Amber Dixon ‏@AmberNews3LV · 14h14 hours ago

Source tells me #Raiders owner is scheduled to be @ S NV Tourism Infra meeting April 28 to discuss stadium. @News3LV




Not that UNLV had any support in the first place, but having the Raiders in LV could help UNLV if they are able to use the new stadium...if such a move really occurs.

(04-13-2016 07:53 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Amber Dixon ‏@AmberNews3LV · 14h14 hours ago

Source tells me #Raiders owner is scheduled to be @ S NV Tourism Infra meeting April 28 to discuss stadium. @News3LV




Not that UNLV had any support in the first place, but having the Raiders in LV could help UNLV if they are able to use the new stadium...if such a move really occurs.

Looks like Mark Davis is looking to play some Preseason Games and "might" pledge to move to Las Vegas...but nothing going to happen until the Chargers/Los Angeles/San Diego issue is resolved and you still have to get 24 owners to be on board...word is the Giants and Steelers are dead set against any Las Vegas franchise...going to be interesting

A brand new NFL level stadium will attract a decent bowl to Las Vegas. Maybe something at the Holiday Bowl level.

Why wouldn't it just upgrade the Vegas Bowl? That said, the Holiday Bowl is going to need a new home if Jack Murphy *not Qualcomm Stadium* sees the wrecking ball though I see the Inglewood Stadium as more viable.

(04-13-2016 08:00 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:53 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Amber Dixon ‏@AmberNews3LV · 14h14 hours ago

Source tells me #Raiders owner is scheduled to be @ S NV Tourism Infra meeting April 28 to discuss stadium. @News3LV




Not that UNLV had any support in the first place, but having the Raiders in LV could help UNLV if they are able to use the new stadium...if such a move really occurs.

Looks like Mark Davis is looking to play some Preseason Games and "might" pledge to move to Las Vegas...but nothing going to happen until the Chargers/Los Angeles/San Diego issue is resolved and you still have to get 24 owners to be on board...word is the Giants and Steelers are dead set against any Las Vegas franchise...going to be interesting

why would those tow teams be against Vegas? If it makes the owners more money, which it will, why oppose it?

(04-13-2016 08:00 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:53 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Amber Dixon ‏@AmberNews3LV · 14h14 hours ago

Source tells me #Raiders owner is scheduled to be @ S NV Tourism Infra meeting April 28 to discuss stadium. @News3LV




Not that UNLV had any support in the first place, but having the Raiders in LV could help UNLV if they are able to use the new stadium...if such a move really occurs.

Looks like Mark Davis is looking to play some Preseason Games and "might" pledge to move to Las Vegas...but nothing going to happen until the Chargers/Los Angeles/San Diego issue is resolved and you still have to get 24 owners to be on board...word is the Giants and Steelers are dead set against any Las Vegas franchise...going to be interesting

An article in the San Diego paper said that this might actually buy time for the Chargers. No idea if it's true, but the logic was this:

The Chargers have until 2017 to decide whether to move to LA. If they decline then the Raiders can negotiate with the Rams to share the stadium in Inglewood. But if the Raiders decide soon to move to Vegas, the Chargers might get an extra year to negotiate with the Rams.

(04-17-2016 03:01 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 08:00 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:53 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Amber Dixon ‏@AmberNews3LV · 14h14 hours ago

Source tells me #Raiders owner is scheduled to be @ S NV Tourism Infra meeting April 28 to discuss stadium. @News3LV

Not that UNLV had any support in the first place, but having the Raiders in LV could help UNLV if they are able to use the new stadium...if such a move really occurs.

Looks like Mark Davis is looking to play some Preseason Games and "might" pledge to move to Las Vegas...but nothing going to happen until the Chargers/Los Angeles/San Diego issue is resolved and you still have to get 24 owners to be on board...word is the Giants and Steelers are dead set against any Las Vegas franchise...going to be interesting

An article in the San Diego paper said that this might actually buy time for the Chargers. No idea if it's true, but the logic was this:

The Chargers have until 2017 to decide whether to move to LA. If they decline then the Raiders can negotiate with the Rams to share the stadium in Inglewood. But if the Raiders decide soon to move to Vegas, the Chargers might get an extra year to negotiate with the Rams.

The NFL doesn’t really want Mark Davis in LA. If the Chargers want more time to negotiate (or fight things out in court) in SD, before giving up their LA option, the league will give it to them. IOW they'll let the Chargers hold on to their LA option until they either get an SD stadium deal or give up on SD and move to LA.

Also, the NFL office is willing to let the Raiders use Vegas as leverage to help them with Bay Area negotiations, but that is far different from having the 24 owner votes needed for any franchise to be allowed to move to Vegas.

Yeah, but if ever a team was a good fit for a new market, it's the Vegas Raiders:

The Raiders Bay Area option should be to play at Santa Clara. Why make a cash strapped city that has shown no interest in paying for a new stadium do so?

Meanwhile in the Bay Area...the Raiders are on the verge of having a waiting list for season tickets..

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/153171...davis-says

Developers identify preferred site and proposed budget of $1.9B stadium

By RICHARD N. VELOTTA
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Developers of a proposed 65,000-seat football stadium have zeroed in on a site and a $1.9 billion budget — and they told a special committee Thursday that if $750 million in hotel room tax revenue isn’t authorized for the project, the dome that could bring the NFL’s Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas won’t be built.

Representatives of Las Vegas Sands Corp., Majestic Realty and the Oakland Raiders told the Southern Nevada Tourism Infrastructure Committee that their preferred stadium site is acreage west of Interstate 15, across from Mandalay Bay, north of Russell Road, and that a purchase agreement is in place.

Officials didn’t provide details on the price or the seller.

The Bali Hai Golf Club on Las Vegas Boulevard south of Russell Road is the developers’ No. 2 choice.


Based on the site and the cost of land improvements, developers have established a cost estimate of $1.9 billion — $1.325 billion for the stadium, $375 million for the land and infrastructure improvements, $100 million for a Raiders practice facility and $100 million for contingency costs.....

More story and a gallery of rendering by clicking on the link in the title of story.

Raiders owner Mark Davis ‘totally excited’ about Las Vegas stadium plans

Quote:“If Las Vegas can come through, we’re going there. I have not wavered on that one iota. I’m totally excited about it....” (said Mark Davis.)

If the financing plan is approved by Nevada lawmakers in a fall special session, the Raiders expect to present the proposal and a relocation request to the NFL in January.

“The sooner we can get this done, the faster we can approach the NFL,” Raiders president Marc Badian said Thursday.

Rob Goldstein, president and chief operating officer of Las Vegas Sands, said, “Time is of the essence.”

video at link above.


I think Raiders in Las Vegas is a no-brainer. NBA in Vegas also would have made more sense than an NHL team. NHL was just the first sports league willing to face reality. Conversely, I don't think mlb would do very well. Their AAA team, the 51's has a hard enough time of it. Few want to sit outside to see a baseball game in the 100+ degree heat in summer. And if you;re going to be inside, better at a casino sports book watching all the games.

I agree that Raiders and Vegas are a good fit but $750MM in public funds is insane. Public stadiums do not improve local economies. I get that this is a tourist tax and won't be taken from local pockets, but that misses the point that $750MM (or a hell of a lot less for that matter) could be put to a much more beneficial use than a stadium. No better example of crony capitalism than this.

(08-26-2016 12:18 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I agree that Raiders and Vegas are a good fit but $750MM in public funds is insane. Public stadiums do not improve local economies. I get that this is a tourist tax and won't be taken from local pockets, but that misses the point that $750MM (or a hell of a lot less for that matter) could be put to a much more beneficial use than a stadium. No better example of crony capitalism than this.

Quote:Goldstein said the developers’ proposal is firm. The public would contribute $750 million — 39 percent of the project’s total cost — in the form of a hotel room tax. Las Vegas Sands is putting up at least $650 million, and the Raiders are committing $500 million.


“Again, this is a publicly owned stadium with a 60 percent private investment,” (Andy) Abboud, (Las Vegas Sands’ senior vice president of government relations and community development) said. “The room tax increase (0.8 percent) is really not that significant. We think that is going to be compelling to the taxpayers of Nevada because they’re not paying for the stadium. It’s going to be paid for by tourists.”

Quote:The Raiders also made a presentation at the meeting that included images of the stadium and maps showing where it would sit on the top two sites. The presentation included projections of how much a visitor would pay if the room tax were increased to help fund the stadium.

A 0.7 percentage-point increase in the tax would produce $550 million for the project while a 0.88 percentage-point increase would raise $750 million. Based on a room rate of $109 a night, a visitor would pay $13.08 under the existing 12 percent room tax. A proposed 0.5 percentage-point increase in the tax to fund upgrades to the Las Vegas Convention Center expansion would add an additional 55 cents. The stadium tax would increase the room tax bill by 76 cents or 96 cents, depending on the level of funding.

In general I would agree with you, but I really think Vegas is a far different case than most any other city. For a tourist town, 76 or 96 cents, that's more than reasonable. Vegas' volume of tourist visitors helps make the number virtually meaningless. In their case, I do think it's more of an investment in additional tourist attractions to increase traffic to their city in their number one industry by far, which supports a more significant part of Vegas' local economy than almost everywhere else. Plus, the city own the stadium despite the 60% private investment. While the numbers appear large in aggregate large, this deal is a winner all the way around, and an outlier to most other cities' stadium scenarios.

An NFL stadium now a days is much like a trophy wife. More of a status symbol than anything that adds any value.

The 50 year old billionaire foolishly marries the hot chick in her 30's because he has the money to do it and get away with it.

American cities pay for new NFL stadiums because they can and they like the status and recognition that comes from being an NFL city.

Except LA, who didn't give a flip about not having a team for 20 years. They're like the bachelor just waiting for the right one to come along.

And people need not bring up other important issues cities aren't addressing, those weren't going to be addressed anyways. All it is is [sic] a raise of taxes on people and often times visitors and if they weren't brought to referendum, then none of the rest of that stuff would be anyways. Cities have been ignoring their citizens' true needs in favor of fluff throughout human history.

(08-26-2016 12:18 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I agree that Raiders and Vegas are a good fit but $750MM in public funds is insane. Public stadiums do not improve local economies. I get that this is a tourist tax and won't be taken from local pockets, but that misses the point that $750MM (or a hell of a lot less for that matter) could be put to a much more beneficial use than a stadium. No better example of crony capitalism than this.

Yup. A new arena for basketball and hockey just opened in Vegas, built without any tax money. They should do the same for a football stadium. Let private investors build it and operate it, if they think it will be profitable, and if they make money doing so, good for them.

Good!

Let the taxpayers vote on the new tax. If they vote yes, then all you anti-govt spending hawks can buzz off and take your attitudes towards government spending with you!

As if they were proposing to drop a 100 ton block of lead in a field! Sheesh! Who gives a damn if it doesn't improve the local economy.

(08-30-2016 01:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Good!

Let the taxpayers vote on the new tax. If they vote yes, then all you anti-govt spending hawks can buzz off and take your attitudes towards government spending with you!

As if they were proposing to drop a 100 ton block of lead in a field! Sheesh! Who gives a damn if it doesn't improve the local economy.

Interesting perspective. First, I completely agree that this is up to Las Vegas and its residents. And I'll admit that I am an opponent of government spending (or, more accurately, collecting!) but that's not why I don't like this. I'm against taking money from ordinary citizens and giving it to millionaires and billionaires. If I was a resident of Vegas, I'd want to know that money collected locally, regardless of the source, would be spent so that the City of Las Vegas would benefit.

Huh??

The Davis family isn't going to own this stadium. No more than US Bank stadium is owned by the Wilfs. It's going to be publicly owned. How can you have a publicly owned stadium with no public contribution??

Do parks or bike trails improve the local economy?? No. But they're nice to have. People want them.