Raiders exploring moving to San Antonio
- Thread starter bosockboy
- Start date
lol ok.
As if it's not abundantly obvious now, the Raiders don't have anywhere near the money needed to build their own stadium in Oakland. Take note, Coliseum Authority.
As if it's not abundantly obvious now, the Raiders don't have anywhere near the money needed to build their own stadium in Oakland. Take note, Coliseum Authority.
Would the NFL approve a 3rd Texas team in the 37th market? Would be hard to not allow it with Jacksonville in the league.
Red McCombs too I believe. The difference is Oakland doesn't have the money. It's not happening. They are going somewhere.BigSoxFan said:
I've heard LA bandied about, especially once Davis' wife dies and a nice estate tax comes due to the kids. Pretty sure Breer talked about this on T&R last week or sometime around there if anybody more vividly recalls the talking points.
This is a move to get Jerry Jones & Bob McNair on Marc Davis' side when he tries to go to LA. The Chargers have made it very clear they will vote against any team in LA. I take Kraft's talk about "two teams" as Marc Davis having the influential Kraft's vote on his side. Getting the equally influential Jones & McNair on his side probably gets the Raiders close to the number they need. This is all about the Raiders trying to line up 24 owners to allow them them to go to LA.
When the Raiders to LA vote happens it is going to be really interesting to see how the Bowlens and Hunts vote. Will they vote to prevent a franchise from failing, or vote to ensure one of their division rivals is rarely competitive?
Marc has about $400M and roughly 10% of the Raiders to offer (he owns 47% and needs ~35% to retain controlling interest) to investors to get something built. I don't think that is enough to get into downtown, but I think it is enough to get into Roskiville in the inland empire (Diamond Bar, specifically). Moving to a non-downtown spot in LA also leaves the crown jewel of leverage open for the other owners to use. The other wild card is that while the Davis' are poor by NFL owner standards, the three holders of the largest (20%) minority stake in the franchise are billionaires, so their might be an alternate source of cash for them to tap. Their recent actions either indicate that getting cash from the minority owners is not an option, or this is all an elaborate dance to get back to LA.
When the Raiders to LA vote happens it is going to be really interesting to see how the Bowlens and Hunts vote. Will they vote to prevent a franchise from failing, or vote to ensure one of their division rivals is rarely competitive?
Marc has about $400M and roughly 10% of the Raiders to offer (he owns 47% and needs ~35% to retain controlling interest) to investors to get something built. I don't think that is enough to get into downtown, but I think it is enough to get into Roskiville in the inland empire (Diamond Bar, specifically). Moving to a non-downtown spot in LA also leaves the crown jewel of leverage open for the other owners to use. The other wild card is that while the Davis' are poor by NFL owner standards, the three holders of the largest (20%) minority stake in the franchise are billionaires, so their might be an alternate source of cash for them to tap. Their recent actions either indicate that getting cash from the minority owners is not an option, or this is all an elaborate dance to get back to LA.
kenneycb said:
Marc is the only kid. They claim to have the inheritance tax covered with expensive insurance etc.
It's absurd that teams in the NFL--where everyteam is basically guaranteed a massive profit due to TV and the salary cap, has teams not only crying poor but moving when they don't get what they want where baseball, where there really are vast revenue discrepencies that hurt teams' ability to compete has had one only one team move in the last what 40 years?
Gunfighter 09 said:
Will Bowlen even remember who Mark Davis is?
Too soon?
But seriously, I think someone to LA is a lock because Goodell wants a franchise there, and the Raiders make as much sense as anyone, even more than the Jags. They wouldn't have to mess with the divisional alignments, they have a shitty current stadium, people in the past had ideas of places to build a new stadium in LA (I remember one of them being on the Dodger Stadium land). The NFL feels the need to have a team in that LA market and they will twist arms to get it.
This also sort of explains it, doesn't it? With massive non-stadium revenues (tax exempt?), NFL teams can move easily to smaller markets without seriously impacting bottom lines. Baseball teams need to be closer to both higher populations and established fanbases to guarantee gate receipts.jose melendez said:
If the Clippers are worth $2.1B and the Dodgers worth $2.3B what would an NFL team with a built in fan base be worth in LA? They don't have a local TV contract to sell like both the Dodgers and Clips, but I have to think Marc Davis' 47% and controlling interest is worth at least $1B in LA.
If the Clips are worth 2.1B and the Dodgers are worth 2.3B, an NFL team there would be worth 2B at the minimum.
Do you think the votes are that tight here?Gunfighter 09 said:
Who cares what SD thinks? This is not a DC/Maryland deal like the with the Orioles or a Giants/A's thing with Fremont, Ca. There were once multiple teams in LA, and there will be again sometime. Is there some sort of quorum against LA having a team?
SoxVindaloo said:
The Chargers started life as the Los Angeles Chargers back in the AFL (where Al Davis worked for Sid Gillman and with Chuck Noll...but I digress). So there's some old, old territorial right that may or may not apply.
Inglewood always up to no good: Rams owner Kroenke is planning to build a stadium near Hollywood Park.
This could be just a ploy to extort St. Louis out of more money in their ongoing negotiations, but the logic of moving back to LA is very strong and you certainty don't build a stadium in another city unless you plan to move there.
This could be just a ploy to extort St. Louis out of more money in their ongoing negotiations, but the logic of moving back to LA is very strong and you certainty don't build a stadium in another city unless you plan to move there.
The Raiders will know if Oakland can work or not by the beginning of March. I would not be surprised if the Raiders announce they are pitching in to the Rams project in Mid March.
Why are the Raiders or Chargers waiting on Oakland/San Diego? A huge market awaits them in which they already have a fan base. There are 3 teams with a historic connection to L.A., each of which are in a bad stadium/fan base situation. Why they haven't been jumping over each other to get into a big/rich market is beyond me. It seems like St. Louis has made the first move, and if I'm San Diego I'm getting in while the getting's good as the 2nd team: either re-claim the old L.A. Chargers name or become the So Cal Chargers and try to stake a claim to the San Diego/Orange County/L.A. markets. Despite the L.A. Rams having been in L.A. the longest, it seems to me San Diego is the most familiar given they're on on tv all the time here, etc. They'll have an advantage over the Rams and, while the Raiders have a fan base, it's also a bit tainted by association with criminality, etc., so I imagine the Chargers will transition well.
On the other hand, if the Raiders become the 2nd L.A. team the Chargers will be left with no alternatives. The flip is true for Oakland -- the 49ers are the SF/Silicon Valley team -- the East Bay just isn't nearly that rich....what are they waiting on? If St L and SD get the L.A. market, the choice between Oakland and San Antonio relegates them to permanent 2nd class status.
On the other hand, if the Raiders become the 2nd L.A. team the Chargers will be left with no alternatives. The flip is true for Oakland -- the 49ers are the SF/Silicon Valley team -- the East Bay just isn't nearly that rich....what are they waiting on? If St L and SD get the L.A. market, the choice between Oakland and San Antonio relegates them to permanent 2nd class status.
I would imagine only 1 of 2 of the Chargers and Raiders gets into LA. Doubt the NFL would want 2 LA teams in the AFC West, so I bet the Rams get one slot if indeed 2 teams go. Though with 2 games a year against each other, having the Chargers and Raiders both in LA may be fun.Tony C said:
I can see the Chargers as a natural fit to go back to LA, along with the Rams. There is certainly historical significance and, as you suggested, San Diego is close enough where the current fan base might not feel like it really is a move from the region (slightly similar to the proposed Patriots Hartford move, although the Chargers would also be moving from the 28th television market to the 2nd in LA). This move solves the Chargers stadium issues, and might actually bring back more historical fans in the LA area. I see the same with the Rams...I imagine that there are a good amount of historically "Rams fans" in the LA area, so having both teams back in LA seems less like a forced fit.Tony C said:
Oakland is currently in the #6 market, with St. Louis #21 and San Antonio #33. I know television markets isn't everything, but they've developed the core of their fan base along the California coast between Oakland and LA, so it just doesn't make a lot of sense to leave there unless they go to a city very hungry for a team. With San Antonio not exactly the biggest market, I'd assume that there are a lot of Cowboys or Texans fans there (anyone living out there might definitely know better). If Oakland can't get settled where they are, then looking a bit more inland into the Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto market (#20) may make more sense. Or even Portland (#23)...stay on the coast and be geographically rivaled with the Seahawks and 49ers.
And St. Louis just seems to be in a very awkward situation. On paper the market looks decent, yet they've recently either lost the Cardinals or on the verge of losing the Rams. Kansas City seems to do well with fan interest even when the team struggles. But then again, the baseball Cardinals do as well. I would be very hesitant to move a team there.
As for St. Louis and San Antonio, keep them open in case Jacksonville ultimately decides to move or expansion comes up again.
Grimace-HS said:
For Jacksonville, owner Shahid Khan has ties to St. Louis. You'd have to imagine if the Rams flee to LA, and St. Louis want to land a new team with a new stadium deal, Jax has to be at the top of the list.
Wouldn't the Jags be the most likely (still not sure HOW likely) to make a move to London? Next year will be their 3rd straight season playing there. Is it as simple as Kahn being an owner annually willing to move a home game there or is the NFL trying to build a fan base for one specific team?
It's also semi-notable that next season will be the first in which London hosts back-to-back games (weeks 7 & 8). I heard someone on the radio a few months back say that this is one of the last steps to test the market's viability. How does the staium hold up to 2 straight games, etc.
It's also semi-notable that next season will be the first in which London hosts back-to-back games (weeks 7 & 8). I heard someone on the radio a few months back say that this is one of the last steps to test the market's viability. How does the staium hold up to 2 straight games, etc.
Grimace-HS said:
That interesting...you mean the Bay Area as a whole is the #6 market? Or the Oakland/East Bay part of it is? Part of the assumption informing my argument is that the 49ers are the #1 team in that market and also the #1 team in its richest parts -- i..e, SF and the Silicon Valley, with the Raiders sort of a ne'er do well lesser cousin. But that is an assumption and you're right that it's a big market as well as a rich market, so can definitely agree that St. L and San Diego make the most sense in terms of moving to L.A..
You can't really do this in St. Louis (or London) for much of the yearMorning Woodhead said:
Raiders have decent demographics in CA, even competing with the 49ers and the Chargers. In New Mexico, he has poorer per capita income, smaller market, plus your team in the North, AZ to the west, and Cowboys to the east. SA is 400 miles from the NM border. And is Texans and Cowboys country. It would be a better move for the Titans to move there than the Raiders.j-man said:
As the article alludes to, the meeting was a bargaining chip to be used for stadium talks. Until there is something significantly more tangible, I don't buy Raiders ever leaving CA.
This is interesting....I hadn't known about the connection and it also sounds very familiar to the James Orthwein / Stan Kroenke connection before Kraft bought the team. It is funny how teams in flux always seem to have a St. Louis connection.Morning Woodhead said:
[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Yes, the Nielson rankings seem to group San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose together as one market. I can also see your thinking in that the overall region is likely more dominated by the 49ers, partly due to their more consistent success, but I'd also guess that the previous move to LA and constant flirting with other cities wears thin.[/SIZE]Tony C said:
[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]I will try and put the link in for that ranking....it definitely was educational...I had no idea that New Orleans was actually only #51.[/SIZE]
http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_2014-2015_DMA_Ranks.pdf
Grimace-HS said:
New Orleans used to be in the high 30s/low 40s but Katrina decimated the population and it fell considerably.
Those TV DMA rankings are exactly what the NFL looks at for territories, blackouts, etc, so people should pay close attention to them.
And that's why Jacksonville moving is unavoidable. The NFL gambled that North Florida was going to take off like a rocket but it's just never happened the way they envisioned. It's a tiny market that cares much more about college football. The Jags will be somewhere else someday, it makes zero sense to have a team there.
The thing that is being left out of this conversation is the fact that the Raiders are by far the most popular team in Southern California.
That map illustrates pretty well the point I would have made to j-man. I lived in New Mexico for four years - I went to college there - and that state is through and through Cowboys country. Maybe some swaths of the northern portions of the state are Broncos country - as the map seems to indicate - and western portions might have some pockets of Cardinals fans, but from Las Cruces to Albuquerque and all points in between is Cowboys.
I'm curious what those white spots represent in the second map. Do those represent "my favorite team is whatever team that's playing the Cowboys" douches? Yes, that's a thing.
I'm curious what those white spots represent in the second map. Do those represent "my favorite team is whatever team that's playing the Cowboys" douches? Yes, that's a thing.
Of course it is. Like my favorite team is the Red Sox and whatever team is playing the Yankees. What's so wrong with that?Bosoxen said:
Curt S Loew said:
Your favorite team is the Red Sox. You're entitled to root for any team that's playing against their rival. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I have absolutely no problem with that and even do it myself.
What I'm referring to is people with no rooting interest, whatsoever, yet spend their entire lives trolling Cowboys fans. These people don't root for the Eagles, for instance, and are therefore obligated to root for anyone playing the Cowboys. There are a lot of people who, when asked the question, "Who's your favorite team," would respond, "whatever team is playing the Cowboys." That's chicken shit and frankly extremely annoying. It's one thing to hate the Cowboys - to each his own - but it's quite another to build your entire sports existence around that fact.
Looking at the places on the map, I would guess there's no data or too little data to be worthwhile. Central Montana and western Nebraska are probably two of least populated places in the country.
Gunfighter 09 said:The thing that is being left out of this conversation is the fact that the Raiders are by far the most popular team in Southern California.
Super cool map, thanks. I don't think it's surprising that the Raiders are the most popular team in L.A. and its environs, they were here most recently -- anecdotally in bars for games they always have a big contingent (and, even more anecdotally, I've been on a Sunday morning L.A.-Oakland flight where my sole reaction was: how the fuck did these loonies in their Mad Max get-ups get through security -- very worrisome!). But I'd add two things:
1: their attendance was pretty poor when in L.A. even though they had some great teams (and won a Super Bowl). Were they not identified with criminality/gangs etc in a way that I don't doubt had a racist element? If that assumption is true, they'd have some work to do to overcome that.
2: what's most notable to me on that map is that it answers my question as to the Raiders popularity in Northern California. I thought it was pretty much 49ers country, and that confirms it -- I'm surprised it shows even the East Bay as predominantly 49er fans. Am guessing some of the same image problems that plagued the Raiders in L.A. are at work...maybe a combination of the Bad Boy image leading to some racist connections as well as, more basically, that the Raiders have been poorly/bizarrely managed.
Bosoxen said:
I doubt it, given that some of those white spots are in Texas, but I'm curious, too -- maybe it's just areas where it's close to 50/50? Could explain Texas, since maybe in some sparsely populated areas there might be as many Texan fans as Cowboy fans (odd that the Saints have one tiny dot in Texas, too -- Katrina refugees?). i always thought the "America's Team" thing was more marketing slogan than anything else, but the Cowboys do seem to have the widest spread of fans.
Tony C said:
I can't say what percentage of them are transplants due to Katrina, but there are TONS of Saints fans in DFW. I've worked with at least one at every place I've worked since that happened. It's not really surprising to me that they would be represented outside of the border with Louisiana.
As for the white spots being in Texas, you'd actually be surprised how many professed Cowboy haters live in Texas. The fact that there are spots within the Cowboys' primary sphere of influence where the Cowboys are not the main team comes as no surprise to me. As dynomite said, it's possible it's just due to lack of reporting.