I disagree. You're talking about around 1 million people who go to the games and up to 20 million TV viewers. It's like spending money on any other form of entertainment. Having something that people like THAT much is good for the city and the people. If you are asking me if bringing football back to Houston was worth raising hotel and motel taxes and financing %60 of the Stadium then my answer is yes. I enjoy football. I enjoy it a lot. It makes me happy and it makes a lot of other people happy across the country. I also feel better about it because Bob McNair had to spend $700 million to help steal an expansion team from LA in addition to 185 million for the stadium so Houston only went 5 years without a pro team. NRG is also hosting Disney, U2, Metallica, International Team Soccer in the 1st half of the year. I believe they also have events while football season is going on but they haven't been announced. How many other entertainment or civil projects have hundreds of millions of public funds? Austin has a new giant public library that is coming and I'm fine with the public cost. Any respected Sim City 4 Mayor can tell you that happiness is important to your city and sports makes people happy. That being said, I think there are times when stadiums that aren't outdated from an infrastructure standpoint that are replaced by new stadiums. The Ballpark at Arlington, The Georgia Dome and Turner Field both seem like venues that are not outdated in function. The Astrodome was.
Looks like Oakland isn't done yet. http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03...or-outlines-plan-to-keep-raiders-in-east-bay/
Too little too late. Davis doesn't want to stay and nothing Oakland can do will ever compete with the glitz and glamour of being in Las Vegas. Davis has a chance to be the next big thing in one of the sexiest cities on Earth with a sweetheart deal that the NFL simply can't afford to say "no" to because it will pave the way for the future of stadium funding for the rest of time. From a business standpoint, there's simply no way the league is going to turn down the kind of funding that Vegas is offering. Owners don't get rich enough to own franchises by being fiscally stupid. My guess is that the move will be a done deal on Monday. We'll see!
And the Bay area isn't sexy? Also, Mark Davis is not a business-man who got rich on his own. He inherited the team. He could very well be fiscally smart or stupid... nothing about his past dictates anything. While I agree that the financial windfall of having an NFL product in Vegas would be immense... there's still a laundry list of other factors to consider before it gets the final approval. There's still a big question of the gambling implications of having a team in Vegas. The Vegas TV market is also still not as big as the Bay Area's... how would that impact future TV deals? If the NFL could get Vegas to build a stadium anyways... and change the rule that a team has to be there for future SB's.... they may get to have its cake and eat it too. And then possibly move a team out of other smaller markets other than Oakland (Jacksonville, Nashville) in the future.
Davis attempted to go to Los Angeles. The situation is Oakland is very bad. It is highly likely that the Raiders end up in Las Vegas. Long term I am not sure about the appeal of Las Vegas, however Davis has already tried to make it work in California.
There's a hockey team now in Vegas staying at a state of the art stadium on the strip. They use that stadium for concerts and fights etc. the stadium in Vegas will be for the Raiders and UNLV. Plus Vegas will get a Super Bowl. That will be the best Super Bowl city period.
Roger Goodell paints bleak picture for Raiders fans in letter to Oakland mayor OAKLAND — NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has expressed concerns over Oakland’s plan to keep the Raiders from leaving to Las Vegas, writing that the latest proposal is not “clear and specific, actionable in a reasonable time frame, and free of major contingencies.” Goodell’s letter, which was obtained by this news organization on Saturday, was a response to a letter Schaaf sent him earlier Friday outlining the Oakland stadium project. The commissioner’s concerns include the Oakland Athletics long-term lease at the Coliseum and what he views as a lack of details in the Lott proposal. “We have been prepared for nearly two years to work on finding a solution based on access to land at a certain cost, without constraints on the location of the stadium or timing of construction, and clarity on the overall development,” Goodell wrote. “However, at this date, there remains no certainty regarding how the site will be fully developed, or the specific and contractually-defined nature of the participation by Fortress or other parties. In addition, the long-term nature of the commitment to the A’s remains a significant complication and the resolution of that issue remains unknown.” Goodell acknowledged and thanked Oakland city officials, specifically Schaaf, for being “accessible, creative and diligent in exploring alternatives.” “Despite all of these efforts, ours and yours, we have not yet identified a viable solution,” Goodell said. “It is disappointing to me and our clubs to have come to that conclusion.” NFL owners are expected to vote on the relocation to Las Vegas on Monday in Phoenix. Team owner Mark Davis needs 24 of the 32 owners to approve the team’s third move in 35 years. According to Goodell, the owners will also review the efforts to keep the team in Oakland. Earlier this month, Schaaf was among a group which presented Oakland’s plan before the NFL’s Finance and Stadium Committees, which consist of 18 owners. The committees “will be presenting their analysis and recommendations to the full membership next week,” according to Goodell.
Basically: Dear Oakland: You are poor and we don't want you. Perhaps an Arena League team? Regards, Roger Goodell P.S. you will still watch the NFL
And if my Aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle. The Raiders are going to Vegas, maybe Oakland can have the Jaguars one day if they get their act together, but like I said before, that ship has sailed. The Las Vegas Raiders will be a premier franchise for the league and that stadium will be the future of how the NFL does business going forward. It's over. Oakland lost, or won depending on your perspective I guess.
I've already said as much... see my posts earlier in the thread. This clearly will boost the franchise value from where it is right now. While Vegas may be the literal cash-grab now, I'm still not sure about its long-term viability. Can any sports franchise survive long-term with the bulk of season ticket-holders/PSL's being sold simply to casinos/corporations? I know Rockets fans love to b**** about the corporate situation at Toyota Center... and while that would be fully evident over 41 home games, vs. 8 home games, it still remains to be seen how it fully shakes out. And this is before you have to wonder what (if any) gambling adjustments need to be done once a pro team (and super bowls) are there? In the end, I think Vegas is being slightly overrated as a market... while Oakland/Bay Area is being underrated. Vegas will be fun though... every game there will almost be like a neutral field. The team will have to be really good to keep it from becoming almost a permanent road trip... and thus, this could effect the success of a team they could build long-term.
The Oakland market sucks. San Francisco is already accounted for and now LA has two teams. There are severe financial limitations. Every home game in Las Vegas isn't going to be like a road game. There are long term residents and executives with strong Las Vegas ties. Is it NY or Chicago or Dallas or Houston? No, but it was the best available market and far better than what Davis was going to get in Oakland,
The Bay Area media market is huge. It can definitely support two NFL teams. Not sure why you even mentioned LA... its about 8 hours away. Vegas without the casinos is no better than Jacksonville, Nashville or Oakland for that matter. The casinos will support the bulk of season ticket and suite sales. It will be the go-to destination for fans of the visiting team. If you can only make one road trip per year, why not the Vegas game?
The Bay Area market is very good when it includes San Francisco. However San Francisco is already accounted for with the 49ers. Oakland isn't a great market, ask the Athletics. I mentioned Los Angeles because that is an area the Raiders were interested in moving there prior to losing out and settling in Las Vegas. Who cares if Las Vegas is Jacksonville without the casinos. The jobs and money from the casinos matter and figure into the equation. Oakland sucks for pro sports.
Oakland , the city, will be losing the warriors and the raiders. http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/01/...s-of-reasons-not-to-fund-new-raiders-stadium/ Stung by the unforeseen costs of bringing back the Raiders two decades ago, local leaders lack the money and political will to help pay for a new $900 million stadium the team wants built. San Diego and St. Louis, meanwhile, have proposed subsidies between $350 million and $400 million to help keep their teams in town.
