AS PRACTICAL AND economical as it would be to build a stadium the Raiders and 49ers can share, I just don't see it happening.

Sure, it's happening in New York, or rather New Jersey, where the Giants and Jets are building their own joint stadium, right next to the home they've been bunking in together for decades.

Do you really think the Raiders and 49ers ownership groups are friendly enough to welcome such an unlikely and gargatuan union, even in these desperate times?

I pitched the joint-stadium idea a couple years ago when trying to solve the Bay Area sports-housing crisis. From what I remember, the Raiders weren't too hip to the idea. It would also require the 49ers to change their decade-old tune of how they're so determined to build themselves a new stadium at Candlestick, or was it Hunter's Point, or Santa Clara, or Belmont?

"We enjoy our relationship with the 49er organization and wish it the best with its stadium endeavors," Raiders chief executive Amy Trask told the Bay Area News Group in today's story regarding the shared-stadium concept (link below).

The 49ers, in turn, said they could be willing to discuss the idea with "another professional sports team." Well, that rules out the Raiders, right? They've been relegated out of the professional ranks after six straight seasons of at least 11 losses. OK, sorry, cheap shot.

The Raiders' lease at the Coliseum does expire in two years, and I doubt they'd let a shared-stadium concept get in the way of any negotiations to extend their lease or threats to move elsewhere.


Advertisement

Building any stadium — no matter the number of tenants — seems too far fetched considering the economy has tanked as bad as the post-2002 performances of the Raiders and 49ers.

OK, say it happens (in 10 years, at the earliest). Why stop there? This stadium fantasy could be the launching point of a magnificent co-op.

  • The Raiders and 49ers could share a head coach. That way, it'll save them the trouble of firing and hiring new ones every year, seeing how they've combined for nine coaches the past seven seasons.

  • They could share a workout facility, where the 49ers could spot the Raiders on the bench press, and where one caterer could simply cook a bigger bulk order.

  • Their respective 53-man rosters could become a 106-man melting pot. Say the 49ers need a strong-armed quarterback to tear apart the Rams' secondary, so they borrow JaMarcus Russell. Say the Raiders need a linebacker to finally catch LaDainian Tomlinson, so they call upon Patrick Willis. It'd be like a constant game of Red Rover.

  • They could share personnel departments, headed by the McCloughan family, which already has ties to both the Raiders and 49ers.

  • Best of all, maybe the NFL has seen enough bad football from the Bay Area's teams that they'll allow them to share victories, so that only one team needs to win each weekend to count it as a victory for both teams. Maybe they could share points, too.

  • Let's just cut to the chase and say they have one owner. But who is the lesser of the two evils here? Al Davis or the Yorks. Didn't we just read reports about the Raiders trying to sell shares again? Oh, those were refuted. And so should be this fantasy of a shared stadium, as practical as it may be, and as majestic as it could be on, say, Treasure Island.

    What'll you tell me next, that the Raiders and the NFL have ended their decades-long feud and are getting along? Wait, that actually is happening (see: last month's first-ever visit to Oakland by a NFL commissioner). Hey, maybe there is hope. But only after the clubs meet in the Super Bowl and decide to split the pot.

    Look for Cam Inman's Web-only "Candid Cam" takes whenever there's a breaking sports story, or whenever Cam's got something to say _ in short, just about every day. You can reach Cam at cinman@bayareanewsgroup.com.

    LINK to the Mercury News' article on a shared stadium: www.mercurynews.com/ci_11419367?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com