Reply With Quote
O'rly?
You don't like the assinine idea some moronic council person in Oakland conceived while inhaling paint fumes?
You don't say.
I agree, better to wait, if they elect to play in California, let them stay in California.
O'rly?
You don't like the assinine idea some moronic council person in Oakland conceived while inhaling paint fumes?
You don't say.
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.
Ever the optimist.
I'm optimistic about plenty of things, seeing an NFL franchise in San Antonio isn't one of them.
Yeah, no , Sherlock.
Just to make it clear. Your opinion, I disagree with.
You're as eloquent as ever...
Xmas' old, flaccid dong just rose up slightly for the first time in 20 years.
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/sa...d-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/post..._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 compe ion, and more compe ion 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.
I feel the same as you do.
I also felt the same about the Saints when they almost moved here permanently too.
Raiders owner meets with San Antonio
Todd Washburn,
http://thepioneeronline.com/23075/sp...h-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.”
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.
Your Turn: Nov. 16
November 15, 2014
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/...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.
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...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 compe ion 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 Pea 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.
Much better.
Still got one to edit though.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7670005
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.
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...
Done, thanks for letting me know.
I don't see why we can't have all three.
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.
safer?
what the ?
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...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
