Mr. WEO Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 it would be shocking if san diego allowed a 3rd team in southern cal market. i say san diego accepts L.A. but doesn't partner or rent from Kroenke......san diego builds their own stadium somewhere between LA & san diego......market themselves as So Cal Chargers. Why would they ever do that? $550 million move then another billion for a new stadium? Why not just stay in SD and spend the money there? Same for Oakland. Why spend all that money to move and build. Just build in Oak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) Why would they ever do that? $550 million move then another billion for a new stadium? Why not just stay in SD and spend the money there? Same for Oakland. Why spend all that money to move and build. Just build in Oak. because the LA market doubles the value of the franchise. one third of san Diego's season ticket holders are already from L.A. Edited January 29, 2016 by papazoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) because the LA market doubles the value of the franchise. one third of san Diego's season ticket holders are already from L.A. As the third team enters the fickle LA market, the franchise value of each is diluted. The value of a team is only meaningful if you are selling. If Davis plans to keep the team until he is over 80, it doesn't matter what the team is worth in 2-3 years. Being burdened with a billion in debt destroys whatever value he has. The value of a team is best raised by a new stadium. Edited January 29, 2016 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 As the third team enters the fickle LA market, the franchise value of each is diluted. The value of a team is only meaningful if you are selling. If Davis plans to keep the team until he is over 80, it doesn't matter what the team is worth in 2-3 years. Being burdened with a billion in debt destroys whatever value he has. The value of a team is best raised by a new stadium. my main point is that SD will not allow a third team to enter the market.......they will be the 2nd and final team, blocking the raiders. the value of a team is meaningful if you are looking to "borrow" money to build a stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Only problem I see, do any teams playing against the Vegas team have their wins count? Cause if the wins count in Vegas, don't they have to stay there? Gambling isn't going to be an issue, the league would probably embrace it and try to make money from the gambling going on. As for the fans, people are looking at it all wrong. The teams and league don't care about the average fan buying tickets, the real money is in corporate boxes and suites and seat liscencing, there are plenty of big names in Vegas for the boxes and suites to be bought by. There's tons of money from the big casinos that would keep the team in business there. Sure they may not have the biggest local following, but think of the fans from other teams who would make the trip there to Vegas to see their team play. Take the usual amount of bus trips to the Ralph every week and probably multiply that be 100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) my main point is that SD will not allow a third team to enter the market.......they will be the 2nd and final team, blocking the raiders. the value of a team is meaningful if you are looking to "borrow" money to build a stadium. The Chargers would not be able to block a team from moving to it's former home city, or "Southern California". The NFL clearly is perfectly willing to have 2 teams in LA and one in SD. They have already said this over and over. If the Chargers stay in SD, the Raiders will go to LA with the Rams. If that happens and the Chargers then decide to move closer to LA, there will be 3 teams in the market and all will have deflated value in an ambivalent NFL town. Also, the Raiders won't have trouble securing a loan for a new stadium given their valuation as it exists right now. Any increase in the value in the Raiders from a move to LA would be wiped out by the relocation fee alone. That's a huge debt to be walking into the bank with when applying for massive mortgage. Edited January 29, 2016 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 @RapSheet .@NFL has no comment on the #Raiders' Las Vegas meeting. There is no rule against approving a franchise to any location. It's 3/4 owner vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 I'm not comparing to Buffalo, face it if the Bills had left Buffalo wasn't getting another team. Comparing to places like LA, San Antonio. Having said that though IMO there likely are more high paying jobs in Western NY than there are in Vegas, medical fields, technology, etc. And definitely confusing with Clark County. There's a ton of money on the strip, mostly belonging to tourists. Get off the strip and the residents all work in the gaming industry and it's supporting businesses, restaurants, etc. Not sure ther'es all that much money there. I'll look up some information to back up my theory, but if you're telling me there's less people with money to buy an NFL ticket in Las Vegas vs a city like Buffalo (one with an NFL team that's supported) - I'm going to have to disagree with you. The economy has changed dramatically over the last 10 years. I think you're getting confused with the Las Vegas strip and the entirety of Clark County. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OP Class75 Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 I think they should put a team in the Dakotas I like it....The Dakota Raiders!! All you need to do is change the mascot to a Sioux Warrior! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 @AroundTheNFL NFL releases memo regarding Raiders' interest in Las Vegas http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000630283/article/nfl-releases-memo-regarding-raiders-interest-in-las-vegas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boater Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) Why would they ever do that? $550 million move then another billion for a new stadium? Why not just stay in SD and spend the money there? Same for Oakland. Why spend all that money to move and build. Just build in Oak. California taxes are insane. NV taxes are much more reasonable. Ya.. taxes, smax's. But tax rate is important. With exception of a few tax payer subsidized ventures, no one is moving to CALI. They're moving out. That's from the owners point of view. ADD: their is ZERO personal income tax in NV.. that may certainly be an advantage in signing free agents, salary cap considered. Edited January 31, 2016 by boater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 California taxes are insane. NV taxes are much more reasonable. Ya.. taxes, smax's. But tax rate is important. With exception of a few tax payer subsidized ventures, no one is moving to CALI. They're moving out. That's from the owners point of view. ADD: their is ZERO personal income tax in NV.. that may certainly be an advantage in signing free agents, salary cap considered. Our friends who moved from the LA area to Vegas said they got a 13.6% raise by moving due to taxes. But don't forget Texas, Florida and TN (except for interest and dividend income). It would certainly be a factor for me in free agency, but one of many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Las Vegas Raiders Las Vegas Chargers Either would have quite an ironic name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 .......But it's a dry hell! If there's any redeeming aspect, it's the little hotties in tiny togas walking around the pool handing out bunches of frozen grapes off silver trays at Caesars Palace. THAT was more like heaven than hell, but I still had to run for shade and AC before too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 It's probably more about perception than anything else. It looks fishy to have a major sports franchise in Vegas due to the perception that it would be easy to fix games. In reality games can be fixed anywhere (obviously), but anything odd would be questioned much more if it happened in Vegas or involving a Vegas team. In short, the NFL doesn't much care about the game being dirty, but they certainly want to avoid the APPEARANCE of game being dirty. Avoiding putting a team in Vegas is certainly an easy way to avoid the latter. That's my point on perception. These 24 owners will not sign off on Vegas due to the illusion of impropriety. I know games can be fixed anywhere, and also know heat has nothing to do with it. san Antonio is interesting as this is a real up and coming city and have lobbied for lots of corporations to place additional offices and manufacturing there. The population of TX is so vast they can mange three teams. Hell, FL does it, and we have less people than TX. I personally could care less. I'm not a gambler so I only for to Vegas every couple of years for a conference, etc. I just wanted to be clear, it doesn't bother me if they have a team, but strongly feel you will not get 24 owners to agree to it. If 24 owners don't agree, it doesn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 The population of TX is so vast they can mange three teams. Hell, FL does it, and we have less people than TX. California seems to be struggling with 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 California taxes are insane. NV taxes are much more reasonable. Ya.. taxes, smax's. But tax rate is important. With exception of a few tax payer subsidized ventures, no one is moving to CALI. They're moving out. That's from the owners point of view. ADD: their is ZERO personal income tax in NV.. that may certainly be an advantage in signing free agents, salary cap considered. Well... Stan Kroenke is moving to Cali, and that's what this entire discussion is about. In fact, I don't see the owners of the Raider or the Chargers doing anything but fighting, indirectly, to become Kroenke's stadium tenant. Clearly, they all disagree with your take regarding taxes in CA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 * Insufficient population base with very little in the immediate surrounding areas * League perception regarding association with gambling * Almost everyone there is a transplant still loyal to their old team (there's a good Bills following there I noticed) * It's slightly hotter than the surface of the sun. They would need a dome or it would be compared to the World Cup in Qatar Those are just a few off the top of my head. I don't think it would go well at all. But that's me... On the plus side.....there's plenty of room. We actually saw Carrot Top there last spring. My wife met him through a mutual friend (that even sounds strange to me). The show was surprisingly entertaining. It is no hotter than Tuczon & the Cardinals played in Sun Devil Stadium for years. I see your point about the gambling but if they use that as an excuse it is very hypocritical. Gambling is what makes the NFL the most popular sport. There's more than enough permanent residents - a lot has changed in that regard. Any new city added is going to have to earn loyalty from their fan base - time will easily take care of that issue. It's not any hotter there during the football Months than any other hot weathered city. Very stale arguments. Agreed, early September maybe rough but just don't schedule home games that time of year & if they do schedule them at night. I have been to Vegas a few times in October & it always seems like it is in the high 70's low 80s there. Very comfortable for watching football & much better than Florida that time of year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 California seems to be struggling with 3 Nev - I think that is more about the product. San Fran was sold out when winning. When San Diego and Oakland put out a good product, they'll sell out. For example, Tampa (where I live). Was sold out and had a waiting list for season tickets from the time the new stadium opened, and throughout Gruden being here until the very end. We've had a crappy team for 5 years and the seat sales went down tremendously. There is more than enough money in the Tampa Bay area. Not that you have to go to the SB, but when Oakland is competitive fighting for a playoff spot each year, they will sell out seats and there is money in the Bay area. Going to San Antonio for business meetings, I observed how booming this city has become giving very attractive tax breaks for companies to move there. They can support a team, and won't hurt Houston or Dallas. I don't care whether Vegas gets a team, but the owners do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 As I said, it's a matter of personal preference. I found 112 degrees in Vegas to be chokingly hot and actually wished for some humidity to breath. Maybe that was because I had come from steamy Florida. Regardless, they would need a dome, but you won't catch me standing over the grill at the tail gate (though it might be cooler there?). Yes, hot places also have teams. And it is a factor there. I do think San Antonio makes more sense without doing any real research to support that opinion. The months they are playing the only real hot weather would be in September. Once it hits October it becomes dramatically cooler there. Vegas is a weird climte. It heats up very quickly once Late April/May hit & it cools down very quickly once October hits. They would probably have to find some place cooler to have training camp but all they would have to do is head out to the coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts