The Las Vegas Raiders/STADIUM Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sleet said:
Why should other owners get paid b/c the value of a team goes up when a team builds a new stadium. Your inquiry is based on a false premise. You original question, which I answered, made more sense: Is there a situation where a team lost value by making a move. The answer is yes: the Raiders moved from LA to Oakland and lost value.
Click to expand...

So to clarify, you're now arguing that no team should have to pay a relocation fee? Because that's completely different than what you've been saying all along.
 
gst8 said:
So to clarify, you're now arguing that no team should have to pay a relocation fee? Because that's completely different than what you've been saying all along.
Click to expand...
:nono:

Don't be that guy. That is not my position and never was my position. You are smarter than that.

My turn to ask, why are you ducking my question? My position is clear. My question is clear. Why are you collapsing stadium building with relocation? Don't muddy the water. Al moved back to Oakland and was poorer for it. Does anyone disagree?
 
So if the NFL really makes an offer is it fair or is it a low ball amount? Like anything else if they offer cash broke ass Oakland would be crazy to say no.Win-win for them.But I'm sure there's more to it than that.
 
Sleet said:
:nono:

Don't be that guy. That is not my position and never was my position. You are smarter than that.

My turn to ask, why are you ducking my question? My position is clear. My question is clear. Why are you collapsing stadium building with relocation? Don't muddy the water. Al moved back to Oakland and was poorer for it. Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

No, you're correct... I worded my question incorrectly initially but you're willfully ignoring the clarification.

Now answer mine. Has a team ever lost value relocating to a newly built stadium? If not, you're point that the Raiders situation is different because they stand to lose equity doesn't stand.
 
Sleet said:
What would really suck is if the NFL got the land, took Mark's $350M and the Raiders moved to Vegas anyway. :eek:
Click to expand...

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.
 
I'm assuming that all this talk of the league "maybe" purchasing the land is speculation from talk radio. There is absolutely nothing on the interwebs about this possibility. Can someone post a soundcloud clip or something. Otherwise this is all about as reliable as an @Raider Outlaw scouting report....
 
Sleet said:
Why should other owners get paid b/c the value of a team goes up when a team builds a new stadium. Your inquiry is based on a false premise. You original question, which I answered, made more sense: Is there a situation where a team lost value by making a move. The answer is yes: the Raiders moved from LA to Oakland and lost value.
Click to expand...

He actually asked: to a new city with a new stadium. Al moved his team back to the same shithole that he left. There's absolutely no way the team is worth less after they move into their shiny new stadium in LV.
 
gst8 said:
No, you're correct... I worded my question incorrectly initially but you're willfully ignoring my clarification.

Now answer mine. Has a team ever lost value relocating to a newly built stadium? If not, you're point that the Raiders situation is different because they stand to lose equity doesn't stand.
Click to expand...
Not true. Relocation does not mean new stadium. The Raiders relocated twice without getting a new stadium. Owners build stadiums all the time without paying a relocation fee.

The NFL is giving up one market and getting back another. Relocation fees have been imposed to pay for the difference.

The relocation fee is intended to make the NFL whole. To compensate it for a loss. That is why it is lawful and does not violate antitrust laws.

What you are advocating is a tax on a benefit Mark is conferring on the league by building a stadium. New stadiums make the entire NFL more money in terms of shared gate receipts. Colluding to force one owner to pay a tax to obtain the same benefit enjoyed freely by others is an antitrust violation.

There is no stadium in Vegas. The NFL is not losing a stadium in Vegas and getting a lesser stadium in return. Rather Mark is building a stadium like other others/cities have done without having to share the wealth. There is no antitrust justification (IMO) to tax some buildings and not others.
 
Raidervinny said:
He actually asked: to a new city with a new stadium. Al moved his team back to the same shithole that he left. There's absolutely no way the team is worth less after they move into their shiny new stadium in LV.
Click to expand...
#Apples/Oranges

Competitors can be made whole for a loss of a bigger or better market. Competitors cannot collude and selectively tax stadium building (IMO).
 
Sleet said:
#Apples/Oranges

Competitors can be made whole for a loss of a bigger or better market. Competitors cannot collude and selectively tax stadium building (IMO).
Click to expand...

I really don't see how you are coming to that conclusion. We are moving to a new stadium with all the bells and whistles...we will be significantly more valuable than we are right now.
 
Sleet said:
Not true. Relocation does not mean new stadium. The Raiders relocated twice without getting a new stadium. Owners build stadiums all the time without paying a relocation fee.

The NFL is giving up one market and getting back another. Relocation fees have been imposed to pay for the difference.

The relocation fee is intended to make the NFL whole. To compensate it for a loss. That is why it is lawful and does not violate antitrust laws.

What you are advocating is a tax on a benefit Mark is conferring on the league by building a stadium. New stadiums make the entire NFL more money in terms of shared gate receipts. Colluding to force one owner to pay a tax to obtain the same benefit enjoyed freely by others is an antitrust violation.

There is no stadium in Vegas. The NFL is not losing a stadium in Vegas and getting a lesser stadium in return. Rather Mark is building a stadium like other others/cities have done without having to share the wealth. There is no antitrust justification (IMO) to tax some buildings and not others.
Click to expand...

You addressed absolutely zero of the points at hand.

Simple question:

Are the Raiders worth less or more if they relocate to a new stadium in Las Vegas.
 
gst8 said:
Is there an example of a team whose equity decreased due to relocating?
Click to expand...
Equity and value are two different concepts. Equity means you own something (ie a stadium) and it has an intrinsic value that can be recouped when it is sold.

A team's value may not involve any equity. The McDonald's brand has significant value but had no equity since McDonalds doesn't own a single building that it's franchise locations lease out.

I'm not exactly sure about the spirit of your original question, but the value of the Raiders football team was significantly reduced when they left LA for Oakland. It would be interesting to see if the value of the 49ers decreased when they left SF for Santa Clara. I would expect the value of the Raiders would increase by moving to Vegas, regardless of whether the Raiders own or lease the stadium. Ultimately, the value increase is of secondary importance right now. Davis needs a new stadium to survive, and Vegas is his most realistic option.
 
Raidervinny said:
I really don't see how you are coming to that conclusion. We are moving to a new stadium with all the bells and whistles...we will be significantly more valuable than we are right now.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?

Of course the Raiders will be more valuable. That's the entire reason to build new stadiums. And Mark is going to pay to help build the new stadium. Jerry built Jerry World to make more money and become more valuable too. And he helps pay for it. Did the other owners reach out and demand a piece of the pie? Or help pay for Jerry's stadium?
 
Last edited:
gst8 said:
You addressed absolutely zero of the points at hand.

Simple question:

Are the Raiders worth less or more if they relocate to a new stadium in Las Vegas.
Click to expand...
How about this simple question: When did you stop screwing your dog? It's almost as relevant.
 
Sleet said:
What are you talking about? Of course the Raiders will be more valuable. That's the entire reason to build new stadiums. And Mark is going to pay to help build the stadium. Jerry built Jerry World to become more valuable too. And he helps pay for it. Did the other owners reach out and demand a piece of the pie?
Click to expand...

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?
 
1-800-Raider said:
Equity and value are two different concepts. Equity means you own something (ie a stadium) and it has an intrinsic value that can be recouped when it is sold.

A team's value may not involve any equity. The McDonald's brand has significant value but had no equity since McDonalds doesn't own a single building that it's franchise locations lease out.

I'm not exactly sure about the spirit of your original question, but the value of the Raiders football team was significantly reduced when they left LA for Oakland. It would be interesting to see if the value of the 49ers decreased when they left SF for Santa Clara. I would expect the value of the Raiders would increase by moving to Vegas, regardless of whether the Raiders own or lease the stadium. Ultimately, the value increase is of secondary importance right now. Davis needs a new stadium to survive, and Vegas is his most realistic option.
Click to expand...
Good point. It is more nuanced. But the Raiders should not be taxed for being the Raiders, or having a national brand or a brand that might flourish or fit in Vegas. That is nothing of the NFL's doing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top