Why did Oakland lose all of its sports teams? (Jackson: live, stadium)

[MKTwet]

Originally Posted by blameyourself

But the New York Giants have had attendance numbers near 80k per game since 2008.

Because NY is a major market. There are 20 million people between NY, NJ, CT. They can easily find enough suckers to watch a bad team. Same with Knicks or Mets, they can continue to suck and keep getting attendance.

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by MKTwet

Because NY is a major market. There are 20 million people between NY, NJ, CT. They can easily find enough suckers to watch a bad team. Same with Knicks or Mets, they can continue to suck and keep getting attendance.

I was answering post #19 which stated "north of the 580 is decent to down right posh" as though that's what it would take to have good attendance figures.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by sav858

That's really not a big part of their reach and is primarily tied to winning championships recently.

I find it odd you’re arguing market reach and revenue when the Raiders are gone (and the As soon will be). Relative to valuation, the Giants are 5th and the As are consistently dead-last or close to it (and that’s factoring in revenue sharing, to the benefit of the As).

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by UrbanQuest

Haha.

In reality, much of Oakland north of the 580 is decent to down right posh.

Even south of the 580 has some decent areas.

It’s way better than Newark, NJ, for example.

That should become the Oakland City motto: "Oakland: We're Way Better Than Newark."

An enterprising entrepreneur should print up T-Shirts & baseball caps emblazoned with that fine aspirational statement and sell them on street corners. He could make a killing (pun intended).

[sav858]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

I find it odd you’re arguing market reach and revenue when the Raiders are gone (and the As soon will be). Relative to valuation, the Giants are 5th and the As are consistently dead-last or close to it (and that’s factoring in revenue sharing, to the benefit of the As).

What is odd exactly? Just pointing out nationally that's not a big part of their reach like it is say for the Yankees or Dodgers. Regionally they dominate obviously, which again extends well beyond city limits which was an odd thing to even mention. And again this largely has to do with ownership and how they have been managed the last two decades.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by sav858

Regionally they dominate obviously, which again extends well beyond city limits which was an odd thing to even mention. And again this largely has to do with ownership and how they have been managed the last two decades.

I stated SF has always dominated locally and nationally; it’s just an aside SF is twice the size and has half the poverty rate as Oakland i.e. it is logical they would have greater reach considering the smaller two-team market, as a whole. Also, how they’re managed ultimately comes down to money/valuation as well.

[jmgg]

Originally Posted by moguldreamer

That should become the Oakland City motto: "Oakland: We're Way Better Than Newark."

An enterprising entrepreneur should print up T-Shirts & baseball caps emblazoned with that fine aspirational statement and sell them on street corners. He could make a killing (pun intended).

Too funny. Amazing the stretch people will go to in comparing what they have or where they're from as "not that bad".

[sav858]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

I stated SF has always dominated locally and nationally; it’s just an aside SF is twice the size and has half the poverty rate as Oakland i.e. it is logical they would have greater reach considering the smaller two-team market, as a whole. Also, how they’re managed ultimately comes down to money/valuation as well.

They haven't though, the A’s and Giants were pretty even in the 80’s/90’s. It’s more the other way around; how they’re managed affects money/valuation. Obviously teams where owners that don’t invest in their team won’t be worth as much.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by sav858

It’s more the other way around; how they’re managed affects money/valuation. Obviously teams where owners that don’t invest in their team won’t be worth as much.

If they consider it a poor investment (or can’t attract the best talent) relative to reach/popularity, particularly as part of a small, two-team market - it’s a moot point. The A’s are leaving, not the Giants.

[aslowdodge]

I remember growing up in the bay and the raiders had an incredible following and loyalty. It’s like football fans here in the south. That said Oakland always had the blue collar and criminal element. If you go to the coliseum it was like an island. No where to make a day or evening of it with food and bars.
I remember going to warrior games and getting in then out. Never stayed in Oakland . Always went elsewhere afterwards.