RealGM

Cactus Jack wrote:

FNQ wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:I know. Seattle politicians are just as lame here. They keep delaying a new arena.

Thing is, I understand why. Most sports teams are a drain on the local economy. And Oakland is becoming a hipster haven.

But just friggin say it. Say you dont want the team. But this horrid mayor, Libby Schaff, keeps pandering to Raider fans like shes trying.. and a lot of Raider fans believe her, which is infuriating

The same guy who tried to move the Kings, has offered to privately finance a new arena all by himself & yet the city of Seattle is still trying to duck out. The city has been dragging their feet for 5 plus years on this thing. It's been beyond frustrating for basketball/hockey fans. Seattle missed out on NHL expansion because of it. Maddening.

Yea I dont understrand why they would be so against it. It seems like great way to make some income. You all those restaurants , tourism around the stadium. Why wouldn't you want to add to it? You don't even have to pay for it. You could put 3 Starbucks in there for goodness sake.

Ballerhogger wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:

FNQ wrote:
Thing is, I understand why. Most sports teams are a drain on the local economy. And Oakland is becoming a hipster haven.

But just friggin say it. Say you dont want the team. But this horrid mayor, Libby Schaff, keeps pandering to Raider fans like shes trying.. and a lot of Raider fans believe her, which is infuriating

The same guy who tried to move the Kings, has offered to privately finance a new arena all by himself & yet the city of Seattle is still trying to duck out. The city has been dragging their feet for 5 plus years on this thing. It's been beyond frustrating for basketball/hockey fans. Seattle missed out on NHL expansion because of it. Maddening.

Yea I understand why they would be so against it. It seems like great way to make some income. You all those restaurants , tourism around the stadium. Why wouldn't you want to add to it? You don't even have to pay for it. You could put 3 Starbucks in there for goodness sake.

**** Starbucks. No way that would go over well when Mr. Starbucks himself handed OKC the franchise. Not a very popular guy. Scumbag.

**** billionaires that don't want to pay for their own stadiums and use taxpayer money instead...and then the city looks like the bad guy when they don't want to fund it anymore, even though these billionaires can easily afford it.

Ballerhogger wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:

FNQ wrote:
Thing is, I understand why. Most sports teams are a drain on the local economy. And Oakland is becoming a hipster haven.

But just friggin say it. Say you dont want the team. But this horrid mayor, Libby Schaff, keeps pandering to Raider fans like shes trying.. and a lot of Raider fans believe her, which is infuriating

The same guy who tried to move the Kings, has offered to privately finance a new arena all by himself & yet the city of Seattle is still trying to duck out. The city has been dragging their feet for 5 plus years on this thing. It's been beyond frustrating for basketball/hockey fans. Seattle missed out on NHL expansion because of it. Maddening.

Yea I understand why they would be so against it. It seems like great way to make some income. You all those restaurants , tourism around the stadium. Why wouldn't you want to add to it? You don't even have to pay for it. You could put 3 Starbucks in there for goodness sake.

The studies show that new stadiums paid for with taxpayer money is worse for the city's economy.

therealbig3 wrote:

Ballerhogger wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:The same guy who tried to move the Kings, has offered to privately finance a new arena all by himself & yet the city of Seattle is still trying to duck out. The city has been dragging their feet for 5 plus years on this thing. It's been beyond frustrating for basketball/hockey fans. Seattle missed out on NHL expansion because of it. Maddening.

Yea I understand why they would be so against it. It seems like great way to make some income. You all those restaurants , tourism around the stadium. Why wouldn't you want to add to it? You don't even have to pay for it. You could put 3 Starbucks in there for goodness sake.

The studies show that new stadiums paid for with taxpayer money is worse for the city's economy.

Oh I agree *don't understand why the city would be against for stadium to be privately owned/payed for.

Why Las Vegas, why not consider Portland, San Antonio, or replace the Rams in St. Louis. Now that the Chargers are on their way to LA, San Diego is an option. Also, why not consider San Jose; who is considering building a baseball park for the A's. With San Jose, you keep the Raiders in the Bay area.

BullseyeBond wrote:Why Las Vegas, why not consider Portland, San Antonio, or replace the Rams in St. Louis. Now that the Chargers are on their way to LA, San Diego is an option. Also, why not consider San Jose; who is considering building a baseball park for the A's. With San Jose, you keep the Raiders in the Bay area.

$$$$$$$$$$$ only reason really when we get down to it

BullseyeBond wrote:Why Las Vegas, why not consider Portland, San Antonio, or replace the Rams in St. Louis. Now that the Chargers are on their way to LA, San Diego is an option. Also, why not consider San Jose; who is considering building a baseball park for the A's. With San Jose, you keep the Raiders in the Bay area.

I don't think any of those are necessarily bad options (except for maybe St. Louis), but neither is Las Vegas. I feel Portland, San Antonio, San Diego, or San Jose could probably support the team, but Vegas will as well and seems like a natural fit for the NFL's bad boys. For a league like the NFL there will never be a shortage of potential suitors for teams.

Even though I've never been one myself, I'm going to assume that I know what billionaires are thinking.

Ballerhogger wrote:

BullseyeBond wrote:Why Las Vegas, why not consider Portland, San Antonio, or replace the Rams in St. Louis. Now that the Chargers are on their way to LA, San Diego is an option. Also, why not consider San Jose; who is considering building a baseball park for the A's. With San Jose, you keep the Raiders in the Bay area.

$$$$$$$$$$$ only reason really when we get down to it

THIS!!!

Hold the phone! http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18594904/oakland-raiders-las-vegas-stadium-deal-loses-backing-goldman-sachs

On the heels of this: http://www.espn.com/blog/oakland-raiders/post/_/id/17594/what-does-sheldon-adelson-pulling-out-of-las-vegas-stadium-for-raiders-mean

ok why did they go for the chargers in L.A over the Raiders when the Raiders market in L.A is a lot bigger than the Chargers are in L.A?

Just a bit confusing or is it more that the NFL is taking a 'if we put them here they will come' approach?

Otis Driftwood wrote:

Ballerhogger wrote:

BullseyeBond wrote:Why Las Vegas, why not consider Portland, San Antonio, or replace the Rams in St. Louis. Now that the Chargers are on their way to LA, San Diego is an option. Also, why not consider San Jose; who is considering building a baseball park for the A's. With San Jose, you keep the Raiders in the Bay area.

$$$$$$$$$$$ only reason really when we get down to it

THIS!!!

Plus there is no way Jerry will let anyone infringe on his market. And I'm quite sure Houston doesn't want anyone cutting into their fan base. No way San Antonio will get a team.

Spens1 wrote:ok why did they go for the chargers in L.A over the Raiders when the Raiders market in L.A is a lot bigger than the Chargers are in L.A?

Just a bit confusing or is it more that the NFL is taking a 'if we put them here they will come' approach?

The Owner Spanos is leach. He couldn't be fair to SD area and paid one for himself. He moved into LA where the Owner who built the stadium with his own money. All owners should pay for thier stadiums. The city shouldn't have to pay more than they already do for tickets alone. The Rams season holder ticket list was full in with in few hours. .

The las Vegas trip is on hold, the backers backed out of the deal. Previously it reported to be a done deal. I guess not.

Ballerhogger wrote:

Spens1 wrote:ok why did they go for the chargers in L.A over the Raiders when the Raiders market in L.A is a lot bigger than the Chargers are in L.A?

Just a bit confusing or is it more that the NFL is taking a 'if we put them here they will come' approach?

The Owner Spanos is leach. He couldn't be fair to SD area and paid one for himself. He moved into LA where the Owner who built the stadium with his own money. All owners should pay for thier stadiums. The city shouldn't have to pay more than they already do for tickets alone. The Rams season holder ticket list was full in with in few hours. .

Yeah i know about Spanos being a terrible owner but its more or less Spanos getting in first over the Raiders ownership being the reason why the Raiders aren't going to L.A? Because if i was the Raiders i would have looked at L.A first since they seem to have a loyal fanbase there already as well as history in the city.

Spens1 wrote:

Ballerhogger wrote:

Spens1 wrote:ok why did they go for the chargers in L.A over the Raiders when the Raiders market in L.A is a lot bigger than the Chargers are in L.A?

Just a bit confusing or is it more that the NFL is taking a 'if we put them here they will come' approach?

The Owner Spanos is leach. He couldn't be fair to SD area and paid one for himself. He moved into LA where the Owner who built the stadium with his own money. All owners should pay for thier stadiums. The city shouldn't have to pay more than they already do for tickets alone. The Rams season holder ticket list was full in with in few hours. .

Yeah i know about Spanos being a terrible owner but its more or less Spanos getting in first over the Raiders ownership being the reason why the Raiders aren't going to L.A? Because if i was the Raiders i would have looked at L.A first since they seem to have a loyal fanbase there already as well as history in the city.

I'm sure they looked into but the Las Vegas deal looked more enticing to them . A football team in Las Vegas is win for the casinos and everyone involved with the deal.

Ballerhogger wrote:

Spens1 wrote:

Ballerhogger wrote:The Owner Spanos is leach. He couldn't be fair to SD area and paid one for himself. He moved into LA where the Owner who built the stadium with his own money. All owners should pay for thier stadiums. The city shouldn't have to pay more than they already do for tickets alone. The Rams season holder ticket list was full in with in few hours. .

Yeah i know about Spanos being a terrible owner but its more or less Spanos getting in first over the Raiders ownership being the reason why the Raiders aren't going to L.A? Because if i was the Raiders i would have looked at L.A first since they seem to have a loyal fanbase there already as well as history in the city.

I'm sure they looked into but the Las Vegas deal looked more enticing to them . A football team in Las Vegas is win for the casinos and everyone involved with the deal.

I can understand that i guess from an ownership perspective. surprised Spanos didn't consider that though since the team doesn't exactly have deep roots in L.A either.

idk i would have thought

L.A: Raiders, Rams
then having the Las Vegas Chargers somehow makes more sense for all parties (especially given Spanos somehow convinced the NFL that playing out of the Galaxy's stadium was a good idea).

Hopefully the citizens and state population don't have to pay for the Las Vegas Stadium.

Ballerhogger wrote:Hopefully the citizens and state population don't have to pay for the Las Vegas Stadium.

I don't see that happening. I can't imagine the Nevada residents being willing to pony up that kind of cash. If they can't raise the money within Vegas, I'd bet the Raiders stay in Oakland. With a new stadium.