OT Raiders

Elefantino · #1 03-27-2017, 09:48 PM

I'll preface this by saying that my parents were Raiders season ticket holders since the inaugural season in 1960, at (yes) Candlestick Park. As an 8-year-old, I had my own season ticket starting in 1966 (in a different section from my folks!), when the Coliseum opened. I played for the Oakland Junior Raiders Pop Warner team. I was in the Raider Nation before there was such a thing as Raider Nation.

And I'm glad they're leaving.

At some point there had to be a reckoning between municipal governments and the NFL. And, thankfully, the municipal government in Oakland didn't blink. So the Raiders, who are owned by a 60-year-old punk, Mark Davis, are leaving. Fine. The city can now work with the A's to find the land for a privately-funded baseball stadium, preferably one along the waterfront. Eight games at 60,000 fans per loses out to 81 games at 20,000-30,000 per.

What's sad is that, at least for next season, there will be a lot of that "Raider Nation" that will pay good money to Davis and his team. Oh well. PT Barnum lives.

FlashUNC · #2 03-27-2017, 09:58 PM

And at least in the interim till an A's stadium deal is sorted out, they can focus on making the Mausoleum as baseball-centric as possible.

Cheaper beer next year at least for the A's.

Hindmost · #3 03-27-2017, 10:31 PM

Fred, Kenny, Clif... don't get me started. O, Tuz...

ahumblecycler · #4 03-28-2017, 04:07 AM

I applaud Oakland's government for doing the right thing! I wish other cities would take notice and emulate. I am sick and tired of sports teams receiving special treatment while owners are millionaires (or billionaire in the case of Jerry Jones) with players making unreasonably large salaries - I'm sorry (not really) but you are for entertainment and add incremental value to our society.

Perhaps if we treated biomedical advancements in a similar fashion, cancer, alzheimer's, and other health issues would be "cured" (but then again that is bad for business - sorry a different rant).

Big Dan · #5 03-28-2017, 09:33 AM

NFL playing musical chairs.
I guess the next move is back to SD, OAK or STL.
They will find another victim.

MattTuck · #6 03-28-2017, 12:03 PM

Glad to hear this news. Proud of the elected officials in Oakland that did not cave.

Of course, Oakland has some municipal financial issues that might have made it impossible, even if they had wanted to do something.

notsew · #7 03-28-2017, 12:56 PM

There is no doubt that the people of Clark County are going to regret this deal. All that revenue tied up for so long for a dubious return. The county is financing this in a spectacularly foolish fashion, one which is basically predicated on the facility not meeting its targets.

I applaud Oakland as well, but the sad fact is that them standing up to the NFL didn't send any message other than highlighting the fact that cities have to pony up cash to keep their teams. The business model is outrageous, but sound.

I was reading some comments on reddit or somewhere and found it fascinating that there seems to be a big part of the fan base that has bought into the narrative that Davis had to move the team, because although he is rich, he isn't rich rich and couldn't finance a stadium on his own. I have trouble swallowing the concept that something as profitable as an NFL team couldn't be leveraged to build a new stadium. Maybe all those payments would make it too difficult for Davis to become rich rich.

MattTuck · #8 03-28-2017, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notsew

a big part of the fan base that has bought into the narrative that Davis had to move the team, because although he is rich, he isn't rich rich and couldn't finance a stadium on his own. I have trouble swallowing the concept that something as profitable as an NFL team couldn't be leveraged to build a new stadium. Maybe all those payments would make it too difficult for Davis to become rich rich.

This is what I imagine happens at the NFL owners' meeting.

"And Roger, that's when we told them, we weren't rich enough! And they believed us!"

FlashUNC · #9 03-28-2017, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notsew

There is no doubt that the people of Clark County are going to regret this deal. All that revenue tied up for so long for a dubious return. The county is financing this in a spectacularly foolish fashion, one which is basically predicated on the facility not meeting its targets.

I applaud Oakland as well, but the sad fact is that them standing up to the NFL didn't send any message other than highlighting the fact that cities have to pony up cash to keep their teams. The business model is outrageous, but sound.

I was reading some comments on reddit or somewhere and found it fascinating that there seems to be a big part of the fan base that has bought into the narrative that Davis had to move the team, because although he is rich, he isn't rich rich and couldn't finance a stadium on his own. I have trouble swallowing the concept that something as profitable as an NFL team couldn't be leveraged to build a new stadium. Maybe all those payments would make it too difficult for Davis to become rich rich.

Why spend your own money when you find a sucker desperate enough to spend their own on your behalf?

The reason you're seeing so many public stadium deals get locked in now and the NFL finally cashing in the LA location chip is that we're at the high water mark in terms of league revenues. The next TV deal -- not just for the league, but all pro sports -- will be far, far less than what was negotiated the last time around thanks to cratering cable subscriptions and viewership.

MattTuck · #10 03-28-2017, 01:36 PM

^^^ and many municipalities are not in good financial shape. In 5 years, it may be impossible for many cities to justify such a thing to credit rating agencies.

Ken Robb · #11 03-28-2017, 01:49 PM

We just went through the same thing in San Diego. I was amused by all the letters to the editor and other comments that were in favor of giving the Chargers everything they wanted no matter the cost to The City of San Diego that came from residents of surrounding communities who would have had no responsibility for the cost.

rounder · #12 03-28-2017, 08:52 PM

I think the people of San Diego showed common sense.

Here in the Baltimore area, I loved the old Colts, even after they moved to Indianapolis. The Governor was at the 11th hour to come up with a deal when they snatched the Browns (now Ravens) from Cleveland, including a stadium deal.

The teams these days have billion dollar owners. Why should the public have to pay for their stadiums, not to mention expensive tickets and parking. I like sports and watch the games on tv, but there is no way that I would actually pay the price to go to a major league game these days.

That said, my wife and I have a block of tickets to go to A level Ironbirds baseball games at $6 per game with free parking. End of rant.

Elefantino · #13 03-28-2017, 09:48 PM

NFL viewership tanked this year. Toradol use is rampant. Domestic violence gets lip service. A reckoning is coming.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bikinchris · #14 03-28-2017, 09:53 PM

If you look into the actual numbers, the Vegas area is in for trouble. The amount (share) each person will foot for the new stadium is obscene. In a city that is already saying no to more police and road repairs claiming poverty.

The Raiders had a hard time filling their old stadium with a much larger city, now the ticket prices will be much higher. Teams are having a hard time getting 10% of out of town ticket sales. The Raiders are expecting 33% of ticket sales to out of town guests.

Good luck with all that.

BobC · #15 03-29-2017, 07:14 PM

Seriously who watches pro football anymore?

Pens - Hawks are on right now on NBCSN -- far more exciting game than anything the NFL can offer.