Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That doesn't make it seem like a 26-acre site of this shape would work. If that Trop site is dead, it sure seems like the whole idea is unless they want to build it far away from the Strip, which sounds like it would defeat the purpose.
This is where I am at. Could see this fizzling out by the end of the year, right around when NFL season starts.
Enough with the generalization of fans. All fans arent "ghetto". BTW SF is the same fanbase just across the bridge. So Im guessing you would say the same for them? All NFL teams have fans that arent a great representation. Oakland has fans from all over.
Hey I think they are ghetto and you don't think so, fine with me. Now goodluck with them coming to Vegas and from what I've read online, the players don't even want to move to Vegas. Fine with me also, good riddance!
This is my position as well. I don't think the stadium will create too many permanent jobs and nowhere near what the convention center as LVCC would be utilized 20x more days per year.
As for the $1.09 per night, I'd want to see where that money goes. The first proposal was that the private backers would get their initial investment out of this first while at the same time getting 100% of the revenue of the stadium. That was widely laughed at. I'd want to see how those funds break down now on the new proposal. I'm inclined to say the Raiders and Sands should not get any taxes and only a share of the stadium revenue.
I'm not completely opposed to public funds. UNLV bought that land to build a stadium. If that money ($300m I believe) goes into the pool and UNLV can play in it for free and get the concessions for their games, let the Raiders and Sands put up $1 billion to improve it to their liking and have the rest of the events pay for their ROI. If they are conceding the stadium is a money loser to begin with, it shouldn't be built.
Public funds private profit, that is if it even makes money. Anyway if these head honchos want a stadium let them build it out of their own money.
Hey I think they are ghetto and you don't think so, fine with me. Now goodluck with them coming to Vegas and from what I've read online, the players don't even want to move to Vegas. Fine with me also, good riddance!
Contradictory to your opinion that all raider fans are ghetto. Carry on.
Below is an excerpt from this mornings Monday Morning Quarterback (MMQB). Four owners gave their opinions on the possible move of the Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas.
Commissioner Roger Goodell called the Raiders-to-Vegas talk “very premature” at the NFL’s quarterly league meeting last week in Charlotte, and that’s true. The potential move wasn’t an official agenda item at the meeting, because much is still TBD. The Nevada state legislature would need to approve any amount of public financing for a new stadium ($750 million has been proposed), and team owner Mark Davis said the Raiders are just beginning market research to see if the city of about 600,000 can support a local fan base. That research usually takes a couple months to complete. But there was plenty of chatter on the matter in Charlotte. Davis billed Las Vegas as a venue that could unite the Raiders’ Northern and Southern California fan bases, and Cowboys owner Jerry Jones continued stumping for the entertainment appeal of the city over the league’s traditional aversion to having any ties to gambling. Since NFL bylaws require 24 of 32 owners to vote “yes” to approve any relocation bid, I polled a handful of owners, asking each the question: If everything lines up, would you vote to put a team in Vegas?
John Mara, Giants: “I’m open-minded. I would want to hear a presentation about it and the pros and cons, and obviously there are some concerns, but I am not going to rule it out. The gambling, is the market deep enough to support an NFL team, what kind of stadium would be there, what kind of support are they going to get from the community? Those would be the concerns.”
Do you think attitudes have changed within the league re:gambling?
“You might be right. But until there is actually a presentation with all the pros and cons, I wouldn’t bet one way or the other at this point.”
Bob McNair, Texans: “I would look favorably at it. I would like to hear all the arguments, make sure we are not overlooking something. But you have gambling all around you now, lotteries on every street corner. I don’t think it is the issue we viewed it to be 20 years ago. We want Oakland to get a good facility, and have stability with their franchise, and if this is an opportunity to do that, then I think it is something we need to seriously consider.”
• WILL VEGAS WANT THE NFL? As Raiders owner Mark Davis flirts with Sin City, the question has been whether the NFL would ever allow such a move. But evidence suggests Vegas’ largest moneymaker—casinos—may be the real hurdle
Jeffrey Lurie, Eagles: “I’d be open to it. My only question is, is it a really good NFL market? I’m not totally worried about a lot of other things. I am more worried, is it a great market for the NFL? I don’t know enough about that. I never thought about it much before. It has to support 70,000 every weekend. It is not an NBA team, like say the Thunder, which does an incredible job of supporting their smaller market. We have got to make sure it really will support a team if a team goes there, but I am open to it.”
Jed York, 49ers: “I will wait to see, but if there is something that provides all the resources necessary, they go through all the steps and it is a project that works, I’d be supportive of the Raiders getting a new stadium anywhere. I know the Raiders have worked tirelessly to try to get a stadium done. It’s been difficult trying to move and have much progress in Oakland. They have been very upfront that they would like to stay, and if not, they need to make sure that they find a long-term home and long-term solution. … I think the stigma about Las Vegas is much different today than where it was in the past.”
Woody Johnson, Jets: “Las Vegas is a very exciting market. Nevada is a very good place from a tax standpoint, very low taxes and no income tax. It depends what the deal is with the stadium, and with operating it, and what the league and Mark [Davis] feel are the opportunities there—if he feels he can fill up the stadium and get enough economic traction there with sponsors and all that. … I don’t know if [gambling] is as dominant an issue now as it was 10 years ago.”
Below is an excerpt from this mornings Monday Morning Quarterback (MMQB). Four owners gave their opinions on the possible move of the Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas.
Commissioner Roger Goodell called the Raiders-to-Vegas talk “very premature” at the NFL’s quarterly league meeting last week in Charlotte, and that’s true. The potential move wasn’t an official agenda item at the meeting, because much is still TBD. The Nevada state legislature would need to approve any amount of public financing for a new stadium ($750 million has been proposed), and team owner Mark Davis said the Raiders are just beginning market research to see if the city of about 600,000 can support a local fan base. That research usually takes a couple months to complete. But there was plenty of chatter on the matter in Charlotte. Davis billed Las Vegas as a venue that could unite the Raiders’ Northern and Southern California fan bases, and Cowboys owner Jerry Jones continued stumping for the entertainment appeal of the city over the league’s traditional aversion to having any ties to gambling. Since NFL bylaws require 24 of 32 owners to vote “yes” to approve any relocation bid, I polled a handful of owners, asking each the question: If everything lines up, would you vote to put a team in Vegas?
John Mara, Giants: “I’m open-minded. I would want to hear a presentation about it and the pros and cons, and obviously there are some concerns, but I am not going to rule it out. The gambling, is the market deep enough to support an NFL team, what kind of stadium would be there, what kind of support are they going to get from the community? Those would be the concerns.”
Do you think attitudes have changed within the league re:gambling?
“You might be right. But until there is actually a presentation with all the pros and cons, I wouldn’t bet one way or the other at this point.”
Bob McNair, Texans: “I would look favorably at it. I would like to hear all the arguments, make sure we are not overlooking something. But you have gambling all around you now, lotteries on every street corner. I don’t think it is the issue we viewed it to be 20 years ago. We want Oakland to get a good facility, and have stability with their franchise, and if this is an opportunity to do that, then I think it is something we need to seriously consider.”
• WILL VEGAS WANT THE NFL? As Raiders owner Mark Davis flirts with Sin City, the question has been whether the NFL would ever allow such a move. But evidence suggests Vegas’ largest moneymaker—casinos—may be the real hurdle
Jeffrey Lurie, Eagles: “I’d be open to it. My only question is, is it a really good NFL market? I’m not totally worried about a lot of other things. I am more worried, is it a great market for the NFL? I don’t know enough about that. I never thought about it much before. It has to support 70,000 every weekend. It is not an NBA team, like say the Thunder, which does an incredible job of supporting their smaller market. We have got to make sure it really will support a team if a team goes there, but I am open to it.”
Jed York, 49ers: “I will wait to see, but if there is something that provides all the resources necessary, they go through all the steps and it is a project that works, I’d be supportive of the Raiders getting a new stadium anywhere. I know the Raiders have worked tirelessly to try to get a stadium done. It’s been difficult trying to move and have much progress in Oakland. They have been very upfront that they would like to stay, and if not, they need to make sure that they find a long-term home and long-term solution. … I think the stigma about Las Vegas is much different today than where it was in the past.”
Woody Johnson, Jets: “Las Vegas is a very exciting market. Nevada is a very good place from a tax standpoint, very low taxes and no income tax. It depends what the deal is with the stadium, and with operating it, and what the league and Mark [Davis] feel are the opportunities there—if he feels he can fill up the stadium and get enough economic traction there with sponsors and all that. … I don’t know if [gambling] is as dominant an issue now as it was 10 years ago.”
it really seems like this is going to come down to whether or not the Las Vegas politicians find a way to finance that $750 million.
In the above quotes, it seems like a no-brainer that the 49ers would support a Raiders move to Las Vegas or anywhere else for that matter. Why doesn't he just come out and say it?
The 49ers can't be happy about sharing a TV market with the Raiders, an especially difficult situation in PT that causes all sorts of scheduling conflicts. For example, the 49ers must play a road game in ET or CT stadiums or prime time anywhere if the Raiders play at home on Sunday afternoon and vice versa. Even though the teams don't share a stadium, they can't both have an afternoon home game on the same Sunday except Week 17.
The home exclusivity rule isn't waived for the SF/Oakland DMA, even though it has all of these conflicts. Getting the Raiders out of town resolves that issue.
In the above quotes, it seems like a no-brainer that the 49ers would support a Raiders move to Las Vegas or anywhere else for that matter. Why doesn't he just come out and say it?
The 49ers can't be happy about sharing a TV market with the Raiders, an especially difficult situation in PT that causes all sorts of scheduling conflicts. For example, the 49ers must play a road game in ET or CT stadiums or prime time anywhere if the Raiders play at home on Sunday afternoon and vice versa. Even though the teams don't share a stadium, they can't both have an afternoon home game on the same Sunday except Week 17.
The home exclusivity rule isn't waived for the SF/Oakland DMA, even though it has all of these conflicts. Getting the Raiders out of town resolves that issue.
It could also be said that situation could be an inducement for the Raiders to relocate to their own, new market.
It could also be said that situation could be an inducement for the Raiders to relocate to their own, new market.
Right, but the 49ers owner beats around the bush. I'd be like "I support the Raiders moving anywhere. I don't care where that is."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
