Peter Holt and Red McCombs willing to invest in the Oakland Raiders ...

[xmas1997]

If they relocate to San Antonio, See Below:


http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/pro-sports/article/Oakland-Raiders-owner-in-talks-with-SA-to-5654812.php


San Antonio Raiders?

SAN ANTONIO — Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis ...

San Antonio has often been used as a bargaining chip ...

Cisneros, who led the charge to build the Alamodome when he was mayor, has been described by sources as the architect of the meeting.

Davis and his associates ...

With some upgrades, the Alamodome could be ready for a 2015-16 NFL season, though it would be a temporary home at best. The city has set aside funds to add suites to the 21-year-old dome, now home to the University of Texas at San Antonio Roadrunners football team and the San Antonio Talons arena football team.

If the Raiders moved here, though, Davis is expected to seek a new stadium within a few years, after the team had proved itself in the Alamo City.[/B]

Davis told San Antonio civic and business leaders he isn't seeking a “Jerry Jones-type facility” and prefers “a small, intimate” stadium that he can place “a statue of his father in front of,” a source said.

But even if San Antonio ...

Any team desiring to relocate would need the blessing of 24 of the league's 32 owners. Greg Aiello, the NFL's senior vice president of communications, had little to say on a potential Raiders relocation.

“We don't have ...

Though San Antonio ranks 37th in the country's top television markets, the Raiders have a significant Hispanic fan base and Davis apparently believes his team would do well in South Texas.

It appears that his meeting here has been in the works for at least a couple months. A source ...

Though Holt is apparently interested in NFL in San Antonio, others ...

[manufan10]

Isn't there already a thread for this?

[Brazil]

I guess we needed another one

[Russ]

Isn't there already a thread for this?

Clean slate. :)

Nostalgia.

All those insults will seem like the first time. :)

[Spur|n|Austin]

Why did you start another thread for this Glen?

[manufan10]

Clean slate. :)

Nostalgia.

All those insults will seem like the first time. :)

Apparently. :lol

[xmas1997]

Why did you start another thread for this Glen?

Because the other one was deleted due to so many ST Rules violations.

[ChumpDumper]

Because the other one was deleted due to so many ST Rules violations.Snitch.

[xmas1997]

City officials term meeting with Raiders a success
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/pro-sports/cowboys/article/City-officials-term-meeting-with-Raiders-a-success-5884274.php

For a more in depth article about this, follow this other link above, otherwise the gist of it (damage control?) can be seen in the article below:



San Antonio officials say meeting with Raiders went well
By Tom Orsborn and Josh Baugh Published 9:18 pm, Monday, November 10, 2014

http://www.sfgate.com/raiders/article/San-Antonio-officials-say-meeting-with-Raiders-5884613.php

San Antonio officials said ...

“We just wanted to put San Antonio in the best light, and that’s what we did,” assistant city manager Ed Belmares said.

Shortly after Friday’s meeting between Davis and the San Antonio delegation, the Raiders’ owner termed the session “great.” He also was quick to add that his top priority remains keeping the franchise in the Bay Area. That goal probably will be fulfilled only if the team gets a new stadium.

In the wake of the meeting, an Alameda County official poked fun at the Texans for traveling to California on what he suggested was a hopeless mission.

“If they are visiting Oakland for the secret to Everett and Jones BBQ sauce, awesome, but if they are here to woo the Raiders, they are wasting their time,” Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty told the San Jose Mercury News. “Hope they visit Children’s Fairyland or the Oakland Zoo so their trip is not a total waste — because the Raiders are staying.”
[B]
Although none of the Alamo City contingent made it to those attractions, some did see the Broncos-Raiders game in Oakland on Sunday.

[benefactor]

:cry please let me start over so people won't know how much of an airhead I am :cry

[dabom]

I like these updates though even in the main forums. Keep them coming.

[Juggity]

Did you just repost an article from July as if it was still news? (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/pro-sports/article/Oakland-Raiders-owner-in-talks-with-SA-to-5654812.php)

That was the only connection between this NFL story and the spurs.

[xmas1997]

Here is an amusing article that smacks of truth in a very ironic way:



Is SA too eager in flirting with NFL?
Updated: Tuesday, November 11 2014, 06:22 AM CST by Randy Beamer News 4 San Antonio

http://www.news4sanantonio.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/is-sa-too-eager-flirting-nfl-17413.shtml

SAN ANTONIO - I have a few questions for you, San Antonio and South Texas. Are we a little too - for lack of a better word - easy? Do you think we might be too eager in all of our flirting, hoping some nice NFL team will finally come along and put a ring on it?

I bring it up after a San Antonio delegation met with Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis last week in California. That's despite all the warnings that we should forget him, that he's just using us so that his city/spouse Oakland will pay him more attention and maybe build him a new stadium where they can live happily ever after.

Or maybe while he's flirting with us, he'll get some attention from his ex-city/spouse, Los Angeles and he'll move back in there. Who knows?

But in the meantime are we just a cheap plaything? I know this metaphor is a little weird, but in so many ways sports franchises are pretty much married to their cities.

They have honeymoons. They go through rocky times and disappoint each other.

Sometimes the teams feel taken for granted and stray. Or get kicked out. Some teams have been married to several different cities.

And to get one, San Antonio may just have to go out and steal some other city's team, or catch one on the rebound. So maybe we just need to go out and show them all we have and how willing we are.

I'm not being sexist here. The metaphor works if you think of San Antonio as a man or woman, gay or straight.

So I'm not being politically incorrect to say that whatever we are, San Antonio has been speed-dating with franchises for years and always willing to pay for it. And with the promise of a big dowry or maybe a new/newer stadium... someday. Not to mention tax breaks and great Mexican restaurants.

Now there's even talk that we could just live with the Raiders for a few years while they try to work things out with Oakland and they build a bigger stadium.

We've let the Vikings use us, when they were trying to get a better stadium. And it felt wrong when we were hitting on the Saints who were only staying with us - as friends - while their beloved New Orleans was recovering from Hurricane Katrina.

But we were so close!

Over the years, we've stoked rumors that the Rams or the Cardinals might enjoy our company. Way back in the '90's, we were thrilled to even have it whispered that the Browns or the Patriots might be willing to spend some time with us.

San Antonio has also played the cougar, having brief flings with semi-pro teams like the young Gunslingers and the Riders.

We told ourselves it was mainly for fun, but it was also to prove to ourselves and the world that we're attractive enough to get attention from major leaguers - like Jerry Jones!

That's even though his Dallas Cowboys just keep using us every few summers for training camp and then killing our dreams of getting our own team someday.

But in the end, I actually think this flirting/courtship kind of obsession San Antonio has with teams is a good thing.

Because eventually we may just get lucky and meet some nice stable team who will respect us for what we are. AND put a ring on it!

Because we're good enough! And smart enough! And doggone it, people like us!

But for now... stay insecure and easy, San Antonio!

[manufan10]

I wonder what Mark Davis has to say on this subject. Someone should tweet him, tbh.

[xmas1997]

I wonder what Mark Davis has to say on this subject. Someone should tweet him, tbh.

There are articles of his response, I'll find one just for you. :lol

[xmas1997]

Here you go manufan10, just for you :lol:



Mark Davis says San Antonio meeting “went great”
Posted by Mike Florio on November 9, 2014, 3:42 PM EST

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/09/mark-davis-says-san-antonio-meeting-went-great/

San Antonio wants an NFL team. Or the Raiders.

Via Scott Bair of CSNBayArea.com, Raiders owner Mark Davis said that a recent meeting with San Antonio officials “went great.”

“They let us know what assets San Antonio has to offer,” Davis said.

But he quickly added, "My prime focus is to keep the Raiders in the Bay area."

The most important asset could be ...

[Mel_13]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/pro-sports/cowboys/article/Former-Raiders-executive-dismisses-team-s-5882315.php

[xmas1997]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/pro-sports/cowboys/article/Former-Raiders-executive-dismisses-team-s-5882315.php

The key to this article is in the title i.e. "Former Raiders Executive ..."

[Mel_13]

The key to this article is in the title i.e. "Former Raiders Executive ..."

Exactly. Someone without a stake in the process who can provide a frank and honest assessment of San Antonio's infinitesimal chances of landing the Raiders.

[dabom]

Exactly. Someone without a stake in the process who can provide a frank and honest assessment of San Antonio's infinitesimal chances of landing the Raiders.

If you think they are giving you a frank and honest assessment, you're wrong. Everyone has interests even if they don't look like it. You don't think he still has contacts or relationships with any current raider personnel?

[Mel_13]

If you think they are giving you a frank and honest assessment, you're wrong. Everyone has interests even if they don't look like it. You don't think he still has contacts or relationships with any current raider personnel?

You should actually read the article.

[dabom]

You should actually read the article.

I read it previously. Didn't read it again today. Point still stands regardless of gender.

[Mel_13]

I read it previously. Didn't read it again today. Point still stands whether regardless of gender.

Ok. I disagree.

[dabom]

Ok. I disagree.

:lol

[xmas1997]

May as well have asked the former Raiders coach his opinion for all it counts.

Everyone has an opinion, but they are only opinions.

Only Mark Davis' is the one that counts.

[xmas1997]

Some more "opinions" to ponder over:



Oakland Raiders Relocation: Latest Rumors and Buzz on Potential Move
By Matt Fitzgerald , Featured Columnist

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2261609-oakland-raiders-relocation-latest-rumors-and-buzz-on-potential-move

With a lease for O.co Coliseum expiring after the 2014 NFL season, Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis is looking elsewhere in the event that the franchise has to relocate.

According to Davis' own comments from Friday, the Raiders could find a new home in San Antonio, based on progress made from a recent meeting.

"The meeting went great," said Davis after meeting with City of San Antonio officials, per Scott Bair of CSNBayArea.com. "They let us know what assets San Antonio has to offer."

Bleacher Report's Jason Cole came forward Friday with some inside information:

Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com weighed in on the development on Sunday:

The most important asset could be leverage. Flirting with San Antonio may enhance the team's chances of getting a new venue in Oakland. Few regard San Antonio as a viable candidate to bring the Raiders to town. Former Raiders president Amy Trask expressed significant doubt about the possibility on CBS Sports Network earlier today.

Bair's report also contains testimony from Davis that his first priority is to keep the Raiders in Oakland. Should that be the case, there is some validity to the argument that San Antonio isn't the most viable destination.

Whatever the case may be, the Raiders are a celebrated, major sports franchise with nowhere to go but up following an 0-8 start to this year. There is plenty of upside for cities to court Davis and Co. to catch the team on the upswing—even if Davis ultimately plans to stay put.

[FkLA]

Here is an amusing article that smacks of truth in a very ironic way:



Is SA too eager in flirting with NFL?
Updated: Tuesday, November 11 2014, 06:22 AM CST by Randy Beamer News 4 San Antonio

http://www.news4sanantonio.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/is-sa-too-eager-flirting-nfl-17413.shtml



This is why you don't let news anchors write about sports.

If other cities were as prepared as San Antonio to host a second (or even first) major professional team, they'd be out selling themselves too. As far as the NFL goes, after LA, San Antonio is next in line. It's only a matter of time before a franchise says yes and ends up relocating here.

[ChumpDumper]

This is why you don't let news anchors write about sports.

If other cities were as prepared as San Antonio to host a second (or even first) major professional team, they'd be out selling themselves too. As far as the NFL goes, after LA, San Antonio is next in line. It's only a matter of time before a franchise says yes and ends up relocating here.Maybe not.

I don't think the Jaguars' being scheduled to play in London was an accident.

[FkLA]

Maybe not.

I don't think the Jaguars' being scheduled to play in London was an accident.

That's always seemed like a ridiculous idea to me. London is a huge market but having a team isolated in a different continent, really ?

[ChumpDumper]

That's always seemed like a ridiculous idea to me. London is a huge market but having a team isolated in a different continent, really ?Would be a start.

Trying to get a foothold in Europe where the real money is.

Not San Antonio.

[FkLA]

:lol You're a contrarian. There's bigger markets in Europe but I don't see a team relocating there any time soon, if ever.

Wanna bet SA gets a team before London ?

[xmas1997]

London presents huge logistical problems such as jet lag, players living arrangements (live here or live there), and scheduling, among other things.

Maybe if SSTs were still around it would be easier, but they aren't.

No, I think London is a pipe dream unless they manage to get a whole division of European teams.

The same goes for putting a team in Hawaii, a huge market for the NFL, but too impractical right now and in the near future IMHO.

[xmas1997]

San Antonio economy would benefit from Raiders move
Jeremy Baker, KENS 5 6:16 p.m. CST

http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/2014/11/07/san-antonio-oakland-raiders-nfl-relocation/18673037/

City leaders are billing it as an economic development project with the ability to transform South Texas. But in this case, the project is the wooing of a team that currently plays in California.

On Friday, a small delegation of San Antonio city leaders traveled to the Bay Area to meet with Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis about a potential team move to San Antonio

Whenever the Spurs make the playoffs, San Antonio businesses thrive. So if we had a successful NFL team, it only stands to reason that we would see more of the same.

The Dixie Flag company rakes it in when the Spurs are successful. Those working there say bring on the Raiders.

"The initial effect would be people wanting to get flags promoting the Raiders," said Pete Van de Putte, President and CEO of Dixie Flag.

San Antonio hotels would reap the benefits too, just like when the Spurs hit the playoffs.

"The Spurs are certainly a wonderful boost to our economy and business at the hotel," said Hyatt Regency San Antonio General Manager Greg Leonard. "If the Raiders came in, I'm sure we'd have that same kind of excitement. Everybody would love to welcome them open-handed," Leonard said.

The NFL says that if the Raiders were to come to San Antonio, like any other NFL city, they would bring 110,000 new jobs with them and pump $5 billion into the local economy.

While the Chamber of Commerce wouldn't put a dollar figure on how much the city would benefit from the relocation of the franchise, it agrees that San Antonio would get a financial boost, with some of that dough ending up in bars and restaurants up and down the Riverwalk.

"If we had a football team, that would be great. It would bring people in during the football season. We already have tons of business for The NBA and the Final Four," said Samual Rojas, head bartender of The Worm.

Rojas also pointed out that San Antonio would be a perfect home for the Raiders, who wear silver and black, just like our beloved Spurs.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol You're a contrarian. There's bigger markets in Europe but I don't see a team relocating there any time soon, if ever.

Wanna bet SA gets a team before London ?Depends on what the league wants. If they want more money, there's no reason to mess around with SA.

I think they want more money.


London presents huge logistical problems such as jet lag, players living arrangements (live here or live there), and scheduling, among other things.

Maybe if SSTs were still around it would be easier, but they aren't.

No, I think London is a pipe dream unless they manage to get a whole division of European teams.They just had a game there.


The same goes for putting a team in Hawaii, a huge market for the NFL, but too impractical right now and in the near future IMHO.Hawaii is not a huge market for anything.

Honolulu the 71st largest TV market in the US

[xmas1997]

Depends on what the league wants. If they want more money, there's no reason to mess around with SA. I think they want more money. They just had a game there.


Correction, they had a few games there this year already.

But have they figured out all the logistics involved to put a team there permanently?

Not according to reports.



Hawaii is not a huge market for anything. Honolulu the 71st largest TV market in the US

Also there are articles saying they not only want a team there eventually, but also in Toronto and Mexico City where they have also had games.

[DJR210]

Why did you start another thread for this Glen?

[ChumpDumper]

Correction, they had a few games there this year already.

But have they figured out all the logistics involved to put a team there permanently?

Not according to reports.




Also there are articles saying they not only want a team there eventually, but also in Toronto and Mexico City where they have also had games.Post those reports and articles.

[xmas1997]

Post those reports and articles.

They were posted already in the other thread by this same name.

If you missed them, then your loss, I'm not going to go find them and post them all over again.

[Blake]

Wanna bet SA gets a team before London ?

Yes

[FkLA]

Yes

$500

[ChumpDumper]

They were posted already in the other thread by this same name.

If you missed them, then your loss, I'm not going to go find them and post them all over again.Don't get pissy. You're the one who got all serious and snitched to get the thread deleted.

[anakha]

So butthurt he had to snitch to get his fuckups deleted. :lmao

[benefactor]

Post those reports and articles.
I think it was Dogbreath's report tbh.

[xmas1997]

Don't get pissy. You're the one who got all serious and snitched to get the thread deleted.


So butthurt he had to snitch to get his fuckups deleted. :lmao

Quit being crybabies and grow up, both of you, or STFU.

EDIT: Stick to the topic or go pollute another another thread with your diarrhea if you don't like this one!

[ChumpDumper]

Quit being crybabies and grow up, both of you, or STFU.

EDIT: Stick to the topic or go pollute another another thread with your diarrhea if you don't like this one!We are talking about your NFL thread.

lol Hawaii

[Blake]

$500

Sig bet would be fine.

[Blake]

$500


Mark Waller, NFL's vice president of international, told CNBC a move to London was a "definite possibility", after the huge success of the three NFL matches played in the city this year, but "logistic difficulties" still need to be resolved. "We have around 3 million, what we call avid fans in the U.K., who are watching week in, week out. Then we have around 8 million casual fans. Both of those numbers are growing, and on Sky Sports – which is kind of the home of the NFL in the U.K.— we are now the fifth most watched sport,"

Waller told CNBC on Monday. The NFL has already announced plans to stage three regular season games at Wembley in 2015.......

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/sold-out-nfl-games-london-boost-hopes-british-franchise-n245256

the problem for San Antonio is that TV sets are already turned on to the NFL every Sunday so there's no reason to add a new franchise here.

So that leaves us hoping that a rogue owner will want to move his/her franchise here against the NFL's will.

[xmas1997]

the problem for San Antonio is that TV sets are already turned on to the NFL every Sunday so there's no reason to add a new franchise here.

So that leaves us hoping that a rogue owner will want to move his/her franchise here against the NFL's will.

Blakey, do you realize that this is the same argument used for not having an NFL team in Los Angeles, and more so because of the diversity of team fans living there, or so the reports say.

And consequently they say we have more rabid fans here worthier to have a team who would root for the "home" team like we do the Spurs, only more so since it is football.

[Blake]

Blakey, do you realize that this is the same argument used for not having an NFL team in Los Angeles

No it's not

[ChumpDumper]

If the biggest argument against having a team in the second largest media market is that some of the people there are Chargers fans, there is no argument against it.

[Blake]

If the biggest argument against having a team in the second largest media market is that some of the people there are Chargers fans, there is no argument against it.

:cry oh noes they blacked out the chargers game in LA because it wasn't sold out :cry

[xmas1997]

If the biggest argument against having a team in the second largest media market is that some of the people there are Chargers fans, there is no argument against it.

The Chargers are the least favorite of the three teams able to relocate in 2015, while the Rams are the most popular from what I have read.

No, the reports are that Los Angelinos are fans of all the teams and thus no relocated team would ever have a home field advantage there.

Plus Los Angeles NFL fans are transplants from other cities and like and seem to prefer being able to see their home teams on TV there since there hasn't been a home team in 20 years.

So I'm not quite sure what your point is.

[exstatic]

You still faked your own death. Nothing will ever change that.

[anakha]

Guess the latest shtick is 'old snitching hypocrite'.

[xmas1997]

Spurs’ Holt says there is room for Raiders in San Antonio
Nov 12, 2014, 3:35pm CST W. Scott Bailey

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2014/11/12/spurs-holt-says-there-is-room-for-raiders-in-san.html?page=all

Spurs Sports & Entertainment has built a portfolio of pro teams around its cornerstone franchise, the five-time NBA champion Spurs.

Spurs Chairman Peter Holt says the parent company may look to expand its stable of teams.

"We believe we are the premier sports and entertainment group in San Antonio," Holt told me. "So now we are trying to determine what other opportunities there might be for us. It's a growth business, and we are in a growing market and a great location."

Might Holt or SS&E look to get into the pro football business?

Holt met with Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis in July, when he discussed with local leaders the possibility of relocating the team to San Antonio. The Raiders, which rank next to last in attendance this season and have an expiring lease at the venerable O.co Coliseum, may seek greener pastures. Holt has not ruled out the possibility of some involvement with the Raiders should they land in the Alamo City.

"I did talk to Mark, and I did indicate to him that if they came, we would like to be part of that," said Holt about a potential ownership stake in the NFL team.

Some critics have warned that San Antonio can't handle multiple big league teams. Former mayor Henry Cisneros, among others, discount that notion. Cisneros was responsible for setting up Davis' July visit and was part of the San Antonio delegation that traveled to Oakland last week for a follow-up meeting with Raiders officials.

Could two big league teams co-exist in San Antonio?

"As a citizen of the city of San Antonio, I would love to have more sports teams," Holt said. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that (an NFL franchise) would be a direct competitor (for the Spurs). But long-term, one more pro sports team would be a very positive thing for this community. We would certainly be able to adapt."

[ChumpDumper]

The Chargers are the least favorite of the three teams able to relocate in 2015, while the Rams are the most popular from what I have read.

No, the reports are that Los Angelinos are fans of all the teams and thus no relocated team would ever have a home field advantage there.

Plus Los Angeles NFL fans are transplants from other cities and like and seem to prefer being able to see their home teams on TV there since there hasn't been a home team in 20 years.

So I'm not quite sure what your point is.My point is any team that moves to LA will have LA fans, you can get enough of them out of the huge LA market. Enough for two teams tbh.

Your argument is the perfect argument against moving a team to SA since people here are Cowboys or Texans fans or moved from a place that had a team of which they are still fans.

[pgardn]

$500

This site will shut down before a winner is declared.

[benefactor]

You still faked your own death. Nothing will ever change that.
...and got caught having a serious conversation with a parody twitter account.

[Blake]

The Chargers are the least favorite of the three teams able to relocate in 2015, while the Rams are the most popular from what I have read.

No, the reports are that Los Angelinos are fans of all the teams and thus no relocated team would ever have a home field advantage there.

Plus Los Angeles NFL fans are transplants from other cities and like and seem to prefer being able to see their home teams on TV there since there hasn't been a home team in 20 years.

So I'm not quite sure what your point is.

I don't think you realize just how big the LA market is compared to SA.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think you realize just how big the LA market is compared to SA.It's almost as big as Honolulu.

[FkLA]

Sig bet would be fine.

Why not money if you are so confident ?

[DPG21920]

Why not money if you are so confident ?

Because everyone saw you welsh on a $50 bet :lol?

[LoneStarState'sPride]

Didn't post in the other thread, but here's hoping that the admitted long-shot of an opportunity for SA to land a team comes to fruition.

[xmas1997]

My point is any team that moves to LA will have LA fans, you can get enough of them out of the huge LA market. Enough for two teams tbh. Your argument is the perfect argument against moving a team to SA since people here are Cowboys or Texans fans or moved from a place that had a team of which they are still fans.


It's almost as big as Honolulu.

You have your opinions, I have mine.

After all the research I've done on this topic since July, I think I trust my opinion over yours.

[ChumpDumper]

You have your opinions, I have mine.

After all the research I've done on this topic since July, I think I trust my opinion over yours.OK, what -- in your opinion -- makes Honolulu a more attractive NFL market than LA?

[xmas1997]

OK, what -- in your opinion -- makes Honolulu a more attractive NFL market than LA?

I never said it was.

What makes you think it is?

L.A. is #2 in the nation right now and is tops on their list.

And then comes London, if they can figure a way to resolve all the logistical problems involved, which to date they have not.

Then is followed by Toronto, Hawaii, and Mexico City in no particular order, and to a lesser extent Portland, San Antonio, Sacramento, and Oklahoma City also in no particular order, from all the reports I've been reading.

Most of these reports deal with the idea of NFL expansion rather than relocation except in the cases of L.A. and London by the way.

I can post some more articles about the mindset in Los Angeles like I did in the other thread, but it is all moot since the NFL seems intent on moving there first anyway, but if you think L.A. is a shoo in for fan and corporate support, I am afraid you would be sadly mistaken, there are lots of reports saying the contrary.

But if you want some posted I can easily do it, or just the links if you prefer, or you can go and look for yourself, the internet is saturated with them, just google "NFL in L.A".

And everyone and their mother's sons have opinions on it.

Maybe, just maybe this is why the Rams and Raiders moved out of there in the first place and no one has ever moved back.

[Blake]

Why not money if you are so confident ?

Because I lose track of these far future bets

[ChumpDumper]

I never said it was.

What makes you think it is?

L.A. is #2 in the nation right now and is tops on their list.

And then comes London, if they can figure a way to resolve all the logistical problems involved, which to date they have not.

Then is followed by Toronto, Hawaii, and Mexico City in no particular order, and to a lesser extent Portland, San Antonio, Sacramento, and Oklahoma City also in no particular order, from all the reports I've been reading.

Most of these reports deal with the idea of NFL expansion rather than relocation except in the cases of L.A. and London by the way.

I can post some more articles about the mindset in Los Angeles like I did in the other thread, but it is all moot since the NFL seems intent on moving there first anyway, but if you think L.A. is a shoo in for fan and corporate support, I am afraid you would be sadly mistaken, there are lots of reports saying the contrary.

But if you want some posted I can easily do it, or just the links if you prefer, or you can go and look for yourself, the internet is saturated with them, just google "NFL in L.A".

And everyone and their mother's sons have opinions on it.

Maybe, just maybe this is why the Rams and Raiders moved out of there in the first place and no one has ever moved back.They moved out because they couldn't get a new stadium built.

So why is Honolulu such a coveted NFL market.

[FkLA]

Because everyone saw you welsh on a $50 bet :lol?

Let me know if you wanna make some NBA bets this year tbh. :tu


Because I lose track of these far future bets

Didn't stop you from offering a bet about Davis Webb 2-3 years down the line. Real convenient how you only wanna do a sig bet now. :lol

[xmas1997]

Maybe Los Angeles is better off without NFL team
By Joe Mathews5:45 p.m.Oct. 30, 2014

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/30/la-nfl-team/

Mayor Eric Garcetti says Los Angeles shouldn’t give taxpayer dollars to the National Football League. I disagree. L.A. would be wise to pay the NFL — to stay out.

Unfortunately, 20 years after the Raiders and Rams left town, the very bad idea of luring the NFL back is gaining momentum. Los Angeles just extended a downtown stadium deal agreement that was expiring. The NFL is surveying rich Angelenos to see if they’d buy season tickets. Garcetti himself says it’s “highly likely” a team will relocate here soon.

So there’s no time to waste in organizing an all-out blitz to stop the drive for a new team. The arguments against bringing the NFL are so strong and numerous that I can’t list them all in a short column, but here are a few:

An NFL team would add to our deep bench of dubious celebrities.

L.A. already has enough athletes and other celebrities to distract TV stations and newspapers from covering things that actually matter; we don’t need to add a team of rambunctious football players to our Kardashian culture. And then there are our sports team owners. After the damage Frank McCourt and Donald Sterling did to our civic fabric, why risk bringing another rich and crazy person to town?

An NFL team in L.A. would cannibalize existing businesses.

Studies show that adding a pro sports franchise doesn’t add to a city’s wealth. Instead, it redistributes existing dollars away from other entertainment options to the new franchise. Since the three candidates likely to relocate to L.A. are the Oakland Raiders, San Diego Chargers or St. Louis Rams, we’d be taking teams away from our fellow Californians, or from pitiable Midwesterners who don’t enjoy L.A.’s wide range of cultural offerings.

A new team would be wasteful.

The NFL requires cities to build a new football stadium in order to get a team, but we have plenty of stadiums. Pasadena has spent nearly $200 million modernizing the Rose Bowl, USC is refurbishing the Coliseum, and baseball’s Dodgers and Angels play in stadiums fully capable of hosting NFL games. If you want to see what can go wrong with a brand-new stadium, check out the parking, traffic and fan violence problems at the 49ers’ Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara.

A new team might be bad for Los Angeles’ own football fans.

Just as ocean life often thrives around collapsed oil rigs, the absence of the NFL has allowed a delicate football ecology to flourish in the City of Angels. L.A. TV stations air the best pro games from across the country. And on Sundays, Angelenos with roots across the nation gather together to watch their hometown teams in local bars and restaurants. And if they absolutely must see the NFL in person, the Chargers are just a train ride away in San Diego.

Despite all this, many of our leaders insist that a city of our grandeur should have an NFL team, and that it won’t cost us anything. But the city’s current deal for a downtown stadium, while providing for private financing, uses public land and requires the city to sell some $300 million in bonds to build new convention space.

The NFL is shopping for a better deal than that in other Southern California cities. The league could offer other lures to draw big public subsidies — giving L.A. two teams instead of just one, or committing to hosting multiple Super Bowls here. Ask yourself: Do you trust the L.A. political and business leaders who just lined up behind a $1.6 billion tax giveaway to Hollywood to stick to a hard line against public support for a pro football team? Me neither.

With the NFL determined to come here, L.A’s best hope may be to offer incentives to stay away. When you think of all the costs of having a team — stadium costs now and in the future, additional traffic, the dollars that football would divert away from other entertainment options, and all the time and public attention wasted on the NFL drama — paying off the NFL becomes a bargain.

Together, the county and city should offer the league $100 million in exchange for a guarantee never to put a team here. And if the league turns it down? That, at the very least, would make the reality undeniable: The NFL wants to take L.A. for all it’s worth.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey look, another opinion.

What about Honolulu?

[Russ]

Maybe Los Angeles is better off without NFL team
By Joe Mathews5:45 p.m.Oct. 30, 2014

I live in LA. Nobody here gives a damn whether we have an NFL team.

By contrast, the NFL actually does care.

The NFL awarded LA an expansion team a few years ago. The league wired it for LA but nobody in LA bothered to pay the fee to start the team.

That team is now called the Houston Texans.

Nobody in LA cares about getting an NFL team.

[xmas1997]

A Passionate N.F.L. City, if in Absentia
Los Angeles Has 32 Home Teams in the N.F.L., but None to Watch in Person
By BILLY WITZNOV. 8, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/sports/football/los-angeles-has-32-home-teams-in-the-nfl-but-none-to-watch-in-person.html

LOS ANGELES — When ...

This is the 20th season that the N.F.L. has not had a team based in Los Angeles, since the Rams left for St. Louis and the Raiders for Oakland. Although the league has developed as an entertainment behemoth, Los Angeles has in many ways followed along, evolving into the archetype of the postmodern N.F.L. city, where the matter of a home team or a stadium is largely irrelevant.

As personal seat licenses and more suites and club seating have made tickets less accessible, high-definition television, smartphones and a DirecTV package showing virtually every game have transformed the viewing experience. A generation of fans has grown up in Los Angeles knowing no other way to watch football.

Consider Kevin Katz, ...

Although many options for diversion remain, particularly on warm fall days, watching the N.F.L. on television remains a popular one. From Sept. 1 through last Sunday, 18 of the 20 most-viewed programs in the Los Angeles market were N.F.L. games, according to Nielsen Company ratings provided by the N.F.L. The Los Angeles viewership for NBC’s “Sunday Night Football” is in line with national averages; the Los Angeles ratings for CBS and Fox are about one-third below the national average on those networks.

But the television audience has not prompted substantive movement toward the N.F.L.'s return. Houston won a bidding war with several Los Angeles sites for an expansion team in 1999. Five years later, the N.F.L. staff laid considerable groundwork to choose from four Southern California sites — a refurbished Coliseum or Rose Bowl, or empty parcels in Anaheim and Carson — but the owners lost interest amid more pressing labor and television negotiations.

More recently, the two developers who built Staples Center have squared off with competing proposals — Anschutz Entertainment Group for a downtown stadium and Ed Roski for one in the City of Industry, 20 miles to the east — but they have shortcomings. The Anschutz proposal has insufficient land nearby for parking and development, and the Roski location is far from the moneyed Westside. Each is seeking an ownership stake.

Sites in Carson, Inglewood and Chavez Ravine, the Dodger Stadium site long coveted by the N.F.L., are other possibilities, as is the league’s role as a co-developer, perhaps bringing other assets to bear, such as relocating the NFL Network studio to downtown from Culver City.

Eric Grubman, the N.F.L. executive in charge of developing the market for the league, lauded the opportunities that Los Angeles’s entertainment, business and celebrity culture present and said the league’s return was a matter of when rather than if. But he added that nothing was imminent.

“I honestly don’t know if we’ll get a proposal this year,” Grubman said. “It’s not ripe until it’s ripe.”

Los Angeles political leaders, including Mayor Eric Garcetti, have been as lukewarm toward the latest proposals as the N.F.L. has been.

“What’s the upside of the mayor saying this is the most important thing?” said Tom LaBonge, a longtime city councilman. “People care about three things: traffic, cleanliness and public safety.”

LaBonge, an enthusiastic civic booster, is a rare political bird: an unabashed N.F.L. supporter. His love of the game goes back to Marshall High, where he played alongside the future Hall of Fame cornerback Mike Haynes and later coached Andy Reid, now the Kansas City Chiefs’ coach. But LaBonge knows that his voice is a lonely one.

“As I challenge the owners to get off the bench, I’d probably have to challenge my own colleagues,” LaBonge said. “A lot of them would probably say they’ve already been to this dance. Somebody’s got to be brave and say, ‘I really, really want this.' ”

Some officials are skeptical about the intentions of the N.F.L., which has scheduled regular-season games in Toronto and Mexico City and regularly in London, but not in Los Angeles. A proposal to play the 50th Super Bowl next season at the Coliseum, the site of the first one, or the Rose Bowl in Pasadena fizzled quickly.

But having Los Angeles as a stalking horse has been extremely valuable to N.F.L. owners in recent years. Politicians have committed $670 million in public funds to the Indianapolis Colts’ new stadium; $498 million to the Minnesota Vikings’ new home; $471 million to the Superdome, home of the New Orleans Saints, since Hurricane Katrina; $226 million in renovations to the Buffalo Bills’ stadium; and $43 million in upgrades for the Jacksonville Jaguars — all amid whispers that the teams might move to Los Angeles.

“It is entirely possible that the L.A. football market has been more valuable to the N.F.L. empty than if it had been occupied since 1995,” John Vrooman, a Vanderbilt University sports economist, wrote in an email, adding that the N.F.L. operated as an unregulated cartel. “It is standard operating procedure for the N.F.L. commissioner and other concerned owners to drop the not-so-veiled threat of relocation to L.A.”

Vrooman said the latest rumblings with the Rams, the Raiders and the San Diego Chargers — each able to opt out of their leases after this season and looking for a new stadium deal — are more of the same. Stan Kroenke, the Rams’ owner, bought land in Inglewood, where Al Davis once thought he had a deal for a stadium.

To many N.F.L. fans in Los Angeles, the greatest benefit of being in a vacant market is not being forced to watch bad teams every week. (That sound you hear is Jets and Giants fans nodding vigorously.) A caveat is that the Chargers, under the N.F.L.'s byzantine television rules, can lay claim to Los Angeles as a secondary market, meaning that their road games must be shown here and their home games can be blacked out.

But mostly this allows for instances like last weekend, when the two games with the broadest national appeal — Broncos at Patriots and Cardinals at Cowboys — were shown in Los Angeles.

“It’s easier for an L.A. fan to get attached to good story lines,” said Matthew Rodriguez, who was watching the game at the 5 Line Tavern because his girlfriend’s father is a Bengals fan. “For me, it’s a no-brainer.”

The audience at St. Felix is not so tangentially attached. The bar, with its retro décor, turns into a Browns haven on game days. One of its owners is John Arakaki, a musician from Cleveland who has lent a taste of home with a game-day menu that includes pirogi and the Johnny Football burger, a chili cheeseburger on a pretzel bread bun that is an ode to Johnny Manziel.

The crowd reaches about 200 most N.F.L. Sundays, which does not surprise Arakaki; tens of thousands of Ohio State graduates alone live in Southern California. On Thursday, many of the fans who had arrived straight from work seemed happy to see familiar faces, holding the hope that the Browns’ fortunes might be starting to turn.

“For me, ...

[xmas1997]

L.A. talk should be concern for Bolts fans
By Nick Canepa6:52 p.m.Nov. 10, 2014

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/nov/10/los-angeles-chargers-stadium/

The Battle for L.A. has begun. In earnest.

Los Angeles doesn’t deserve an NFL franchise — and after losing the two it once had (three if you include the AFL Chargers), it’s highly debatable it cares — but one appears to be coming, welcome or not.

Despite its immense population, L.A. is not a great sports town and physically has been NFL-deprived for 20 years. But it’s a corporate city, a money tree tinseled with Hollywood glitter, and The League under Commissioner Roger Goodell has had nothing but $$$ in its eyes, degeneration of its product be damned.

The Chargers’ new stadium issue ...

[xmas1997]

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/silver-datalab-nfl-london-22.png?w=1024

[ChumpDumper]

Choosing a team site by Google searches?

Man.

[Blake]

Didn't stop you from offering a bet about Davis Webb 2-3 years down the line. Real convenient how you only wanna do a sig bet now. :lol

I can keep track of that one easier.

If you take it as a sign that I'm wavering on my belief that SA will next to never get an NFL franchise, I don't really care. My ego is fine.

[Biernutz]

LA is just not much of a pro football town. That will not stop them from
getting the next team that moves. The NFL wants a team in LA for the TV -media
market. This is the biggest TV market in the USA with no team? I just cannot imagine
why it's taking so long to put a team in a market that will be a cash cow for the league.

[xmas1997]

LA is just not much of a pro football town. That will not stop them from
getting the next team that moves. The NFL wants a team in LA for the TV -media
market. This is the biggest TV market in the USA with no team? I just cannot imagine
why it's taking so long to put a team in a market that will be a cash cow for the league.

I agree with you, Los Angeles will be next according to the NFL and within one or two years.

They want one badly in London too, but that is fraught with lots of logistical nightmares at this point, but they are thinking of making it a requirement that every team play at least one regular season game there once they figure out how to get past the contractual legalities involved.

Many are saying that expansion is the way to do this.

[xmas1997]

NFL booms in London, but possible team move still hazy
Gary Mihoces, USA TODAY Sports 1:16 p.m. EST November 11, 2014

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/11/11/london-international-series-moving-franchise/1883601

Playing a new high of three games in London this season, the NFL did bloody well.

Novelty appeal in soccer land? Or do the positive signs say London is not only ready for some football – but its own franchise?

"I don't think they make it a done deal. … I do think we've made a lot of progress on several fronts,'' says Mark Waller, an Englishman who is NFL executive vice president for international.

In Sunday's 2014 London finale, the Dallas Cowboys beat the Jacksonville Jaguars at Wembley Stadium before a paid sellout crowd of 83,603 (average ticket $122 U.S. dollars). Nine of 11 London games since 2007 have sold more than 83,000 tickets, including the past six.

An October game, the "Wake up to Wembley" matchup between the Detroit Lions and Atlanta Falcons, had a start time of 9:30 a.m. ET in the USA, yet turned in solid ratings in a time slot that could expand the NFL schedule on Sundays.

Three more NFL games are set for London in 2015.

"We've sold a quarter of a million tickets for those three games (this year)," says Waller. " … If you kind of took that and translated it into U.S. domestic terms, that's probably half a season (of home attendance) for most clubs.''

A third of customers bought the three-game package.

"You've got a core there of attendees that you could sort of almost qualify as season ticket holders," says Waller. " … I think we've seen progress on that sort of fan-demand side, which is a huge part of being able to make the next phase of the commitment.''

Learning curve

On Sunday at Wembley, Michelle Williams, formerly of Destiny's Child, sang the The Star-Spangled Banner, inspired by the U.S. defense of Fort McHenry from bombardment – by the British – in the War of 1812. The United Kingdom's God Save the Queen also was sung.

The NFL says 88 percent of London attendees are from the UK, and they're learning the game.

The website of NFL UK has basics such as, "One 11-man team has possession of the football. It is called the offense,'' and, "Probably the most important part of the field is the end zone."

Oakland Raiders offensive tackle Menelik Watson, a native of England, says he seen "steadily" mounting interest.

"People in England are still kind of raw to the rules and regulations," Watson said. "Once they get that down, it's going to really, really take off."

Cowboys defensive end Jack Crawford, also from England: "When I learned the rules of American football, it became the most entertaining sport to watch. … If you don't know the rules, then it's just stop, stop, stop. And it's boring.''

Could London sustain a home team?

"They don't have an answer to that yet," says Marc Ganis, president of Chicago-based Sportscorp, a consultant to many NFL teams on franchise moves and stadium issues. "But that's one of the primarily goals of increasing the number of games. They want to see if there's a fan base for it, if it would work logistically, if it can be a bridge to broader broadcasting deals throughout Europe.''

The NFL has said it wants a team in Los Angeles. But Commissioner Roger Goodell also has said there could be a London team in five to 10 years.

Ganis doesn't see a London team landing an NFL team via expansion, and he said the drawbacks go beyond owners not wanting to divide profits further. "There are a number of owners that have told me that on a competitive balance basis, 32 teams is perfect,'' says Ganis.

That leaves relocation. Sunday, Jacksonville played the second of four London games it has scheduled annually through 2016. Team owner Shahid Khan also owns an English soccer club. On Sky Sports, more or less the English version of ESPN, Khan said last week it is "way too early" to say London will get a team.

"The most important thing is, is there really a fan base to support a team?" said Khan. "For us, we've been very clear we are the Jacksonville Jaguars."

More games coming

Next season will include more firsts: The Miami Dolphins vs. New York Jets on Oct. 4 is the first division game (AFC East) scheduled for London.

The NFL also will offer London fans their first games on back-to-back weekends: Jacksonville plays the Buffalo Bills on Oct. 25 and the Kansas City Chiefs play Detroit a week later.

Consecutive Sundays will provide another test, and possibly additional issues.

Wembley Stadium is regularly used as the England national soccer team's home venue for international matches such as qualifying games for the World Cup and European Championships. England head coach Roy Hodgson last week voiced his displeasure at the impact staging NFL games had on the surface, which is a composite of natural grass and artificial fibers.

"If I am asked if it is a good thing or not, I would have to say not," Hodgson told the UK media, when asked about the Cowboys' victory over the Jaguars being scheduled so close to an England game. England plays Slovenia at Wembley on Saturday.

Wembley Stadium is the only realistic venue for a London-based NFL team, and is owned by The Football Association, English soccer's governing body, through a subsidiary.

However, Wembley's managing director Roger Maslin said Monday that that NFL games were not to blame for the field's current uneven and inconsistent surface, instead blaming flaws in last summer's renovation.

A permanent London team likely would play two or three consecutive games at home, then two or three in the USA. "It wouldn't work if you were flying backwards and forwards week in and week out," Waller said.

The NFL again could experimentwith the earlier start.

The NFL was encouraged by the Oct. 26 Lions-Falcons game that started at 9:30 a.m. ET, as it drew roughly 8.5 million viewers in a time typically allocated to pre-game shows.

"I think that early window for the last game was probably a really good turning point,'' Waller said.

A report commissioned by the NFL and a London marketing agency said a London team could generate an annual economic impact locally of about $255 million. In the report, Sajid Javid, Parliament member/secretary of state for culture, media and sport, said, "London and the UK will welcome it with open arms."

The NFL wants more evidence.

"This is not a 51-49 kind of call," Ganis said. "The results of the efforts this year and in the ensuing few years will have to demonstrate very clearly to ownership that putting a team in London has significant long term benefits.''

He says the NFL needs to know it can handle the "serious contortions" needed for a London team.

Before their trip to London last Sunday after a game in Cincinnati, the Jaguars signed linebacker Khairi Fortt.

"We weren't sure he had a passport. We weren't sure he had a birth certificate," said Jaguars General Manager Dave Caldwell.

Fortt had both. "The NFL hasn't mandated that all players have a passport, and if we're going to continue to play games over here we feel like they should," Caldwellsaid.

After losing at New England Sept. 21, the Raiders flew seven hours, from Providence, R.I., to London – eight hours difference from Oakland.

"For me, being a European, I've done a lot of traveling, a lot of back and forth," Watson said, "so the time difference doesn't affect me. … I'm sure once guys are used to that schedule, it will be something they become accustomed to."



For more of the logistics, follow this link below:


London's logistical issues remain in NFL's way

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/11/11/london-international-series-franchise-problems/18836465/

[xmas1997]

London calling, and San Antonio is on hold
By Buck Harvey Updated: November 9, 2014 1:11pm

http://www.expressnews.com/sports/columnists/buck_harvey/article/London-calling-and-San-Antonio-is-on-hold-5881004.php

Henry Cisneros believes, if no one else does. And when he says the possibility of the Oakland Raiders moving to San Antonio is a “very clear 50-50 proposition,” he bases that on many factors.

Among them is the passion that South Texas has for football.

But passion doesn’t have much to do with this, ...

And London looks in, again, from the outside.

Cisneros and San Antonio officials traveled ...

That was nice of Cisneros, because the Raiders have had severe indigestion. They are the NFL’s only winless team.

The Cowboys will ...

Given that the Jacksonville owner, Shahid Khan, also owns an English soccer club, the Jaguars are candidates to move full-time to London. While that is ...

Still, no one is sure of the logistics should an NFL team permanently reside in London. Traveling trans-Atlantic for one game, followed by a bye as the Cowboys have, is far different than putting London in the NFC East.

The three games against New York, Washington and Philadelphia would be long but tolerable. The annual home-and-away with Dallas would add a few more hours.

But the rotating schedule that would eventually align London with, say, the NFC West, would be a challenge for everyone. The London franchise would likely have to stay in the states for three-game stretches, and teams such as Seattle and San Francisco would face season-changing jet lag.

As for other issues: Would the team be based in London year round while the talent still lives in the United States, and would players want to sign to play there?

It’s a reason John Madden, in an interview last week with USA Today, said, “I don’t think that London thing can ever work.”

Jerry Jones, ...

Jones took the opposite stance last summer when told of the Raiders’ interest in San Antonio. He initially said he wasn’t sure if it was a joke.

“It would be difficult for (the Raiders) to make headway,” he said. “I’ll make sure of that.”

But London? “It has cachet,” Jones said, and a Dallas Morning News columnist had fun with that.

“Cachet,” he wrote. “For all Jerry knows, it’s French for cash. Because that’s what an NFL team here represents.”

A marriage between the NFL and an international financial center of about eight million people would be a royal one. Imagine the spike in ratings on the telly.

That’s why the NFL wants this to work and would risk its product with overseas travel. The league can’t expand its brand in cities such as San Antonio anymore; there’s windfall growth in untapped markets.

And if London sports fans are just mildly interested? The NFL is willing to overlook that as it is with Los Angeles. L.A., a more likely landing spot for the Raiders, has seen NFL teams leave in the past without much regret.

“I never had any doubt that people here,” Cisneros said a few years ago about San Antonio, “would respond to the opportunity to see professional football, the NFL.”

As if that’s the issue.

[Blake]

Globart posting the entire article again from saen.

Those guys have threatened to sue before. Why is this difficult for you to grasp this concept?

[xmas1997]

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/silver-datalab-nfl-london-1.png?w=1024

[Blake]

Globart posting the entire article again from saen.

Those guys have threatened to sue before. Why is this difficult for you to grasp this concept?

Why are you clearly violating forum rule, Glen?

[anakha]

Glen literally so stupid he forgot the forum rules again.

[xmas1997]

Why are you clearly violating forum rule, Glen?


Glen literally so stupid he forgot the forum rules again.


Wow, great way to stick to the topic, guys! :clap

Far be it from either of you two to ever derail a thread. :tu

You both need to go back to playing your video games, and leave the message board discussions to us mature civil adults!

:lol

[manufan10]

Regarding a team in London, I think the way they do it now is fine. Send a couple of teams over there for a few games and that's it. I don't see how an actual team being in London can work, no matter how hard the NFL tries or how badly they want it.

[manufan10]

Wow, great way to stick to the topic, guys! :clap

Far be it from either of you two to ever derail a thread. :tu

You both need to go back to playing your video games, and leave the message board discussions to us mature civil adults!

:lol

You've been told several times that SAEN has threatened to sue ST for putting an article up in its entirety already. For some reason you haven't grasped that concept. It's not that difficult. Take an important paragraph, quote it, then post the link to the rest of the article.

[xmas1997]

Regarding a team in London, I think the way they do it now is fine. Send a couple of teams over there for a few games and that's it. I don't see how an actual team being in London can work, no matter how hard the NFL tries or how badly they want it.

I agree, and as I was discussing with chump, the logistics are too difficult to overcome.

[anakha]

Glen still literally too stupid to remember a rule he's been reminded of ad nauseam. :lmao

Old man with selective forum rules memory. :lmao

[manufan10]

I agree, and as I was discussing with chump, the logistics are too difficult to overcome.

Yeah, I think this season every team that has played in London followed that game with a bye week (iirc). How would a London team do it for 8 games out of the year?

[xmas1997]

Glen still literally too stupid to remember a rule he's been reminded of ad nauseam. :lmao

Old man with selective forum rules memory. :lmao

Go back to your video games, you are a failure here tbqh.

And quit derailing the thread, no one wants to read your BS, sorry to be so frank about it, but that is the truth.

[Blake]

Go back to your video games, you are a failure here tbqh.

And quit derailing the thread, no one wants to read your BS, sorry to be so frank about it, but that is the truth.

Glen.

You need to edit the fucking post.

We're derailing because we don't want Spurstalk to get sued because that would probably mean the end of Spurstalk.

retarded hypocritical piece of shit.

[benefactor]

Go back to your video games, you are a failure here tbqh.

And quit derailing the thread, no one wants to read your BS, sorry to be so frank about it, but that is the truth.
No one is derailing the thread Mr. Follow The Rules. Would you like me to link you the thread where timvp posted a letter that was sent to him from SAEN's legal team? Stop being stupid and edit your post, flake.

[anakha]

Glen - still too dumb to follow the rules, except when he can use them to bitch.

[xmas1997]

Could SA be temporary home for Raiders?
Team would relocate during construction of new stadium
Posted November 10, 2014, 6:30 PM Updated November 10, 2014, 6:30 PM

http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/11/10/could-sa-be-temporary-home-for-raiders-.html

SAN ANTONIO - After meeting with a delegation of San Antonio business leaders last week, Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis reiterated his desire to keep the team in Oakland.

But for fans yearning for a pro football team in San Antonio, all hope may not be lost. If the Raiders stay, and get the football-only stadium they desire, they’ll need a temporary place to play during construction. That has local sports fans asking: Why not San Antonio?

“If the Raiders moved here, everybody would be a Raiders fan,” said Shawn Maldonado.

“I don’t think (a temporary relocation) is worth it,” said Deshawn Wilburn. “We want to lay a foundation here, and we can't do that off of temporary.”

Supporters of a limited relocation said the Raiders’ time in San Antonio could be a sort of pilot program, giving the city a chance to show the NFL that it is ready for its own franchise.

“Show them that the fans will come out and support in numbers, and with their wallets,” said University of the Incarnate Word sports marketing professor Randall Griffiths.

San Antonio hosted the New Orleans Saints for several games after Hurricane Katrina. Griffiths said even though the league may know what San Antonio has to offer, playing host to a marquee franchise may be enough to get the city its own team.

“It shows a commitment by the city leadership and the fan base to come out and exercise with their feet and their wallets,” Griffiths said.

[xmas1997]

No one is derailing the thread Mr. Follow The Rules. Would you like me to link you the thread where timvp posted a letter that was sent to him from SAEN's legal team? Stop being stupid and edit your post, flake.

Every Express-News article is being edited and some just the link to them are posted, and most of the other articles are edited too.

If you don't like this thread, or how it is posted, then you don't have to read it, you are free to skip it, and I assure you, you won't be missed.

[lmbebo]

Could SA be temporary home for Raiders?
Team would relocate during construction of new stadium
Posted November 10, 2014, 6:30 PM Updated November 10, 2014, 6:30 PM

http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/11/10/could-sa-be-temporary-home-for-raiders-.html

SAN ANTONIO - After meeting with a delegation of San Antonio business leaders last week, Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis reiterated his desire to keep the team in Oakland.

But for fans yearning for a pro football team in San Antonio, all hope may not be lost. If the Raiders stay, and get the football-only stadium they desire, they’ll need a temporary place to play during construction. That has local sports fans asking: Why not San Antonio?

“If the Raiders moved here, everybody would be a Raiders fan,” said Shawn Maldonado.

“I don’t think (a temporary relocation) is worth it,” said Deshawn Wilburn. “We want to lay a foundation here, and we can't do that off of temporary.”

Supporters of a limited relocation said the Raiders’ time in San Antonio could be a sort of pilot program, giving the city a chance to show the NFL that it is ready for its own franchise.

“Show them that the fans will come out and support in numbers, and with their wallets,” said University of the Incarnate Word sports marketing professor Randall Griffiths.

San Antonio hosted the New Orleans Saints for several games after Hurricane Katrina. Griffiths said even though the league may know what San Antonio has to offer, playing host to a marquee franchise may be enough to get the city its own team.

“It shows a commitment by the city leadership and the fan base to come out and exercise with their feet and their wallets,” Griffiths said.

Don't like the idea of the Raiders temp moving to SA. Not worth while. Happened already with the Saints. What else does the city need to do to prove itself worthy?

[benefactor]

Every Express-News article is being edited and some just the link to them are posted, and most of the other articles are edited too.

If you don't like this thread, or how it is posted, then you don't have to read it, you are free to skip it, and I assure you, you won't be missed.
What the fuck are you talking about? The whole article is still there.

[anakha]

Glen - still too dumb to follow the rules, except when he can use them to bitch.

[xmas1997]

Don't like the idea of the Raiders temp moving to SA. Not worth while. Happened already with the Saints. What else does the city need to do to prove itself worthy?

I agree, better to wait, if they elect to play in California, let them stay in California.

[TheWriter]

Don't like the idea of the Raiders temp moving to SA. Not worth while. Happened already with the Saints. What else does the city need to do to prove itself worthy?

O'rly?

You don't like the assinine idea some moronic council person in Oakland conceived while inhaling paint fumes?

You don't say.

[Mel_13]

http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/11/14/san-antonio-chosen-to-host-ncaa-final-four-in-2018.html

[dabom]

http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/11/14/san-antonio-chosen-to-host-ncaa-final-four-in-2018.html

:toast

[TheWriter]

http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/11/14/san-antonio-chosen-to-host-ncaa-final-four-in-2018.html

This is big news because, now with winning the Final Four bid, there will be a major renovation and upgrade of the Dome to the tune of 50 million dollars.

[Mel_13]

This is big news because, now with winning the Final Four bid, there will be a major renovation and upgrade of the Dome to the tune of 50 million dollars.

That's why I posted it in this thread. Although I still believe that we'll never see an NFL franchise in San Antonio, this does move the needle in the right direction.

[TheWriter]

That's why I posted it in this thread. Although I still believe that we'll never see an NFL franchise in San Antonio, this does move the needle in the right direction.

Ever the optimist.

[Mel_13]

Ever the optimist.

I'm optimistic about plenty of things, seeing an NFL franchise in San Antonio isn't one of them.

[TheWriter]

I'm optimistic about plenty of things, seeing an NFL franchise in San Antonio isn't one of them.

Yeah, no shit, Sherlock.

Just to make it clear. Your opinion, I disagree with.

[Mel_13]

Yeah, no shit, Sherlock.

Just to make it clear. Your opinion, I disagree with.

You're as eloquent as ever...

[benefactor]

This is big news because, now with winning the Final Four bid, there will be a major renovation and upgrade of the Dome to the tune of 50 million dollars.
Xmas' old, flaccid dong just rose up slightly for the first time in 20 years.

[xmas1997]

Here is an interesting hypothetical situational article that you will have to subscribe to the San Antonio Business Journal in order to read all of it:


Raiders’ recipe for success: San Antonio and Manziel
Oct 24, 2014, 5:00am CDT W. Scott Bailey Reporter/Project Coordinator- San Antonio Business Journal

http://http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/print-edition/2014/10/24/raiders-recipe-for-success-san-antonio-and-manziel.html

Sometimes, it takes a little work to align the moon and the stars. You have to push and pull, and nudge a little too.

Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis may feel like he is stuck in the Bay Area's black hole, obligated to a town that lost the team once, thanks to his dad. But he could find his perfect universe with a little hard work and a giant leap of faith.

Just as the panhandlers raced west to California during the gold rush in search of fortunes, Davis should now head in the opposite direction as fast as he ...

.................................................. ...............................................
And another opinionated article with lots of conjecture as well:


San Antonio...Home Of The NFL?
by Jake Elman

With relocation becoming a real possibility for some teams, could San Antonio work as a possible location?

http://jakeelman.sportsblog.com/posts/1247255/san_antonio___home_of_the_nfl_.html

The way Canadian rapper Drake talked about how Nothing Was The Same, the Oakland Raiders ...

There have been talks in recent years of the Oakland Raiders, well, leaving Oakland for a city that will build them a new stadium, but they've always been kind of pushed off to the side. Now, the talks of relocation are heating up, but a possible destination for the Raiders may not be Los Angeles, the city where they once played.

If you had told me five years ago that the NFL would consider possibly putting a franchise in San Antonio, I'd have looked at you like you were crazy. Now, with the chances of Mark Davis' Raiders leaving Oakland increasing by the day, let's ask the question - could San Antonio work as a possible place for a football team?

Well, these past couple years or so, we've seen that football can work in San Antonio. The University of Texas-San Antonio Roadrunners, a team that started play in 2011, finished second in attendance for C-USA last season; star running back Evans Okotcha and the Roadrunners drew an average of 29,214 fans to the Alamodome for six home games in 2013, trailing only East Carolina, which attracted nearly 44,000 fans on average. For a city that's basketball orientated, what with the Spurs only missing the playoffs once since 1990, that's pretty impressive.

"We're going to present San Antonio's ...

Now, you may be asking why San Antonio may work over, say, a Portland or a Salt Lake City. Why would the NFL go for three teams in Texas when they already have the Dallas Cowboys (America's team) and the Houston Texans? Part of it is the Texas market, which means more dollars for the NFL; also, the idea of three organizations in Texas is one that's worked out successfully in the NBA, as the Dallas Mavericks, Houston Rockets, and San Antonio Spurs succeed not only on the court, but in terms of fans and money. I see no reason that it wouldn't work for the NFL, although it would be interesting to see the financial numbers when the San Antonio team would be going against the Spurs.

For San Antonio to acquire a football team, I'd assume that they'd have to play one game in London - whether as the home team or the visitor - at some point in their first two or three seasons. The NFL is telling teams that they need to play at least one game in London if they wish to host a Super Bowl, and I figure the same would go for cities trying to bring a franchise to town.

When asked over the summer if San Antonio would be a good fit for the Raiders, Houston Texans owner Bob McNair was blunt.

"We'll have to see what those options are as this plays out, but {the Raiders} do need a new stadium," McNair told the Houston Chronicle. "If San Antonio ends up being the best option, I wouldn't oppose it just because it's San Antonio. The finance committee would have to approve a move, and I'm chairman of the finance committee."

Interestingly enough, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones remarked around that same time that San Antonio was mostly Dallas Cowboys fans, specifically saying, "I am very pleased that we have the fan base that we have down there and the percentage of fans we have (in San Antonio)," Jones said. "I think it is 97, 98, 99 percent Cowboys fans in the area. But it doesn't surprise me at all. I know that there were those kind of rumors regarding the Saints."

Though some may be concerned about Jones and McNair potentially trying to prevent a team moving to San Antonio, I honestly think the two might welcome it to a certain extent. More teams means more competition, and more competition means more money. It means you raise ticket prices, you make merchandise (jerseys, hats, beer mugs) a bit more expensive, etc.

Even if the Raiders don't go to San Antonio, ...

Speaking of stadiums, I'd have to imagine that whoever relocated there would use the Alamodome for a temporary home while a new stadium is built. The Alamodome has experience ...

If the Oakland Raiders were to leave Oakland for San Antonio, I think it'd be a smart decision. This is a town that can handle football, and for Derek Carr's Raiders, could truly help the franchise regain its winning ways. Do you understand how much it helps the morale of a team to play in a real stadium, not one that has constant septic issues? We've seen in the past that re-location can entirely change a franchise, and for once the league's greatest teams, this is something that needs to be done.

So much for the Oakland Raiders, I want to see the San Antonio Marshals!

[4lifecowboy]

Here is an interesting hypothetical situational article that you will have to subscribe to the San Antonio Business Journal in order to read all of it:


Raiders’ recipe for success: San Antonio and Manziel
Oct 24, 2014, 5:00am CDT W. Scott Bailey Reporter/Project Coordinator- San Antonio Business Journal

http://http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/print-edition/2014/10/24/raiders-recipe-for-success-san-antonio-and-manziel.html

Sometimes, it takes a little work to align the moon and the stars. You have to push and pull, and nudge a little too.

Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis may feel like he is stuck in the Bay Area's black hole, obligated to a town that lost the team once, thanks to his dad. But he could find his perfect universe with a little hard work and a giant leap of faith.

Just as the panhandlers raced west to California during the gold rush in search of fortunes, Davis should now head in the opposite direction as fast as he ...

.................................................. ...............................................
And another opinionated article with lots of conjecture as well:


San Antonio...Home Of The NFL?
by Jake Elman

With relocation becoming a real possibility for some teams, could San Antonio work as a possible location?

http://jakeelman.sportsblog.com/posts/1247255/san_antonio___home_of_the_nfl_.html

The way Canadian rapper Drake talked about how Nothing Was The Same, the Oakland Raiders ...

There have been talks in recent years of the Oakland Raiders, well, leaving Oakland for a city that will build them a new stadium, but they've always been kind of pushed off to the side. Now, the talks of relocation are heating up, but a possible destination for the Raiders may not be Los Angeles, the city where they once played.

If you had told me five years ago that the NFL would consider possibly putting a franchise in San Antonio, I'd have looked at you like you were crazy. Now, with the chances of Mark Davis' Raiders leaving Oakland increasing by the day, let's ask the question - could San Antonio work as a possible place for a football team?

Well, these past couple years or so, we've seen that football can work in San Antonio. The University of Texas-San Antonio Roadrunners, a team that started play in 2011, finished second in attendance for C-USA last season; star running back Evans Okotcha and the Roadrunners drew an average of 29,214 fans to the Alamodome for six home games in 2013, trailing only East Carolina, which attracted nearly 44,000 fans on average. For a city that's basketball orientated, what with the Spurs only missing the playoffs once since 1990, that's pretty impressive.

"We're going to present San Antonio's ...

Now, you may be asking why San Antonio may work over, say, a Portland or a Salt Lake City. Why would the NFL go for three teams in Texas when they already have the Dallas Cowboys (America's team) and the Houston Texans? Part of it is the Texas market, which means more dollars for the NFL; also, the idea of three organizations in Texas is one that's worked out successfully in the NBA, as the Dallas Mavericks, Houston Rockets, and San Antonio Spurs succeed not only on the court, but in terms of fans and money. I see no reason that it wouldn't work for the NFL, although it would be interesting to see the financial numbers when the San Antonio team would be going against the Spurs.

For San Antonio to acquire a football team, I'd assume that they'd have to play one game in London - whether as the home team or the visitor - at some point in their first two or three seasons. The NFL is telling teams that they need to play at least one game in London if they wish to host a Super Bowl, and I figure the same would go for cities trying to bring a franchise to town.

When asked over the summer if San Antonio would be a good fit for the Raiders, Houston Texans owner Bob McNair was blunt.

"We'll have to see what those options are as this plays out, but {the Raiders} do need a new stadium," McNair told the Houston Chronicle. "If San Antonio ends up being the best option, I wouldn't oppose it just because it's San Antonio. The finance committee would have to approve a move, and I'm chairman of the finance committee."

Interestingly enough, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones remarked around that same time that San Antonio was mostly Dallas Cowboys fans, specifically saying, "I am very pleased that we have the fan base that we have down there and the percentage of fans we have (in San Antonio)," Jones said. "I think it is 97, 98, 99 percent Cowboys fans in the area. But it doesn't surprise me at all. I know that there were those kind of rumors regarding the Saints."

Though some may be concerned about Jones and McNair potentially trying to prevent a team moving to San Antonio, I honestly think the two might welcome it to a certain extent. More teams means more competition, and more competition means more money. It means you raise ticket prices, you make merchandise (jerseys, hats, beer mugs) a bit more expensive, etc.

Even if the Raiders don't go to San Antonio, ...

Speaking of stadiums, I'd have to imagine that whoever relocated there would use the Alamodome for a temporary home while a new stadium is built. The Alamodome has experience ...

If the Oakland Raiders were to leave Oakland for San Antonio, I think it'd be a smart decision. This is a town that can handle football, and for Derek Carr's Raiders, could truly help the franchise regain its winning ways. Do you understand how much it helps the morale of a team to play in a real stadium, not one that has constant septic issues? We've seen in the past that re-location can entirely change a franchise, and for once the league's greatest teams, this is something that needs to be done.

So much for the Oakland Raiders, I want to see the San Antonio Marshals!

Would any else be opposed to changing the name from Raiders if they were to relocate here? I prefer they stay Raiders with logo and colors intact.

[xmas1997]

Would any else be opposed to changing the name from Raiders if they were to relocate here? I prefer they stay Raiders with logo and colors intact.

I feel the same as you do.

I also felt the same about the Saints when they almost moved here permanently too.

[xmas1997]

Raiders owner meets with San Antonio
Todd Washburn,

http://thepioneeronline.com/23075/sports/raiders-owner-meets-with-san-antonio/

Former San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and other city officials traveled to the Bay Area for a meeting that could be the first step in relocating the franchise to Texas after this season. Raiders owner Mark Davis told Comcast Sports Bay Area on Friday, “The meeting went great.”

The San Antonio ...

Oakland mayor elect Libby Schaaf said she reached out to the Raiders on Friday, shortly before the San Antonio representatives made their pitch. In an interview with KQED in the Bay Area, Schaaf said a Raiders executive reassured her that staying in Oakland is the NFL team’s top priority.

Schaaf told KQED that she’d like to keep both the Raiders and Athletics in Oakland, but draws a line when it comes to public subsidy for a new stadium.

“I was born and raised in this city,” Schaaf said. “My parents had season tickets to both [the A’s an Raiders.] Keeping our sports teams is something to keep that great Oakland spirit alive and it is a priority for me. But let me be very clear- I do not believe in spending public dollars in building sports stadiums. That is a line in the sand for me.”

http://thepioneeronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/RaidersBN.jpg

While Oakland officials and Raiders ownership are playing the “he-said, she-said” game, one thing is clear: The Raiders are making the first moves. If city officials can’t get a deal done for Oakland, there are city officials in other states that will.

Not everyone ...

The Raiders are the only football team in the National Football League that shares their stadium with a baseball team, the Oakland Athletics whom signed a 10-year stadium deal to allow the Raiders to demolish the O.co Coliseum to build a new football stadium.

That may be a fantasy now, as it seems through the posturing of both Oakland city officials and Raiders management could lead the winless Raiders from an embarrassing season right out of Oakland.

[xmas1997]

Your Turn: Nov. 16
November 15, 2014

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/article/Your-Turn-Nov-16-5891608.php

Cisneros may know his football, but when it comes to wooing the Oakland Raiders to San Antonio, he is facing a formidable nemesis in Dallas owner Jerry Jones, according to a reader.

NFL roadblock

Re: “Raiders’ boss says S.A. talk is 'great’; But Davis still wants to stay in the Bay Area,” Front Page, Nov. 8:

Let’s face it, Henry Cisneros and his entourage who recently went to Oakland, as well as all of you Dallas Cowboy fans: There will be no NFL team in San Antonio in the near future.

There will be no NFL team as long as Jerry Jones ...

Let’s prove to Jerry that we are not a part of the Cowboys’ fan base by boycotting the Cowboys.

[xmas1997]

This article should answer most people's questions concerning "why" relocating an HFL team to Los Angels is far from a done deal. While it doesn't address all the issues standing in the way, it does address most of them. And it gives us an idea of why San Antonio officials feel "relatively" positive about our, the San Antonio/Austin/South Texas area, chances in getting at least the Raiders to relocate here, based strictly on business over sentimental reasons IMHO:



NFL's L.A. future a high-stakes dance for 3 franchises
Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Sports 2:54 a.m. EST November 16, 2014

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/11/16/national-football-league-los-angeles-chargers-raiders-rams/19126113/

Sometime next year or in 2016, the NFL's 20-year tango with Los Angeles finally might lead to a real relationship.

"I'd like to see two franchises in L.A," New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft told USA TODAY Sports last week. "I think within the next year or two we can see something real with L.A. At least one team."

So why should Kraft or anybody else feel this way now after 20 years of rumors and proposals — but no team — in the nation's second-largest television market?

A big reason is fear — the dread of being left out in a high-stakes game of musical chairs.

The San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams each are displeased with their current stadiums and could leave their current cities after this season without a prohibitive penalty, according to their lease terms.

All three are eyeing not only the empty Los Angeles market, but also each other, a person close to the situation told USA TODAY Sports.

With as many as two spots up for grabs in Los Angeles, each franchise is driven by concerns that it could be stuck in its current market in an undesirable situation while the other two party up in their new shared palace in L.A, said the person, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the situation.

Media reports in recent weeks have fueled the perception that the NFL's return to L.A. is imminent. But there are still tall hurdles to scale — some of them in Los Angeles, along with several other issues to work out within the exclusive circle of NFL owners.

It's not only about how to get a new stadium built, at a likely cost of more than $1 billion. If Kraft's prediction is to come true, the league needs to find a temporary place to play in Los Angeles while a new stadium is constructed.

The Rose Bowl would seem to be the ideal choice after hosting five Super Bowls. The problem for the NFL is legal opposition. A neighborhood and environmental group is challenging the league's potential presence — a case that is pending in the state Court of Appeal and might not be decided for a year.

"If the NFL wanted to start using the Rose Bowl and our case wasn't over yet, we would ask the court to not allow that," Susan Brandt-Hawley, an attorney for the group, told USA TODAY Sports.

Then there's the issue of picking which team, or two, gets to move, with no plans to add an expansion team on the horizon.

Any owner who wants to move must get approval from 24 of the league's 32 owners, unless, of course, that owner does something similar to what Raiders owner Al Davis did in the 1980s. After his proposed move from Oakland to Los Angeles was rejected in a league vote, Davis successfully sued the league for the right to move to Los Angeles on his own. Then he moved the team back to Oakland in 1995.

It only takes nine of the league's 32 owners to block a move. And there are plenty of reasons for some owners to not want the Raiders, Chargers or Rams moving to Los Angeles, the person said.

"People are talking about this site, that site, this team, that team, one team, two teams, next year or the year after that," said sports consultant Marc Ganis, who helped the Raiders and Rams leave Los Angeles for new cities in 1995. "Right now these are ingredients, but the cake is not yet baked."

League politics

When the Los Angeles Rams relocated to St. Louis in 1995, team ownership ran into serious resistance from other NFL owners. The league voted down the request at first and then barely approved a more lucrative proposal a month later.

Paul Tagliabue, then the NFL commissioner, said at the time the league's initial reluctance was about "principle, not only in terms of this move but the precedent of moving a team."

Nearly 20 years later, the principles and precedents are even more complicated.

The first domino in the L.A. equation very well might be the Chargers, a team that has benefited from the absence of a team in Los Angeles by attracting orphaned NFL fans from Los Angeles and Orange Counties.

Both of those counties are within a two-hour drive of San Diego and account for about 30% of the team's local revenues, the team says. If a team moved to Los Angeles, that revenue would be under threat from new competition while the Chargers are forced to keep playing in leaky Qualcomm Stadium, built in 1967.

To avoid getting boxed out of L.A. — and also maintain his leverage to get a new stadium in San Diego — team owner Dean Spanos likely would resist any outside invaders by rounding up votes against them.

It might not be that hard to build resistance against the Rams and Raiders, who play the Chargers on Sunday at Qualcomm.

The Rams and Raiders have lease terms that could allow them to leave their cities after this season, with no termination fee. But after both teams left Los Angeles 19 years ago, some owners believe that they should not be rewarded for leaving the market, failing in their new markets and then being allowed to return, the person close to the situation said.

If past success is the best indication of future success, the Rams and Raiders could be considered questionable.

"The single most important consideration is that this must have a high degree of certainty of success (in Los Angeles)," Ganis told USA TODAY Sports. "I'm not sure anyone has answered that question. I'm not sure anybody is even close to answering that question."

To answer that question, Ganis said, the team will not just need to have a new stadium, but a team that will sell out its games, be managed well and be "relevant to the community for generations to come."

Populations and politicians

The relocation calculus works against the Chargers if the biggest factor is market size. Under this consideration, the NFL would want to grow its overall revenue pie by trading a smaller market for a bigger one, in this case Los Angeles, the nation's second-most populous city.

San Diego is the nation's eighth-largest city with about 1.3 million people, more than three times as many as Oakland (45th) or St. Louis (58th), according to census estimates.

Would the league want to trade the No. 8 city for the No. 2 city when it could trade No. 58 for No. 2 instead?

"In considering a proposed relocation, the member clubs are making a business judgment concerning how best to advance their collective interests," the league's relocation policy states. "These collective interests generally include having clubs in the country's most populous areas ..."

And if votes and populations matter here, so, too, do politicians.

Some have argued that the NFL's slow-motion dance with L.A. is a cynical attempt to prod current NFL cities into paying for new taxpayer-funded stadiums.

At the same time, mayors, governors and senators generally don't like losing their NFL teams. One of the ways to stop it is to keep making a good-faith effort to keep the team in its current city. Likewise, the NFL's relocation policy says "clubs are obligated to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories."

"Does the NFL allow a team to walk away from a community when there is a deal on the table?" Ganis asked. "That would not be in keeping with the history of the NFL."

Some cities and teams have tried harder than others to secure better stadiums in their current cities:

-- Chargers: After trying to get a new stadium in San Diego for more than a decade, the Chargers will have to wait until 2016, at the earliest, before a stadium proposal is even put on the ballot. If it makes it, it needs two-thirds of the vote to pass. Spanos met recently with San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, who has said he wants to ensure the Chargers stay in San Diego but wants a deal that protects taxpayers.

To break its lease after this season, the team only needs to pay a termination fee of $17.63 million and give notice between Feb. 1 and May 1. That fee goes down by about $3 million each year until the lease ends in 2020.

-- Rams: In Missouri, Gov. Jay Nixon recently tapped former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock and attorney Robert Blitz to advise the governor on options to "ensure that St. Louis remains an NFL city for years to come." Nixon said he wants to be advised in the next 60 days, before a Jan. 28 deadline set by the Rams to provide notice of their intent to convert to a year-to-year lease. Meanwhile, Rams owner Stan Kroenke owns a 60-acre parcel on a prime possible stadium site in the L.A. market. That's probably not big enough to meet the NFL's desires unless he makes a deal to add to it.

-- Raiders: Owner Mark Davis recently met with dignitaries from San Antonio about a possible move there — a meeting considered by many to be a ploy to get a stadium deal in Oakland or Los Angeles. In October, the Oakland City Council granted a three-month extension on an agreement with an investment group trying to make a deal on a large development project that could include a new Raiders stadium. That window closes Jan. 21, a few weeks before the league's normal Feb. 15 deadline for teams to submit proposed relocations.

Motels and palaces

A new stadium in Los Angeles likely won't be built without a team, and a team likely won't move to Los Angeles without a new stadium deal. Yet there is no deal — just proposals in limbo and Kroenke's land in nearby Inglewood.

And where would a team play for a few years while a new stadium was being built?

After announcing intentions to abandon its current city, no team would get much support from that city. So it would probably have to move to Los Angeles right away.

There are three likely options for temporary homes, and each has issues.

-- The city of Pasadena has approved hosting an NFL team at the Rose Bowl for up to five years, but that approval is being challenged in court and could take a year to resolve.

Pasadena Councilman Victor Gordo told USA TODAY Sports, "There have been no specific discussions regarding an NFL team playing at the Rose Bowl in 2015 or 2016."

-- The Los Angeles Coliseum is now controlled by the University of Southern California. What price could USC charge for rent if there were no other viable options available?

"Our current lease allows for a NFL team to play in the Coliseum temporarily," said Thomas Sayles, USC's senior vice president of university relations. "If we were to receive a proposal, we would review it."

-- Dodger Stadium isn't ideal either because it's a baseball stadium with a listed capacity of 56,000, which would give it one of the lowest attendances in the NFL. It also has a dirt infield and a baseball team that wants to play there through October.

The Dodgers declined comment on the possibility of an NFL team playing there.

And those are just the temporary motel options. The harder part is finding a way to build a permanent palace.

Rounding up 24 votes doesn't look easy, either.

Just like in 1995, cash probably could help sway the resistance.

But it might require difficult negotiations and more time, especially with Commissioner Roger Goodell battling other public relations problems, including formulating a new player conduct policy.

"There are various interests and various ingredients that could go into this final solution," Ganis said. "There's an argument this is actually a bad time to do something like this."

Unless, of course, fear forces the issue.

[benefactor]

Your Turn: Nov. 16
November 15, 2014

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/article/Your-Turn-Nov-16-5891608.php

Cisneros may know his football, but when it comes to wooing the Oakland Raiders to San Antonio, he is facing a formidable nemesis in Dallas owner Jerry Jones, according to a reader.

NFL roadblock

Re: “Raiders’ boss says S.A. talk is 'great’; But Davis still wants to stay in the Bay Area,” Front Page, Nov. 8:

Let’s face it, Henry Cisneros and his entourage who recently went to Oakland, as well as all of you Dallas Cowboy fans: There will be no NFL team in San Antonio in the near future.

There will be no NFL team as long as Jerry Jones ...

Let’s prove to Jerry that we are not a part of the Cowboys’ fan base by boycotting the Cowboys.
Much better. :tu

Still got one to edit though.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240945&page=3&p=7670005&viewfull=1#post7670005

[xmas1997]

Much better. :tu

Still got one to edit though.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240945&page=3&p=7670005&viewfull=1#post7670005



I edited some of it, but most of it is important info, however I did not post the link to it.

[benefactor]

I edited some of it, but most of it is important info, however I did not post the link to it.
It's still too much info to post here. You can only have a couple of sentences with articles from SAEN. That's what their lawyers told timvp in the letter they sent to him regarding articles that are posted on ST. Cut it back to a couple of sentences and leave the link for the rest.

[Baam]

Woudnl't a MLS team make way more sense with the Scorpions success? Would be a clear 2nd banana to the Spurs as well which could be safer for the Spurs...

[xmas1997]

It's still too much info to post here. You can only have a couple of sentences with articles from SAEN. That's what their lawyers told timvp in the letter they sent to him regarding articles that are posted on ST. Cut it back to a couple of sentences and leave the link for the rest.

Done, thanks for letting me know.


Woudnl't a MLS team make way more sense with the Scorpions success? Would be a clear 2nd banana to the Spurs as well which could be safer for the Spurs...


I don't see why we can't have all three.

[TheWriter]

Woudnl't a MLS team make way more sense with the Scorpions success? Would be a clear 2nd banana to the Spurs as well which could be safer for the Spurs...

Next time you want a 20% raise and you ask for it, when your boss says: No, you can have a five percent raise.

You better accept because you my friend, like to settle for less.

[T Park]

Woudnl't a MLS team make way more sense with the Scorpions success? Would be a clear 2nd banana to the Spurs as well which could be safer for the Spurs...

safer?

what the hell?

[Baam]

safer?

what the hell?

The Spurs often talk talk about how much support they get from being the only show in town... Not sure they'd be trilled if there was an NFL team in SA, especially with the post Duncan era around the corner...

[TheWriter]

The Spurs often talk talk about how much support they get from being the only show in town... Not sure they'd be trilled if there was an NFL team in SA, especially with the post Duncan era around the corner...

Is that why Peter Holt came out and said SA is big enough for both the NBA and NFL and that the Spurs would take a hit from an NFL but in the long run it would benefit the Spurs and the city.

Hello, he'd even invest in the team if they moved her.

You're gonna have to stop playing this card and you're gonna have to stop settling.

[8FOR!3]

Spurs have to big of a diehard fan base in San Antonio to play second fiddle to an NFL team. I don't think bringing a team in would create any problems.

[JsnSA]

The Spurs can definitely compete with a new NFL franchise considering the loyal fan base it already has. That being said, if the Spurs were to become a cellar dwelling team for an extended time after Tim and Manu leave then competing with an NFL team will definitely have an effect on attendance. It won't kill the Spurs but it will affect them.

As to a MLS team, I think SA would make a great location for an expansion. But its not like SA can just pick NFL over MLS or vice versa. SA will be lucky to get the chance for either one and if they do get that chance they should go all in for whichever one becomes available.

And everyone keeps talking about the Scorpions turning into an MLS franchise but there is no guarantee of that even if MLS comes to SA. Gordan Hartman does not own the rights to an MLS franchise in SA just because he has a NASL team and has a stadium. All the scorpions have done is show that Pro Soccer can be successful in SA.

There is just as much of a chance that some other entity/person ends up becoming the owner of a possible MLS franchise here. Already having a stadium is a nice plus for Hartman but in the end its the amount of money being put up for the franchise that will end up deciding who gets the franchise. And MLS has a strong preference for stadiums existing downtown for some reason which could actually work against Hartman if some other ownership group can get the money together to build a pro soccer stadium downtown.

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

As I mentioned earlier, Davis is wanting to keep the Raiders in Oakland, but, if a stadium deal is not reached by Jan, he will move the Raiders. And with the Mayor already saying Oakland won't use public monies to finance the new stadium, chances are looking slimmer. The fact Oakland government has had to cut it workforce by 20%+ over the past 3 years, along with reduced public services monies, how it hell are they going to afford new roads and public amenities to support a new stadium.

Its up to private investors and Davis to fork over around 2 to 2.5 billion for a new stadium when factoring financing the roads and public infrastructure to support it. I don't see this happening. City of San Antonio already pledge 300+ million to the a new Stadium, while SSE and private investors have pledged this much as well. I am sure that other investors will join if the Raiders actually do relocate. The fact that you can get the same stadium for half the price in SA, Davis will only have to fork out 200-300 mil as oppose to 600 mil + for the same stadium in Oakland.

Right now, I would say that its 50-50% that Raiders relocate. We haven't heard anything from the Los Angles end of relocating the Raiders there. So at this point, Its Oakland or San Antonio. I think Davis is posturing right now. He is trying to save face with the current fans, and hoping that some deal possibly works itself out. But I think he knows one more than likely isn't going to pan out, which is why is moving forward with San Antonio right now just in case.

[Blake]

Is that why Peter Holt came out and said SA is big enough for both the NBA and NFL and that the Spurs would take a hit from an NFL but in the long run it would benefit the Spurs and the city.

Hello, he'd even invest in the team if they moved her.

You're gonna have to stop playing this card and you're gonna have to stop settling.

You're sure pissy about this

[JsnSA]

Right now, I would say that its 50-50% that Raiders relocate. We haven't heard anything from the Los Angles end of relocating the Raiders there. So at this point, Its Oakland or San Antonio. I think Davis is posturing right now. He is trying to save face with the current fans, and hoping that some deal possibly works itself out. But I think he knows one more than likely isn't going to pan out, which is why is moving forward with San Antonio right now just in case.

You mean we have not heard much PUBLICLY from Los Angeles regarding relocation of the Raiders. That does not mean serious talks are not going on. I think its highly optimistic to count LA out already. In fact many people predict two teams could end up in LA in the next few years.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/11/16/national-football-league-los-angeles-chargers-raiders-rams/19126113/

You do make some good points though but I think LA definitely has a much greater shot to land the Raiders than San Antonio and possibly even Oakland at this point. That fact that you are not hearing much talk coming from LA may be nothing but good business on their end.

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

As the article reports, LA won't have a team next year due to legal restraints right now. This basically counts the Raiders out as they are going to strike a deal this year, either it be Oakland or San Antonio.

I still think that they remain in Oakland, but you never know. San Antonio has positioned themselves as the front runners for the Raiders to relocate next year, if that is what they decide.

It will more than likely be the Rams moving back to Los Angeles as its owner already seems to be planning that move. If there are two team in LA, it will be the Rams or Chargers (possibly both) with a future expansion team.

I think the reason you haven't heard anything about the Raiders moving to LA is because of the pending legal action brought by LA Citizens to block the NFL from the Coliseum in Pasadena. It appears that a lot people in LA don't want an NFL team and the NFL is forcing the issue. Considering the traffic issues they already have, I guess they don't want Sunday added to the list.

Here is a quote from Larry Reid Oakland's Vice Mayor.

“I asked him, 'Marc, are you guys serious (about San Antonio)?'” Reid said. “He told me, 'Look, Larry, we're exploring our options, and if and when we get serious, you'll be one of the first persons we will call and let you know of our intentions.'”

Davis is basically saying he is working on getting a deal done in Oakland, which I said from the beginning. But don't be surprised if the Raiders relocate to San Antonio if a deal can't be worked out. The fact they have invested this much time in SA would tell anyone, they are looking at SA as a serious viable option if things fall through in Oakland.

And reason why I believe Cisneros said the chances the Raiders move to SA are 50/50 at this point because moving to Raiders would be the best financial option for the Raiders at this point and its not even close. The only reason why Davis would want to stay in Oakland is for sheer sentimental reasons.

[spurraider21]

As the article reports, LA won't have a team next year due to legal restraints right now. This basically counts the Raiders out as they are going to strike a deal this year, either it be Oakland or San Antonio.
not necessarily true. they could agree to a move to LA and just sign a 1 year lease in oakland until the legal restraints are solved

[ChumpDumper]

As the article reports, LA won't have a team next year due to legal restraints right now.
There are no legal restraints. That was an empty threat over a legal issue that has already been decided. The Rose Bowl is available for next season.

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

not necessarily true. they could agree to a move to LA and just sign a 1 year lease in oakland until the legal restraints are solved

I don't see that happening, as you can't agree on a move until things are legally resolved. The NFL would just be opening itself to another lawsuit. That is why all reports say this issue has to be resolve before the NFL makes a move. NFL already has enough on its plate with the substance abuse, behavioral conduct and Redskins naming issue to deal with.

By only signing a one year lease, It would be a dead give away that the Raiders are moving and Davis would probably take a major hit in ticket sales and revenues as most of the Raiders would be probably be blacked out on television.

Raiders will more than likely stay in Oakland permanently. But SA is really the only viable relocation option for them at the moment, which is why they continue to invest time in the idea.

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

There are no legal restraints. That was an empty threat over a legal issue that has already been decided. The Rose Bowl is available for next season.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/11/16/national-football-league-los-angeles-chargers-raiders-rams/19126113/

This article and many others (just posted this past week) say differently.

[ChumpDumper]

The neighborhood is appealing because they lost. I have seen no injunction against the plan's moving forward.

And this has nothing to to with the Coliseum. The only question there seems to be how much money it would take.

[xmas1997]

Report: Davis says LA 'great option' if Oakland hopes run out
November 16, 2014, 7:15 pm

http://www.csnbayarea.com/raiders/report-davis-says-la-great-option-if-oakland-hopes-run-out

SAN DIEGO – The Raiders were in Southern California playing the San Diego Chargers this weekend, so it’s not surprising that relocating to Los Angeles came up in conversation.

Los Angeles Daily News reporter Vincent Bonsignore spoke with Raiders owner Mark Davis, who said Los Angeles would be a ‘great option’ for the Raiders if a new stadium in Oakland isn’t going to get built.

This isn’t earth-shattering news, but it re-emphasizes the fact that Davis is open to the prospect of moving. Los Angeles could be a viable option for the Raiders, considering the NFL’s latest push to get a team or possibly two into the country’s second-largest media market.

“Absolutely, sure,” Davis told the Daily News after his team fell to 0-10 with a 13-6 loss to the Chargers. “We loved it when we were down here.”

The Raiders played in Los Angeles from 1982-1994. The team’s lease with O.co Coliseum expires at season’s end.

The Raiders have flirted with the city of San Antonio, and Davis has made it clear that LA could be another destination should his hope of remaining in the East Bay flame out.

[xmas1997]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/11/16/national-football-league-los-angeles-chargers-raiders-rams/19126113/

This article and many others (just posted this past week) say differently.

This is true, but if it came down to a battle between San Antonio and a Los Angeles built stadium, then S.A. would lose, but right now Los Angeles has no viable stadium situation, nor in the works, for a temporary home to an NFL team next year or the year after according to many reports like the one below, despite what the NFL wants or thinks, nor the public interest in one, from the link you just posted:

There are three likely options for temporary homes, and each has issues.

-- The city of Pasadena has approved hosting an NFL team at the Rose Bowl for up to five years, but that approval is being challenged in court and could take a year to resolve.

Pasadena Councilman Victor Gordo told USA TODAY Sports, "There have been no specific discussions regarding an NFL team playing at the Rose Bowl in 2015 or 2016."

-- The Los Angeles Coliseum is now controlled by the University of Southern California. What price could USC charge for rent if there were no other viable options available?

"Our current lease allows for a NFL team to play in the Coliseum temporarily," said Thomas Sayles, USC's senior vice president of university relations. "If we were to receive a proposal, we would review it."

-- Dodger Stadium isn't ideal either because it's a baseball stadium with a listed capacity of 56,000, which would give it one of the lowest attendances in the NFL. It also has a dirt infield and a baseball team that wants to play there through October.
The Dodgers declined comment on the possibility of an NFL team playing there.

The Rose Bowl would seem to be the ideal choice after hosting five Super Bowls. The problem for the NFL is legal opposition. A neighborhood and environmental group is challenging the league's potential presence — a case that is pending in the state Court of Appeal and might not be decided for a year.

"If the NFL wanted to start using the Rose Bowl and our case wasn't over yet, we would ask the court to not allow that," Susan Brandt-Hawley, an attorney for the group, told USA TODAY Sports.

[xmas1997]

City of San Antonio scores strong bond rating
Nov 17, 2014, 5:50pm CST W. Scott Bailey Reporter/Project Coordinator- San Antonio Business Journal

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2014/11/17/city-of-san-antonio-scores-strong-bond-rating.html?page=all

San Antonio has another positive economic fact it can share with Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis. The city's 'AAA' general obligation bond rating has once again been re-affirmed by the three major rating agencies — Standard & Poor's, Fitch, and Moody's.

How fiscally healthy is San Antonio? This is the sixth time since 2010 that the city has scored the highest credit rating a municipality can receive. The strong rating allows the city to pay the lowest possible interest rates in the market.

San Antonio officials said this is the only major U.S. city with a population of more than one million people to earn a 'AAA' bond rating from any one of the major rating agencies — let alone all three. Those same officials add that the strong rating reinforces the city's strong fiscal performance, financial management policies and budgetary flexibility.

"It's one thing to achieve a 'AAA' rating and another to keep it year after year," said City Manager Sheryl Sculley in a statement. "The rating agencies noted our improved financial position for fiscal year 2014, which shows the benefits of our strong financial management."

According to Sculley, the high bond rating will allow San Antonio to spend less money on interest costs and more on capital projects.

Standard & Poor's and Fitch have rated San Antonio as "stable," meaning the "AAA" rating is not likely to change.

Moody's has reported because of a lower balance in the city's General Fund in prior years. The negative outlook means a city's bond rating could be downgraded. However, Moody's has noted in the rating report the city's improved financial position in fiscal year 2014.

The benefits of the affirmed 'AAA' rating will be realized immediately. The city plans to sell approximately $52.5 million in bonds on Tuesday for interest cost savings of approximately $7.3 million, which will provide additional capacity for more streets, drainage, and other infrastructure projects.

San Antonio Mayor Ivy Taylor said the strong bond rating represents a "significant achievement" for the city.

The fiscal picture in California is less stable.

Last month, Bloomberg News reported that Moody's was considering downgrading the debt of 30 California cities, including Oakland, because of issues related more than $14 billion in lease-back and general-obligation bonds.

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

Last month, Bloomberg News reported that Moody's was considering downgrading the debt of 30 California cities, including Oakland, because of issues related more than $14 billion in lease-back and general-obligation bonds.

Oakland has a B+ rating right now, which is pretty bad. Oakland has so much debt right now, there is no way it can afford to sell bonds or take out any loans to pay for a new stadium or infrastructure to support it.

[xmas1997]

Oakland has a B+ rating right now, which is pretty bad. Oakland has so much debt right now, there is no way it can afford to sell bonds or take out any loans to pay for a new stadium or infrastructure to support it.

Right, plus from what I have read, Mark Davis would have to sell a major controlling interest in his team to the powers that be in Los Angeles to get a stadium built there or in Oakland, which he does not want to do.

He does not have to do this in San Antonio.

[Floyd Pacquiao]

Fuck getting the raiders. They're a joke. Id be embarrassed to have them in San Antonio aka city of champions

[yavozerb]

Fuck getting the raiders. They're a joke. Id be embarrassed to have them in San Antonio aka city of champions

You do realize San Antonio Spurs were once Dallas Chapparals who drew about 200 fans a night with a record of 28-56 the year before they moved to San Antonio. Just saying...

[xmas1997]

Final Four win could help San Antonio sell NFL Raiders on move
Nov 19, 2014, 3:06pm CST Updated: Nov 19, 2014, 3:50pm CST W. Scott Bailey Reporter/Project Coordinator- San Antonio Business Journal

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2014/11/19/final-four-win-could-help-san-antonio-sell-nfl.html

San Antonio City Manager Sheryl Sculley believes that millions of dollars in planned upgrades to the Alamodome so it can host the 2018 NCAA Men's Final Four might gain the city some extra yards in its negotiations with Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis.

San Antonio has pitched the Alamodome as a possible relocation site for the NFL franchise if Davis decides to move the team from Oakland. There have also been talks of the team's possible return to Los Angeles.

When NCAA officials announced last Friday that San Antonio had been selected to host the 2018 men's Final Four basketball championship, that decision committed the city to spend roughly $44 million to overhaul the Alamodome in preparation of the tournament. Those upgrades could cause the Raiders' owner to give the city a closer look as he contemplates potential franchise relocation sites, Sculley said.

"I think it definitely helps our case," Sculley told me when asked what impact the NCAA endorsement and Alamodome improvements could have on San Antonio's discussions with Davis and the Raiders.

Among the planned upgrades are new video walls and media work space, as well as expanded Alamodome concourses. While the changes will be made to accommodate the Final Four, they could also benefit an NFL tenant, provided such a team could look beyond the temporary construction.

Michael Sawaya, director of the city's Convention, Sports & Entertainment Facilities Department, said the 21-year-old Alamodome is already "in better shape than (the Raiders') current stadium."

Other planned changes, including technology improvements and new team locker rooms, will create an even greater distinction between the Alamodome and Oakland's O.co Coliseum, which opened in 1966. Sawaya said any team that elects to play in San Antonio's downtown stadium will benefit from the venue improvements.

"This is a significant upgrade," Sawaya added.

[T Park]

The Spurs often talk talk about how much support they get from being the only show in town... Not sure they'd be trilled if there was an NFL team in SA, especially with the post Duncan era around the corner...

Couldnt be more wrong.

The oil and gas industry along with the rest of the city's rapidly growing business base is bringing money in hand over fist.

There is way way way more than enough money to spread around.

[xmas1997]

Mark Davis: We're trying everything to get Oakland stadium deal
By Ian Rapoport NFL Media Insider Nov. 21, 2014 at 08:09 a.m.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000431256/article/mark-davis-were-trying-everything-to-get-oakland-stadium-deal

The Raiders upset the Chiefs Thursday at O.co Coliseum and just two more home games sit on the schedule for 2014. After that is nothing but uncertainty.

The lease for the Raiders' longtime stadium expires after the final regular-season game, and then comes the first of many decisions that will dramatically affect the long-term future of one of the NFL's most storied franchises.

Will they stay in Oakland with a new stadium? Bolt to Los Angeles or San Antonio, two cities that have been the object of their flirtations? Or sign another one-year lease and prolong the decision?

In a phone interview Wednesday, owner Mark Davis said another extension without a firm plan is less than ideal: "What I don't want to do is get caught up in an endless cycle of one-year extensions. Those lease extensions, they tend to give comfort."

]B]What does Davis want? Simply, a new stadium right where the old stadium sits. And a decision soon.

A few days after Davis told the Los Angeles Daily News that Los Angeles would be a "great option" for the Raiders, he told me the paper didn't offer proper context to his remarks. He insists he made clear to the reporter how his main goal is a stadium in Oakland. So just to be clear, he reiterated.

"We are trying everything possible to get something done in Oakland right on the same exact site we're on right now," Davis said. "And I'd say 99 percent of my interests and energy are going towards getting something done there. That's really the crux of it right now. People want to know about the other sites and there are always options. But we want to get something done in Oakland."[/B]

A league official deferred to the club when asked to comment.

The political situation is complex in Oakland, and having to deal with the city and the county on all stadium issues makes it more complex. New Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf only adds an unfamiliar face to the mix, though she has begun working to keep the Silver and Black home. Oh, and the A's just signed a new 10-year lease for the stadium the teams share, though Davis points out that their agreement says the A's will leave within two years if the Raiders get a new deal on their site.

As far as how it would work, the San Francisco Chronicle has reported the Raiders would receive the land from the city and county on which the stadium sits in the event of a new stadium, and the Alameda County taxpayers would handle the $120 million still owed for the last construction in the 1990s. Davis adds that "we're not asking for public money" to actually build the stadium.

Instead, the only public investment would be for infrastructure such as improving the BART station at the stadium. Davis said the Raiders would put up half the money, while the land developer would "help fill in the gaps," he said. Part of all of that construction would be a Raiders Hall of Fame.

The next step, according to the Chronicle, is for New City Development LLC to use their 90-day extension of the exclusive negotiating window with the city and try to strike a deal.

"We'll see if anything is live there," Davis said, "and hopefully there is."

What about Los Angeles or San Antonio? Davis said both are "viable" options if Oakland doesn't work out as a permanent home.

"We want to stay here in Oakland," Davis said. "There's other opportunities that would be much more lucrative for us, to be real honest. But we are really trying to get something done in Oakland. We want a stadium the fans and the team can be proud of."

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

"We want to stay here in Oakland," Davis said. "There's other opportunities that would be much more lucrative for us, to be real honest. But we are really trying to get something done in Oakland. We want a stadium the fans and the team can be proud of."

Like I said, it they stay in Oakland, its for sentimental reasons. Its a hard sell to investors to give up money based on sentiments as opposed to taking the deal that brings in more monies.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Right now, moving to San Antonio would bring in 3 to 4 times the net profit for Davis plus costing him 6-700 million less of his money in actually building a stadium.

[Blake]

Like I said, it they stay in Oakland, its for sentimental reasons. Its a hard sell to investors to give up money based on sentiments as opposed to taking the deal that brings in more monies.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Right now, moving to San Antonio would bring in 3 to 4 times the net profit for Davis plus costing him 6-700 million less of his money in actually building a stadium.

Where are you getting "3-4 times net profit" from?

[xmas1997]

For Chargers and Raiders, the bigger game is off the field
BY JIM ALEXANDER / STAFF COLUMNIST Nov. 15, 2014 6:43 p.m.

http://www.pe.com/articles/stadium-754336-san-diego.html

And to the winner goes … the moving vans?

The Chargers and Raiders will meet for the 110th time today, and the crowd at San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium almost certainly will be liberally dotted with fans wearing silver and black. It will be a reminder of the Raiders’ diaspora, the intensely loyal SoCal fan base that fell for the Raiders when they moved from Oakland to Los Angeles in 1982, stayed true when they moved back to Oakland in 1994 and helps fill Southwest flights to and from Oakland on home game weekends.

That color scheme will also serve as a reminder of stakes that go way beyond whatever transpires on the field today, where the Chargers (5-4) try to break a three-game losing streak and stay in the playoff hunt and the Raiders (0-9) try to play spoiler.

Call it the Battle For L.A.

The second-largest city in the country, without an NFL team since the Rams and Raiders both bolted 20 years ago, is again the object of breathless speculation. Is it a serious destination, or a bargaining chip? Who knows?

But the Chargers and Raiders both play in aging, inadequate stadiums. Both are on year-to-year leases. Both have L.A. in their DNA (the Chargers played in the Coliseum in 1960, theirs and the American Football League’s inaugural year, before moving to San Diego).

Add to this mix the Rams, who are having their own stadium issues in St. Louis and also can opt out of their lease, and whose owner, Stan Kroenke, bought 60 acres of land adjacent to Hollywood Park in Inglewood earlier this year and reportedly is negotiating to buy the remaining 300 acres.

Since the Rams play at San Diego next week and at home against Oakland the following week … well, remember the old pro wrestling line, “loser leaves town?” We may be watching the 21st-century version.

Honestly, Los Angeles has served the NFL better as a stalking horse the past two decades than it did when it was an actual league city. The skillfully brandished threat of a move to L.A. has helped accomplish new stadium deals in Minnesota, Indianapolis and San Francisco alone in the past decade.

And even with the league’s other myriad issues (a way-too-recent commitment to doing something about its players’ propensity for domestic violence, the long-term dangers of the game, etc.), it can’t help itself when it comes to priming the pump in Los Angeles.

Two current SoCal stadium proposals – neither of which involve taxpayer funds – aren’t enough. Ed Roski’s City of Industry proposal seems to be on life support, too far from the prosperous West L.A. demographic. Phil Anschutz’s Farmers Field concept, next to Staples Center, recently received a six-month extension from the L.A. City Council, but the godfather of AEG seems to insist on buying a piece of whatever team moves into town, a potential deal-breaker.

The league, keenly aware that competing sites mean more potential dollars, is dropping hints about a site in Carson, again casting a covetous eye on the Dodger Stadium parking lot and taking yet another look at Inglewood, where Hollywood Park’s race track is now closed and a decision awaits on the future use of that acreage. (Said acreage, remember, including that owned, present and maybe future, by one Enos Stanley Kroenke).

If the Hollywood Park Casino ever closes, it’s a pretty good bet – pun intended – that the NFL will be movin’ on in.

The working concept has been for one stadium shared by two teams, likely one from each conference. But Chargers owner Dean Spanos dropped a hint earlier this year that he’d be less than amenable to someone else, anyone else, moving into L.A. He indicated that 25-30 percent of the team’s season ticket business came from north of San Diego county, including the Inland Empire as well as Los Angeles and Orange counties.

“Putting a team in there (L.A.), or two teams, would have a huge impact on our business going forward,” Spanos told Sports Business Daily in October. “So we are trying to protect our business in San Diego … It would be really harmful to us.”

Spanos may be sending a message that he intends to muster the nine votes needed to block someone else’s relocation, which would require approval of three-quarters of the league’s 32 teams. He may be angling to get a significant share of someone else’s relocation fees.

Or he could be jockeying for position. The Chargers, who can opt out of their lease yearly, have been trying to find a stadium solution in San Diego for a decade with little progress. Do you wait for a stadium funding proposal on the 2016 ballot, always risky, or do you grab the immediate opportunity to increase the valuation of your franchise by 300 percent or more?

San Diego ($995 million), Oakland ($970 million) and St. Louis ($930 million) are all in the bottom tier of 2014 NFL team valuations, according to Forbes magazine. Twenty-five teams are valued at over $1 billion, led by Dallas at $3.2 billion. The league average is $1.43 billion, and considering the size of the L.A. market, the sale prices of the Dodgers ($2.1 billion) and Clippers ($2 billion) in recent years and the potential of a new stadium, whoever gets to L.A. first could quickly vault into the NFL’s top five in value.

You thought the action on the field was cutthroat? Stay tuned.

[benefactor]

:lol

[lefty]

:lol Farewell

[manufan10]

Who is going to keep up updated now that xmas1997 is gone? We need someone to pick up the slack. :cry

[TheWriter]

What happened to Glenn?

[benefactor]

What happened to Glenn?
He asked Kori to ban him. She obliged.

[Mel_13]

What happened to Glenn?

See posts 154-163

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241423

[BatManu20]

Now who's going to officially let us know that the Raiders have moved to LA, tbh..

[yavozerb]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/article/NFL-consultant-encourages-San-Antonio-to-continue-5914064.php

[Brazil]

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/silver-datalab-nfl-london-1.png?w=1024

100,000 nfl estimated fan base in Paris ?

ya sure.... :lmao

[jon123spurs]

http://m.mysanantonio.com/sports/pro-sports/cowboys/article/Former-Raiders-great-sees-San-Antonio-as-viable-5955772.php

[boutons_deux]

100,000 nfl estimated fan base in Paris ?

ya sure.... :lmao

this PAPER magazine has been out for nearly 20 years:

http://www.footballamericain.com/

100K NFL fans of foot Americain in Paris metro area of 10M for could be low. There's probably 100K+ AMERICANS in Paris, but not the typical Joe and Jane SixPack NFL types.

[Brazil]

this PAPER magazine has been out for nearly 20 years:

http://www.footballamericain.com/

100K NFL fans of foot Americain in Paris metro area of 10M for could be low. There's probably 100K+ AMERICANS in Paris, but not the typical Joe and Jane SixPack NFL types.

There are 50k Americans in Paris, most are indeed not the typical NFL dudes...

There is no place in Paris for a second soccer pro team so Ya a pro NFL team in Paris :lol... Sure

[eric365]

100,000 nfl estimated fan base in Paris ?

ya sure.... :lmao

Define fan tbh

100 000 guys in paris watching the superbowl? Sure. It's even on national TV now.
100 000 guys watching the NFL on a regular basis and knowing the name of 5+ teams? I don't think so

[BatManu20]

Raiders aren't going to SA.

[cjw]

There are 50k Americans in Paris, most are indeed not the typical NFL dudes...

There is no place in Paris for a second soccer pro team so Ya a pro NFL team in Paris :lol... Sure


I think there are limits on popularity of football in Europe given the lack of foreign players (unlike NBA), though games are in the early part of the soccer season and kickoff is Sunday evening so could gain popularity then. Europe is all a play for TV markets, and will take time for a local team there to build up a fan base.

Madrid and London all support four soccer teams (and pretty good attendance compared to league average). Is soccer just more popular elsewhere in France, or is PSG support just that strong?

[Brazil]

I think there are limits on popularity of football in Europe given the lack of foreign players (unlike NBA), though games are in the early part of the soccer season and kickoff is Sunday evening so could gain popularity then. Europe is all a play for TV markets, and will take time for a local team there to build up a fan base.

Madrid and London all support four soccer teams (and pretty good attendance compared to league average). Is soccer just more popular elsewhere in France, or is PSG support just that strong?

French like soccer but nothing close to spain England or even Germany. PSG has a solid fan base but not that strong, it's just french do other than going to stadium tbh

[yavozerb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/sports/football/with-no-stadium-on-horizon-chances-dim-for-a-move-to-los-angeles-in-2015-.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

Like I said, Financially speaking, the Raiders are not going to get a better deal. It would take Davis and company 10+ years to recoup what the would have to spend to stay in Oakland whereas SA is offering public funds, plus private investments from McCombs, Holt, and Co.

As someone posted the Quote from Tim Brown, whom I assumed was privy to the actual offer made by SA:

"I'll tell you, the wild card here, I believe, is San Antonio. I know people don't want to hear that, but from what I'm hearing the package that San Antonio put on the table was far better than any package they could have ever imagined.

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

I still think the idea of having one home game played in Mexico City during the week for Dia de los Muertas would be an awesome idea if the Raiders moved to San Antonio. Mexico has a lot of NFL fans, especially near the bordering states. The Raiders could monopolize the market down with a move like this.

[Blake]

How come OP stopped posting updates?

[jon123spurs]

SportsCenter (@SportsCenter) tweeted at 9:38 AM on Sat, Dec 20, 2014:
Roger Goodell told Chargers, Raiders and Rams that there will not be a team that moves to Los Angeles for next season. (via AdamSchefter)
(https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/546328699885600768?s=03)

[BatManu20]

Sooo Oakland or bust.

546353409046364160

[BatManu20]

How come OP stopped posting updates?

Because OP no longer exists. Got the old ban from Kori.

[Chinook]

We'll see.

[SupremeGuy]

I don't see anyway that Jerry lets the NFL put a team in San Antonio, tbh.

[TheWriter]

I don't see anyway that Jerry lets the NFL put a team in San Antonio, tbh.

Stop this shit. He can't stop a team from relocating here. Owners aren't voting down another owner with regard to relocation.

This myth that Jerry carries some kind of incredible power is asinine and it's even more asinine that people still believe it in the year 2014.

[SupremeGuy]

Dude, Jerry Jones is basically immortal. If he doesn't want a team in San Antonio, there will be NO team in San Antonio.

[FkLA]

Can't wait for the San Antonio Raiders tbh.

[lefty]

There are 50k Americans in Paris, most are indeed not the typical NFL dudes...

There is no place in Paris for a second soccer pro team so Ya a pro NFL team in Paris :lol... Sure
pretty much tbh

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2014/12/raiders-now-view-san-antonio-as-a-viable-nfl.html?page=2

Here was the latest article about San Antonio. Even Davis commented on how much better the financial return would be if Oakland relocated to SA.

Davis seemed sold on San Antonio as a viable option. The results of the survey came back and the results show that SA is more than capable of supporting an NFL franchise. And it looks like San Antonio won an ally in Davis to help their cause of getting an NFL franchise in the near future. So this ordeal didn't land SA the Raiders, but it did help their cause in showing the League can support an NFL franchise and should be next in line after LA to get one.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/raiders-returning-to-oakland-in-2015--no-team-moving-to-l-a--yet-004652110.html

Looks like the Raiders are holding out for a move to LA, where the league is going to build its own stadium. Davis would come out ahead in all scenarios if that happen. If I were the league, I wouldn't put the Raiders in it. But who knows, its all political.

At this point, I don't see anybody investing in a new stadium in Oakland. That Raiders are gone as soon as the league builds a new stadium in LA.

[yavozerb]

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20141221/raiders-will-remain-in-oakland-one-more-year-but-anxiety-still-remains

[cjw]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/raiders-could-playing-texas-soon-040346098.html

Raiders will use San Antonio as leverage, but still a small possibility.

It's also stupid for them not to share Levi Stadium with the 49ers. Oakland is actually the exact same distance from Santa Clara as San Francisco. Football stadiums are vastly underutilized and have a limited lifespan, so no reason for two teams in the same metro area not to share.

Football fans will travel to games too - Foxboro is a good 40 minutes from Boston, Meadowlands is a pain to get to from NYC, etc.

[T Park]

Yeah CJW that's why there's constantly reports of 49er fans not going to games cause of the traffic and how far it is.

[boutons_deux]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bty-5dgCcAEn9cm.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdXfFkvrRrspFQ4rRcmadzJW_SL-hxXU65xFLLOAl3m3vuBKxh

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/raiders-could-playing-texas-soon-040346098.html

Raiders will use San Antonio as leverage, but still a small possibility.

It's also stupid for them not to share Levi Stadium with the 49ers. Oakland is actually the exact same distance from Santa Clara as San Francisco. Football stadiums are vastly underutilized and have a limited lifespan, so no reason for two teams in the same metro area not to share.

Football fans will travel to games too - Foxboro is a good 40 minutes from Boston, Meadowlands is a pain to get to from NYC, etc.

I still think the Raiders should move here and have one home game in Mexico City during Dia de los Muertos every year. Gives the NFL the Int'l exposure it wants. Mexico has twice the population of UK and it doesn't have a 5 hour time difference.

I really think Raider would make more money than staying in Oakland. 5+ mil population in South Texas. Plus you can draw anywhere between 1-2 mil of Mexican fans in viewers and merchandise shoppers (possibly more). Mexicans love black colors. Raiders colors and apparel would be a big hit.

There is nothing left to leverage using SA. NFL is putting all their monies in to the new Stadium in LA and the Rams and Chargers were invited. And both more than likely are going to be moving to LA.

As I have gone over in this thread, the cost to build a new stadium in Oakland is huge, almost 3 times more than building one in SA. Considering the Raiders don't draw big in merchandising right now as it is, I don't see any point why Davis would stay there from a financial standpoint. It would take him a decade more to recoup his monies staying in Oakland. It was be strictly sentimental reasons at this point.

As I said in this thread, Davis was shooting for LA first and foremost. Now that deal looks almost dead, it really is a 50/50 shot that the Raiders do come to SA.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

The Raiders in SA would be cool. The silver and black all in one city.

[Rain Man]

Raiders won't come to San Antonio. What does it have to offer? Ghetto Mexicans that expect handouts and freebies? Fat women to keep players and fans warm when it's cold?

Be happy with the Spurs

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

Raiders won't come to San Antonio. What does it have to offer? Ghetto Mexicans that expect handouts and freebies? Fat women to keep players and fans warm when it's cold?

Be happy with the Spurs

Do you know where the stadium is going to be build. They are building it in Universal City, about 30 minutes from downtown SA. It will only be about 45 miles from Austin. And the propose rail system between SA and Austin more than likely will be built if the Raiders do move to SA/Austin. This will basically allow commuters from Austin to get to games almost hassle free.

http://www.transystems.com/Home/News-Press/News-In-Motion/January-21-2015/Passenger-Rail-Between-San-Antonio-and-Austin-Fina.aspx

All this shit is in the works. So SA/Aus area has a lot to offer an NFL franchise. Oakland is just a bunch of minorities as well with one of the highest crime rates in the country.

[Chinook]

The question is not whether SA/Austin/SW Texas/North Mexico can support a team. It's whether someone can compile the numbers and draw up a proposal that can work. Will other cities help pay to get a stadium built in a suburb? Will the pledges be there? Moving is a big deal, and it took years to even draw up two decent proposals to get to LA. There's like nothing for SA right now.

[Rain Man]

Do you know where the stadium is going to be build. They are building it in Universal City, about 30 minutes from downtown SA. It will only be about 45 miles from Austin. And the propose rail system between SA and Austin more than likely will be built if the Raiders do move to SA/Austin. This will basically allow commuters from Austin to get to games almost hassle free.

http://www.transystems.com/Home/News-Press/News-In-Motion/January-21-2015/Passenger-Rail-Between-San-Antonio-and-Austin-Fina.aspx

All this shit is in the works. So SA/Aus area has a lot to offer an NFL franchise. Oakland is just a bunch of minorities as well with one of the highest crime rates in the country.

Do you know what unicorns are made of? Children's dreams and the wishes of the innocent.

You can build that up your ass and have a rail system keep delivering it to you.

[ColinB]

Where the hell are they going to build a stadium in Universal City lol. And why.

[BatManu20]

Extremely unlikely to happen but if it did, would sound much better as the Texas Raiders than the San Antonio Raiders. The stadium wouldn't be in San Antonio anyways.

[BatManu20]

Do you know where the stadium is going to be build. They are building it in Universal City, about 30 minutes from downtown SA. It will only be about 45 miles from Austin. And the propose rail system between SA and Austin more than likely will be built if the Raiders do move to SA/Austin. This will basically allow commuters from Austin to get to games almost hassle free.

http://www.transystems.com/Home/News-Press/News-In-Motion/January-21-2015/Passenger-Rail-Between-San-Antonio-and-Austin-Fina.aspx

All this shit is in the works. So SA/Aus area has a lot to offer an NFL franchise. Oakland is just a bunch of minorities as well with one of the highest crime rates in the country.

That's actually not a bad location. I figured hypothetically it'd be somewhere between San Antonio and Austin, like San Marcos or New Braunfels. Universal City is a crap town itself, but a good location in terms of accessibility for South Texas.

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

Where the hell are they going to build a stadium in Universal City lol. And why.

Because it's closer to Austin. Plus it would be right along the rail system that is being proposed right now.

http://www.sacurrent.com/Blogs/archives/2016/01/11/heres-the-latest-on-whether-the-oakland-raiders-will-move-to-san-antonio

As far as planning, just read this thread. The major players in SA already have a plan. They just refurbished Alamo Dome, the reason it got upgraded in college bowl ranks this past year. And SA contingent already said it will upgraded further for it to be ready for an NFL team.

Raiders would play at the Alamo Dome for 2 years while a new stadium is built. I assume the rail system would be built as well. And having one game a year at Azteca Stadium would be cool. The fact that Dia de los Muertos is celebrated for 3 days, You can have the game on either Sunday, Monday or Thursday to coincide with the event. Every PRESEASON game the NFL has played there has been soldout.

A survey conducted in both SA and Austin favored a team in South Texas. So there is public support of this as well.

I really don't know what options Davis have at this point. But it seems like he bought the proposed site already, probably for cheap, so in case things fell through in LA, and more than likely Oakland. Sounds like the same thing the Rams owner did before moving the Rams.

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

That's actually not a bad location. I figured hypothetically it'd be somewhere between San Antonio and Austin, like San Marcos or New Braunfels. Universal City is a crap town itself, but a good location in terms of accessibility for South Texas.

I agree. But because of that, the land is cheap out there. Plus Randolph AFB is out there so you are going to get a lot of military support as well (am I not talking about security). And factor in the rail system propose will be just minutes from the stadium, it would be an ideal location. Rail system will go from SA airport to Aus Airport.

[ColinB]

I am probably 2 minutes from Universal City. I cannot think of one good spot for a stadium.

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

I am probably 2 minutes from Universal City. I cannot think of one good spot for a stadium.

Its in one of the articles in this thread. It's an old run down HS sport complex I believe. I too lazy to reread all the articles. But SSE, Cisneros and McCombs already had the site picked out. All I know it's out that way. And I see why considering the rail system they have been planning for a decade know, will run right by it.

[Rain Man]

I am probably 2 minutes from Universal City. I cannot think of one good spot for a stadium.

He is going to build the stadium up his ass. There is plenty of room there. It's not going to happen anywhere else.

[Chinook]

Because it's closer to Austin. Plus it would be right along the rail system that is being proposed right now.

http://www.sacurrent.com/Blogs/archives/2016/01/11/heres-the-latest-on-whether-the-oakland-raiders-will-move-to-san-antonio

As far as planning, just read this thread. The major players in SA already have a plan. They just refurbished Alamo Dome, the reason it got upgraded in college bowl ranks this past year. And SA contingent already said it will upgraded further for it to be ready for an NFL team.

Raiders would play at the Alamo Dome for 2 years while a new stadium is built. I assume the rail system would be built as well. And having one game a year at Azteca Stadium would be cool. The fact that Dia de los Muertos is celebrated for 3 days, You can have the game on either Sunday, Monday or Thursday to coincide with the event. Every PRESEASON game the NFL has played there has been soldout.

A survey conducted in both SA and Austin favored a team in South Texas. So there is public support of this as well.

I really don't know what options Davis have at this point. But it seems like he bought the proposed site already, probably for cheap, so in case things fell through in LA, and more than likely Oakland. Sounds like the same thing the Rams owner did before moving the Rams.

That's not a plan. That's at best an outline. Who's going to pay the billion it will take to build a stadium good enough to keep Davis from wanting to move the team in a few years? Who's going to pay for the rest of the upgrades? What about marketing, corporate partnerships, transportation? These are things that have been worked out in the LA plans FOR YEARS. SA is really behind the eight-ball, and they're even further behind if they expect the Raiders to be a regional team with a market larger than most states.

That doesn't even mention that you need a plan for the stadium to generate non-game revenue, and that's a lot harder if it's located outside of the city (or even the main metro area). I think a good deal of the events that would generate the money for other teams would conflict heavily with the AT&T Center or Jerry World. Nothing is clear yet.

[Rain Man]

That's not a plan. That's at best an outline. Who's going to pay the billion it will take to build a stadium good enough to keep Davis from wanting to move the team in a few years? Who's going to pay for the rest of the upgrades? What about marketing, corporate partnerships, transportation? These are things that have been worked out in the LA plans FOR YEARS. SA is really behind the eight-ball, and they're even further behind if they expect the Raiders to be a regional team with a market larger than most states.

That doesn't even mention that you need a plan for the stadium to generate non-game revenue, and that's a lot harder if it's located outside of the city (or even the main metro area). I think a good deal of the events that would generate the money for other teams would conflict heavily with the AT&T Center or Jerry World. Nothing is clear yet.

I heard Adult Megaplex is the main sponsor. The dome will be called the Adult Megadome. They made a ton of money selling CWS fist dildos

[BatManu20]

686605318210588673

687076646868795392

[Chinook]

Never gonna consider BR reputable. Will just never do it.

[Spurs9]

Do you know where the stadium is going to be build. They are building it in Universal City, about 30 minutes from downtown SA. It will only be about 45 miles from Austin. And the propose rail system between SA and Austin more than likely will be built if the Raiders do move to SA/Austin. This will basically allow commuters from Austin to get to games almost hassle free.

http://www.transystems.com/Home/News-Press/News-In-Motion/January-21-2015/Passenger-Rail-Between-San-Antonio-and-Austin-Fina.aspx

All this shit is in the works. So SA/Aus area has a lot to offer an NFL franchise. Oakland is just a bunch of minorities as well with one of the highest crime rates in the country.
Where do you see they are building a stadium in UC tbh?

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

That's not a plan. That's at best an outline. Who's going to pay the billion it will take to build a stadium good enough to keep Davis from wanting to move the team in a few years? Who's going to pay for the rest of the upgrades? What about marketing, corporate partnerships, transportation? These are things that have been worked out in the LA plans FOR YEARS. SA is really behind the eight-ball, and they're even further behind if they expect the Raiders to be a regional team with a market larger than most states.

That doesn't even mention that you need a plan for the stadium to generate non-game revenue, and that's a lot harder if it's located outside of the city (or even the main metro area). I think a good deal of the events that would generate the money for other teams would conflict heavily with the AT&T Center or Jerry World. Nothing is clear yet.

SSE already pledge 300mil to the Stadium. I believe McCombs and others have as well.I believe the total pledge was round 700mil plus. And the stadium projected to cost between 1bn to 1.3 bn. I assume the NFL will still give 100mil for the stadium. Davis said he would spend 300mil. So not too much difference needs to be made up at this point. It's all in the articles. Read through all of them. I know I don't want to. SSE, McCombs, COC of SA and others already said they would spend 100mil + to renovate the Alamodome as well.

The rail system in play is being pushed forward with or without an NFL team. Traffic between Aus and SA is horrendous already. That would be huge plus for transit.

As far as events, I guess this new stadium will be hosting a College playoff game, a Bowl game, future Final Fours Women/Men and other events that the Alamodome has held in the past.

Jerry said he wouldn't block the move as well, but that remains to be seen. The fact that the Raiders will remain an AFC team, it wouldn't cut too much into Jerry finances just like Texans didn't when Houston got a new franchise. I will just buy merchandise of both team if that happens.

Cisneros said they have been putting together this plan for years, even before the Raiders were looking. That is why it was Cisneros who brought it to Davis once he heard the Raider were looking to relocate. I believe him b/c everyone privy to it said THE PLAN they had was beyond stellar. So obviously it wasn't a bunch of horse crap they were feeding Davis.

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

686605318210588673

687076646868795392

Jerry already said he wouldn't block it. Honestly, he will maintain my loyalty as a fan if he doesn't, that is if Davis wants to move to SA/Aus. All of Texas outside of Houston area (even then some) will still be Cowboy fans. Raiders would just give South Texas an AFC team to root for.

[Chinook]

SSE already pledge 300mil to the Stadium. I believe McCombs and others have as well.I believe the total pledge was round 700mil plus. And the stadium projected to cost between 1bn to 1.3 bn. I assume the NFL will still give 100mil for the stadium. Davis said he would spend 300mil. So not too much difference needs to be made up at this point. It's all in the articles. Read through all of them. I know I don't want to. SSE, McCombs, COC of SA and others already said they would spend 100mil + to renovate the Alamodome as well.

The rail system in play is being pushed forward with or without an NFL team. Traffic between Aus and SA is horrendous already. That would be huge plus for transit.

As far as events, I guess this new stadium will be hosting a College playoff game, a Bowl game, future Final Fours Women/Men and other events that the Alamodome has held in the past.

Jerry said he wouldn't block the move as well, but that remains to be seen. The fact that the Raiders will remain an AFC team, it wouldn't cut too much into Jerry finances just like Texans didn't when Houston got a new franchise. I will just buy merchandise of both team if that happens.

Cisneros said they have been putting together this plan for years, even before the Raiders were looking. That is why it was Cisneros who brought it to Davis once he heard the Raider were looking to relocate. I believe him b/c everyone privy to it said THE PLAN they had was beyond stellar. So obviously it wasn't a bunch of horse crap they were feeding Davis.

So we're supposed to assume that the new Raiders stadium would be 100-percent privately funded? That's a stretch, but even if it's true, what is the cost of those donations? You're talking about other guys spending two-to-three times as much as Davis is. That's going to come with some ownership stakes. How much will Mark be willing to give up?

As far as the "plan" being solid goes, I'll believe it when I see it. This is way too big on a project to keep under wraps, and there's almost no reason to keep it secret, since the whole goal of it is to encourage teams to consider SA a viable market. They should be screaming their heads off about how they have everything together. They don't just have to convince Davis. They have to convince Spanos and the other owners as well. And if there's any public money coming in (which there is, because that transportation system isn't building itself), you're gonna have to get the people to vote on it.

[Chinook]

Jerry already said he wouldn't block it. Honestly, he will maintain my loyalty as a fan if he doesn't, that is if Davis wants to move to SA/Aus. All of Texas outside of Houston area (even then some) will still be Cowboy fans. Raiders would just give South Texas an AFC team to root for.

We're talking about from Austin south into the northern states of Mexico (and even La Ciudad). The fans there won't all defect from Dallas, but they'll be in competition. Jerry will still have down to Austin and most of the Great Plains, but he's definitely going to have his market share threatened.

Will be interesting to see if SA and AZ would become natural pre-season rivals with a game in Mexico every August. Just seems to make too much sense.

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

So we're supposed to assume that the new Raiders stadium would be 100-percent privately funded? That's a stretch, but even if it's true, what is the cost of those donations? You're talking about other guys spending two-to-three times as much as Davis is. That's going to come with some ownership stakes. How much will Mark be willing to give up?

As far as the "plan" being solid goes, I'll believe it when I see it. This is way too big on a project to keep under wraps, and there's almost no reason to keep it secret, since the whole goal of it is to encourage teams to consider SA a viable market. They should be screaming their heads off about how they have everything together. They don't just have to convince Davis. They have to convince Spanos and the other owners as well. And if there's any public money coming in (which there is, because that transportation system isn't building itself), you're gonna have to get the people to vote on it.

No, the city of San Antonio (chamber of commerce) said it could raise over 300 mill as well according to the articles. I heard one thing Davis didn't like that SSE pledge came with a contingent that they would buy into the ownership as well. I don't see Davis minding at this point as it won't be a large portion and plus SSE has proven they know how to make a winning team, definitely a partner you would want to have.

That is why the survey that went out. It covered support for the team as well as if people would cover the cost of building a new stadium if an NFL team was brought to SA. The vast majority said yes.

I read about 40 articles on this and I honestly don't want to reread them all. I even read articles about the situation in Oakland that definitely isn't good. But all this information is in those articles. Just go back and read them all to get a better picture of what was proposed to Davis last year.

[BatManu20]

687279703426596864

[Chinook]

Lol

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

We're talking about from Austin south into the northern states of Mexico (and even La Ciudad). The fans there won't all defect from Dallas, but they'll be in competition. Jerry will still have down to Austin and most of the Great Plains, but he's definitely going to have his market share threatened.

Will be interesting to see if SA and AZ would become natural pre-season rivals with a game in Mexico every August. Just seems to make too much sense.

I won't either despite how crapping the Boys have been of late. Raider will be an AFC team, so no conflict really would exist. Just one game every 4 years and if both teams meet in the SuperBowl. I am sure you know, Texas is a football state. Can't get enough of it. Having the Raiders would give Texans more football they already craved.

[spurraider21]

Never gonna consider BR reputable. Will just never do it.
BR is overall bad but Jason Cole has a decent reputation. He was a yahoo sports guy before joining BR.

Jerry's desire to keep the Raiders out of Texas is going to be tricky for him since he is one of the major reasons/influences that kept the Raiders from moving to LA, plus the league has said the raiders will get "favorable consideration" for future relocation bids. I do agree that they are a long way from having an actual offer, and I doubt they'll get anything done in time for the Raiders to play in Texas in 2016.

My best guess is the Raiders re-up at O.Co for 1 more season and move in time for the 2017 season. Don't know if that will be in Texas or elsewhere, but I can't see them sitting on their hands and not having something done a year from now.

[yavozerb]

I am probably 2 minutes from Universal City. I cannot think of one good spot for a stadium.

retama park is probably the best area in my opinion..

[TheGreatYacht]

Jerry Jones won't allow San Antonio to have an NFL team, and you faggots will still give him money by buying jerseys with a gay blue star.

They'll help the Mavs recruit free agents before they even think of helping the Spurs :lol

Fuck the Cowboys.

[boutons_deux]

That's not a plan. That's at best an outline. Who's going to pay the billion it will take to build a stadium good enough to keep Davis from wanting to move the team in a few years? Who's going to pay for the rest of the upgrades? What about marketing, corporate partnerships, transportation? These are things that have been worked out in the LA plans FOR YEARS. SA is really behind the eight-ball, and they're even further behind if they expect the Raiders to be a regional team with a market larger than most states.

That doesn't even mention that you need a plan for the stadium to generate non-game revenue, and that's a lot harder if it's located outside of the city (or even the main metro area). I think a good deal of the events that would generate the money for other teams would conflict heavily with the AT&T Center or Jerry World. Nothing is clear yet.

Oakland taxpayers are still paying the bonds for the Raiders stadium, and will be when the Raiders leave.

[Chinook]

Oakland taxpayers are still paying the bonds for the Raiders stadium, and will be when the Raiders leave.

Yeah. That's why it's not just as simple as saying "The City has pledged this much money." Austin rejected and tabled EXTREMELY NECESSARY transportation reform. I don't know how much they'd be willing to kick in for a stadium or even the regional rail system needed to make Austin a viable fan base to attend STR (going with that acronym for the time being) games. A "poll" means VERY little.

[SoonerSpur512]

Jerry Jones won't allow San Antonio to have an NFL team, and you faggots will still give him money by buying jerseys with a gay blue star.

They'll help the Mavs recruit free agents before they even think of helping the Spurs :lol

Fuck the Cowboys.

What power does JJ really have to block a move to SA? He's one vote. It only takes 24 to approve a move

[random21]

Jerry Jones won't allow San Antonio to have an NFL team, and you faggots will still give him money by buying jerseys with a gay blue star.

They'll help the Mavs recruit free agents before they even think of helping the Spurs :lol

Fuck the Cowboys.

Cant agree more

[BatManu20]

The internet is quick with these things :lol

https://tribcw33.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/san-antonio-raiders.jpeg?w=1200

[BatManu20]

http://oi57.tinypic.com/jrtzlt.jpg http://i66.tinypic.com/300smxh.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/2gyczgg.png

http://thepioneeronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/San-Antonio-Raiders.jpg

[BatManu20]

http://content.sportslogos.net/news/2014/07/Raiders2.png

[BatManu20]

http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/san-antone-raiders-final.png

[BatManu20]

http://i67.tinypic.com/300xzic.jpg

[Twisted_Dawg]

I am probably 2 minutes from Universal City. I cannot think of one good spot for a stadium.


In
Agreed!

[Twisted_Dawg]

retama park is probably the best area in my opinion..

That is located in Selma.

[baseline bum]

Do you know where the stadium is going to be build. They are building it in Universal City, about 30 minutes from downtown SA.

Where did you see that?

[TheGreatYacht]

http://i66.tinypic.com/300smxh.jpg
We have a winner.

[Obstructed_View]

If my one lottery ticket hits I'll buy the team and move them to SA. I'll build the stadium in San Marcos or New Braunfels.

[Rain Man]

If my one lottery ticket hits I'll buy the team and move them to SA. I'll build the stadium in San Marcos or New Braunfels.

Math skillz. This guy has them

[boutons_deux]

How many $B in bonds + interest are you people willing to pay to build an NFL stadium?

[Obstructed_View]

Math skillz. This guy has them

970 million according to Forbes.

[spurraider21]

What power does JJ really have to block a move to SA? He's one vote. It only takes 24 to approve a move
he has significant influence to get other owners to vote however he wants

[Aztecfan03]

970 million according to Forbes.
what? the value of the raiders? what about the cost of the stadium? And the fact that you would never even sniff 970 mil of the 1.3mil (or 1.5 mil as the local news is showing it)

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Raiders won't come to San Antonio. What does it have to offer? Ghetto Mexicans that expect handouts and freebies? Fat women to keep players and fans warm when it's cold?

Be happy with the Spurs

Have you ever been to Oakland? San Antonio has more to offer.

[LakerHater]

What power does JJ really have to block a move to SA? He's one vote. It only takes 24 to approve a move

Isnt he the head of NFL expansion & relocation commity?

I think thats why he tried givin $100 mil to Davis but to build a new stadium or in backend inglewood

[LakerHater]

Have you ever been to Oakland? San Antonio has more to offer.
Isnt Oakland goin bankrupt?

[Spurs9]

Where did you see that?

He made it up, couldn't find one mention of that being the case.

[Rain Man]

what? the value of the raiders? what about the cost of the stadium? And the fact that you would never even sniff 970 mil of the 1.3mil (or 1.5 mil as the local news is showing it)

Even if he won. I don't think he understands taxes.

[Rain Man]

Have you ever been to Oakland? San Antonio has more to offer.

So you think they want to make the same misktake twice? For a slightly better place?

[Obstructed_View]

:lmao people who don't understand probability trying to give me a lesson about taxes based on a throwaway comment.

[sasaint]

:lmao people who don't understand probability trying to give me a lesson about taxes based on a throwaway comment.

If you did buy them and move them here, then I might bring myself to support them. Otherwise, the question for me is: Why would SA want a scuzzy organization like the Raiders and a scuzzy owner like Mark Davis to come here? We already have the only Silver and Black that counts. All the Raiders could do is sully that.

You understand probability, so I feel safe in making my statement. :downspin:

[BatManu20]

Some good stuff here. Worth a listen.

687408776455032832

[raybies]

Basically says we have 12 corporate sponsors, several sites to choose from, investors if needed and see ready to go in "48 hours" if he wanted to bring the team over. All that's left is convincing Mark to come.

[Horry Hipcheck]

I'd much rather the Raiders go to SA than try and compete in the L.A. market with the Rams. Thankfully, it seems that the NFL would prefer they stay out of SoCal, too, pending what the Chargers do (please also stay put).

[Aztecfan03]

I'd much rather the Raiders go to SA than try and compete in the L.A. market with the Rams. Thankfully, it seems that the NFL would prefer they stay out of SoCal, too, pending what the Chargers do (please also stay put).
hopefully the chargers leave san diego. don't care where, but they shouldn't let the door hit them on the way out.

[Horry Hipcheck]

hopefully the chargers leave san diego. don't care where, but they shouldn't let the door hit them on the way out.

That city definitely doesn't deserve to be jerked around by that franchise, but the only way I see them leaving is if it's to L.A. and I don't know anyone here who wants that organization around.

[cjw]

what? the value of the raiders? what about the cost of the stadium? And the fact that you would never even sniff 970 mil of the 1.3mil (or 1.5 mil as the local news is showing it)

There's leverage you can add to the equation plus minority owners, but the lotto kind of money is more NHL franchise type cash or the lowest priced NBA teams. Don't forget to pay your wife on the divorce when she slams the door in your face when you burn all that lotto money on a sports team (see Frank McCourt).

On the Niners/Raiders in Santa Clara, it's amazing that they didn't sufficiently market test the location and transit preferences. East Coast folks are fine with mass transit. The rest of the country scoffs at the idea.

[BatManu20]

Report: Raiders have already secured land in San Antonio for potential move



http://a2.fssta.com/content/dam/fsdigital/fscom/nfl/images/2015/08/16/RAIDERS/081615-NFL-raiders-PI2.vadapt.955.high.85.jpg
The Raiders would reportedly play in the Alamo Bowl while a stadium between Austin and San Antonio is constructed.

Sfchronicle






By Nick ToneyJan 13, 2016 at 11:52p ET

Oakland Raiders (http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/oakland-raiders-team) owner Mark Davis missed out on Los Angeles, but that doesn't mean he'll return his team to Oakland.
They're playing without a lease in 2016 -- and the city of San Antonio could provide a soft landing for the Silver and Black.
Via Bleacher Report's Jason Cole (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2606838-insider-buzz-raiders-owner-mark-davis-pursuing-san-antonio-move-if-la-bid-fails):




Davis has plenty of reasons to drop his team right between San Antonio and Austin. The two cities would offer his team over 2.3 million football-hungry sports fans. His players would enjoy a state without income taxes.




Lastly, if he's anything like his father, Davis enjoys a little payback. He'd serve some up by becoming an instate competitor to Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who led the charge to exclude the Raiders from L.A.relocation .


http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/oakland-raiders-texas-san-antonio-austin-relocation-stadium-alamodome-011316

[dabom]

I don't know too much about football at all but if someone tried to fuck over my business, you can bet yo ass I'm coming for that payback.

SA bound. I called it here. Bookmark.

[spurraider21]

yeah, i'm starting to think SA is the most likely outcome tbh

granted, there is a LOOOONG way to go before anything is actually hammered out, but there's been no movement in oakland for 4+ years now, and i doubt they're going to get anything done in SD either