Raiders officially off to Las Vegas

[britbear]

I get all of that. I didn't say all of the blame was on Oakland. But hosting an NFL franchise is a privilege. Why did Oakland take the Raiders back if they had no intention of improving the stadium, which had been the bone of contention that forced the Raiders to leave for LA?

As for the Spanos $650 million thing, that's not quite correct, because Spanos is getting to pay that over several years, not in one big chunk.

I just have to return to what was going on in the late 90s in Chicago and the inability of the Bears to get a deal done on a new stadium anywhere in Chicagoland or even Gary, Indiana. It looked like the Bears were headed west (even LA was cited I think), until the unlikely alien spaceship revamp of Soldier Field was put on the table.

[Boris13c]

I get all of that. I didn't say all of the blame was on Oakland. But hosting an NFL franchise is a privilege.

I wouldn't go that far ... but even if you consider it to be a privilege, it is foolish to throw public tax payer funds at the team when you need so many other things in your community ... and for teams to expect public funds for the majority of the cost is simply the teams being the assholes IMO

Why did Oakland take the Raiders back if they had no intention of improving the stadium, which had been the bone of contention that forced the Raiders to leave for LA?

depending on what articles you want to read and believe, negotiations for a new Raider home in Oakland have been off and on even while Al was still alive ... the sticking point was always the Raiders wanting more than what the city said they could afford and after the latest failed negotiations, city planners have accused Mark of bargaining in bad faith

[Atkins&Rebel]

It would be interesting to see what the economic effect a new stadium deal has...

Cities do benefit from new stadiums as they do bring in other venues like concerts. Everything from parking, to stadium vendors, to naming rights can all be direct revenue for the city and on top of that, they also double dip through taxes on all items sold at the stadium. So laying the total cost down as mortgaging the future of the city is a little less than accurate. If it really was that one sided, no city would have done a stadium deal ever.

I don't blame cities that do offer these deals as they do eventually make money back and also benefit from the jobs created and the trickle down economic boon that is created by hosting large events. Cities that don't are free to say no, but they do risk owners taking a better deal elsewhere.

[Boris13c]

Raiders still planning on Vegas move despite billionaire backing out

During a meeting of the Las Vegas Stadium Authority Board, Raiders president Marc Badain reassured everyone that the team still plans to move to Nevada despite the fact that billionaire Sheldon Adelson has backed out of the $1.9 billion stadium deal.

The billionaire casino mogul was expected to contribute as much as $650 million to the Vegas stadium project, with the rest of the funding scheduled to come from the Raiders and the NFL ($500 million), along with a tax increase on Vegas hotels ($750 million).

With Adelson out, the Raiders also lost the chance to finance the $650 million deal through Goldman Sachs, a company that has worked often with Adelson. Despite those losses, Badain said on Thursday that "financing will not be an issue."

"You'd be surprised how many people are interested in funding this project," Badain said, via the Las Vegas Sun.

Although Badain didn't specifically name any company that might jump on board, the Raiders president did say that "multiple financial institutions" have said they're interested in financing the remaining $650 million needed to start the project.

Badain doesn't view Adelson's exit from the project as an obstacle to getting a deal done.

"We're in an industry where we're used to plugging along, and we're used to having starts and stops," Badain said. "Mark Davis made a commitment to Gov. Sandoval, and we intend to see that through."

As CBS Sports NFL Insider Jason La Canfora reported Jan. 30, the Raiders' biggest problem with finding someone to finance the stadium is that Adelson has a lot of clout in Vegas and he's likely going to use that clout to hurt the Raiders since he feels like the team double-crossed him.

this could get interesting I guess ... a guy who was going to pony up $650 million leaving the project with bad feelings of being double crossed

looks like an NFL ready soap opera drama about to unfold

[UOK]

I don't see this falling apart. It's the NFL - they'll get that money to them someway or another and it'll work out. They'll make up the money shortages without issue because they'll get it back tenfold within a year.

[Passepartout]

Really think that Raiders need a change of pace. As on the other hand, need to get used to the Vegas Raiders or Las Vegas Raiders.

[Wounded Bear]

It would be interesting to see what the economic effect a new stadium deal has...

Cities do benefit from new stadiums as they do bring in other venues like concerts. Everything from parking, to stadium vendors, to naming rights can all be direct revenue for the city and on top of that, they also double dip through taxes on all items sold at the stadium. So laying the total cost down as mortgaging the future of the city is a little less than accurate. If it really was that one sided, no city would have done a stadium deal ever.

I don't blame cities that do offer these deals as they do eventually make money back and also benefit from the jobs created and the trickle down economic boon that is created by hosting large events. Cities that don't are free to say no, but they do risk owners taking a better deal elsewhere.

No this isn't true. Several studies have been done proving that the revenue produced by stadiums (and all collateral revenue produced by local businesses, merchandising the team products, tax revenue, etc.) does not offset the cost of a new stadium. So a sports team and sports stadium serve as merely an item of prestige for a city, but a liability when balancing the ledger.

Kind of obscene considering that the ownership of these teams could easily finance and build their own stadiums and still turn a profit.

[Boris13c]

It would be interesting to see what the economic effect a new stadium deal has...

Cities do benefit from new stadiums as they do bring in other venues like concerts. Everything from parking, to stadium vendors, to naming rights can all be direct revenue for the city and on top of that, they also double dip through taxes on all items sold at the stadium. So laying the total cost down as mortgaging the future of the city is a little less than accurate. If it really was that one sided, no city would have done a stadium deal ever.

I don't blame cities that do offer these deals as they do eventually make money back and also benefit from the jobs created and the trickle down economic boon that is created by hosting large events. Cities that don't are free to say no, but they do risk owners taking a better deal elsewhere.

No this isn't true. Several studies have been done proving that the revenue produced by stadiums (and all collateral revenue produced by local businesses, merchandising the team products, tax revenue, etc.) does not offset the cost of a new stadium. So a sports team and sports stadium serve as merely an item of prestige for a city, but a liability when balancing the ledger.

Kind of obscene considering that the ownership of these teams could easily finance and build their own stadiums and still turn a profit.

I'm with Wounded Bear on this .... the owners want stadiums gifted to them while sitting on their asses counting their $$$ ... and it is obscene greed at work at the expense of the very fans they claim to care so much about

[thunderspirit]

It would be interesting to see what the economic effect a new stadium deal has...

Cities do benefit from new stadiums as they do bring in other venues like concerts. Everything from parking, to stadium vendors, to naming rights can all be direct revenue for the city and on top of that, they also double dip through taxes on all items sold at the stadium. So laying the total cost down as mortgaging the future of the city is a little less than accurate. If it really was that one sided, no city would have done a stadium deal ever.

I don't blame cities that do offer these deals as they do eventually make money back and also benefit from the jobs created and the trickle down economic boon that is created by hosting large events. Cities that don't are free to say no, but they do risk owners taking a better deal elsewhere.

No this isn't true. Several studies have been done proving that the revenue produced by stadiums (and all collateral revenue produced by local businesses, merchandising the team products, tax revenue, etc.) does not offset the cost of a new stadium. So a sports team and sports stadium serve as merely an item of prestige for a city, but a liability when balancing the ledger.

Kind of obscene considering that the ownership of these teams could easily finance and build their own stadiums and still turn a profit.

I'm with Wounded Bear on this .... the owners want stadiums gifted to them while sitting on their asses counting their $$$ ... and it is obscene greed at work at the expense of the very fans they claim to care so much about

With very few exceptions, the only time a sports team owner actually cares about the fans (rather than giving lip service to them) is when tickets go on sale.

[Rusty Trombagent]

Yeah, it's a complete fantasy that like 650 million dollars in corporate welfare wouldnt be better spent literally anywhere. Schools laying off teachers, infrastructure literally crumbling beneath us, food insecurity rates laughably high for a 1st world country, but lets wait for the study to come out to see if the receipts for the bars and hotels around stadium village were higher than in previous years.

[Wounded Bear]

Yeah, it's a complete fantasy that like 650 million dollars in corporate welfare wouldnt be better spent literally anywhere. Schools laying off teachers, infrastructure literally crumbling beneath us, food insecurity rates laughably high for a 1st world country, but lets wait for the study to come out to see if the receipts for the bars and hotels around stadium village were higher than in previous years.

Totally agree. Very well said.

[Atkins&Rebel]

It would be interesting to see what the economic effect a new stadium deal has...

Cities do benefit from new stadiums as they do bring in other venues like concerts. Everything from parking, to stadium vendors, to naming rights can all be direct revenue for the city and on top of that, they also double dip through taxes on all items sold at the stadium. So laying the total cost down as mortgaging the future of the city is a little less than accurate. If it really was that one sided, no city would have done a stadium deal ever.

I don't blame cities that do offer these deals as they do eventually make money back and also benefit from the jobs created and the trickle down economic boon that is created by hosting large events. Cities that don't are free to say no, but they do risk owners taking a better deal elsewhere.

No this isn't true. Several studies have been done proving that the revenue produced by stadiums (and all collateral revenue produced by local businesses, merchandising the team products, tax revenue, etc.) does not offset the cost of a new stadium. So a sports team and sports stadium serve as merely an item of prestige for a city, but a liability when balancing the ledger.

Kind of obscene considering that the ownership of these teams could easily finance and build their own stadiums and still turn a profit.

wanna cite any of these studies? I've never read them, and I'd be interested to what degree the city promoted the use of the stadium...2-3 venues a week seems like it would bring in some serious coin.

Obviously the building would have to be a long term investment and not a quick money turnaround.

[RING4CHI]

Looks like it's officially official. Owners vote 31-1. Miami the only team to oppose for whatever reason.

[UOK]

Looks like it's officially official. Owners vote 31-1. Miami the only team to oppose for whatever reason.

Bears were another opposition vote, but they flipped.

In 2020 Raiders will be in Vegas. Will do year-to-year leases w/ Oakland until then.

[RING4CHI]

Will do year-to-year leases w/ Oakland until then.

"Hey, I'm leaving you, but I'm going to continue to crash at your place for the foreseeable future."

[Boris13c]

Will do year-to-year leases w/ Oakland until then.

"Hey, I'm leaving you, but I'm going to continue to crash at your place for the foreseeable future."

the perfect fan reaction would be to flip to the 49ers or Rams and have the Raiders playing in front of crowds in Oakland of less than 1,500 for every game for the next 2 years

doubt that will happen, but would be funny if it did

[bearsfaninaz]

Will do year-to-year leases w/ Oakland until then.

"Hey, I'm leaving you, but I'm going to continue to crash at your place for the foreseeable future."

the perfect fan reaction would be to flip to the 49ers or Rams and have the Raiders playing in front of crowds in Oakland of less than 1,500 for every game for the next 2 years

doubt that will happen, but would be funny if it did

That would be awesome. Hopefully Oakland jacks up the lease too, then they lose money. Just a stupid move imo.

[Boris13c]

Former Raiders coach John Madden no fan of Las Vegas move

Madden appeared on SiriusXM NFL Radio’s Hall of Fame show last night, and said losing the history of the team (history he in large part helped create) was difficult for him.

“With the [state of the] stadium now, when they move out, that’s going to be torn down, and it’s going to be a high rise or some doggone thing. There’ll be no more Oakland Raiders,” Madden said, via ESPN’s Paul Gutierrez. “There will be no more history of the Oakland Raiders, and that really bothers me.

The 81-year-old Madden said he was “shocked” by how quickly the deal came together, and expressed concerns about the stadium situation in Las Vegas.

“I’m not sure they have that whole deal together yet,” he said. “I’m not sure that they even know exactly what the stadium is, how many, where it’s going to be and all those things.

“For some reason, they jumped into that thing quickly.”

The reason was the $750 million in public money on the table, which was enough to make owners go leave Oakland despite the lack of a lease, design plans for the stadium or FAA approval.

Madden said this move feels different than the 1982 trip to Los Angeles “because of the finality of it,” since there’s no way anything’s going back to Oakland in that stadium. And that left Madden feeling sentimental.

“Maybe this is just me being oversensitive, but doggone it, if you’re going to go, that’s really tough, but leave us something,” Madden said. “Leave us something here in Oakland. Please. . . .

[Boris13c]

Oilers tried lame-duck approach Raiders are attempting

ALAMEDA, Calif. (AP) Soon after the NFL approved the Raiders’ move to Las Vegas, coach Jack Del Rio wondered if anyone had a handbook on how to handle being a lame duck in Oakland.

While there might not be a book about how to handle playing in a city a team plans to abandon for richer pastures, there is a franchise that tried a similar path before deciding life as a lame duck proved to be untenable.

Just weeks before the start of the 1995 season, Houston Oilers owner Bud Adams announced he had an exclusive negotiating deal to move the team to Nashville, Tennessee. A ballot measure was approved the next spring in Nashville to fund a stadium that wouldn’t be ready until 1999 so the Oilers decided to spend three seasons as a lame duck in Houston.

But with dwindling crowds at the Astrodome and increasing animosity from a fan base about to be deserted, the Oilers changed plans and played the 1997 season in Memphis and the `98 season on Vanderbilt’s campus in Nashville before finally moving into the new stadium in 1999.

”We started off planning to stay in Houston the whole time like they’re talking about in Oakland,” said former Oilers general manager Floyd Reese. ”After the first year, we said this is just not going to work. That’s how we ended up in Memphis for a year and Vanderbilt after that. That certainly wasn’t great, and the truth is I’m not sure it was better than just staying in Houston. But you knew that staying in Houston was going to be so distasteful and be really hard to listen to the negativity every day. We couldn’t do anything right. We said anything is better than this and you make the move and you find out it was better in some areas and not as good in others.”

The Raiders now will see how it works for them in Oakland after the NFL approved their move last month to Las Vegas for the 2020 season. The Raiders are staying in Oakland in 2017 and have an option to play at the Coliseum in 2018 that they plan to exercise. They have no lease for 2019, leading to uncertainty about where they will play that year.

would be awesome if the Rai-duhs get zero season ticket renewals and small crowds showing up only to root for the opposing teams