NFL Relocations and League Expansion

[Exe Gesis]

The increase in the cost has gone from 1.4 to 1.7-2.1. The reason there is a range in the estimated cost is due to the land cost associated with building the stadium. Initially they expected not to have to pay for land costs, as the original proposed site was owned by UNLV. That however is now looking unlikely. I don't see anyone berating Stan Kroenke though when his Inglewood site when from costing 1.8 billion to 2.66 billion.

Another important note: this proposed Vegas stadium is not just for the Raiders. It will also be the stadium for the UNLV Rebels football team, along with concerts, motocross events etc. The Sands Corp expect the stadium to have anywhere between 45-65 'event days' per year. So when you look at that in perspective with the cost, it's far from 'a joke.'

I meant more the cost of stadiums these days.

Also, just to annoy you a little i still believe its inevitable we'll end up at santa clara. The owners will somehow vote against LV even if the stadium gets approval. Or theyll allow the jaguars there, etc. Somehow or another the raiders will end up in santa clara....that market too important to not have a two team presence.

Like ive maintained from the get-go, imo it's inevitable.

 

[Chewy316]

I meant more the cost of stadiums these days.

Also, just to annoy you a little i still believe its inevitable we'll end up at santa clara. The owners will somehow vote against LV even if the stadium gets approval. Or theyll allow the jaguars there, etc. Somehow or another the raiders will end up in santa clara....that market too important to not have a two team presence.

Like ive maintained from the get-go, imo it's inevitable.

If they end up at Santa Clara permanently, I'll buy you a beer.

If they ended up at Santa Clara, it wouldn't be for at least 5+ years. If Vegas gets financial approval only for the NFL Owners to reject it, it's highly likely that Mark Davis will launch an anti-trust lawsuit funded by The Sands, but I'd rather not go into that hypothetical specifically.

I see the NFL owners approving the deal because they need to sort out the Chargers' future. If the Raiders get denied Vegas, the Raiders will have grounds to seek Los Angeles again, given that they have already been given approval there. The owners don't want to piss Dean Spanos off, and denying the Raiders to Vegas puts the Raiders again potentially in the SoCal market. At the very least it forces Spanos to make quite possibly an 'early' decision on the Chargers' stadium future; a saga which has been very long and meticulously worked by the Chargers' organisation; one that he doesn't want to rush.

One of the unique things about the Raiders relocation anywhere is that the NFL would not be losing a TV market because the Niners are still present there. This enables the NFL to expand their TV markets without actually expanding the amount of teams in the league.

Put it this way though. Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Dean Spanos, Bob McNair and Stan Kroenke all support the Raiders moving to Las Vegas; be it in publicly and privately. If it gets to an owners vote and is denied, I will be absolutely shocked beyond belief.

 

[Exe Gesis]

If they end up at Santa Clara permanently, I'll buy you a beer.

If they ended up at Santa Clara, it wouldn't be for at least 5+ years. If Vegas gets financial approval only for the NFL Owners to reject it, it's highly likely that Mark Davis will launch an anti-trust lawsuit funded by The Sands, but I'd rather not go into that hypothetical specifically.

I see the NFL owners approving the deal because they need to sort out the Chargers' future. If the Raiders get denied Vegas, the Raiders will have grounds to seek Los Angeles again, given that they have already been given approval there. The owners don't want to piss Dean Spanos off, and denying the Raiders to Vegas puts the Raiders again potentially in the SoCal market. At the very least it forces Spanos to make quite possibly an 'early' decision on the Chargers' stadium future; a saga which has been very long and meticulously worked by the Chargers' organisation; one that he doesn't want to rush.

One of the unique things about the Raiders relocation anywhere is that the NFL would not be losing a TV market because the Niners are still present there. This enables the NFL to expand their TV markets without actually expanding the amount of teams in the league.

Put it this way though. Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Dean Spanos, Bob McNair and Stan Kroenke all support the Raiders moving to Las Vegas; be it in publicly and privately. If it gets to an owners vote and is denied, I will be absolutely shocked beyond belief.

Youre a smart man, and most likely right.....but i still enjoy annoying you

 

[Chewy316]

Youre a smart man, and most likely right.....but i still enjoy annoying you

Hahaha, you're far from annoying. The people like 'Bauce Man' and Darren Arata on Twitter....the blind Oakland fans...those are the annoying ones!

 

[Exe Gesis]

Oakland Offers to Hand Out $300 Million to Multi-billion-Dollar NFL Team
Jim Pagels|July 14, 2016 2:45 pm

With rumors swirling that the Raiders might be relocating to Las Vegas, the Oakland City Council and Alameda Board of County Supervisors announced plans Thursday to help finance a $900 million dollar new stadium for the Raiders in Oakland— $300 million to $335 million of which would come from public funding in the form of bonds or tax credits.

Any time an NFL team wants a new stadium or upgrade, they float out the relocation bogeyman, and the state or municipal government—fearful of being forever remembered for “losing” a team—dutifully agrees to the franchise’s every crony whim. Raiders owner Mark Davis has taken matters a step further in his threatening by actually teaming with billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson in Las Vegas and then refusing to speak with Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf, prompting the spineless City Council and County Board of Commissioners to step in with its sweetheart deal.
This proposal comes just two years after mayor Schaaf promised that no public funds would be provided to the Raiders for construction of a new stadium. The City and County still owe over $100 million for upgrades that were made to the Stadium in the mid 1990s in order to lure the Raiders back from Los Angeles.

Countless studies show such taxpayer-funded stadium projects have zero economic impact, simply giving billionaire owners—largely freed from their greatest operating costs—more disposable revenue with which to pay millionaire athletes even higher salaries.

A recent FiveThirtyEight analysis found that Oakland represents only the 23rd-largest NFL fan base, with an estimated 80,000 fans, meaning the subsidy would cater to just 18.6 percent of the population in Oakland. The Raiders ranked 30th out of 32 teams in attendance last year (they would have been 31st if Minnesota's team had not been playing in a temporary stadium) and 31st in local TV ratings, beating out only Miami.

The Raiders have until August 15th to make the tough decision of whether to take roughly $300 million from Oakland taxpayers or move to the nation’s 40th-largest market in Las Vegas. It makes you wish more politicians would adopt Gov. Chris Christie's logic. When the New Jersey Nets failed to shake down the Garden State government for arena subsidies and relocated to Brooklyn in 2012, Christie said: "My message to the Nets is goodbye. You don't want to stay? We don't want you. I mean seriously, I'm not going to be in the business of begging people to stay here...They want to leave here and go to Brooklyn? Good riddance. See you later...There will be no tears shed on my part tonight. They go? They go."

 

[baz_machine]

The Raiders have until August 15th to make the tough decision of whether to take roughly $300 million from Oakland taxpayers or move to the nation’s 40th-largest market in Las Vegas. It makes you wish more politicians would adopt Gov. Chris Christie's logic. When the New Jersey Nets failed to shake down the Garden State government for arena subsidies and relocated to Brooklyn in 2012, Christie said: "My message to the Nets is goodbye. You don't want to stay? We don't want you. I mean seriously, I'm not going to be in the business of begging people to stay here...They want to leave here and go to Brooklyn? Good riddance. See you later...There will be no tears shed on my part tonight. They go? They go."

Yeah, but the Nets are losers.

 

[Broken]

Las Vegas stadium could cost as much as $2.1 billion.

I love the sport, but this is ridiculous. Even one billion is still too much, why does it need to be so expensive?

Say they were able to build the stadium for only one billion, are the majority of fans going to attend and say, "Yeah this stadium is OK, I wish they had spent another billion though!"

 

[Exe Gesis]

I love the sport, but this is ridiculous. Even one billion is still too much, why does it need to be so expensive?

Say they were able to build the stadium for only one billion, are the majority of fans going to attend and say, "Yeah this stadium is OK, I wish they had spent another billion though!"

The other billion must be stuff like swimming pools etc for the total home experience.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

The other billion must be stuff like swimming pools etc for the total home experience.

There would be a casino on site for sure.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Mark Davis could hire JaMarcus Russell to deal blackjack since he is looking for a job.

 

[Broken]

The other billion must be stuff like swimming pools etc for the total home experience.

And ticket prices skyrocket to cater for the 'experience'. It's still ridiculous for, what LB#16 said, a handful of games each season.

I took a quick look at what $1.2 billion got the Cowboys, from what I can gather this was their budget:
- $45m was to the design groups
- $235 million was on the structure itself, concrete, steel, field, frame, etc...
- $30m was on the exterior and surrounds, concourse and murals, lighting, etc...
- $80m was the interior fitout, corporate boxes, press boxes, etc.
- $95m was on electricals and the like, lifts, lights, etc...
- $65m was on fees and contingencies
(the above costs blew out by an extra $250m)
- $90m was on demolition, car parks, roads, land, Cowboys HoF, stadium equipment and furnishings
(this blew out an additional $300m)

Bloody rort.

 

[Chewy316]

The costs have gotten worse ever since Jerry Jones built Jerry's World in Arlington. No longer is a simple stadium with seats and a few nice video screens good enough. Additionally however, the high prices can also be explained due to the development of the land around any stadium. More and more sports teams in America want to replicate the 'LA Live' experience in Downtown LA with Staples Center.

 

[LB#16]

Yeah, but the Nets are losers.

Raiders are a good comparison then (sorry GG.exe )

 

[Exe Gesis]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/a-sports-economist-says-that-the-raiders-wont-work-in-las-vegas/

Although Raiders owner Mark Davis seems convinced that moving his team to Las Vegas makes sense, not everyone feels the same way.

John Vrooman, a sports economist at Vanderbilt University, says that it would be a horrible idea for the Raiders to move to Vegas.

"The Raiders would be desert-locked in a small economically isolated and lopsided Vegas," Vrooman recently told USA Today. "The Broncos rule the Mountain West. The [Cardinals] now rule the Southwest desert. The 49ers have got [Northern California] locked down, and that leaves the Rams and Bolts to split SoCal. There is no ... economic room for the Raiders and the Vegas market doesn't have the size or depth to carry the club."

One potential problem in Vegas is the size of the market. If the Raiders were to move to Sin City, they'd be located in the NFL's fifth-smallest media market. Only Green Bay, New Orleans, Jacksonville and Buffalo are smaller.

In such a small market, it's possible that the Raiders could have trouble selling tickets after the novelty of the move wears off.

At least one NFL owner seems to feel the same way. Back in May, Falcons owner Arthur Blank sounded skeptical about the Raiders chances of succeeding in Vegas.

"I think whether or not there are enough people in Las Vegas to support a team is a question," Blank said at the time. "I haven't seen the data on that to support it or not support it. It's certainly a dynamic market."

It's not clear how much data the Raiders have collected, but whatever they have so far, they're not sharing it publicly. The team sent out an 83-question survey in late June in an attempt to see just how interested Vegas residents are in landing the Raiders.

One of the big questions in a possible move is whether or tourists would actually show up for a game. Blank conceded that the market can grow, but no one knows if people will actually leave an air-conditioned casino on a Sunday to attend an NFL game.

"It's a growth market," Blank said. "It's got tremendous tourism, a lot of convention business. So it's certainly a consideration. We'll see what the facts bear."
Another possible problem is that gamblers won't be able to gamble. If you're in Vegas betting on NFL games, you're not going to be able to do that if you're at the game, because there's no way the league is going to allow people to bet on NFL games at an NFL game.

The other problem with the stadium right now is the potential price.

At a July 11 meeting of the Southern Nevada Tourism Infrastructure Committee, the discussion centered around the fact that the price tag of the proposed 65,000-seat stadium could go up from $1.4 billion to $2.1 billion.

The Raiders are hoping the SNTIC will recommend a stadium plan to the Nevada State Legislature that would call for the public to pay for $750 million of the stadium through a hotel tax in Vegas. The state of Nevada wasn't thrilled with that number, and a second plan was presented that only called for between $500 million and $550 million in public funding.

The Raiders and their casino partner would chip in a total of $650 million. However, that math only works if the cost of the stadium is $1.4 billion. If the cost goes up, something's going to have to give.

Although there's no guarantee the Raiders are going to move, the chances will go way up if the the public contribution in Vegas ends up being $750 million or more.

The SNTIC has until Sept. 30 to recommend a stadium proposal to the governor's office. The group's original deadline was July 31, but the governor gave the SNTIC a 60-day extension so the group could have more time to consider the nine possible locations for the stadium.

If things don't workout in Las Vegas, the Raiders could end up staying in Oakland or possibly moving to Los Angeles.

 

[Chewy316]

That logic is flawed. Based on what the 'expert' is saying, all the areas around Vegas, the mid-west and the Cal regions are all taken up such that there isn't even a market for the Raiders in ANY of those spots. The Raiders are the biggest market in SoCal, have a huge NoCal following, and it's widely acknowledged they have the biggest support of any team in Vegas. Corporate support for a stadium in Vegas will go through the roof, with casinos buying 15-20 year deals on luxury suites, ensuring the viability of the market. Season tickets get bought as the novelty wears off provided that you provide a brilliant experience and the team COMPETES. That stands true in ANY market; once again, a ridiculous notion to say that it only applies to Las Vegas. Furthermore, the article also states that there are smaller markets than Vegas that currently house and adequately support NFL teams as it stands, so the market size really isn't an issue at all.

I like CBS. I have a friend who is a producer at CBS, but man this article is so poor that anyone can tear it to shreds #journalism

 

[Exe Gesis]

The NFL owners will end up saying No to LV anyway. And Mark wont be able to go to San Antonio either. He wont go to LA and pay Kroenke to go into slavery, the owners will also say too many teams in SoCal with SDiego staying. Mark will be forced (by the owners) to either sell and let Lott/whomever group build a new stadium in Oakland....or....join the offer always still on the table by the commish and owners to partner up with the Niners in an already new NFL approved stadium.

You hear all the time the owners often saying they dont think Mark is capable of a big or complex market like LA or LV. Mark is a rube to them. They would've accepted two teams in LA, but only Rams, Chargers. Think back how they basically shot down the Raiders -- the team MOST in need of LA, ticking the most boxes -- killed off the Chargers/Raiders as the two teams, told Mark to step aside because they prefer Kroenke and Spanos in LA.

The owners are cow-chuting Mark into selling to Ellison/etc, or, SC if you want to hold onto the team.

 

[Chewy316]

The NFL owners will end up saying No to LV anyway. And Mark wont be able to go to San Antonio either. He wont go to LA and pay Kroenke to go into slavery, the owners will also say too many teams in SoCal with SDiego staying. Mark will be forced (by the owners) to either sell and let Lott/whomever group build a new stadium in Oakland....or....join the offer always still on the table by the commish and owners to partner up with the Niners in an already new NFL approved stadium.

You hear all the time the owners often saying they dont think Mark is capable of a big or complex market like LA or LV. Mark is a rube to them. They would've accepted two teams in LA, but only Rams, Chargers. Think back how they basically shot down the Raiders -- the team MOST in need of LA, ticking the most boxes -- killed off the Chargers/Raiders as the two teams, told Mark to step aside because they prefer Kroenke and Spanos in LA.

The owners are cow-chuting Mark into selling to Ellison/etc, or, SC if you want to hold onto the team.

The Lott group will come and go because they want a controlling interest in the team, which is simply not gonna happen.
If the financing comes through on Vegas, and it gets rejected by the NFL owners, Mark will then push to Los Angeles again given that the Chargers are going to take longer than the next 6 months to decide whether or not they'll stay in San Diego. Of course, this is the nightmare scenario for the NFL. Hence, Vegas is more likely than not at this point.

Even if the owners vote Vegas down, I expect Mark to sue the league and move the team there anyway.

The owners have wanted Mark out for years because he hasn't been able to deliver on a new stadium. If he delivers a financial package that delivers a new stadium in a viable market, the owners have no reason for him to get out.

FWIW, if the Raiders had been sold to Larry Ellison as has been postulated many a time over the last 5 years, Ellison's plans were to move the team to Los Angeles, NOT to keep them in Oakland.

 

[Exe Gesis]

It's all just an ordeal dragging on forever when the end result is Santa Clara. Mark is trying his best to bluff or bully Oakland into building him a stadium, he aint leaving the Bay area, before he finally puts his tail between his legs and trudges off to Santa Clara with no other alternative. But he wants to exhaust every possible hope on Oakland first.

 

[Chewy316]

It's all just an ordeal dragging on forever when the end result is Santa Clara. Mark is trying his best to bluff or bully Oakland into building him a stadium, he aint leaving the Bay area, before he finally puts his tail between his legs and trudges off to Santa Clara with no other alternative. But he wants to exhaust every possible hope on Oakland first.

Spoke to another source late last night about this possibility. "Dead in the water...for some time now."
FWIW, Steve Wynn has recently had a meeting with Jerry Jones and Stan Kroenke regarding the Raiders relocating to Vegas. Will be shocked if something doesn't go before the NFL's owners at the January meetings.

 

[FootyJunkie]

perhaps "California Raiders" if they go to Santa Clara ?
It's bad enough that San Francisco is playing in a stadium 45 miles away

 

[dlanod]

perhaps "California Raiders" if they go to Santa Clara ?
It's bad enough that San Francisco is playing in a stadium 45 miles away

"Golden State Raiders".

 

[Chewy316]

perhaps "California Raiders" if they go to Santa Clara ?
It's bad enough that San Francisco is playing in a stadium 45 miles away

They'll still be the Oakland Raiders if they moved to Santa Clara. However, the name 'California Raiders' has been thrown about if they ever explored San Diego as a possible relocation site.

 

[FootyJunkie]

They'll still be the Oakland Raiders if they moved to Santa Clara. However, the name 'California Raiders' has been thrown about if they ever explored San Diego as a possible relocation site.

they do have a fan base in the North and South of the state, so it would be appropriate

 

[Broken]

perhaps "California Raiders" if they go to Santa Clara ?
It's bad enough that San Francisco is playing in a stadium 45 miles away

California Raiders reminds me of

 

[Exe Gesis]

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones — who helped money-whip Stan Kroenke’s Rams to Inglewood over a competing project for the Chargers and/or Raiders in Carson — told Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times he didn’t expect opposition to Las Vegas.

“You’ll have certain individual owners with thoughts, but you won’t see people clumping together to try to stop it – not with Las Vegas in the Raiders’ case,” Jones said. “You’re not going to have factions and things like that. Not here.”

“As far as I’m concerned, the Raiders are the one and only team to go,” he said. “I wouldn’t go over there if I were San Diego. If it’s going to work, I think it’s the Raiders. You’ve got to have that national cache.”