[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by Bps401

For that one example, there are a handful of other examples of most stadiums going 30+ years

SF, Miami, Pitt, Giants are first four I googled

None of those stadiums are 30 years old. Only one is even close.

SF opened in 2014. Miami was 1987 (and BTW was just remodeled 100% at Dolphins' owner expense), Pitt opened in 2001 and Giants opened in 2010.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

None of those stadiums are 30 years old. Only one is even close.

SF opened in 2014. Miami was 1987 (and BTW was just remodeled 100% at Dolphins' s owner expense), Pitt opened in 2001 and Giants opened in 2010.

Pretty sure he was talking about the predecessor to all of those stadiums except Miami. Candlestick Park was used for over 50 years in SF. Three Rivers Stadium was open for 30. The Meadowlands was open for 34.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by Grumpypotpie

Pretty sure he was talking about the predecessor to all of those stadiums except Miami. Candlestick Park was used for over 50 years in SF. Three Rivers Stadium was open for 30. The Meadowlands was open for 34.

Now that you mention that, I think you're right. I read it as "here are stadiums that are 30+ years old" but I see that POV too.

OTOH, Rams left after 20 years because a bad lease permitted it. The Falcons demanded a new stadium and got it after 23 years.

The lease is the key. Hopefully the Rams lesson is learned if this comes to fruition. The Raiders pay a 30-year lease, even if they aren't here, is the only acceptable way to go about it.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

Now that you mention that, I think you're right. I read it as "here are stadiums that are 30+ years old" but I see that POV too.

OTOH, Rams left after 20 years because a bad lease permitted it. The Falcons demanded a new stadium and got it after 23 years.

The lease is the key. Hopefully the Rams lesson is learned if this comes to fruition. The Raiders pay a 30-year lease, even if they aren't here, is the only acceptable way to go about it.

Absolutely a 30-year lease is needed. I have lived near Buffalo most of my life where we always had to worry that when the lease was up some rich guy would buy the team and move it. You definitely don't want that hanging over a new stadium that is requiring a subsidy of that magnitude.

[lvmensch]

Folks get it straight. It is reasonably simple. Las Vegas is not Cleveland or Buffalo or Indianapolis or Philadelphia or Pittsburgh or wherever. It is a unique place.

It does not move to the same rules and has skills and capabilities that are not present in other cities. Partucularly not in fly over country.

Our primary industry is a set of multi-billion dollar facilities catering to the hedonistic side of human beings. We no longer even suggest we are going to make them rich...merely happy. If we do not believe our legislators can make a reasonable deal with Sheldon we should elect better legislators.

It is madness to oppose the stadium in Las Vegas...madness.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

Folks get it straight. It is reasonably simple. Las Vegas is not Cleveland or Buffalo or Indianapolis or Philadelphia or Pittsburgh or wherever. It is a unique place.

It does not move to the same rules and has skills and capabilities that are not present in other cities. Partucularly not in fly over country.

Our primary industry is a set of multi-billion dollar facilities catering to the hedonistic side of human beings. We no longer even suggest we are going to make them rich...merely happy. If we do not believe our legislators can make a reasonable deal with Sheldon we should elect better legislators.

It is madness to oppose the stadium in Las Vegas...madness.

I don't oppose it. But Player is right that a 30-year lease has to be a stipulation. You can't have the threat of relocation before the stadium is even paid off.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

If we do not believe our legislators can make a reasonable deal with Sheldon we should elect better legislators.

I think it is a given that some people in the Legislature that vote for this will lose their seats over it, if it comes to that. We already had the largest tax increase in Nevada history during this cycle. This just adds fuel to the fire. You can't vote for something this big that your constituents don't want at the demand of a billionaire donor and not expect some damage, especially right before an election.

It is madness to oppose the stadium in Las Vegas...madness.

I don't think I've run into a single person that opposes the stadium. It is the deal that is opposed by the majority. The last poll only asked about $500 million and lost 55/35. Imagine what that becomes when people see the real numbers.

[timothyaw]

Originally Posted by Grumpypotpie

I don't oppose it. But Player is right that a 30-year lease has to be a stipulation. You can't have the threat of relocation before the stadium is even paid off.

So I understand the rationale for a 30 year lease, to keep the Raiders from moving. Understand I'm not a financial guy at this high level, but why can't we pay if off before 30 years? Is it that it will take that amount of time to pay if off with .88 percent? I thought I read somewhere that it will take 33 years.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

Folks get it straight. It is reasonably simple. Las Vegas is not Cleveland or Buffalo or Indianapolis or Philadelphia or Pittsburgh or wherever. It is a unique place.

It does not move to the same rules and has skills and capabilities that are not present in other cities. Partucularly not in fly over country.

Our primary industry is a set of multi-billion dollar facilities catering to the hedonistic side of human beings. We no longer even suggest we are going to make them rich...merely happy. If we do not believe our legislators can make a reasonable deal with Sheldon we should elect better legislators.

It is madness to oppose the stadium in Las Vegas...madness.

That's exactly what the organizers of Boston 2024 said, We are not Rio, or London, or Sydney, or Montreal, or Athens, or Beijing, we're Boston, we can make it worth it.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

That's exactly what the organizers of Boston 2024 said, We are not Rio, or London, or Sydney, or Montreal, or Athens, or Beijing, we're Boston, we can make it worth it.

Nonsense. Boston has no claim to skill and has never had the experience of going through that process.

Las Vegas lives off the Strip. Utterly different. An expended entertainment venue fits right in.

I don't neccessarily agree or disagree with the proposed terms of the deal. But I see no first order reasons why tax revenues should not be part of the deal. How much tax revenue? Don't know. There is not enough information in that available to know if it is a good deal or not.