(02-17-2016 06:43 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I think those owner's meetings reminded him of how powerful Jones and McNair are. If he is a smart man, he probably realizes San Antonio will not happen on their watch.

That is how I took it...said it back in January it wasn't going to happen...the ESPN article on that meeting was eye opening in regards to Jerry Jones power in the NFL

I'm split on the idea of Vegas. The place is transient and highly fair-weather but also a quick weekend getaway, for gamblers, NFL and Raiders fans alike (the Raiders have a sizable LA base). We'll see how it all progresses.

Vegas would be one of the smaller NFL markets, too. Only Jacksonville, Buffalo, and New Orleans are smaller. Green Bay is technically smaller, but realistically Milwaukee (which is larger than Vegas) should be counted as part of the Packers' market.

IMO it's also likely that the Raiders would have to pay a relocation fee for any move, though it would be smaller than the LA relocation fee. Even if it's a market like Las Vegas that doesn't encroach on any other NFL team's perceived territory, the relo fee would be $100 million or more.

I would guess the NFL would favor the raiders in

Oakland - new stadium
Santa Clara
San Diego
Los Angles
St louis

all over LasVegas. Can't really do anything until the charges pick.

I think Vegas only works as a market if they can count on a Southern Californian fan base. That's why the Raiders make so much sense. They have thousands of fans in SoCal, where the drive can be as short as 3.5 hours. And of course that's what Vegas (the city) wants too - another set of events they can count on to bring gamblers to town. Any team outside of Raiders/Rams/Chargers will be more difficult (or, take more time to build up the fan base).

That would work well. I know too many people that love nothing more than an excuse to visit Vegas and the Raiders would be one, especially since they still have so many fans in SoCal.

(02-17-2016 11:46 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  BTW, can we talk again about how well this will work for Kroenke? With him both owning the stadium and most of the development around it, two super bowls and two final fours (which he will probably get within the first ten years) might just pay for this whole thing. Then the rest is profit.

This was the plan all along. Those ancillary events will clear the stadium investment easily. The only question IMO is how long the Rose Bowl stays in Pasadena. Kroenke will also get a CFP game as well.

(02-19-2016 11:26 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The only question IMO is how long the Rose Bowl stays in Pasadena. Kroenke will also get a CFP game as well.

The Rose Bowl game is not leaving Pacedena. The city of Pacadena needs the Rose Bowl game to help draw people. Now a competing bowl may pop up in the new stadium, but the Rose Bowl game itself won't move, unless it is either a temporary situation for renovation of the Rose Bowl, or the Rose Bowl itself because unusable.

(02-19-2016 01:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-19-2016 11:26 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The only question IMO is how long the Rose Bowl stays in Pasadena. Kroenke will also get a CFP game as well.

The Rose Bowl game is not leaving Pacedena. The city of Pacadena needs the Rose Bowl game to help draw people. Now a competing bowl may pop up in the new stadium, but the Rose Bowl game itself won't move, unless it is either a temporary situation for renovation of the Rose Bowl, or the Rose Bowl itself because unusable.

^^^^
THIS!!!

Can easily see a Bowl game and they will bid for the CFP Title...but make no mistake this is also about the Super Bowl

(02-19-2016 01:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-19-2016 11:26 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The only question IMO is how long the Rose Bowl stays in Pasadena. Kroenke will also get a CFP game as well.

The Rose Bowl game is not leaving Pacedena. The city of Pacadena needs the Rose Bowl game to help draw people. Now a competing bowl may pop up in the new stadium, but the Rose Bowl game itself won't move, unless it is either a temporary situation for renovation of the Rose Bowl, or the Rose Bowl itself because unusable.

Correct - Rose Bowl and Pasadena are irreversibly connected.

As well as the Tournament of Roses Parade.

Trivia: Did you guys know there was a Rose Bowl in England?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Bowl_...et_ground)

(02-18-2016 11:29 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  I'm split on the idea of Vegas. The place is transient and highly fair-weather but also a quick weekend getaway, for gamblers, NFL and Raiders fans alike (the Raiders have a sizable LA base). We'll see how it all progresses.

Well, the idea of Vegas as a transient city, where people don't stay long, might have been true 30 or 40 years ago when Vegas was only 300-400,000. Today, Vegas is around 2,ooo,ooo population. There are many established neighborhoods , hundreds of them with stable residents who have grown up in Vegas and/or put down permanent roots there. Vegas is actually very suburban once you get past the Strip, equivalent to most cities' downtowns.

And when comparing population to other competitive markets, the gambling/tourist population, which is basically a constant additional 500,000 to 1, 000,000 on nthe weekends, more than quashes other open markets.

I honestly think the NFL will use the threat of Vegas the same way they have used the threat of LA the last 20 years, and, more than anything, that would be the reason Vegas will not get an NFL team. They truly don;t care about the gambling issue, it's just a smokescreen to keep a viable threat of a move open for other teams when they come to negotiate for new stadiums. The maturity and readiness of the Vegas market is also a major factor in why they let the LA market finally absorb a team.

Having a transient, non-loyal population is not unique to Vegas. Houston has grown by 3 million people in the last quarter century alone but is still very transient. People don't get 100% behind the sports teams here (except the Texans for some reason beyond me), even for teams like the Astros and Rockets that have been here for generations. Sun Belt cities tend to struggle in supporting sports teams.

Vegas also has an issue with being a non-traditional market, where numerous people either don't work 9-5 jobs or work both that and a casino/hotel job. Vegas may be able to support a team, so it'll be a wait and see by me.

If Davis decides to move to Toronto or London, he probably won't have to pay any relo fee. If he moves to Toronto, the league would probably help him ($) build a stadium and the Rodgers Centre can accomodate 55K now for American football until a new stadium is built. Toronto is a much larger market than the Bay area, Raiders would have no NFL competition, no Big time college football to compete with and would essentially be Canada's NFL team. The 49ers might even kick in some $ as a going away present as the Raiders departure would give them the entire Bay area.

Plus the Rodgers Centre is one of only 3 sports stadiums with a retractable dome.

IF he decides to move to London, which has thousands of expats and American service personel; there are several Football stadiums capable of hosting American football. Wembly seats 90K.

Toronto is a Bills town (Buffalo can be seen from the CN Tower) and besides, it's a mutual agreement between the NFL and Canada not to place an NFL team there.

(02-24-2016 06:23 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Toronto is a Bills town (Buffalo can be seen from the CN Tower) and besides, it's a mutual agreement between the NFL and Canada not to place an NFL team there.

^^^^
This...

Chargers seeking Hotel Tax increase to help fund new stadium in San Diego:

The Chargers are seeking a four percent increase in the hotel tax rate in to help fund a $1.8 billion stadium and convention center complex in downtown San Diego near Petco Park (pictured).

According to Dan McSwain and Lori Weisberg of the San Diego Union-Tribune, the measure would go to a public vote in November.

The Chargers would contribute $650 million, which includes $300 million made available to the team by the NFL ($200 in stadium allocation funds and an additional $100 million in incentive given to the team during the Rams relocation vote to Los Angeles). The city would contribute $350 million in bonds covered by the increased hotel tax, and the building of the convention center.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...o-stadium/

The most important part of it is this, assuming it holds up:

Quote:On March 18 a state appellate court ruled in a suit against the city of Upland that tax hikes by initiative require merely a simple majority.

If the Chargers' "convadium" initiative can be passed with a simple 50% majority, they have a chance. If it needs a two-thirds majority, they have no chance.

(02-24-2016 06:23 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Toronto is a Bills town (Buffalo can be seen from the CN Tower) and besides, it's a mutual agreement between the NFL and Canada not to place an NFL team there.

And just to be clear, I was wrong about being able to see Buffalo from the CN Tower, however Niagara Falls can be seen.

Don't know if there is anything "new" in this, but came across this today

Report details the Chargers' plans for $1-billion stadium in San Diego

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported Tuesday night that the Chargers and the NFL would pay $650 million of the stadium costs, and the remaining $350 million for the stadium, as well as the $800 million for the convention center, would be raised by way of a 4% increase in the hotel tax.

According to the report, the team would sign a 30-year lease and a non-relocation agreement and would be responsible for construction-cost overruns on the stadium as well as desired improvements in the years to come. The report said that, if approved, the stadium would likely open by 2022. The Chargers’ plan is contingent upon a public vote in November on a stadium initiative, including the corresponding tax hike.