jokeboy86 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:SNPA wrote:Disagree. The A’s would do great in Sac. Put a park on the west side of the river and East Bay fans can get in and out easily and it’s walkable to G1C/DoCo. Having the Easy Bay and the valley and mountains from Fresno to the Oregon border is a great recipe IMO. Sac fans are passionate.
Sounds like you're saying Sacramento would make sense because it would allow Oakland fans to keep coming to games. I get that argument certainly, and could specifically see an Oakland team making a move to Sacramento with this in mind if the city of Sacramento offered a much sweeter deal than the city of Oakland did.
Were I scouting a new location for a team in general though, both Sacramento & Oakland are cities that were more relevant (relative to other California cities) in the 19th century than they are now. Were I to put 5 California teams in a new league, it would probably be (in alphabetic order):
Anaheim
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
It's still kind of baffling that San Diego now has only one team right but that also goes to my earlier point that nowadays in CA if you want a new stadium, private funding has to be really significant or the cities themselves are going to have to come up with a lot more because it looks like state government(and sometimes county govts) have said enough. And as we're seeing with SD and now Oakland not many cities can afford that right now. I have a feeling that nowadays in general only the biggest metros in the country are going to be able to afford 3 or more public funded arenas going forward and it looks like it's even harder to get just two now.
Also I get Vegas is booming but I still don't think there's enough revenue for all 4 major pro sports which is what they're aiming for especially when the sports leagues will be competing with everything else that's in Vegas. One of those leagues is going to struggle.
Yup, the funding is key, and that funding makes way more sense for baseball than anything else because there are 81 home games per year that drive all sorts of local revenue. The San Diego Chargers were my team more than any other and the fans of San Diego did nothing to warrant losing that team, but the owner wanted the city to build him something like what the Padres have, and that just doesn't make sense.
ftr, I don't think the Chargers moving to LA was a wise move for them. While I'll point out to people that the Chargers were originally an LA team, the reality is that the Angelenos really wanted the Rams & Raiders back, and haven't really embraced the Chargers. For the NFL itself losing San Diego and gaining Vegas isn't necessarily a net loss, but for the Chargers themselves, now they feel like the Clippers of football - which is NOT what you want.
Re: nowadays only the biggest metros are going to be able to afford 3 or more arenas. Yup, and in general I don't think this is any reason to shed tears. I'm bummed for the people of Oakland losing the A's and Warriors, but these are not franchises that originated there, so they're just experiencing what other cities already did. I feel worse for them pertaining to the Raiders, and have always considered the ownership of the Raiders to be city parasites, and I think Oakland knew that when they got the Raiders to move back there in the first pace.
Re: not enough revenue for all major pro sports teams in Vegas. In the case of all of these teams except the Raiders, I'd expect that the hope is all about the travel of opposing fans who will then spend a lot of other money in the tourist city. I do think there's an open question as to how well this will work, but I don't think just looking at the population of Vegas tells us what to expect.
With the Raiders of course this is effectively moving back to the next best thing to LA, and so the question is primarily about how well Raider Nation will travel to Vegas.
