Moving businesses must love the NFL's Raiders Franchise.

From Oakland, to Los Angeles.....then back to Oakland, and now............Las Vegas.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1901 ... roved-31-1

Wonder how long they'll stay there and go back to Oakland.

Wow...the City of Oakland was a day late and a dollar short in getting the Raiders a new stadium while Las Vegas gave a 110% effort in getting the Raiders to move to their city. The Las Vegas Raiders - like the name already.

dfwjim1 wrote:

Wow...the City of Oakland was a day late and a dollar short in getting the Raiders a new stadium while Las Vegas gave a 110% effort in getting the Raiders to move to their city. The Las Vegas Raiders - like the name already.

City of Oakland said from day 1 that public money was not an option, and they stuck to their guns - I have to respect Mayor Libby Schaaf and company for that. FYI, Golden State Warriors are building a new privately funded facility just north of AT&T Park (home of the Giants, also a privately financed facility). The city has been consistent on this, and it's also why the A's haven't gotten a new stadium deal.

Also, Clark County is funding part of the new Raiders stadium through a hotel tax, not City of Las Vegas (the stadium won't be in official Las Vegas boundaries), in partnership with Bank of America (Sheldon Adelson was kicked out of the financing deal per NFL request - he is too shady by NFL standards!).

I haven't read which site they decided on. Top two were a vacant lot across I-15 from Mandalay Bay, and bulldozing the Bali Hai Golf Club and using that land. Fun fact: before Bali Hai was built, that land was considered for the new NASCAR track, which eventually was built out in the Northeast section of the valley.

LittleFokker wrote:

Also, Clark County is funding part of the new Raiders stadium through a hotel tax, not City of Las Vegas (the stadium won't be in official Las Vegas boundaries), in partnership with Bank of America.

According to the ESPN article, the most likely site is right near The Strip.

Man, Sin City is going to really test the young-uns. Should be at least 3-4 insane stories per year out of this. But good luck all the same. I never followed the story much but like everything else in life I'm sure it was all about the money. In my view SF and Oakland could've partnered on costs and rev share. All that big business money and personal wealth that no longer wants to drive 1-2 hours to Santa Clara for the 49ers, there should've been something there to work with..maybe I missed that part.

wingman wrote:

Man, Sin City is going to really test the young-uns. Should be at least 3-4 insane stories per year out of this. But good luck all the same. I never followed the story much but like everything else in life I'm sure it was all about the money. In my view SF and Oakland could've partnered on costs and rev share. All that big business money and personal wealth that no longer wants to drive 1-2 hours to Santa Clara for the 49ers, there should've been something there to work with..maybe I missed that part.

The Raiders have a well-deserved reputation for the trashiest fan base in professional sports. Who in a city like San Francisco would want to be associated with people like that?

Hillis wrote:

LittleFokker wrote:

Also, Clark County is funding part of the new Raiders stadium through a hotel tax, not City of Las Vegas (the stadium won't be in official Las Vegas boundaries), in partnership with Bank of America.

According to the ESPN article, the most likely site is right near The Strip.

There were 3 sites under consideration all they were all in close proximity to the Strip. The Bali Hai site I mentioned above, the parcel of land just west of I-15 south of Russell Rd, and a site just east of the MGM Grand close to the Thomas and Mack Center. I thought the least likely place was the last one, given the proximity to the threshold of RWY 19R and the FAA vetoing it.

Yeah, I see that, I went once and left in the 3rd quarter lieterally sprayed in blood. That was my last NFL game ever. It's easily the lowest IQ sport ever invented, but my point is about the money lost to the Bay. I'm a lonely duck in my NFL views. A real stadium with SF Giants style executive pampering and party boxes selling $18 drafts of Coors Light would've been just what the doctor ordered. Now it's all gone. All that SF downtown money, the lawyers, bankers, doctors and Uber weenies..they're not driving down to Santa Clara. So it's just money vanished to Vegas.

One of the big issues that need to be worked out is if one can gamble in Las Vegas or Nevada on the LV Radiers once they move to LV. This is a sensitive area for the NFL due to fears of games being influenced. Any new stadium will have to have a movable roof due to the extreme temperatures in LV which will make it very expensive. I wonder what the primary 'name' for the stadium will be ?

So, in the blink of the perverbial eye, Vega$ goes from no professional sports teams, to 2 by 2020. The Black Knights open play in the NHL next season. Then the Raiders will be in LA$ a few years after that.

ltbewr wrote:

One of the big issues that need to be worked out is if one can gamble in Las Vegas or Nevada on the LV Radiers once they move to LV. This is a sensitive area for the NFL due to fears of games being influenced. Any new stadium will have to have a movable roof due to the extreme temperatures in LV which will make it very expensive. I wonder what the primary 'name' for the stadium will be ?

I think Goodell said in a press conference this morning that the league has no intentions to restrict gambling on Raiders games. In other words, no change to the NFL's policy on gambling: pretending to be against it, while quietly loving all the extra attention gambling generates (especially for those late season match ups of two teams eliminated from the playoffs).

Hillis wrote:

So, in the blink of the perverbial eye, Vega$ goes from no professional sports teams, to 2 by 2020. The Black Knights open play in the NHL next season. Then the Raiders will be in LA$ a few years after that.

But at least the Black Knights are an expansion team, so no robbing other markets of their team (yes, I know there are probably too many NHL teams and shouldn't have expanded, but that's another thread), and the T-Mobile Arena was 100% financed by AEG (and even did so without a promise of an NBA/NHL team), so there's no controversy with that franchise.

ltbewr wrote:

Any new stadium will have to have a movable roof due to the extreme temperatures in LV which will make it very expensive. I wonder what the primary 'name' for the stadium will be ?

I have never been to Las Vegas. What is the weather there like from September to January? Does it really get that hot during that time period that they need a retractable roof on the new stadium?

dragon-wings wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Any new stadium will have to have a movable roof due to the extreme temperatures in LV which will make it very expensive. I wonder what the primary 'name' for the stadium will be ?

I have never been to Las Vegas. What is the weather there like from September to January? Does it really get that hot during that time period that they need a retractable roof on the new stadium?

September can still be north of 100F. October highs dip down to high 80s/low 90s. November highs get down to the 70s, and by December/January highs are in the 50s. Roof will come in handy September. Climate isn't much different than Phoenix.

LittleFokker wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

Wow...the City of Oakland was a day late and a dollar short in getting the Raiders a new stadium while Las Vegas gave a 110% effort in getting the Raiders to move to their city. The Las Vegas Raiders - like the name already.

City of Oakland said from day 1 that public money was not an option, and they stuck to their guns - I have to respect Mayor Libby Schaaf and company for that. FYI, Golden State Warriors are building a new privately funded facility just north of AT&T Park (home of the Giants, also a privately financed facility). The city has been consistent on this, and it's also why the A's haven't gotten a new stadium deal.

Also, Clark County is funding part of the new Raiders stadium through a hotel tax, not City of Las Vegas (the stadium won't be in official Las Vegas boundaries), in partnership with Bank of America (Sheldon Adelson was kicked out of the financing deal per NFL request - he is too shady by NFL standards!).

I haven't read which site they decided on. Top two were a vacant lot across I-15 from Mandalay Bay, and bulldozing the Bali Hai Golf Club and using that land. Fun fact: before Bali Hai was built, that land was considered for the new NASCAR track, which eventually was built out in the Northeast section of the valley.

Standards and the NFL? Boy that's an oxymoron.

I heard an interview a while back that said professional sports in Las Vegas is a stupid idea because most of the people there are either tourists or work in shifts. The people who have time to go to games likely will not have the money or even care. I see the Raiders back in Oakland within 10 years and the Black Knights either folding or moving.

lbtewr wrote:

Any new stadium will have to have a movable roof due to the extreme temperatures in LV which will make it very expensive.

I get having the domed stadiums where it gets extremely hot, but WHY do so many teams in the Midwest and Northeast insist on playing outdoors from Novermber through January? I was looking at the coldest games of all time, and the ones that stuck out to me was Dallas at Green Bay in 1967, game time temperature was -14F. In 1982, the San Diego Charges played at Cincinnati, with a gametime temp of -9. I remember watching that one: the Bengals QB Kenny Andreson was throwing like it was 80 degrees out, but Dan Fouts could barely grip the football. And the year before that, the Raiders played up in Cleveland with a game time temp of -4. I remember watching it on TV, and they panned out to Lake Erie, and it looked like the Artic.

Indianapolis, Detroit, and Minnesota got smart and all have domed stadiums. Even Seattle has one. I wouldn't go to a game from early November on in the Northern half of the country unless I was in a 72 degree, enclosed loge.

seb146 wrote:

I heard an interview a while back that said professional sports in Las Vegas is a stupid idea because most of the people there are either tourists or work in shifts. The people who have time to go to games likely will not have the money or even care. I see the Raiders back in Oakland within 10 years and the Black Knights either folding or moving.

That's true, and these teams may struggle to sell season tickets, but there will be enough visitors and fans of the road team to make up the difference. I mean, if one were to make a vacation to see their favorite team, why not make Vegas that one trip? Besides, the NFL doesn't give two shits about attendance....if the TV revenue is there, all teams split that money and makes them viable. Shahid Khan can tell you all about the money he makes from other teams down in Jacksonville!

Hillis wrote:

lbtewr wrote:

Any new stadium will have to have a movable roof due to the extreme temperatures in LV which will make it very expensive.

I get having the domed stadiums where it gets extremely hot, but WHY do so many teams in the Midwest and Northeast insist on playing outdoors from Novermber through January? I was looking at the coldest games of all time, and the ones that stuck out to me was Dallas at Green Bay in 1967, game time temperature was -14F. In 1982, the San Diego Charges played at Cincinnati, with a gametime temp of -9. I remember watching that one: the Bengals QB Kenny Andreson was throwing like it was 80 degrees out, but Dan Fouts could barely grip the football. And the year before that, the Raiders played up in Cleveland with a game time temp of -4. I remember watching it on TV, and they panned out to Lake Erie, and it looked like the Artic.

Indianapolis, Detroit, and Minnesota got smart and all have domed stadiums. Even Seattle has one. I wouldn't go to a game from early November on in the Northern half of the country unless I was in a 72 degree, enclosed loge.

It's a winter sport, weather comes with the territory.

Also Seattle has a lid on the baseball stadium, the football stadium is open air.

I forgot to post this before:

It has snowed in LAS before. We had been there in January the week before the tech convention and it is up to like 40 during the day and like 20 at night. After that third yard long margarita, you don't worry about the cold so much....

LittleFokker wrote:

Climate isn't much different than Phoenix.

seb146 wrote:

It has snowed in LAS before. We had been there in January the week before the tech convention and it is up to like 40 during the day and like 20 at night.

Las Vegas is further north and higher elevation than Phoenix. It is normal to have highs in the 40's in the winter there. Here in Phoenix highs in the 50's are usually as cold as we get. I have also seen with New Year celebrations that it is at times colder on the strip (20's-30's) than at Times Square (30's-40's). The winter sun still feels great on your skin and the cooler temps don't seem to hurt Las Vegas too much since it's almost always warmer in the day there than places up north or Times Square.

LittleFokker wrote:

trip.

There were 3 sites under consideration all they were all in close proximity to the Strip. The Bali Hai site I mentioned above, the parcel of land just west of I-15 south of Russell Rd, and a site just east of the MGM Grand close to the Thomas and Mack Center. I thought the least likely place was the last one, given the proximity to the threshold of RWY 19R and the FAA vetoing it.[/quote]

The Wild Wild West site is out ?

Though the land the Bali Hai sits on is owned by McCarran, i'm amazed that the NFL would allow anything connected to Bill Walters to be used.

ltbewr wrote:

One of the big issues that need to be worked out is if one can gamble in Las Vegas or Nevada on the LV Radiers once they move to LV. This is a sensitive area for the NFL due to fears of games being influenced. Any new stadium will have to have a movable roof due to the extreme temperatures in LV which will make it very expensive. I wonder what the primary 'name' for the stadium will be ?

The Raider will be off the board, the handle will take a small hit, but not as much as you would imagine. By Sept, Vegas temps are not that bad and by Oct. they are pretty pleasant, but yes I can see it having a sliding roof.

LittleFokker"
That's true, and these teams may struggle to sell season tickets, but there will be enough visitors and fans of the road team to make up the difference. I mean, if one were to make a vacation to see their favorite team, why not make Vegas that one trip? Besides, the NFL doesn't give two shits about attendance....if the TV revenue is there, all teams split that money and makes them viable. Shahid Khan can tell you all about the money he makes from other teams down in Jacksonville![/quote]

The Knights will be fine, selling out a hockey arena is not that hard, season ticket sales went well, throw in the visiting fans, plus the MGM giving tickets to players/employees plus the other casinos comping seats/suites and they will be fine.

The Raiders, they may have an issue, but time will tell on that one, though, Vegas hosting a Superbowl would be a natural step to take, heck Vegas is one of the few cities that has the hotel rooms to absorb that kind of event without blinking.

[quote="seb146 wrote:

I forgot to post this before:

It has snowed in LAS before. We had been there in January the week before the tech convention and it is up to like 40 during the day and like 20 at night. After that third yard long margarita, you don't worry about the cold so much....

We get snow at least once a year and probably every 5 years or so we get a decent storm, though in comparison to other cities, it's more of a dusting.

jetwet1 wrote:

The Wild Wild West site is out ?

Though the land the Bali Hai sits on is owned by McCarran, i'm amazed that the NFL would allow anything connected to Bill Walters to be used.

I thought the Wild Wild West Site was too small and never seriously considered. As for Bali Hai, I know Billy Walters owns the course (I used to caddy out there), and it's just about non-existent for someone to own the course but lease the land (just not practical), so he probably owns the land too. But considering that Billy is about to go to jail for insider trading and may need to pay off a huge fine, getting him to sell that place wouldn't be all that hard.

Congrats to Las Vegas for getting the raiders and condolences to Oakland for losing the raiders. However Oakland's city government did the right thing in saying no taxpayer dollars for a stadium or arena. I am sure money for infrastructure improvements would have been considered and allocated.
The shame goes to the NFL and the owners. They hold cities and their fan bases hostage, threatening to move if they do not get their way! New stadiums do not guarantee increased profits long term.
I for one see the NFL alienating fans because of all the recent franchise moves. Los Angeles failed in the past for both the Rams and Raiders and based on crowds at Rams home games last year the future is not a guaranteed jackpot. LA wins as the stadium is being built with private money. Rams win as they have a tenant to help cover their stadium costs in the Chargers. Just like the Clippers of the NBA the help to cover Lakers costs in their arena.
If the NFL was wise they would have helped the Chargers management with loans to help build a new stadium in San Diego(again perhaps getting money for infrastructure improvements from city) to remain in San Diego. Having the Chargers play 2 or 3 years in a 30,000 seat college stadium makes no sense. San Diego's stadium would have been a better option until new San Diego stadium opened. I would say the same for Oakland,loans or guarantees from the league would have been a better option. Not to mention gambling issues real or imagined which Las Vegas brings.
If I was a fan of Jacksonville Jags I would not be overly confident of having a franchise in 5 years. Either St Louis or another city such as San Antonio comes up with an attractive stadium deal or the league decides London is ready for a team, they are gone. Unfortunately that holds true for other teams as well. The Bills are talking about the needs for a new stadium. Guessing Toronto might be listening.
Just my 2 cents. Thank god the packers are owned by the fans and not a greedy billionaire that wants to make more money at the costs of the tax payers!

Good bloody riddance. There's no bigger waste of money than ponying up for a sports team, especially a fraud and con as rotten as the NFL. They've got plenty of money; they can build their own white elephants. Any city that falls for their alternative economics is a sucker.

georgiabill wrote:

Congrats to Las Vegas for getting the raiders and condolences to Oakland for losing the raiders. However Oakland's city government did the right thing in saying no taxpayer dollars for a stadium or arena. I am sure money for infrastructure improvements would have been considered and allocated.
The shame goes to the NFL and the owners. They hold cities and their fan bases hostage, threatening to move if they do not get their way! New stadiums do not guarantee increased profits long term.
I for one see the NFL alienating fans because of all the recent franchise moves. Los Angeles failed in the past for both the Rams and Raiders and based on crowds at Rams home games last year the future is not a guaranteed jackpot. LA wins as the stadium is being built with private money. Rams win as they have a tenant to help cover their stadium costs in the Chargers. Just like the Clippers of the NBA the help to cover Lakers costs in their arena.
If the NFL was wise they would have helped the Chargers management with loans to help build a new stadium in San Diego(again perhaps getting money for infrastructure improvements from city) to remain in San Diego. Having the Chargers play 2 or 3 years in a 30,000 seat college stadium makes no sense. San Diego's stadium would have been a better option until new San Diego stadium opened. I would say the same for Oakland,loans or guarantees from the league would have been a better option. Not to mention gambling issues real or imagined which Las Vegas brings.
If I was a fan of Jacksonville Jags I would not be overly confident of having a franchise in 5 years. Either St Louis or another city such as San Antonio comes up with an attractive stadium deal or the league decides London is ready for a team, they are gone. Unfortunately that holds true for other teams as well. The Bills are talking about the needs for a new stadium. Guessing Toronto might be listening.
Just my 2 cents. Thank god the packers are owned by the fans and not a greedy billionaire that wants to make more money at the costs of the tax payers!

Smart Fans get punished, it will continue to happen to the teams that aren't the Marquis teams in the league.

Regarding the Bills, their stadium has been renovated and is in much better shape that it was 10 to 15 years ago and they have struck a new deal to stay in Buffalo for at least a decade.

Furthermore hell will freeze over before Toronto or Ontario taxpayers will give any money to the NFL for a stadium. We have higher taxes to begin with and much more important infrastructure and public needs before we consider an NFL team. If it were to happen it would be private and there is the money here for it to happen but it will be a while before it's reality if ever.

A couple of posters wrote about the poor reputation of the Oakland Raider fan base as compared to NFL fans in other cities. I wonder if that reputation will continue once the Raiders move to Las Vegas or if their fan base will become better behaved and more sophisticated once they move?

MaverickM11 wrote:

Good bloody riddance. There's no bigger waste of money than ponying up for a sports team, especially a fraud and con as rotten as the NFL. They've got plenty of money; they can build their own white elephants. Any city that falls for their alternative economics is a sucker.

Your opinion, and that's fine. But as a big sports fan, I like going to pro games every now and again. Can't do it as much anymore because it is expensive, but to each their own.

Hillis wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Good bloody riddance. There's no bigger waste of money than ponying up for a sports team, especially a fraud and con as rotten as the NFL. They've got plenty of money; they can build their own white elephants. Any city that falls for their alternative economics is a sucker.

Your opinion, and that's fine. But as a big sports fan, I like going to pro games every now and again. Can't do it as much anymore because it is expensive, but to each their own.

I have no problem with people watching or attending games, but they and the NFL should foot the bill, not taxpayers.

dfwjim1 wrote:

I wonder if that reputation will continue once the Raiders move to Las Vegas or if their fan base will become better behaved and more sophisticated once they move?

Because people in Vegas are better behaved and more sophisticated?

scbriml wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

I wonder if that reputation will continue once the Raiders move to Las Vegas or if their fan base will become better behaved and more sophisticated once they move?

Because people in Vegas are better behaved and more sophisticated?

LOL...well not really but I wonder if a change of venue for the Raiders will result in a different type of fan base attending their games?

Hi..

It’s wild and it’s telling that we treat it as a pleasant surprise when a billionaire spends his own money to improve his property in order to increase his company’s value. In a just world that would be the norm.

dfwjim1 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

I wonder if that reputation will continue once the Raiders move to Las Vegas or if their fan base will become better behaved and more sophisticated once they move?

Because people in Vegas are better behaved and more sophisticated?

LOL...well not really but I wonder if a change of venue for the Raiders will result in a different type of fan base attending their games?

In Las Vegas yes it will. There will be a far larger portion that are cheering for their opponents. Las Vegas works hard to be a destination and that will continue even more so with football. An extra 40,000 people coming in on weekends over fall is easy for the area to handle and travel there is relatively low cost. Add in all the other "fun" Vegas offers and I think you will see a lot of visitors teams fans showing up to enjoy their team in the warm Vegas sun.

Tugg

I am a Raider fan and live in Vegas and I don't support this. The Raiders are Oakland and Oakland is the Raiders. Shame on the city of Oakland.

NIKV69 wrote:

I am a Raider fan and live in Vegas and I don't support this. The Raiders are Oakland and Oakland is the Raiders. Shame on the city of Oakland.

For not bending over the taxpayers and giving a stadium to a man/league that could afford to if they really wanted to?

NIKV69 wrote:

I am a Raider fan and live in Vegas and I don't support this. The Raiders are Oakland and Oakland is the Raiders. Shame on the city of Oakland.

Why is the shame on Oakland? They know from history that using tax money to fund a new stadium does not result in a net economic positive for the community and California pays some of the highest taxes in the US.

All the owners are billionaires and have many billionaire buddies and with all the money in the Bay Area from Tech the taxpayers should not pay a cent for a new stadium.

StarAC17 wrote:

Why is the shame on Oakland? They know from history that using tax money to fund a new stadium does not result in a net economic positive for the community and California pays some of the highest taxes in the US.

All the owners are billionaires and have many billionaire buddies and with all the money in the Bay Area from Tech the taxpayers should not pay a cent for a new stadium.

Your hatred of people of means is well known but in this case the economic impact is great. Jobs, hotels and restaurants, prostitutes, cabs, bars and nightclubs all lose business.

So you really showed those rich evil people that you the taxpayer are not paying for a new stadium.

You really showed us.

Tugger wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Because people in Vegas are better behaved and more sophisticated?

LOL...well not really but I wonder if a change of venue for the Raiders will result in a different type of fan base attending their games?

In Las Vegas yes it will. There will be a far larger portion that are cheering for their opponents. Las Vegas works hard to be a destination and that will continue even more so with football. An extra 40,000 people coming in on weekends over fall is easy for the area to handle and travel there is relatively low cost. Add in all the other "fun" Vegas offers and I think you will see a lot of visitors teams fans showing up to enjoy their team in the warm Vegas sun.

Tugg

Yes, I would imagine the hotels in the area are going to be buying up many of the tickets and offering package deals to fans of the teams coming in to play on a particular week. Offer an all-in price for 3 nights stay in the hotel, tickets to the game, transportation to/from stadium etc. They'll probably also be handing some tickets out to their high-rollers as well. It's a can't miss money making situation for the team an the NFL

Can't wait to hear about all of the "off field" distractions by the Raiders players once they start playing in Las Vegas. Clubs, prostitutes, gambling, and other vices are found in major cities, but not in the 24-hour a day quantity that is available in Las Vegas. These young players with more money than they know what do to with....Vegas probably isn't the best city for them to be in.

NIKV69 wrote:

Your hatred of people of means is well known but in this case the economic impact is great. Jobs, hotels and restaurants, prostitutes, cabs, bars and nightclubs all lose business.

So you really showed those rich evil people that you the taxpayer are not paying for a new stadium.

This is a theory that has been debunked many times. Public investment in a stadium is rarely recouped, especially on football stadiums which sit idle a lot of the time. The economic impact of funding a stadium is far greater than that of having the team leave town. Restaurants, bars and nightclubs might even do better now that they're not competing with the stadium for customers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydor ... 7c871a631c

http://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30/sta ... ll-073015/

The NFL has tons of money sitting around to help the Raiders fund a stadium if they really gave a crap about maintaining tradition and keeping teams in place. They don't. Shame on them, good on the city of Oakland for not caving to blackmail, and good on the Dolphins for being the lone team to vote against the move on the grounds that tradition of location should be given a higher priority in the league.

Oakland have a good reason to have told the Raiders to go fuck themselves:

Oakland Taxpayers Will Still Be On The Hook For $163 Million After The Raiders And Warriors Leave

http://deadspin.com/oakland-taxpayers-w ... 1793801493

Tugger wrote:

In Las Vegas yes it will. There will be a far larger portion that are cheering for their opponents. Las Vegas works hard to be a destination and that will continue even more so with football. An extra 40,000 people coming in on weekends over fall is easy for the area to handle and travel there is relatively low cost. Add in all the other "fun" Vegas offers and I think you will see a lot of visitors teams fans showing up to enjoy their team in the warm Vegas sun.

Tugg

The only time it will make a difference is if the Raiders are playing at home the 3rd week of December, other than that if 40,000 people come in to see "their" team play, they will just be displacing 40,000 people that would have been there anyways.

In this regards the Las Vegas Golden Knights (can we lose the Golden part now please) will work better as there are 42 home games instead of 8, they are spread through the week instead of Sunday/Monday.

Now, of course the big one, how long until there is a Superbowl in Vegas?

Brick wrote:

Can't wait to hear about all of the "off field" distractions by the Raiders players once they start playing in Las Vegas. Clubs, prostitutes, gambling, and other vices are found in major cities, but not in the 24-hour a day quantity that is available in Las Vegas. These young players with more money than they know what do to with....Vegas probably isn't the best city for them to be in.

That, and the NFL itself was very concerned that the refs were going to engaged in gambling. There must be a very sweet deal on behalf of Las Vegas and Clark County to win over the NFL if they had a legit concern.

The stadium is also going to be shared with UNLV according to the rendering that I saw, with a giant torch at one end and massive windows that slide open behind it. Makes me wonder if this could be Las Vegas' way of being a potential reliever site for Los Angeles 2024 Olympic Bid. If so, it would be a great way to gain traction for the proposed maglev/HSR link between the two cities.

TWA772LR wrote:

That, and the NFL itself was very concerned that the refs were going to engaged in gambling. There must be a very sweet deal on behalf of Las Vegas and Clark County to win over the NFL if they had a legit concern.

The stadium is also going to be shared with UNLV according to the rendering that I saw, with a giant torch at one end and massive windows that slide open behind it. Makes me wonder if this could be Las Vegas' way of being a potential reliever site for Los Angeles 2024 Olympic Bid. If so, it would be a great way to gain traction for the proposed maglev/HSR link between the two cities.

Maybe the NFL figured out that there is actually sports betting in every city in the world and if you want to make a bet on a team it isn't exactly hard, it's just not legal.

The answer btw is is simple, as I said above, don't allow betting on Raiders home games and if they want to get really serious, any offical found betting on NFL gets barred for life from the NFL, they would have to negotiate that with the refs Union of course, but I don't think they would have much to say against it.

jetwet1 wrote:

don't allow betting on Raiders home games and if they want to get really serious

Woudn't that be illegal without making the same policy for the other teams?

TWA772LR wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

don't allow betting on Raiders home games and if they want to get really serious

Woudn't that be illegal without making the same policy for the other teams?

Nope, we are not required to set lines on every game that is played of any sport.

NIKV69 wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

Why is the shame on Oakland? They know from history that using tax money to fund a new stadium does not result in a net economic positive for the community and California pays some of the highest taxes in the US.

All the owners are billionaires and have many billionaire buddies and with all the money in the Bay Area from Tech the taxpayers should not pay a cent for a new stadium.

Your hatred of people of means is well known but in this case the economic impact is great. Jobs, hotels and restaurants, prostitutes, cabs, bars and nightclubs all lose business.

So you really showed those rich evil people that you the taxpayer are not paying for a new stadium.

You really showed us.

No hatred here, you paint that story to me because you disagree with my opinion. I have no issue with the wealthy unless they made their fortune by exploiting others and the richest of the rich make their money of amazing ideas that people want. I have no issue with Bill Gates, Zuckerburg, Richard Branson, Mark Cuban etc.

I simply don't like very rich people demanding an ever economically stressed middle and working class that they have to pay more in taxes for a stadium that is in use maybe a dozen times in a year which history shows does not increase economic growth to an area worth the cost of the public dollars put into a stadium. Furthermore the NFL is a pretty crappy sport to see live (that is my opinion), it is made for TV and the stadium can't be used for anything else. Perhaps if the stadium was a true public asset and permitted for free use to local schools and Pop-Warner leagues then you can get the taxpayers on board. However most of the time the usage is to the NFL team only and whomever they permit to use it.

Los Angeles did just fine without a team for 21 years and eventually a team returned because there was a private option available that will make a lot of money for the NFL without costing the taxpayers a cent. The economic impact will be exactly the same as well with the local hotels, bars, and restaurants etc.

To me it's clear the tipping point was securing $750M of the public's money.

Before that, it was pretty unclear that 24 NFL owners would vote in favor of letting OAK move to LV. There is a traditional dislike if not hatred of Mark Davis since (a) his father took the NFL to court on an anti-trust claim that could have shut down the entire league and (b) he is not in the same category financially as many of the other owners and these days it's the big money owners like Jones and Kronke calling the shots. And yes, there still is a big concern about gambling. Not that the owners think it's bad that fans gamble on games, but instead that they're concerned one of the few ways the NFL can find itself in trouble is if big money gamblers find a way to influence referees and/or get players to tank games. That could land the whole league in a sh*t storm they may not find their way out of.

Once the $750M was in play, it was just a matter of if, not when, the Raiders were going to LV. As rich as NFL owners are, a gift of $750M from the public coffers grabs anyone's and everyone's attention, There was no way they'd let that big fish get away, even if it means holding their noses about Mark Davis and the taint if not stench of gambling.

If you think the fans of Oakland were any sort of consideration, you need to have your head examined. Same goes for San Diego and Saint Louis. In LV they know that the big casinos will be buying up the suites to impress the whales and they'll be a steady crowd of tourists looking for something else do to while in town. Heck, they really don't even need to make money from the regular seats. The money from the boxes and from the TV contracts should be more than enough to pay off the BoA mortgage. At this point, the fans are there for the optics.

Besides, what's the down side for the rest of the owners? Davis has secured the public money and the BoA financing. If it all goes pear shaped and Davis can't pay the vig, it'll give them a great chance to get rid of Davis and appoint a new member of the billionaire's club to come in and take over.

What's next? London. It might take five years or so, but it's inevitable. It's just too big a market to not take advantage of. In the end, the logistical challenges will be troublesome but won't be a show stopper. We can see them continue to push the envelope with Thursday night games despite all the negatives, because it brings in the money. London will be more of the same.

As an aside, it sounds like few of you on this thread have ever dealt with a problem gambler in their lives. They can wipe out a family faster than a drug addict can. I would be careful about having a casual attitude about gambling.