(01-12-2016 05:18 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 02:43 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Nothing you are saying doesn't make sense, but I'd say a good part of it is that now that the 49ers paid for it themselves, why would they want to allow the Raiders to have in, when they could have been in it from the beginning and contributed? Again you make sense, as most people were asking the same question back when the planning started. But it's more or less too late now. Even if they did now, they would not get "equal" treatment, and would have lesser revenue streams than the 49ers. Still more than they have now, but less.

Davis was a flush on the the river card and hoped he would eventually win the pot. He never got the card he was looking for.

That's all well and good, but I guess my original point is that couldn't the NFL agree to use its clout to steamroll over some of these issues?

Like a "ok guys ... I know it didn't work out on your own and on their own, but we want the Raiders to stay in the Bay Area and this is the only feasible plan ... so what's it gonna take? *opens checkbook*"

No, they can't. The NFL does not own the individual teams, and cannot force such actions. And if it went to court they would likely lose, as they have in the past. And no other team would support such a move, less they be in the same position some day down the line.

And the 49ers would not do such a thing, because it obviously means they lose money over the long haul, otherwise there would be no point in the NFL trying to make them equal tenants. Now that they got past the risk stage, and are ready to collect the profits, they are not going to share on any terms other than as a tenant. And they really don't even seem to want to do that, though would probably bend on that topic.

You must've missed the "*opens checkbook*" part.

I wasn't saying force and I wasn't saying they'd ask them to do it for free, out of the goodness of their hearts.

No I didn't. You missed the "lose money over the long haul, otherwise there would be no point in the NFL trying to make them equal tenants." If it did not make more money for the Raiders long term (which means less for the 49ers), there would be no reason for the NFL to bother with "opens checkbook." the only way it would make sense for the 49ers, is if the NFL paid them more than they would lose out, which would defeat the purpose. This is like Facebook asking original Facebook investors to sell back half of their stock to the guy Zuckerburg pushed out, for the value of the company when he was involved, despite the fact that the levied all the risk and now are reaping the rewards.

It wouldn't defeat the purpose. It would've been like the 49ers and Raiders went in 50/50 on the stadium from the beginning, which would've happened if Davis had agreed to it.

Thus, the 49ers had already accepted getting half the yearly revenue if the Raiders had kicked in half of the costs up-front.

It'd just be the NFL rewinding history.

(01-12-2016 06:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:18 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  That's all well and good, but I guess my original point is that couldn't the NFL agree to use its clout to steamroll over some of these issues?

Like a "ok guys ... I know it didn't work out on your own and on their own, but we want the Raiders to stay in the Bay Area and this is the only feasible plan ... so what's it gonna take? *opens checkbook*"

No, they can't. The NFL does not own the individual teams, and cannot force such actions. And if it went to court they would likely lose, as they have in the past. And no other team would support such a move, less they be in the same position some day down the line.

And the 49ers would not do such a thing, because it obviously means they lose money over the long haul, otherwise there would be no point in the NFL trying to make them equal tenants. Now that they got past the risk stage, and are ready to collect the profits, they are not going to share on any terms other than as a tenant. And they really don't even seem to want to do that, though would probably bend on that topic.

You must've missed the "*opens checkbook*" part.

I wasn't saying force and I wasn't saying they'd ask them to do it for free, out of the goodness of their hearts.

No I didn't. You missed the "lose money over the long haul, otherwise there would be no point in the NFL trying to make them equal tenants." If it did not make more money for the Raiders long term (which means less for the 49ers), there would be no reason for the NFL to bother with "opens checkbook." the only way it would make sense for the 49ers, is if the NFL paid them more than they would lose out, which would defeat the purpose. This is like Facebook asking original Facebook investors to sell back half of their stock to the guy Zuckerburg pushed out, for the value of the company when he was involved, despite the fact that the levied all the risk and now are reaping the rewards.

It wouldn't defeat the purpose. It would've been like the 49ers and Raiders went in 50/50 on the stadium from the beginning, which would've happened if Davis had agreed to it.

Thus, the 49ers had already accepted getting half the yearly revenue if the Raiders had kicked in half of the costs up-front.

It'd just be the NFL rewinding history.

This goes back to risk, which you continue to treat like voodoo. The Yorks assumed a heavy risk by putting up their own money and/or collateral to build that facility. To write a check that would allow Davis to share in revenue 50/50 AND pay for his share of that upfront risk would be a very large sum. Probably large enough that Davis could think about building his own stadium. Which is the point.

First vote was 20-12 for Inglewood. The LA relocation committee went 5-1 for Carson.

(01-12-2016 06:26 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 06:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:18 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  No, they can't. The NFL does not own the individual teams, and cannot force such actions. And if it went to court they would likely lose, as they have in the past. And no other team would support such a move, less they be in the same position some day down the line.

And the 49ers would not do such a thing, because it obviously means they lose money over the long haul, otherwise there would be no point in the NFL trying to make them equal tenants. Now that they got past the risk stage, and are ready to collect the profits, they are not going to share on any terms other than as a tenant. And they really don't even seem to want to do that, though would probably bend on that topic.

You must've missed the "*opens checkbook*" part.

I wasn't saying force and I wasn't saying they'd ask them to do it for free, out of the goodness of their hearts.

No I didn't. You missed the "lose money over the long haul, otherwise there would be no point in the NFL trying to make them equal tenants." If it did not make more money for the Raiders long term (which means less for the 49ers), there would be no reason for the NFL to bother with "opens checkbook." the only way it would make sense for the 49ers, is if the NFL paid them more than they would lose out, which would defeat the purpose. This is like Facebook asking original Facebook investors to sell back half of their stock to the guy Zuckerburg pushed out, for the value of the company when he was involved, despite the fact that the levied all the risk and now are reaping the rewards.

It wouldn't defeat the purpose. It would've been like the 49ers and Raiders went in 50/50 on the stadium from the beginning, which would've happened if Davis had agreed to it.

Thus, the 49ers had already accepted getting half the yearly revenue if the Raiders had kicked in half of the costs up-front.

It'd just be the NFL rewinding history.

This goes back to risk, which you continue to treat like voodoo. The Yorks assumed a heavy risk by putting up their own money and/or collateral to build that facility. To write a check that would allow Davis to share in revenue 50/50 AND pay for his share of that upfront risk would be a very large sum. Probably large enough that Davis could think about building his own stadium. Which is the point.

It is not just that. On top of ignoring risk, which is mind blowing,it ignores that in order to make it work, it means the NFL would pay up front a sum to allow the Raider to share in the lifetime earnings. If that is a net positive for the Raiders (they make more lifetime than the NFL paid to the 49ers), then it literally cost the 49ers money, the difference between what the Raiders made of their money versus the upfront fee. Or the NFL overpays the 49ers to take that deal, which means it defeats the purpose for the NFL. There is ZERO reason for the 49ers to take that deal unless the NFL overpays, which of course means there would be zero reason for the NFL to make the move.

(01-12-2016 01:30 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  The LA Metro Area supporting 3 or 4 football teams? No chance. I have no idea where you come up with that doozy.

Market population size plus disposable income.

Remember, the Kings nearly moved to Anaheim. The ink was nearly dry on them becoming the region's third NBA team.

Also, add in that the NFL is a weekend sport that unlike the NBA, NHL and especially the MLB, does not require multiple games a week to be attended. Heck, there's only 10-12 (including pre-season) games a year and thus people can plan their entire fall schedule around them (flights, taking off from work, etc...).

Let's say those four teams were the Rams, Chargers, Raiders and Browns/Saints. The first three have Southern California ties and are the most popular teams in LA. They'd be just fine. If they all proved themselves then a team with a fourth team with either a national or extremely loyal fanbase could move in and succeed. I picked teams that could move in the future because their market may not be viable in the future.

Bottom line though, LA is big enough to support 3-4 teams. It's bigger than probably the smallest 6-7 markets combined. Also remember the crossover appeal. There are NFL fans in general and there's nothing to say they would just stick to one team.

C-2 on paper what you say makes sense. But it sounds like one of those cases where on paper and reality may not mesh. the population and money are there, but I think it would be hard for three teams to carve up fandom in one place. I tmay work if the third team was in the Inland Empire, finally giving them their own pro franchise. But I don't know the economics of that area, and how well the corporate base compares to other cities.

While not an exact same situation, I guess if someone could comment on how the Rangers, Islanders, and Nets do in the NYC metro area, remembering that one still technically has its own state to itself, I guess would help understand if it would work.

That said, with three teams and the current TV rules, that would require the TV rules to be revisited, as I am not sure an east coast market could manage to avoid each team playing at the same time every week, much less a west coast team.

(01-12-2016 06:26 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 06:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:18 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  No, they can't. The NFL does not own the individual teams, and cannot force such actions. And if it went to court they would likely lose, as they have in the past. And no other team would support such a move, less they be in the same position some day down the line.

And the 49ers would not do such a thing, because it obviously means they lose money over the long haul, otherwise there would be no point in the NFL trying to make them equal tenants. Now that they got past the risk stage, and are ready to collect the profits, they are not going to share on any terms other than as a tenant. And they really don't even seem to want to do that, though would probably bend on that topic.

You must've missed the "*opens checkbook*" part.

I wasn't saying force and I wasn't saying they'd ask them to do it for free, out of the goodness of their hearts.

No I didn't. You missed the "lose money over the long haul, otherwise there would be no point in the NFL trying to make them equal tenants." If it did not make more money for the Raiders long term (which means less for the 49ers), there would be no reason for the NFL to bother with "opens checkbook." the only way it would make sense for the 49ers, is if the NFL paid them more than they would lose out, which would defeat the purpose. This is like Facebook asking original Facebook investors to sell back half of their stock to the guy Zuckerburg pushed out, for the value of the company when he was involved, despite the fact that the levied all the risk and now are reaping the rewards.

It wouldn't defeat the purpose. It would've been like the 49ers and Raiders went in 50/50 on the stadium from the beginning, which would've happened if Davis had agreed to it.

Thus, the 49ers had already accepted getting half the yearly revenue if the Raiders had kicked in half of the costs up-front.

It'd just be the NFL rewinding history.

This goes back to risk, which you continue to treat like voodoo. The Yorks assumed a heavy risk by putting up their own money and/or collateral to build that facility. To write a check that would allow Davis to share in revenue 50/50 AND pay for his share of that upfront risk would be a very large sum. Probably large enough that Davis could think about building his own stadium. Which is the point.

Then that answers the question succintly: that much money is too much for the NFL to be willing to pay.

Why was that so hard for you and corbett to just say simply?

(01-13-2016 05:34 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:30 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  The LA Metro Area supporting 3 or 4 football teams? No chance. I have no idea where you come up with that doozy.

Market population size plus disposable income.

Remember, the Kings nearly moved to Anaheim. The ink was nearly dry on them becoming the region's third NBA team.

Also, add in that the NFL is a weekend sport that unlike the NBA, NHL and especially the MLB, does not require multiple games a week to be attended. Heck, there's only 10-12 (including pre-season) games a year and thus people can plan their entire fall schedule around them (flights, taking off from work, etc...).

Let's say those four teams were the Rams, Chargers, Raiders and Browns/Saints. The first three have Southern California ties and are the most popular teams in LA. They'd be just fine. If they all proved themselves then a team with a fourth team with either a national or extremely loyal fanbase could move in and succeed. I picked teams that could move in the future because their market may not be viable in the future.

Bottom line though, LA is big enough to support 3-4 teams. It's bigger than probably the smallest 6-7 markets combined. Also remember the crossover appeal. There are NFL fans in general and there's nothing to say they would just stick to one team.

In my opinion: even three teams in SoCal (two in LA and one in SD) is unfair to the rest of the nation, when there are only 32 teams to go 'round.

Let other regions/markets have a team.

(01-13-2016 11:32 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Then that answers the question succintly: that much money is too much for the NFL to be willing to pay.

Why was that so hard for you and corbett to just say simply?

We said it FIVE times. I swear talking to you sometimes looks like this

(01-13-2016 12:49 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:32 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Then that answers the question succintly: that much money is too much for the NFL to be willing to pay.

Why was that so hard for you and corbett to just say simply?

We said it FIVE times. I swear talking to you sometimes looks like this

No you didn't. You gave odd, convoluted answers.

Please stop with the personal insults.

(01-13-2016 11:11 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  C-2 on paper what you say makes sense. But it sounds like one of those cases where on paper and reality may not mesh. the population and money are there, but I think it would be hard for three teams to carve up fandom in one place. I tmay work if the third team was in the Inland Empire, finally giving them their own pro franchise. But I don't know the economics of that area, and how well the corporate base compares to other cities.

While not an exact same situation, I guess if someone could comment on how the Rangers, Islanders, and Nets do in the NYC metro area, remembering that one still technically has its own state to itself, I guess would help understand if it would work.

That said, with three teams and the current TV rules, that would require the TV rules to be revisited, as I am not sure an east coast market could manage to avoid each team playing at the same time every week, much less a west coast team.

Realistically, LA has to prove it can support 2. However with that said, yes, on paper LA can support that many teams, especially all of the ones that have ties to Southern California over the last 30 years.

Also as you mentioned, the New York NHL market is carved up in three, granted all of them have a specific share of the market (Long Island, Inner NYC and New Jersey). As long at least one of the teams was in Orange County, it could work.

The Outland Empire as I call it is pretty impoverished and doesn't have the disposable income levels that central LA and the OC has, not that it would matter as much for a weekend sport like the NFL.

(01-13-2016 11:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  In my opinion: even three teams in SoCal (two in LA and one in SD) is unfair to the rest of the nation, when there are only 32 teams to go 'round.

Let other regions/markets have a team.

If you're an owner, you go where the money flows and you can be profitable. You don't care about having too many teams in an area, otherwise there would be no duplicate markets.

If you're an entrepreneur trying to bring a team to your home town, that's different.

(01-13-2016 01:42 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  In my opinion: even three teams in SoCal (two in LA and one in SD) is unfair to the rest of the nation, when there are only 32 teams to go 'round.

Let other regions/markets have a team.

If you're an owner, you go where the money flows and you can be profitable. You don't care about having too many teams in an area, otherwise there would be no duplicate markets.

If you're an entrepreneur trying to bring a team to your home town, that's different.

So, 16 teams in LA and 16 in NYC? Sounds boring.

(01-13-2016 05:34 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:30 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  The LA Metro Area supporting 3 or 4 football teams? No chance. I have no idea where you come up with that doozy.

Market population size plus disposable income.

Remember, the Kings nearly moved to Anaheim. The ink was nearly dry on them becoming the region's third NBA team.

Also, add in that the NFL is a weekend sport that unlike the NBA, NHL and especially the MLB, does not require multiple games a week to be attended. Heck, there's only 10-12 (including pre-season) games a year and thus people can plan their entire fall schedule around them (flights, taking off from work, etc...).

Let's say those four teams were the Rams, Chargers, Raiders and Browns/Saints. The first three have Southern California ties and are the most popular teams in LA. They'd be just fine. If they all proved themselves then a team with a fourth team with either a national or extremely loyal fanbase could move in and succeed. I picked teams that could move in the future because their market may not be viable in the future.

Bottom line though, LA is big enough to support 3-4 teams. It's bigger than probably the smallest 6-7 markets combined. Also remember the crossover appeal. There are NFL fans in general and there's nothing to say they would just stick to one team.

This logic says that New York could support 4-5 teams. Do you really believe that's the case? Using Kings to Anaheim doesn't help your argument. It's a different sport, covering a different season. And Anaheim wanting a team doesn't mean the fans will support the team.

And the market's not as big as you think it is. To get the market to look as big as you think it is, you have to include Ventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. No way do folks in those areas travel to LA/OC for games, or vice versa.

(01-13-2016 01:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So, 16 teams in LA and 16 in NYC? Sounds boring.

You're exaggerating. Why be the first and only team in a place like Birmingham (a great football market by the way) when you can be third fiddle in Southern California and make a solid profit and still have good support (hypothetically) and in a major TV market? If you're from B'ham and just want to bring a team there, that's fine but if you're an owner trying to be profitable, why not go where you can make the most money? Why do you think Donald Sterling moved the Clippers to LA and sold them for loads of money despite them being being a badly losing team for years?

(01-13-2016 02:04 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  This logic says that New York could support 4-5 teams. Do you really believe that's the case? Using Kings to Anaheim doesn't help your argument. It's a different sport, covering a different season. And Anaheim wanting a team doesn't mean the fans will support the team.

And the market's not as big as you think it is. To get the market to look as big as you think it is, you have to include Ventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. No way do folks in those areas travel to LA/OC for games, or vice versa.

It's all on paper and hypothetical. I personally don't think any place can support more than three teams in a major sport in reality and each should be targeting its own specific sliver of the market (e.g. Dallas and Fort Worth, SF and Oakland, LA and Orange County, NYC/NJ/LI, each side of Chicago and the suburbs, Baltimore/Washington/NoVA, etc...).

But yes, and in the NFL it's the most popular sport and a weekend sport, so why wouldn't people travel from far flung areas to watch? They certainly do in college football, or else Tuscaloosa, Norman, College Station, Lubbock, Iowa City, Ames, etc... wouldn't be able to support their teams at the level they do.