The Raiders relocation thread (3/27 viva Las Vegas Raiders!!!)

DolphinJones

New Member
Jul 1, 2006
21
I want to add to the fan base discussion earlier. Here is 2014 map of USA broken down by NFL fans. Could not find a newer one. I have lived in the upstate of SC prior to the Panthers being awarded a franchise. The next two sentences are anecdotal. At the time the two main fan bases in the upstate were Dallas and Washington. The Atlanta fan base was big in the Greenville area which was more to do with their Furman University training camp facility than their proximity to Atlanta (150 miles).

When the Panthers started they played their first season home games at Clemson (140 miles from Charlotte). Jerry Richardson the owner was a graduate of Wofford in Spartanburg, SC and the location of their training camp facility. For a few years until the Falcons built there new facility, the training camps were 40 miles apart. Up until the Panthers made it to SB in 2004, Panther home game tickets were given out by vendors. After that season free tickets were rare.

Now the fan base in the Upstate is overwhelmingly Panthers. My anecdotal (license plate holders, shirts, baseball caps) accounting has the Cowboys, Falcons, Steelers as 2-4 in that order. My point is that fans in areas that did not have an NFL team will go with a winner. If the Raiders start wining they will own Nevada.

A couple of things about the map. On my recent trips to Wyoming, Utah and NW Arizona the fast food restaurants were serving drinks with plastic Bronco’s cups. On a trip to Gallup, NM in 2008, I had the pleasure of talking to Cliff Branch while he was selling autographed photo’s and flashing his 3 Super Bowl rings at a Walmart. There must have been Raider fans and/or Colorado Buffalo fans or he would not have been there.

In the all important media market listings. Las Vegas is at #40. Cincinnati (#36), Jacksonville (#47), Buffalo (#53) and Green Bay (#68).
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,432
Harrisburg, Pa.
"All parties have worked extremely hard to pass off costs to taxpayers and visitors, thereby fucking over everyone for our own gain," Mark Davis said.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
"All parties have worked extremely hard to pass off costs to taxpayers and visitors, thereby fucking over everyone for our own gain," Mark Davis said.
We're now looking out for the visitors of Las Vegas? The entire city is built on that. I'd leave the taxpayers out of this if it was my choice, just bill the tourists. That's the whole point of the city. I'm normally against pubic paying for it, but in the case of somewhere like Las Vegas, I'm all for it since it'll drive mass tourism to the city for 8-12 (most likely about 8) weeks of the year.
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,826
Northern Colorado
Seems official now. I don't see the other owners voting against this, and even if they do, Mark will just go anyway like his father did. Precedent has already been set.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
Tangentially related, the owners would like to negotiate an extension of the current CBA four years early because they're out of stadium credits.

To which the NFLPA is said to have responded after the past couple years of dealings with Mr. Goodell and I quote, "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17796428/nfl-owners-approached-nflpa-negotiating-cba-extension
Money talks though. The concession that I came up with was an increase in the roster size.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
I'm normally against pubic paying for it, but in the case of somewhere like Las Vegas, I'm all for it since it'll drive mass tourism to the city for 8-12 (most likely about 8) weeks of the year.
I think it's wishful thinking that Raiders home games will "drive mass tourism" to Vegas. October is already the busiest month in Vegas (94.3% hotel occupancy last year), and the the non-holiday NFL weeks in September, November, and December are the same (monthly averages brought down by Thanksgiving and Christmas). I would guess any increase in tourism would be negligible.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
I think it's wishful thinking that Raiders home games will "drive mass tourism" to Vegas. October is already the busiest month in Vegas (94.3% hotel occupancy last year), and the the non-holiday NFL weeks in September, November, and December are the same (monthly averages brought down by Thanksgiving and Christmas). I would guess any increase in tourism would be negligible.
Well I imagine a stadium of that size right off the strip would be a massive year round draw for music acts. A huge act like a Springsteen would be a big Vegas draw in the slower months.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Well I imagine a stadium of that size right off the strip would be a massive year round draw for music acts. A huge act like a Springsteen would be a big Vegas draw in the slower months.
Yes, that's an argument the stadium developers and proponents have made. Most uninterested economists whose opinions I've read disagree that such potential incremental benefits are likely to outweigh the costs.

http://www.cdcgamingreports.com/stadium-finance-experts-blast-vegas-deal-cut-by-worst-hagglers-in-haggletown/
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
Money talks though. The concession that I came up with was an increase in the roster size.
I think De Smith needs a concession on Goodell's power to avoid being voted out. The players are paying attention to this issue now, and he just can't fully cave on it, I don't think. I do think that the degree of movement on process/Goodell's power and the degree of economic concession from the league are linked and there's tradeoffs there. But Smith needs a talking point for the players on discipline to surive, I bet.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
I think it's wishful thinking that Raiders home games will "drive mass tourism" to Vegas. October is already the busiest month in Vegas (94.3% hotel occupancy last year), and the the non-holiday NFL weeks in September, November, and December are the same (monthly averages brought down by Thanksgiving and Christmas). I would guess any increase in tourism would be negligible.
I just don't think it needs to add a ton of tourists for Vegas for it to be worth it, where in almost any other place I'd disagree with the whole thing. Vegas is getting about 32 million tourists a year from the numbers i've seen, figure 2 people per hotel room average and you're at 16 million people in hotel rooms a year. Add on a $2 tax to every room and you're paying this off in 2.5 years, which is not a lot.

There's about 150,000 hotel rooms in Vegas from the counts I can find. Going from a 95% to 100% (which would never happen) is another 9,000 or so rooms. Even taking 95% to 97.5% yields another 4,500 rooms. I'm not sure all those would be taken because you'd get a bunch of Bro's tripling up in rooms or some that are just too expensive but there's likely some increase there. I guess the question is will 3,000 or so hotel rooms and the added tourism be enough to offset 3 years of a $2 surcharge on hotel rooms?

Anyone not going to Vegas for 3 days because the room is $6 more expensive over 3 days?
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
I just don't think it needs to add a ton of tourists for Vegas for it to be worth it, where in almost any other place I'd disagree with the whole thing. Vegas is getting about 32 million tourists a year from the numbers i've seen, figure 2 people per hotel room average and you're at 16 million people in hotel rooms a year. Add on a $2 tax to every room and you're paying this off in 2.5 years, which is not a lot.

There's about 150,000 hotel rooms in Vegas from the counts I can find. Going from a 95% to 100% (which would never happen) is another 9,000 or so rooms. Even taking 95% to 97.5% yields another 4,500 rooms. I'm not sure all those would be taken because you'd get a bunch of Bro's tripling up in rooms or some that are just too expensive but there's likely some increase there. I guess the question is will 3,000 or so hotel rooms and the added tourism be enough to offset 3 years of a $2 surcharge on hotel rooms?

Anyone not going to Vegas for 3 days because the room is $6 more expensive over 3 days?
Actually, I think I saw a study that found that for every 1% increase in hotel occupancy tax, there was ~1.15% decrease in long term occupancy.

This is far from a no-brainer, without even considering whether a stadium and parking lot(s) that sit empty 300+ days a year is the highest and best use of limited strip (or strip adjacent) property.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,184
Washington
The economics of it all are interesting. Seems like if any city could get a decent ROI from stadium funding, Vegas would have a better chance than most. I'm looking forward to being able to make a trip out there when and if all this comes together. Especially if I can catch a Raiders game and UFC event in the same weekend.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Yeah, don't get me wrong, form a personal standpoint, I'd love the Radiers to move to Vegas, even if it costs me a few bucks a year for my 4 or 5 trips to Vegas. I'm just not convinced it'll be much if any long-term benefit for the people of Vegas and Nevada.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,676
Davis saying that he plans on the Raiders playing '17 and '18 in Oakland even if the LV deal happens.
That will change quickly. I bet they play 17 in Oakland and break the lease for 18 when fan support dwindles. Could be another Houston Oiler situation.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I think De Smith needs a concession on Goodell's power to avoid being voted out. The players are paying attention to this issue now, and he just can't fully cave on it, I don't think. I do think that the degree of movement on process/Goodell's power and the degree of economic concession from the league are linked and there's tradeoffs there. But Smith needs a talking point for the players on discipline to surive, I bet.
I would've thought so a few months ago, but the reports I've seen suggest that players care most about traditional union issues (wages, benefits, work conditions) and view discipline as a secondary issue at most.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,370
I would've thought so a few months ago, but the reports I've seen suggest that players care most about traditional union issues (wages, benefits, work conditions) and view discipline as a secondary issue at most.
I think there are many players who foolishly believe the discipline stuff is a non-issue since they never do anything wrong.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
I think there are many players who foolishly believe the discipline stuff is a non-issue since they never do anything wrong.
But it's also a fairly rational assessment of risk/reward. There's sort of a hard ceiling to how much inappropriate discipline the League can mete out without it becoming materially impactful on Sunday outcomes. Even if you know, for a cold hard fact, that (say) 20 players a year are going to be Brady-style screwed because you didn't make discipline a bargaining issue, you can still think other issues that will provide benefit to 100% of membership deserve a higher priority.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I think there are many players who foolishly believe the discipline stuff is a non-issue since they never do anything wrong.
TB12's case gets the lion's share of media attention, for obvious reasons, but the vast majority of recent suspensions not covered by the league's highly detailed drug policy have been due to credible allegations of DWI or domestic violence. I don't think it's "foolish" for a group of men whose career earning potential will be 70%+ exhausted by age 30 to decide it's not worth leaving money on the table to protect assholes who engage in that sort of behavior, on the off chance that they are somehow railroaded.

If there was going to be a minor mid-term modification to the CBA, then by all means hold firm on due process rights, but if the whole deal is being opened up for renegotiation, then player discipline simply isn't that important an issue to the great majority of players.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
If only there was a way for players to indicate that they feel that some segment of the population tends to be unjustly punished by those in power.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Are they planning on changing the name when they move? Las Vegas Raders?

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. It would be cool to have a team in Vegas. Might diminish the home field advantage slightly though.
 

DolphinJones

New Member
Jul 1, 2006
21
Looking at the proposed domed Vegas stadium rendering posted by GF 09. Architecturally more pleasing to me than the University of Phoenix and Lucas Oil Field.

Here are some things I would add. (j/k)
  • Ability to open the roof and enhance the home field advantage during September games (95+ degrees but it’s dry heat).
  • Add some Vegas styling like water fountains and Romanesque statues (like Caesar’s Palace) of former Raiders HOF players. Maybe even make the statues into water fountains.
  • Have the naming rights to the stadium awarded to the Bunny Ranch.
On the serious side, in week 2 our area had the Raiders/Falcons game. Seeing the game played on a baseball field brought back memories of Troy Brown getting injured in San Diego on a baseball field.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,277
JasonColeBR
This is early survey, but 7 teams (including #Raiders, obviously) support move to Vegas, 1 is against. 12 want to hear more before decision
10/19/16, 1:42 PM

JimTrotter_NFL
Filed to ESPN: Mark Davis tells owners he plans to file for relocation to Vegas in Jan. Source: "Said he's committed to Vegas 100%."#Raiders
10/19/16, 1:17 PM


JasonColeBR
But fwiw, #NFL commissioner Goodell really wants to keep team in Oakland. To the point he's working with city separately from the team.
10/19/16, 1:46 PM


@Gunfighter 09
 

Attachments

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
TBH I have no idea why they still think they need a team in Oakland. Although oddly I just looked at a map and it only really hit me that the 49ers new stadium is nowhere near SF.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Interesting insight from Andrew Brandt on the Ross Tucker Podcast today. He basically said the NFL will OK a team in Vegas, but they'd prefer it not be the Raiders because Davis doesn't have the kind of wealth to deliver the kind of returns his partners want. Brandt seemed to think most of the league would rather Davis sell the team. Goodell making nice with Oakland might just be keeping leverage over the Raiders / Davis.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
Interesting insight from Andrew Brandt on the Ross Tucker Podcast today. He basically said the NFL will OK a team in Vegas, but they'd prefer it not be the Raiders because Davis doesn't have the kind of wealth to deliver the kind of returns his partners want. Brandt seemed to think most of the league would rather Davis sell the team. Goodell making nice with Oakland might just be keeping leverage over the Raiders / Davis.
What is Adelson (or whatever his name is) getting in this, anyway?
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
What is Adelson (or whatever his name is) getting in this, anyway?
Besides a brand new, half-priced stadium?

EDIT: His claim was that the stadium will be run (and presumably the profits generated will be distrubuted to/by) a public commission. In which case, I dunno.

But other stories I've read say the private partners get the profits, which makes much more sense.
 
Last edited:

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,826
Northern Colorado
Interesting insight from Andrew Brandt on the Ross Tucker Podcast today. He basically said the NFL will OK a team in Vegas, but they'd prefer it not be the Raiders because Davis doesn't have the kind of wealth to deliver the kind of returns his partners want. Brandt seemed to think most of the league would rather Davis sell the team. Goodell making nice with Oakland might just be keeping leverage over the Raiders / Davis.
This makes no sense to me. How does extra wealth (in the megawealthy NFL sense) generate returns? Won't these be generated by a combination of the market, stadium, fan base, and team success? Hard to envision a team with a better fan base than the raiders, especially for that market. They are also set up for success on the field with their young talent.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
This makes no sense to me. How does extra wealth (in the megawealthy NFL sense) generate returns? Won't these be generated by a combination of the market, stadium, fan base, and team success? Hard to envision a team with a better fan base than the raiders, especially for that market. They are also set up for success on the field with their young talent.
I don't really understand the financial ramifications league-wide, but there's definitely a preference among the owners for creating a whole fan experience like Patriot Place or what Jerry Jones built in Arlington. That's one of the major reasons why the Carson LA plan (mostly just a stadium) lost out in favor of the Inglewood plan (a whole complex). Great article here. After seeing how receptive LV is to a team, I can imagine the owners thinking not "oh, good for the Raiders" but "imagine what a real owner with business sense could do in a place like that? Why would we trust this to Mark Davis?"
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,826
Northern Colorado
I don't really understand the financial ramifications league-wide, but there's definitely a preference among the owners for creating a whole fan experience like Patriot Place or what Jerry Jones built in Arlington. That's one of the major reasons why the Carson LA plan (mostly just a stadium) lost out in favor of the Inglewood plan (a whole complex). Great article here. After seeing how receptive LV is to a team, I can imagine the owners thinking not "oh, good for the Raiders" but "imagine what a real owner with business sense could do in a place like that? Why would we trust this to Mark Davis?"
But if not the Raiders, what franchise would that be? There's only what, 3-4 franchises that are even possibilities to relocate, and expansion does not seem to be on the table (nor should it). So, if this thinking is correct and the NFL wants a team in Vegas but not the Raiders, are they really going to be more comfortable with, say, the Chargers or the Jaguars leading the charge? I don't see how.

Credit to Davis for facilitating this, seemingly out of nowhere after being screwed in last year's relocation bid. He might be a more savvy businessmen than he gets credit for. Also, the money is certainly there if the NFL wants to tweak the stadium design.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Sheldon gets more hotel stays and more casino profits. Plus whatever profits he can get from the stadium.
The first sentence is speculative, about which economists and even other casino owners aren't in complete agreement. The second sentence is what matters. What he's getting is $750 million off a cool new stadium.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
So negotiations in both Oakland and Las Vegas are going poorly...

First, uncle Sheldy has taken the revenue sharing negotiation with the Raiders public:

"I negotiated to bring in the Oakland Raiders, an NFL football team from Oakland, because they don't have a stadium there, that I would build a stadium and rent it out to the Oakland Raiders," Adelson said on Wednesday during a travel technology conference in Tel Aviv.

Adelson, who succeeded this month in getting legislation passed to enable the construction of the stadium, said his problems now involve negotiations with the Raiders.

"They want so much," he said. "So I told my people, 'Tell them I could live with the deal, I could live without the deal. Here's the way it's gonna go down. If they don't want it, bye-bye,'" he said.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-casino-mogul-adelson-says-no-certainty-over-023855232--nfl.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw

Meanwhile back in Oakland, there was great rejoicing, or no, actually there was just the latest example of the complicated ownership relationship between the city of Oakland and county of Alameda preventing any kind of deal with the Raiders and A's happening.

But despite the renewed hope that a deal in Oakland remains possible, county Supervisor Nate Miley tempered that optimism Wednesday by saying “too much would be asked of the taxpayers” under the closely guarded plan.

Even if such a deal could be pulled together under a tight deadline before NFL owners meet next year to vote on the Raiders’ move to Las Vegas, it could be too little too late for a city that has a history of failed stadium attempts at the Coliseum.

The latest attempt, according to a county official, came last week when Fortress Investment sent a term sheet to city and county officials, hoping to agree on a plan in time to present before NFL owners, who could meet as early as January.

Without going into specifics of the business agreement, Miley expressed little hope Wednesday that it would pass muster.

“I don’t think the taxpayers would feel comfortable with the terms,” said Miley, who also sits on the board that operates the Coliseum site. “That’s the most I want to say.”
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/26/new-effort-emerges-to-keep-raiders-in-oakland/


So, really everyone is acting like what we know they are. The Oakland / Alameda government is incapable of putting together a quality competitive deal and Sheldon Adelson is going to squeeze every ounce of blood out of this deal he can.
 

bradmahn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
591
So negotiations in both Oakland and Las Vegas are going poorly...

First, uncle Sheldy has taken the revenue sharing negotiation with the Raiders public:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-casino-mogul-adelson-says-no-certainty-over-023855232--nfl.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw

Meanwhile back in Oakland, there was great rejoicing, or no, actually there was just the latest example of the complicated ownership relationship between the city of Oakland and county of Alameda preventing any kind of deal with the Raiders and A's happening.


http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/26/new-effort-emerges-to-keep-raiders-in-oakland/


So, really everyone is acting like what we know they are. The Oakland / Alameda government is incapable of putting together a quality competitive deal and Sheldon Adelson is going to squeeze every ounce of blood out of this deal he can.
"Incapable" seems like you're implying it's a bad thing that the city is unwilling to dole out public dollars to this clusterfuck. As an Alameda County resident, I appreciate their reluctance (especially as it looks like the Vegas deal may go bust).
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
I'm implying that Mayor Libby Schaaf's stated desire to make a competitive offer to the Raiders (really the NFL owners group) to get the Raiders out of the worst stadium in professional sports is not something the City of Oakland and Alameda County are capable of doing. Her words are empty talk designed only to reduce the number of votes that she loses when the Raiders likely leave.

The reluctance (and recent polls that show the people of Oakland don't want to spend money on keeping the Raiders) is interesting to me. In three years, it is very likely that both the Warriors and Raiders will be gone. I am curious to see how Oakland's stadium negotiations with Lew Wolf go when he is their last hope of having a pro team and being more than Fresno with a BART Connection to the City and South Bay.
 
Last edited:

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
I live in Alameda County too and it got pretty screwed over in the deal to bring the Raiders back, plus they ruined the A's stadium when they "improved" it, so I'm happy the county's playing hard to get.

Those numbers on the Las Vegas stadium are shameful and it's amazing how cities don't learn the lessons from other cities' experiences. This country runs almost solely on emotion these days which magnifies when sports is in the mix.

With the NFL's declining numbers, I'd guess this won't help bring them up if the deal goes through for LV. Raider fans are pretty dedicated, but relocating (again) is disillusioning and will create hard feelings for some.
 
Last edited: