Reply With Quote
Again, besides the lux. box situation, what else is different. Tell me Manny.
You don't think that is a pretty big difference?
Again, besides the lux. box situation, what else is different. Tell me Manny.
Without significant upgrades to facilities so that the Alamodome can generate revenue to the degree that newer stadiums can, a team in San Antonio will need to be subsidized by NFL revenue sharing, even if it managed to sell out every home game.
The Alamodome should be substantially renovated to provide more of the following revenue-generating amenities:
Luxury suites
Club seats
Concessions
Team stores
Restaurants
Miscellaneous fan amenities
Premium parking
A prospective team must be given control of all concessions, as well as sponsorship and naming rights, and a portion of the proceeds from mass transit to the facility, given the Alamodome's unique setup.
If a team is concerned about attendance, the city could provide "guaranteed" sellouts, if it came to that. But Joe Q. Fan will not make or break the team. It will be corporate support in the purchase of the top-dollar seats, suites, and amenities, as well as sponsorships, that will be the determining factor.
Without those things, an S.A. team would rank near the bottom in revenues, with teams like the Vikings.
Wow. That's a brilliant statement. Ever heard of opportunity cost or return on investment? Did you pass high school economics?Didn't know buying tickets, buying merch, watching the games didn't make a owner money.
I thought you were some self-styled "expert" on urban development? Or do you just like imagining pretty buildings in your head? Get a job.
REVENUE GENERATION.
You have no clue about what makes the money in professional sports in the 21st century. Just shut the up and go back to masturbating on the toilet while reading the SA Business Journal.
So I guess, A+B = C
Huh?
How hard is that? It's easily doable.
ES,
Save your breath. Arguing with Buddy Holly that there are more attractives venues in this country for an NFL team is an excercise in futility.
if they were going to do this for MLS then they sure as would do it for the NFL...
so, what market would be better than sa? we have already figured out oakland sucks, la sucks, jax sucks.. who wouldn't suck?
Los Angeles and Portland.
St. Louis built the Edwards Jones Dome (back then called the TWA Dome) to attract a team.
It was state-of-the-art in 1995, when the team moved.
The team made more money by moving from Anaheim Stadium to the Dome, even though it was a smaller market.
How? Well, because prospective wealthy fans were willing to pay a premium for an air-conditioned, wood-floored suite with leather furniture, a full bar, and a big-screen TV in St. Louis than they were for an old metal seat with chewing gum stuck to the bottom in Anaheim.
(The stadium in Anaheim was subsequently renovated into a baseball-only facility for the Angels.)
While San Antonio's Alamodome isn't nearly as bad off as decrepit old heaps like the Metrodome in Minneapolis, it nevertheless lags far behind the best stadiums in the amenities it offers for which wealthy fans will pay a heavy premium, assuming S.A. has enough of those wealthy fans to begin with.
It will need to be redone.
Facilities + market size + corporate support + fan support = successful team. With regard to the Rams, L.A. had the bigger market, but St. Louis offered better facilities, and much more support from the corporate base and the fans.
Another example would be when the Oilers moved from Houston to Nashville. Nashville is much smaller than Houston, but the Coliseum in Nashville is a far superior facility to the Astrodome, and it makes a lot more money.
Houston had to build a $450 million retractable-roof palace to get the NFL back.
So no, I am not speculating any more than I would be if I said that I would be better off with a $150,000 per year job than with a $30,000 per year job.
Last edited by Extra Stout; 10-03-2005 at 04:55 PM.
come on manny...we've already figured out that la sucks.. how many teams have left there? and why? because they were making money? i don't think so...
portland could deserve a shot, but not before sa... football is texas and texas is football.
Portland? Yeah, the Saints can use that huge stadium they have just sitting there.
oh yeah!
ing crying over here!
I am certainly willing to admit that if San Antonio is willing to spend, say, $300 to $400 million in renovating the Alamodome, plus another $100-$200 million in upgrading surrounding infrastructure and amenities, with taxpayers footing 80-100% of the bill, and with lucrative incentives to a team built on top of that, with sufficient guarantees of revenue should fan support falter, then yes, S.A. absolutely would be in the mix for an NFL team. No question.
You'll see me leading the ing protests on that based on that pile of .
LA doesn't suck when compared to San Antonio though! Oakland was a stupid move, and you won't find anyone that debates that.
If they could go back and do it again, I bet you Davis would stay in LA.
And somehow Portland building a new stadium is more unlikely than San Antonio putting in half a billion dollars to the AlamoDome?
Right.
Revise your figures down some, and you have a realistic expectation. Say $200mil in the Alamodome and $120 mil for infrastructure, which has uses other than football.
Remember that construction costs are lower in Texas than LA or Portland, and the team could get more for less.
how much do new stadiums cost?
Half a billion?
Like plucking those numbers out your ass or what.
$320 million for renovations when it costs $190M to build the Alamodome in the first place twelve years ago?
L.A. would be just fine if only if could get a stadium built. The reason L.A. doesn't have a team is because the only available football stadiums now are the L.A. Coliseum and the Rose Bowl, both of which are ancient.
Back in the 1990's, smaller cities were offering publicly-financed stadiums while L.A. was telling the NFL that any stadium would have to be 100% privately financed. So the NFL took the money.
These days the public money is drying up, and teams like the New England Patriots and San Francisco Giants have demonstrated that a private-owned stadium can be a real cash cow if done right.
So the NFL is looking for an ownership group than can get the financing for a stadium, be it public, private, or some combination. Nobody's been able to get their act together so far.
While Southern California may not be football-rabid, the sheer size of the market makes it highly desirable. It doesn't take a very large percentage of 15 million people to be interested in a team for it to make a lot of money.
I'm just glad we now have Sheryl Sculley to run this ship.
She'll get some done.
People love plucking numbers out their ass. Even though its been stated many times already that a study showed 150-200 million dollars worth of upgrades would make the Dome NFL ready.
if, if, if...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions