Thanks.5 owners/team prezes saying the move is likely to happen
Awesome insight. Thanks, GF09.Yes. Essentially, the NFL wanted to stay in Oakland and act as the developer for the Raiders new stadium. The NFL's three main desires were these:
-The NFL wanted all 120 acres of Coliseum real estate to develop along with re-building the stadium
-The City of Oakland / County of Alameda had to confirm that they would honor the clause in the Raider's lease that would evict the A's if the Raiders had a stadium plan
-The NFL / Raiders had to have control of the development, not a third party developer.
The Ronnie Lott / Fortress Investment Group was brought in by Oakland Mayor Libby Schaf and came up with a plan that built a stadium on 55 acres of the Coliseum land,made no mention of the A's being inconvenienced in the slightest, gave Fortress the right to "loan" $600M to the project with a piece of the Raiders as collateral (schedule and rate of repayment not mentioned at any point to date) and gave all development rights to the rest of the land around the Coliseum to Fortress, not the NFL and the Raiders. Further, the plan called for a special stadium tax to be paid by the Raiders to repay the city for ~$200M in infrastructure improvements around the stadium, mostly moving the BART line and redoing the 880 offramp.
So what the owners are voting for today is either a Las Vegas plan that gives the Raiders total control of the site of their choice and a piece of every revenue the stadium ever takes in, with no obligation to every pay back anything but their bank loan from BofA, that also gives $750M dollars in public stadium money and $900M in public infrastructure improvements that don't have to be paid back. Or they can vote for the plan outlined above that violates the NFL's lending rules (you can't borrow against the team), ensures minimal profits for the team, and sets the precedent that non LA / NY markets can keep their team without paying up public money.
I'm sad they are leaving Oakland again, but I think Mark Davis is made himself a hell of a business opportunity and I completely understand why he is doing it and why the NFL is allowing it.
The state of California does not negotiate with terrorists.Gunfighter breaks it down well, but that Oakland proposal is about saving face, politically. It's not competitive with the Vegas Deal. Oakland had years to get something done and they never did. They essentially called Davis' bluff, even after last year when it became clear he wasn't bluffing. Then, when it became apparent he had a strong hand with this Vegas deal, they were left grasping at straws.
The fanbase knows it, too. This isn't Cleveland or Baltimore moving in the middle of the night. This isn't even St. Louis, which had a more viable proposal but less fan support. This is a franchise and fanbase that were loyal to each other (after Al came back, that is), almost to a fault, but could not get any semblance of support from the political leaders.
Why is Oakland a big prosperous market when there's a team already in Santa Clara? The Bay Area is only the 11th largest US metro area by population.The state of California does not negotiate with terrorists.
In all seriousness, California is a state that has correctly evaluated that pro sports franchises aren't of any real value to them, and as such if the teams want to take advantage of the large prosperous markets in California they should pony up their own billions. Eventually a team will probably move back to Oakland on their own dime, same as LA, it's a big prosperous market, and at some point that is a bigger draw than fleecing a city and state for your stadium.
We all know why, and that's fine. I just don't want to hear another word from these people about gambling ever, ever again.An NFL spokesman said this week it's unlikely the league would have any interest in staging an all-star game event such as the Pro Bowl at the proposed UNLV stadium. The stadium project is $800 million to $900 million and boosters plan to seek state legislative approval of a tax district contained to the UNLV campus to help pay for construction.
In an email to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy wrote sports gambling in Las Vegas is the reason the NFL would not likely get involved in holding a Pro Bowl or approving preseason games here.
There's something to be said for this approach, sure, and the debate of whether or not tax funds should be used at all to fund professional sporting venues is an important one and a much bigger issue. However, while Oakland has, in reality, taken this stance, they're also being duplicitous with the recent proposal that wasn't actually viable.The state of California does not negotiate with terrorists.
In all seriousness, California is a state that has correctly evaluated that pro sports franchises aren't of any real value to them, and as such if the teams want to take advantage of the large prosperous markets in California they should pony up their own billions. Eventually a team will probably move back to Oakland on their own dime, same as LA, it's a big prosperous market, and at some point that is a bigger draw than fleecing a city and state for your stadium.
Have to factor per-capita disposable income into that. It's a lot easier to sell a ton of high-end corporate boxes there than in, say, Philly (#7) or Miami (#8). Plus even on a raw population basis, #11 sure beats the hell out of Jacksonville (#40) or Nashville (#36).Why is Oakland a big prosperous market when there's a team already in Santa Clara? The Bay Area is only the 11th largest US metro area by population.
It's the 11th biggest metro by population and the highest-income by a significant margin. It's basically the same size as DC Metro (2 teams) but with a much higher amount of per-capita income. It also has a huge business base to sell luxury boxes etc. to. It's one of the most attractive markets in the country after NY, LA and maybe Chicago, if you aren't considering gov't subsidy.Why is Oakland a big prosperous market when there's a team already in Santa Clara? The Bay Area is only the 11th largest US metro area by population.
If you are the owner, do you really care about the ratio of home versus visitor fans if the place is sold out?How many of the season ticket buyers are going to be actual "Raiders" fans vs people looking to cash in on whichever marquee team is coming to town that week?
No, but it would be suggestive about the reliability of those sell-outs going into the future.If you are the owner, do you really care about the ratio of home versus visitor fans if the place is sold out?
I do not see a scenario in the next decade where Vegas cannot sell out 8 games per season with a combination of casual fans in town for the weekend + visiting team fans + LV locals + Raider fans willing to travel. The travel costs from the LA area are not a factor, so what do you see as the barrier to selling these games out?No, but it would be suggestive about the reliability of those sell-outs going into the future.
The problem is that it has a high percentage of immigrants (both foreign and domestic), who do not have ties to the local sports community. I lived in the Bay Area for a few years and never cared about the teams, although I did enjoy getting Oakland A's seats right on third base for basically nothing.It's the 11th biggest metro by population and the highest-income by a significant margin. It's basically the same size as DC Metro (2 teams) but with a much higher amount of per-capita income. It also has a huge business base to sell luxury boxes etc. to. It's one of the most attractive markets in the country after NY, LA and maybe Chicago, if you aren't considering gov't subsidy.
Yep, that's awesome for California....and while I'm fine with this for the Raiders I also love the eviction idea.The state of California does not negotiate with terrorists.
In all seriousness, California is a state that has correctly evaluated that pro sports franchises aren't of any real value to them, and as such if the teams want to take advantage of the large prosperous markets in California they should pony up their own billions. Eventually a team will probably move back to Oakland on their own dime, same as LA, it's a big prosperous market, and at some point that is a bigger draw than fleecing a city and state for your stadium.
Larry Reid an OAK city council member just had a press conference and pretty much said he wants to see if they can evict the Raiders Immediately
The funny thing is that the Raiders in Vegas will likely be the most popular team in Southern California. If they could ever get the high speed train built between Vegas and L.A. that'd be even more of a lock.yeah that's a great post GF, I had no idea about the terms of the Oakland proposal and that's really well-summarized.
The cloak-and-dagger articles last year all said that Davis lost the LA relocation wars to Kroenke because there was a perception Davis couldn't bring the money, was a bit of a simpleton and didn't know how to play hardball. Boy were they wrong.
Good for the Raiders. If today's vote goes through, they're on very solid financial footing, they're in commuting distance for all of their california-based fans, they're in a city that's a match made in heaven for them, and they'll continue to be an entertaining team and fanbase. As someone who always wishes the NFL were a little less militaristic and a little more fun-loving, it's damned hard for me as a Pats fan to muster any hate I'm supposed to feel for that franchise.
Unrelated to the discussion, but this is true only if you count Baltimore as part of the DC metro area. Median household income in DC metro alone is higher than SF/Oakland metro (which is how the Census Bureau calculates the data). (And even if you consider the combined DC/Baltimore metro, median income is not that much lower than SF/Oak.)It's the 11th biggest metro by population and the highest-income by a significant margin. It's basically the same size as DC Metro (2 teams) but with a much higher amount of per-capita income. It also has a huge business base to sell luxury boxes etc. to. It's one of the most attractive markets in the country after NY, LA and maybe Chicago, if you aren't considering gov't subsidy.
I'm including Baltimore because that is what you need to come anywhere near the population, the data I see has the bay at 63,000 or so with BAL/DC at around 57,000. BAL/DC is high (3rd) but still SF is over 10% higher.Unrelated to the discussion, but this is true only if you count Baltimore as part of the DC metro area. Median household income in DC metro alone is higher than SF/Oakland metro (which is how the Census Bureau calculates the data). (And even if you consider the combined DC/Baltimore metro, median income is not that much lower than SF/Oak.)
And casinos for comps.How many of the season ticket buyers are going to be actual "Raiders" fans vs people looking to cash in on whichever marquee team is coming to town that week?
I think for the purposes of understanding the market for NFL attendance, it probably makes sense to look at the larger Combined Statistical Areas, which aggregate adjacent metro areas, rather than Metropolitan Statistical Areas. SF-Oakland is the 11th metro area by MSA population (i.e. only SF-Oakland-Hayward), which means you exclude the whole San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA, which is almost 2 million people (plus is the home of Levi's Stadium).Why is Oakland a big prosperous market when there's a team already in Santa Clara? The Bay Area is only the 11th largest US metro area by population.
As I mentioned above, it's really the 5th biggest metro by population. But let's not exaggerate how much more it earns than DC. They're probably the two wealthiest large metro areas, and they're about equivalent: the median San Jose-SF-Oakland CSA household income is $83,692 , and the DC-Baltimore CSA one is $83,181.It's the 11th biggest metro by population and the highest-income by a significant margin. It's basically the same size as DC Metro (2 teams) but with a much higher amount of per-capita income. It also has a huge business base to sell luxury boxes etc. to. It's one of the most attractive markets in the country after NY, LA and maybe Chicago, if you aren't considering gov't subsidy.
That's fucking golden. I think they should have a scoreboard that accounts for the point spread in the display.Anyway, the Raiders should embrace the whole Vegas identity. Make the captains call red or black on a giant roulette wheel to start the game instead of a boring ol' coin flip. Make the "Make It Rain" celebration mandatory for Raiders players, kind of like the Lambeau Leap. Have "The House Always Wins" emblazoned on the outside of the Vegas stadium. The whole shebang.
In terms of attendance the NFL is a totally different animal than any other pro sport. We're talking about filling 70K seats eight times a year in Vegas. The market has a population of 2 million, the Raiders have a national following, and every opponent is going to be running travel packages for road trips. Like every other NFL franchise, if the team is at all competitive they'll fill the place.And casinos for comps.
Between Oakland being salty for however long the Raiders choose to remain in NoCal during the transition and the highly nomadic population of Vegas, the Raiders are going to have the worst home crowd for quite a while.
They'll fill the place competitive or not, no doubt, between packages and casino comps. But they won't be Raiders fans. It'll be like going to Camden ten years ago for a Sox game and a 'Yankees suck' chant breaks out because the place is 80% Sox fans. They just aren't going to recreate the Black Hole. I still think it's great and the right move for the franchise, but it does have some drawbacks.In terms of attendance the NFL is a totally different animal than any other pro sport. We're talking about filling 70K seats eight times a year in Vegas. The market has a population of 2 million, the Raiders have a national following, and every opponent is going to be running travel packages for road trips. Like every other NFL franchise, if the team is at all competitive they'll fill the place.
I wasn't talking about filling the place. I was talking about the allegiance and enthusiasm of the home crowd (advantage). NoCal for 1 or 2 seasons with pissed off fans and then playing in front of transients and visiting public.In terms of attendance the NFL is a totally different animal than any other pro sport. We're talking about filling 70K seats eight times a year in Vegas. The market has a population of 2 million, the Raiders have a national following, and every opponent is going to be running travel packages for road trips. Like every other NFL franchise, if the team is at all competitive they'll fill the place.
@Gunfighter 09 What is your prediction for how long the Raiders will stay in the bay area? I assume this upcoming season is a certainty, but what about 2018-19? Mark Davis has said recently that they plan to remain for 2 more seasons, regardless of what happens with the Vegas decision. They can't really stay for that long with fan base having diminishing enthusiasm, can they? There are rumors that the Raiders are looking at using UNLV's stadium, but I understand there is a lease commitment for the Coliseum through the next 2 seasons. I'm not aware of the details.
They definitely play 2017 in Oakland. However if attendance, sponsors diminish then I could see them breaking the lease and playing Vegas in 2018 in Sam Boyd stadium. Not ideal but the NFL in the past has brokered deals to end the lease early. See the Houston Oilers move to Tennessee.I think they play in the Coliseum in 2017 & 2018. I think they play 2019 in either a renovated Sam Boyd stadium or in someplace weird like San Diego, Fresno or one of the LA stadiums.
March 25, 2016: The Bay Area News Group reports the Raiders' rent at the Oakland Coliseum more than tripled, from $925,000 a year to $3.5 million. Sources tell ESPN.com this came after the lease was agreed to in principle and revenue from the naming rights to the Coliseum -- which made the rent a wash -- was lost.
I'd assume Oakland doesn't put any money into the coliseum and focus all future money on building the A's park if they still want to keep one of the pro sports franchises.Will the Oakland Coliseum take down Mt Davis once the Raiders are gone? There used to be a nice vista out towards CF before they filled it in for football.