+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Sports Bar (/forum-531.html)
+----- Forum: Pro Sports (/forum-516.html)
+----- Thread: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water? (/thread-807537.html)
Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water? - ken d - 02-01-2017 09:38 AM
Beginning to appear that the team didn't have all its ducks in a row after all. First, they seem to have pissed off their major backer (Adelson), then misread the extent of Goldman Sachs commitment to the project without him.
This isn't good news for UNLV. Does it open a door for San Diego (and the Aztecs) to get back in the game?
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water? - esayem - 02-01-2017 09:59 AM
I hope it means Oakland and the Bay Area are back in it.
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water? - Tom in Lazybrook - 02-01-2017 10:31 AM
I say move them to Los Angeles. And make the Rams and Chargers stay in LA with the Raiders there.
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water? - TerryD - 02-01-2017 10:33 AM
San Diego's Mayor just said that his city would welcome the Raiders if the Vegas deal goes dead.
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water? - Frank the Tank - 02-01-2017 10:54 AM
(02-01-2017 10:33 AM)TerryD Wrote: San Diego's Mayor just said that his city would welcome the Raiders if the Vegas deal goes dead.
To be sure, San Diego seems to be providing even less financing than Oakland while being located in a smaller market, so I highly doubt that will go anywhere in practicality. Whether it's right or wrong, the name of this entire stadium game is PUBLIC financing.
You MIGHT be able to convince the NFL that little-to-no public financing can work in a market that's the size of the Bay Area. It's very clear that such a stance won't work in a market that's the size of San Diego (especially with what Las Vegas had offered).
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water? - bluesox - 02-01-2017 11:23 AM
No raiders could be great news for UNLV if they can tap into the hotel tax money and build a stadium. I could see the mls being an option to share it. As for the raiders who knows, San Diego would seem odd. They should move over to Levi stadium and spend some money to make it more of a neutral home for both teams.
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water? - colohank - 02-01-2017 11:33 AM
Lake Mead and Lake Powell are at historic lows, and the Colorado River is dangerously over-subscribed (that means that the insatiable demands of agri-business and ill-sited desert communities far exceed the natural supply). When the last of the water is gone, Las Vegas will dry up and blow away. Try to imagine a ghost town out in the middle of a remote and damned hot desert that used to have one million residents, a bunch of phony glitz, and dreams of an NFL franchise.
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water? - GoldenWarrior11 - 02-01-2017 11:46 AM
The NFL went almost a full 20 years before a team relocated (Houston Oilers to Tennessee in 1997, followed by the Rams to Los Angeles last year). The longest such steak like that in the NFL/AFL was the Chicago Cardinals to St. Louis in 1960, followed by the Oakland Raiders to Los Angeles in 1982.
History has shown that Los Angeles did not have the fan support or interest to house two franchises at the same time, yet the NFL was intent on recapturing that market on a grand scale. Getting two franchises back in the fold is very much doubling down on the LA market. If just one team becomes successful there, the NFL could end up moving the weaker franchise again down the road to a San Diego, an Oakland, a St. Louis, or another western city, and still get what they desired from the Los Angeles market (at the very costly expense of agitating and eliminating a market in Oakland, San Diego or St. Louis).
The NFL did the right thing in the Cleveland/Baltimore relocation where it essentially treated Baltimore as an expansion franchise. The history, records, colors, etc. remained in Cleveland. It still bothers me that the Titans got to keep the Oilers history, as I think the city of Houston should have kept that.
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water? - MplsBison - 02-01-2017 01:09 PM
(02-01-2017 10:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: To be sure, San Diego seems to be providing even less financing than Oakland while being located in a smaller market, so I highly doubt that will go anywhere in practicality. Whether it's right or wrong, the name of this entire stadium game is PUBLIC financing.
100% correct. Unless you're NYC or LA market, no one is going to sink $1.5B - 2B of private investment for a private NFL stadium.
If you want that NFL carrot, then pay up.
(02-01-2017 10:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: You MIGHT be able to convince the NFL that little-to-no public financing can work in a market that's the size of the Bay Area.
I think the Raiders in Oakland would have to, rightfully, only be allowed to consider the east bay as the market. And then I don't know if it works.
Why the heck they couldn't have just had both the 49ers and the Raiders in the same stadium, with neural color seating, in the south bay ... is beyond me.
(02-01-2017 10:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: It's very clear that such a stance won't work in a market that's the size of San Diego
SD residents cheaped out, so they got what they voted for.
(02-01-2017 11:33 AM)colohank Wrote: Try to imagine a ghost town out in the middle of a remote and damned hot desert that used to have one million residents
Even if the people move away, the casinos will be there. Way too much investment, and way too expensive to move it all to somewhere else. They'll pay to truck in water, and whatever else they need. Dorms for the casino & airport workers, etc.
(02-01-2017 11:46 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: If just one team becomes successful there, the NFL could end up moving the weaker franchise again down the road to a San Diego, an Oakland, a St. Louis, or another western city, and still get what they desired from the Los Angeles market (at the very costly expense of agitating and eliminating a market in Oakland, San Diego or St. Louis).
The Rams are in LA, and will be for a long time. That's Kroenke's team and its his stadium. So you're talking about moving the Chargers to somewhere else, if they have a crappy run in LA over the next 10-20/whatever years.
Tough to see voters in SD, STL, or Oakland voting for a publicly financed NFL stadium, when they've been abandoned by the NFL, even if it's 20 years from now.
I would think Portland would love to have a team, but everyone will jump on me saying the Seahawks will veto that. Is it really that easy? Not an NFC team ...
Salt Lake City?
(02-01-2017 11:46 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: It still bothers me that the Titans got to keep the Oilers history, as I think the city of Houston should have kept that.
In another thread, the comment was made that people in Houston wanted the Oilers franchise to be retired, because of such crummy history.
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water? - C2__ - 02-02-2017 12:07 AM
(02-01-2017 11:46 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: The NFL went almost a full 20 years before a team relocated (Houston Oilers to Tennessee in 1997, followed by the Rams to Los Angeles last year). The longest such steak like that in the NFL/AFL was the Chicago Cardinals to St. Louis in 1960, followed by the Oakland Raiders to Los Angeles in 1982.
History has shown that Los Angeles did not have the fan support or interest to house two franchises at the same time, yet the NFL was intent on recapturing that market on a grand scale. Getting two franchises back in the fold is very much doubling down on the LA market. If just one team becomes successful there, the NFL could end up moving the weaker franchise again down the road to a San Diego, an Oakland, a St. Louis, or another western city, and still get what they desired from the Los Angeles market (at the very costly expense of agitating and eliminating a market in Oakland, San Diego or St. Louis).
The NFL did the right thing in the Cleveland/Baltimore relocation where it essentially treated Baltimore as an expansion franchise. The history, records, colors, etc. remained in Cleveland. It still bothers me that the Titans got to keep the Oilers history, as I think the city of Houston should have kept that.
Yes and no...while the Oilers tradition certainly belongs in Houston, their founder was the one who moved the team, he named the team and it belonged just as much to him as it did to Houston. I understand his emotional connection but he at least should not have had the league bar the name from being used in the future.
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water? - Wedge - 02-02-2017 02:25 AM
(02-01-2017 10:31 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: I say move them to Los Angeles. And make the Rams and Chargers stay in LA with the Raiders there.
That would be one more step toward realizing this old article from The Onion: NFL To Move All 32 Teams To Los Angeles.
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water? - C2__ - 02-02-2017 02:54 AM
An example of taking a joke way too far. We already got the joke in the headline and first paragraph, it should be 1,000 words or less and really 500 words or less. A lot of the article was filler and unnecessary. Some jokes write themselves and the job was pretty much done in the headline.