds of the city and county, a situation expected to exist over the first few years. Once the loan was paid off, the non-profit would dissolve, and the city and county would take over joint ownership of the facility.
Hayward Daily Review
Pasadena Independent Star-News
San Francisco Chronicle