Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water?
Author Message
ken d Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,253
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 236
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #1
Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water?
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?
02-01-2017 09:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 3,902
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 119
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #2
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water?
I hope it means Oakland and the Bay Area are back in it.
02-01-2017 09:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,011
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 429
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #3
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water?
I say move them to Los Angeles. And make the Rams and Chargers stay in LA with the Raiders there.
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2017 10:32 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
02-01-2017 10:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,726
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 457
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #4
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water?
San Diego's Mayor just said that his city would welcome the Raiders if the Vegas deal goes dead.
02-01-2017 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,442
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 451
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #5
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water?
(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).
02-01-2017 10:54 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bluesox Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,482
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 54
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water?
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.
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2017 11:34 AM by bluesox.)
02-01-2017 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
colohank Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 616
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 39
I Root For: Cincy
Location: Colorado
Post: #7
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water?
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.
02-01-2017 11:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

GoldenWarrior11 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,103
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 96
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #8
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water?
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.
02-01-2017 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 15,256
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 161
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water?
(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.
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2017 01:10 PM by MplsBison.)
02-01-2017 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Online
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 16,201
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 335
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #10
RE: Is the Raiders move to Vegas dead in the water?
(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.
02-02-2017 12:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.