The Las Vegas Raiders/STADIUM Thread

How...because of the relocation fee? That's something that all teams that relocate have to pay. The owners decided that after Al screwed them time and again. How are the owners demanding a piece of the pie?
If contract or franchise law is what governed, I would agree with you. But they are not the only relevant law here. This is a question of whether competitors can collude, not just to (a) make themselves whole when the collective has suffered a loss, but also to (b) share the wealth just b/c they want to demand payment from another owner who is improving his franchise.

Simply by moving to LA Kroeke increased the value of his team--stadium or no stadium. Sterling proved that with the Clippers. That's what the NFL can justifiably tax.

Selectively taxing the building of stadiums, an asset of a franchise, is contrary to antitrust laws. Antitrust law, when enforced (Mark has plenty of reasons to take this one up that ass), IMO, bars competitors from colluding to selectively tax Mark's building of a stadium when they didn't tax Jerry's World.

We will just have to agree to disagree. Now, if you believe Vegas is intrinsically more valuable than Oakland, which I find hard to believe but may prove to be the case, so be it. Tax the move to a bigger or better market.

IMO, what's going on here is extortion, a money grab. Hotel taxes are being shared with the other owners to "approve" the deal.
 
Last edited:
Translation: Sleet won't admit he's talking out of his ass.
What a dumbass. I answered the question in response to Vinny's post before I even read your rhetorical question. Funny, though, I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions. Talk about ducking the point. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
What a dumbass. I answered the question in response to Vinny's post before I even read your rhetorical question.

Ok, so if you're saying this.

Of course the Raiders will be more valuable. That's the entire reason to build new stadiums.

Then how does this make any sense as an argument to differentiate the situations?

If the Rams had stayed and built a new stadium in St. Louis, the value of the Rams would still be demonstrably less. The value of the Rams went up by the move.
 
Ok, so if you're saying this.



Then how does this make any sense as an argument to differentiate the situations?
:wtf1:

Sterling made a fortune moving the Clippers to LA to play in the old Sports Arena. He then made money when the Stables center was built.

Taxing the move would have been legitimate. Taxing the building of Stables center would not have been legitimate.

Why is this so hard to understand? Why should the other owners benefit more b/c Mark is building a stadium at the same time of his move, and not in two steps like Sterling?
 
Simply by moving to LA Kroeke increased the value of his team--stadium or no stadium. Sterling proved that with the Clippers. That's what the NFL can justifiably tax.

That's why it's called a relocation fee rather than a new stadium fee.

And really, Vegas doesn't happen without a new stadium just like Oakland doesn't happen with a new stadium. To try and separate the stadium from the relocation to fit your argument is disingenuous.
 
That's why it's called a relocation fee rather than a new stadium fee.

And really, Vegas doesn't happen without a new stadium just like Oakland doesn't happen with a new stadium. To try and separate the stadium from the relocation to fit your argument is disingenuous.
What?

Al Davis moved w/o a new stadium.

Donald Sterling moved w/o a new stadium.

Disingenuous? Look in the mirror.

And it is called a relocation fee, which is justifiable when owners like Sterling and Kroenke would benefit just by relocating to a new city, which, prior to the move, is the collective's territory. It is not called a stadium fee, which is not justifiable and would be like taxing other assets of the franchise. You are muddling the two.
 
Last edited:
@JasonColeBR said in February that according to his "sources" the Vegas deal was dead and that Davis would most likely turn to San Antonio. And know he's tweeting about naming rights and the possible revenue to be made in Vegas.

He's throwing it up to see what sticks.

He isn't the only person that's mentioned selling/leasing the land directly to the NFL. Joe Arrigo and Vinny Bonsignore have reported it multiple times and used it as evidence that Oakland doesn't care to keep the team. It's pretty much common knowledge at this point.

But if you're looking for a reporter that actually knows what's really going on or isn't "throwing shit to see if it sticks", good luck.
 
Taxing the move would have been legitimate.

Which is what is being taxed. Even if you want to separate the stadium and market, there's already precedent from when the Oilers moved from Houston to Nashville (11th vs 33rd in market size).

Also, market size and franchise value are not directly proportionate. Altanta is the 9th largest market and 19th most valuable franchise. Green Bay is the 13th most valuable franchise in the 70th largest market. There's nothing proving the Raiders would decrease in value by moving to Vegas.
 
Last edited:
If contract or franchise law is what governed, I would agree with you. But they are not the only relevant law here. This is a question of whether competitors can collude, not just to (a) make themselves whole when the collective has suffered a loss, but also to (b) share the wealth just b/c they want to demand payment from another owner who is improving his franchise.

Simply by moving to LA Kroeke increased the value of his team--stadium or no stadium. Sterling proved that with the Clippers. That's what the NFL can justifiably tax.

Selectively taxing the building of stadiums, IMO, violates antitrust laws. Antitrust law, when enforced (Mark has plenty of reasons to take this one up that ass), IMO, bars competitors from colluding to selectively tax Mark's building of a stadium when they didn't tax Jerry's World.

We will just have to agree to disagree. Now, if you believe Vegas is intrinsically more valuable than Oakland, which I find hard to believe but may prove to be the case, so be it. Tax the move to a bigger or better market.

IMO, what's going on here is extortion, a money grab. Hotel taxes are being share with the other owners to "approve" the deal.

First of all, it's not 'selective'. The owners agreed to the terms and fees associated with moving a franchise. Each sports league is run differently and has their own rules and regulations.

Second, Jerry didn't pay anything because he didn't move his team. They are called Relocation Fees for a reason.
 
Which is what is being taxed. Even if you want to separate the stadium and market, there's already precedent from when the Oilers moved from Houston to Nashville (11th vs 33rd in market size).

Also, market size and franchise value are not directly proportionate. Altanta is the 9th largest market and 19th most valuable franchise. Green Bay is the 13th most valuable franchise in the 70th largest market. There's nothing proving the Raiders would decrease in value by moving to Vegas.
My posts said bigger or better market. Did Bud Adams pay a relocation fee when he downsized markets? Mark is gonna pay, I just think it's extortion. At least it's $300M less than LA. I just don't see Vegas worth $300M more than Oakland and I believe taxing stadiums builds is unlawful. Shoot me.
 
Last edited:
First of all, it's not 'selective'. The owners agreed to the terms and fees associated with moving a franchise. Each sports league is run differently and has their own rules and regulations.

Second, Jerry didn't pay anything because he didn't move his team. They are called Relocation Fees for a reason.
:rolleyes:

Antitrust laws exist precisely to outlaw agreements among competitors. It is one of the two things it covers. And those agreements are not lawful b/c they were agreed to by owners.

Remember the game Life? And those "Share the Wealth Cards"? That is what the NFL is playing here (as opposed to getting paid for an asset it lost in the relocation). I think that is suspect. You don't. So be it. Move on.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure any sale of the land to the NFL would have contingencies built in that if the Raiders relocate to Vegas, the sale doesn't go thru.

As for what @MostWanted650 was saying about the 120 acres, I'm pretty sure that would be all of the coliseum land. Which would mean that they want assurances that the A's will be off of that land.

The A's have said that they'd like to do something downtown in a ballpark village type of area, but they haven't officially announced anything. I don't think the city is willing to put pressure on them to announce or tell them that the coliseum is officially off limits because the team and the city are in the middle of a public love fest.

As much as the A's may love the Howard Terminal site, it's gonna need major clean up and infrastructure upgrades. And if the city is going to develop that coliseum land into retail, office and housing anyway, then that would fit the "ballpark village" idea that Dave Kaval has preached since the start. It's hard to rule out the coliseum as a potential site until the A's/Oakland announce that it isn't.

And if you're the NFL, you would want to make sure the A's will be off that land before you plan to develop it.
Think about this.Oakland sells land to the NFL.A's move to Howard Terminal.Oakland can use money for "infrastructure improvements".Oakland has 2 teams with new cribs.And maybe still has some money left.Just sounds too good to be true.

Oakland, the infrastructure city.
 
Think about this.Oakland sells land to the NFL.A's move to Howard Terminal.Oakland can use money for "infrastructure improvements".Oakland has 2 teams with new cribs.And maybe still has some money left.Just sounds too good to be true.

Oakland, the infrastructure city.
As long as Boobies McGee and her insane clown posse are "running" the town nothing will get done. Why you ask, because in Oakland nothing ever gets done unless it's in the hills or the financial district.
 
Think about this.Oakland sells land to the NFL.A's move to Howard Terminal.Oakland can use money for "infrastructure improvements".Oakland has 2 teams with new cribs.And maybe still has some money left.Just sounds too good to be true.

Oakland, the infrastructure city.

Best case scenario for Oakland. But yeah, sounds like too good of a deal for Oakland govt to make it happen and too much stuff would have to happen.
 
My posts said bigger or better market. Did Bud Adams pay a relocation fee when he downsized markets? Mark is gonna pay, I just think it's extortion. At least it's $300M less than LA. I just don't see Vegas worth $300M more than Oakland and I believe taxing stadiums builds is unlawful. Shoot me.

Yes, Bud paid. Modell paid too.

Not only is there precedent, it also strongly suggests the stadium is more of a driver of franchise value than the market by itself.
 
Back
Top