[LasVegasPlayer]

^^ Grumpy is accurate with the statement that January and February are two of the worst three months in terms of hotel occupancy in Las Vegas. That is true across all sub-markets (Strip, downtown, balance of Clark). December is by far the worst. Yes, there are some big shows in January and February, however, there aren't many others and there is little in the way of true midweek tourists those months.

On the other hand, weekends are nearly 100% occupied during January and February, which is when stadium events would draw most of the tourists.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

^^ Grumpy is accurate with the statement that January and February are two of the worst three months in terms of hotel occupancy in Las Vegas. That is true across all sub-markets (Strip, downtown, balance of Clark). December is by far the worst. Yes, there are some big shows in January and February, however, there aren't many others and there is little in the way of true midweek tourists those months.

On the other hand, weekends are nearly 100% occupied during January and February, which is when stadium events would draw most of the tourists.

The Super Bowl has an entire week of festivities that both fans and media attend, so it would help fill the rooms up during the week. If they put the Pro-Bowl in Vegas that would be a 2nd week, with probably at least some mid-week visitors that wouldn't normally be there in January.

[NLVgal]

Originally Posted by Grumpypotpie

The NFL would definitely bring the Super Bowl to Vegas. Aside from the game itself, there is basically a 2 week period between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl where fans/media descend on the host city. Besides December, no months have lower occupancy rates for hotels in Las Vegas than January and February. It would absolutely have an impact on tourism to host a Super Bowl. If they were smart, they would attempt to become the permanent home of the Pro-Bowl as well. I'm guessing Las Vegas would be at least as desirable a location as Orlando, especially with a new world-class stadium.

What makes you say that when we are not allowed to advertise during the Super Bowl ? You did know that, right? No mention of Las Vegas allowed.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by NLVgal

What makes you say that when we are not allowed to advertise during the Super Bowl ? You did know that, right? No mention of Las Vegas allowed.

Do you honestly think they would allow a team to move to Las Vegas and keep that ban in effect? I don't.

[NLVgal]

Originally Posted by Grumpypotpie

Do you honestly think they would allow a team to move to Las Vegas and keep that ban in effect? I don't.

You didn't answer my question. Did you know about that ban?

If they let the Raiders move here, it's because Jones does NOT want them in San Antonio, and Oakland could give a flying fig less. That does not mean that the NFL and Vegas are going to be buddies, unless the right palms are greased.

[LasVegasPlayer]

The NFL wouldn't even let Tony Romo have a fantasy football convention at Sands Convention Center because it is owned and operated by Las Vegas Sands. That was just last year.

I've wondered how in the world the NFL would allow a team to play in a stadium where 1/3 of the money was associated with the same company where those execs are on the Stadium Authority, influenced the lobbying and surely have some other back scratching going on behind the scenes.

The NFL forced two Rooney heirs to sell their stake in the Steelers because they owned tracks and card clubs. Sands goes much further than that in gaming and has a tenant that books action on the NFL on their property.

[beachhead]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

The NFL wouldn't even let Tony Romo have a fantasy football convention at Sands Convention Center because it is owned and operated by Las Vegas Sands. That was just last year.

I've wondered how in the world the NFL would allow a team to play in a stadium where 1/3 of the money was associated with the same company where those execs are on the Stadium Authority, influenced the lobbying and surely have some other back scratching going on behind the scenes.

The NFL forced two Rooney heirs to sell their stake in the Steelers because they owned tracks and card clubs. Sands goes much further than that in gaming and has a tenant that books action on the NFL on their property.

When there's $750 million of free tax dollars at stake, it's not uncommon for the sanctimonious billionaires to "overlook" a few tiny details. The world changes, they soak the taxpayers for free money, the sun still rises and sets in the right directions. What's a little gambling when we can bilk $750 million out of other peoples pocketbooks even if they don't agree with it?

[robr2]

Originally Posted by beachhead

When there's $750 million of free tax dollars at stake, it's not uncommon for the sanctimonious billionaires to "overlook" a few tiny details. The world changes, they soak the taxpayers for free money, the sun still rises and sets in the right directions. What's a little gambling when we can bilk $750 million out of other peoples pocketbooks even if they don't agree with it?

But that's only $750 for one team. The NFL as a whole gets nothing out of it.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by NLVgal

You didn't answer my question. Did you know about that ban?

If they let the Raiders move here, it's because Jones does NOT want them in San Antonio, and Oakland could give a flying fig less. That does not mean that the NFL and Vegas are going to be buddies, unless the right palms are greased.

I didn't know there was an actual ban. I did know the NFL was Vegas adverse for a long time. Did you know that some of the most important owners in the NFL spoke out in favor of a team in Vegas? We are talking Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft. If they are for it, then the NFL will absolutely 'play nice' with a team in Vegas.

[calisoccer99]

Originally Posted by robr2

But that's only $750 for one team. The NFL as a whole gets nothing out of it.

Yes they do, they get Vegas.