Las Vegas Raiders Approved 31-1

[jmat321]

Ross voted against the move because he said that the league & the Raiders didn't work enough with the city of Oakland, obviously BS.  They went back & forth for years.  Remember he tried & failed to get public money in Miami.  Put that together with another Super Bowl location competitor and low tax warm city for FAs, not good for the Dolphins.  

Not finding anything yet on the sports gaming.  I assume you won't be able to bet on the Raiders, nor their opponent when they're both playing in Nevada.  

[Raideraholic]

12 minutes ago, jmat321 said:

Ross voted against the move because he said that the league & the Raiders didn't work enough with the city of Oakland, obviously BS.  They went back & forth for years.  Remember he tried & failed to get public money in Miami.  Put that together with another Super Bowl location competitor and low tax warm city for FAs, not good for the Dolphins.  

Not finding anything yet on the sports gaming.  I assume you won't be able to bet on the Raiders, nor their opponent when they're both playing in Nevada.  

Not true, I was surprised to find out that you will be able to legally make a wager on Raider games In Las Vegas.  Thought the NFL would make that criteria with the move, but they didn't.

Nfl is in bed with sports fantasy sites, that's gambling). 

[Fantasy Island]

11 hours ago, Warfish said:

Teams that move should be required to leave the name, logo, and team history behind in the city they are leaving.

Want to play in Vegas?  Fine.  Pick a new name, Raiders (and Raider history) gets to stay in Oakland.

JMO.

Las Vegas Gamblers

[RutgersJetFan]

19 minutes ago, jmat321 said:

Ross voted against the move because he said that the league & the Raiders didn't work enough with the city of Oakland, obviously BS.  They went back & forth for years.  Remember he tried & failed to get public money in Miami.  Put that together with another Super Bowl location competitor and low tax warm city for FAs, not good for the Dolphins.  

Not finding anything yet on the sports gaming.  I assume you won't be able to bet on the Raiders, nor their opponent when they're both playing in Nevada.  

Nevada Gaming Commission has been way lax on this stuff this century. You've been able to bet on UNLV and UNR for quite some time.

[thebuzzardman]

5 hours ago, Raideraholic said:

Should the Jets and Giants have to change their names too?   The Raiders will always be The franchise that Al Davis built.  .  The Davis family built the brand that made it one of the iconic Franchises in the game. ( Raidernation has a world wide following). 

It doesn't matter where the Raiders play,   ( call home- Oakland, LA, or Las Vegas)  their tradition will carry on.( Howie Long played only one year in Oakland- doesn't change his place in Raider history.

The Raiders were promised a new stadium by the city of Oakland and had 15 years to deliver.   They didn't , and the Davis family had every right to say enough is enough.   The Raiders need a new stadium ( need the revenue) to stay competitive , and nobody can expect them to play at that dump.( one of the worst stadium today ) .

lets see the Raiders are going from one highest state taxes( California)   to State where their is no state income tax.    That's a big deal as it makes it easier to keep the D Carr, K Mack, Gabe Jackson, and Amari Cooper longterm.( much cheaper to sign)

So a municipality should pay for a stadium a private enterprise uses to make profit for itself? 

If the Raiders want to be "competitive" they should plow some of the TV revenue that is pretty equally shared among teams, back into the stadium it plays in. Even Lambeau fields recent renovations were only paid for by 0.5 % increase in sales tax in one county, which ended two years ago.

Aren't there enough rich people and companies near Oakland to help?

[thebuzzardman]

1 hour ago, Raideraholic said:

The guy comes to the Owners meetings in white 2009 van.  He conducts his business dealing at Hooters.    Every single NFL owner looks down on him. Each sees that he isn't rich enough.   Who cares, he's our owner- just a regular guy competing against the big boys 

Sort of like Trump is a man of the people?

[Raideraholic]

1 hour ago, thebuzzardman said:

So a municipality should pay for a stadium a private enterprise uses to make profit for itself? 

If the Raiders want to be "competitive" they should plow some of the TV revenue that is pretty equally shared among teams, back into the stadium it plays in. Even Lambeau fields recent renovations were only paid for by 0.5 % increase in sales tax in one county, which ended two years ago.

Aren't there enough rich people and companies near Oakland to help?

You can't blame any city that doesn't want to use tax payer money to fund a private stadium.  That's there right, but it's also the right of the owner to take his team to a place where they are willing to give him 950,000,000 of free money.( someone offered you that deal you wouldn't take it ) 

The Bay Area is one of the most expensive areas in the country, but no one giving anything unless they get some control of the team.   Mark Davis isn't given up any of his control in the Raiders.

if Davis was willing to sell the team( which he can't - it's in his mother name) than the Raiders might have been able to find a buyer to finance their own stadium in the Bay Area.

[Savage69]

1 hour ago, thebuzzardman said:

So a municipality should pay for a stadium a private enterprise uses to make profit for itself? 

If the Raiders want to be "competitive" they should plow some of the TV revenue that is pretty equally shared among teams, back into the stadium it plays in. Even Lambeau fields recent renovations were only paid for by 0.5 % increase in sales tax in one county, which ended two years ago.

Aren't there enough rich people and companies near Oakland to help?

The Raiders also have to pay a relocation fee to all the other owners which comes out to around 11 million a owner..

[SwanseaJack]

As a Brit, this whole concept makes absolutely no sense to me. I find the whole thing baffling.

[bitonti]

honestly this is good news for the Jets. We are historically inept in Oakland, in that old stadium with the world's worst playing surface. Cutting 400 miles off the trip and never having to go to the dirt infield in Oakland these are all good things for the Jets

[bitonti]

Just now, SwanseaJack said:

As a Brit, this whole concept makes absolutely no sense to me. I find the whole thing baffling.

Just wait until you hear about how they split up the TV contract 

(actually this is kinda like Wimbledon --> MK Dons )

[SwanseaJack]

16 minutes ago, bitonti said:

Just wait until you hear about how they split up the TV contract 

(actually this is kinda like Wimbledon --> MK Dons )

What do they do with the TV contract?

Yeah that's the only example I could think of. MK are pretty much hated throughout English football - AFC Wimbledon have recently gone above them in the football league structure after having about 6 or 7 promotions as the newly formed club. I think MK Dons have also given the district council Wimbledon were based in the trophies they won as Wimbledon.

[bitonti]

17 minutes ago, SwanseaJack said:

What do they do with the TV contract?

Yeah that's the only example I could think of. MK are pretty much hated throughout English football - Wimbledon have recently gone above them in the football league structure after having about 6 or 7 promotions as the newly formed club. I think MK Dons have also given Wimbledon the trophies they've won.

 

 

 

Ok so you know how in the Premier league every team is like an individual separate business. The guys who run Chelsea don't give a sh*t if Liverpool gets relegated.  It's not directly their concern. 

So back to the TV contracts, TV is by far the biggest part of revenue. Bigger than tickets, merch everything. We know this because there's one team, the Green Bay Packers who isn't owned by a secretive billionaire, it's actually owned by the town of Green Bay Wisconsin. That means the people can see the balance sheets. From those sheets, we know that each network (ABC/ESPN, NBC, FOX and CBS) pay a multi-billion dollar contract for the rights to the games. All those contracts together, it's like 7 billion per year get split 32 ways in a massive pie of revenue sharing.

That means whether the Jets win or lose they get the same cut of the TV deal as the Patriots. Small market teams make the same a big market teams. The teams also split merch revenue. Basically tickets, parking passes and local tv/radio sponsor deals is all teams keep to themselves. all the big money is split.  A home playoff game or two is pure profit for the lucky teams and that is motivation but it's still peanuts compared to tv money.

 

So let's say that the Pats are cheaters who cheat every year, but they don't get their trophies revoked like when Juventus or Lance Armstrong got caught. It's not in anyone's interest for that to happen. They sweep it under the rug and hope to sell Tom Brady jersey's  in China the way that EPL sold Wayne Rooney jersey's 10 years ago.  

The Jets and the Patriots aren't competing they are sharing. Keep that in mind the next time you are watching the Jets get lashed like the Washington Generals. Win or lose, everyone wins in the NFL.  The Jets "win" by being warm bodies and showing up for their ass kickings. There's no relegation for tanking a season (see Jets in 2017).

Winning isn't really all that important to making money in this league. It's not a capitalism where teams are scrapping to get ahead. it's a communism where there is no real difference being at the top and at the bottom of the standings. 

 

one last point, look at last year's super bowl where the Falcons were blowing out the Pats. If that game stays a blowout then people turn off their TVs and maybe the ratings go down and maybe next year they can't charge 5 million dollars for a minute's worth of ad time. 

So what happens? a ton of crazy calls (or no calls) the refs doing anything possible to make it a game. The league gets their ratings, their awesome ending, everyone gets what they want. Everyone except fans of the Falcons or of fairness, those people get screwed. But for the Falcons themselves (or even the Jets, on the golf course) it doesn't matter, the outcome doesn't matter as long as it's entertaining.

 all that matters is the NFL keeps growing and keeps raking in the tv contracts. It's starting to feel like boxing i'm losing faith in the integrity of these outcomes

[Lego My Lageman]

AL DAVIS SCREAMING ABOUT A DEAD HOOKER IN EVERY TRUNK 

[SwanseaJack]

23 minutes ago, bitonti said:

Ok so you know how in the Premier league every team is like an individual separate business. The guys who run Chelsea don't give a sh*t if Liverpool gets relegated.  It's not directly their concern. 

So back to the TV contracts, TV is by far the biggest part of revenue. Bigger than tickets, merch everything. We know this because there's one team, the Green Bay Packers who isn't owned by a secretive billionaire, it's actually owned by the town of Green Bay Wisconsin. That means the people can see the balance sheets. From those sheets, we know that each network (ABC/ESPN, NBC, FOX and CBS) pay a multi-billion dollar contract for the rights to the games. All those contracts together, it's like 7 billion per year get split 32 ways in a massive pie of revenue sharing.

That means whether the Jets win or lose they get the same cut of the TV deal as the Patriots. Small market teams make the same a big market teams. The teams also split merch revenue. Basically tickets, parking passes and local tv/radio sponsor deals is all teams keep to themselves. all the big money is split.  A home playoff game or two is pure profit for the lucky teams and that is motivation but it's still peanuts compared to tv money.

 

So let's say that the Pats are cheaters who cheat every year, but they don't get their trophies revoked like when Juventus or Lance Armstrong got caught. It's not in anyone's interest for that to happen. They sweep it under the rug and hope to sell Tom Brady jersey's  in China the way that EPL sold Wayne Rooney jersey's 10 years ago.  

The Jets and the Patriots aren't competing they are sharing. Keep that in mind the next time you are watching the Jets get lashed like the Washington Generals. Win or lose, everyone wins in the NFL.  The Jets "win" by being warm bodies and showing up for their ass kickings. There's no relegation for tanking a season (see Jets in 2017).

Winning isn't really all that important to making money in this league. It's not a capitalism where teams are scrapping to get ahead. it's a communism where there is no real difference being at the top and at the bottom of the standings. 

 

one last point, look at last year's super bowl where the Falcons were blowing out the Pats. If that game stays a blowout then people turn off their TVs and maybe the ratings go down and maybe next year they can't charge 5 million dollars for a minute's worth of ad time. 

So what happens? a ton of crazy calls (or no calls) the refs doing anything possible to make it a game. The league gets their ratings, their awesome ending, everyone gets what they want. Everyone except fans of the Falcons or of fairness, those people get screwed. But for the Falcons themselves (or even the Jets, on the golf course) it doesn't matter, the outcome doesn't matter as long as it's entertaining.

 all that matters is the NFL keeps growing and keeps raking in the tv contracts. It's starting to feel like boxing i'm losing faith in the integrity of these outcomes

Thank you for taking the time to type that. I was aware of some of it but very interesting 

[Lego My Lageman]

FROM HEAVEN

[bitonti]

1 minute ago, SwanseaJack said:

Thank you for taking the time to type that. I was aware of some of it but very interesting 

it's long as sh*t but the key difference between the systems is a lack of relegation.  Sharing happens for all tv deals but the teams in the UK only get the Premier tv money if they stay in the Premier league.

If losing actually hurt teams' bottom lines, like the Jets got so bad they had to play in the Arena league (or something) then maybe teams would try harder not to lose so much.

as it stands now because there's no relegation, there's no fear of losing that sweet tv deal, bad teams stay bad and become heels and good teams stay good and become heroes.

It's all about entertainment  don't ever forget that. They sell season tickets to the opera too. 

[SwanseaJack]

5 minutes ago, bitonti said:

it's long as sh*t but the key difference between the systems is a lack of relegation.  Sharing happens for all tv deals but the teams in the UK only get the Premier tv money if they stay in the Premier league.

If losing actually hurt teams' bottom lines, like the Jets got so bad they had to play in the Arena league (or something) then maybe teams would try harder not to lose so much.

as it stands now because there's no relegation, there's no fear of losing that sweet tv deal, bad teams stay bad and become heels and good teams stay good and become heroes.

It's all about entertainment  don't ever forget that. They sell season tickets to the opera too. 

Yeah I must admit that I also find the no promotion/relegation thing quite strange. It's such a staple of the British football system.

I saw my team go from nearly dropping out of the football league system altogether into "non league", only saving themselves on the last day of the season and then get promoted three times in seven seasons into the premier league. Absolutely brilliant stuff.

Of course, getting relegated sucks 

[bitonti]

7 minutes ago, SwanseaJack said:

Yeah I must admit that I also find the no promotion/relegation thing quite strange. It's such a staple of the British football system.

I saw my team go from nearly dropping out of the football league system altogether into "non league", only saving themselves on the last day of the season and then get promoted three times in seven seasons into the premier league. Absolutely brilliant stuff.

Of course, getting relegated sucks 

 

 

 

 

to play devils advocate the BPL system isn't perfect and the salary cap does create more parity in the NFL. For a bad soccer team to become good, they have to be bought by a Saudi sheik or something (Man City). For a small market team to become good, it might happen once or twice in a blue moon but to sustain it is almost impossible (they eventually sell off the homegrown stars, take the profit from the Europa league games etc).

but In the NFL places like Green Bay and Buffalo have legit teams that can compete despite a complete lack of local economy that would normally be needed to support a major sports team.  That's the upside of subsidies. 

it's cold comfort for a terribly sh*tty New York Jets squad though. the 5th most valuable franchise in the league and the 30th in power ranking.

If the Jets were in the BPL they could outspend Buffalo and win on brute force. But in the NFL, no such luck. But i did want to make the point that for fans of teams like Buffalo or Green Bay this NFL system is way better than the BPL system. 

[SwanseaJack]

5 minutes ago, bitonti said:

to play devils advocate the BPL system isn't perfect and the salary cap does create more parity in the NFL. For a bad soccer team to become good, they have to be bought by a Saudi sheik or something (Man City). For a small market team to become good, it might happen once or twice in a blue moon but to sustain it is almost impossible (they eventually sell off the homegrown stars, take the profit from the Europa league games etc).

but In the NFL places like Green Bay and Buffalo have legit teams that can compete despite a complete lack of local economy that would normally be needed to support a major sports team.  That's the upside of subsidies. 

it's cold comfort for a terribly sh*tty New York Jets squad though. the 5th most valuable franchise in the league and the 30th in power ranking.

If the Jets were in the BPL they could outspend Buffalo and win on brute force. But in the NFL, no such luck. But i did want to make the point that for fans of teams like Buffalo or Green Bay this NFL system is way better than the BPL system. 

Oh absolutely - I love the NFL system of sharing the money and having a salary cap. In the premier league, a top 4 team can sign one of the "lesser" teams' best players, double his salary and use him as a reserve. Presumably this is quite rare in the NFL because no team is going to pay double an average starters salary to a non starter?

The PL is just as corrupt, money driven and commercialised as the NFL in reality. I've only been attending PL games since 2011 having always been to lower league games and as great as it is at times, it feels a world away from the sport I grew up watching.

[Jet Life]

NFL wouldn't even let preseason games in Vegas a few years ago . Anything for a buck 

[bitonti]

10 minutes ago, SwanseaJack said:

  In the premier league, a top 4 team can sign one of the "lesser" teams' best players, double his salary and use him as a reserve. Presumably this is quite rare in the NFL because no team is going to pay double an average starters salary to a non starter? 

2

certain teams would love to do that but the salary cap prevents it.  

If a team payed starter money to a non starter sooner or later they'd run out of money for the other spots. 

Side note each team has 155 mil to spend on 53 players per year. 53 is a ton of dudes (not counting guys who get hurt, injured reserve etc).

I know soccer teams have academies etc but how many players are regular 1st team guys on a soccer team? I'm thinking 15, maybe 20 if they are playing all the time (champions league etc).  But an NFL team starts every year with 90 guys and cuts that down to 53 it's just too many dudes to pay them all like stars

[SwanseaJack]

6 minutes ago, bitonti said:

certain teams would love to do that but the salary cap prevents it.  

If a team payed starter money to a non starter sooner or later they'd run out of money for the other spots. 

Side note each team has 155 mil to spend on 53 players per year. 53 is a ton of dudes (not counting guys who get hurt, injured reserve etc).

I know soccer teams have academies etc but how many players are regular 1st team guys on a soccer team? I'm thinking 15, maybe 20 if they are playing all the time (champions league etc).  But an NFL team starts every year with 90 guys and cuts that down to 53 it's just too many dudes to pay them all like stars

Teams have to submit squads of 25 in August and again in February. Players under the age of 23 (I think) don't need to be registered but can play anyway.

Most teams will have in excess of 25 players but loan them out to other sides. Obviously the bigger the team and the bigger the budget, the bigger the squad. Chelsea have 38 players of differing abilities on loan all over the world at the moment. Some of these are young but would have cost a fortune. Swansea probably have 3 (over the age of 23).

Most teams also have an under 23 team. I think they can play a few over age players in that team too.

[kelticwizard]

17 hours ago, Raideraholic said:

Only person who might have it tough in Oakland is Mark Davis.     The Raiders players are loved, and the fans will totally be behind the team.   The goal is to win a championship , before they leave for Vegas.

 

9 hours ago, Raideraholic said:

The Raiders will always be The franchise that Al Davis built.  .  The Davis family built the brand that made it one of the iconic Franchises in the game. ( Raidernation has a world wide following). 

It doesn't matter where the Raiders play,   ( call home- Oakland, LA, or Las Vegas)  their tradition will carry on.( Howie Long played only one year in Oakland- doesn't change his place in Raider history.

What, do you have an inferiority complex or something?  When the team needed a home to compete in the brand new American Football League, the Oakland fans turned out for them.  Then the Raiders turned around and dumped on them to go to LA.  Then Oakland actually took them back-and you get dumped on again.  But hey-you don't mind.

 

Fer Chrissakes, show some self respect and hate the Raiders' guts, will you?  Your posts are pathetic.

[David Harris]

It will be fun to see what percentage of fans in attendance traveled for the away team bc it's ******* Vegas!

[SMC]

7 hours ago, JiF said:

Is there a more iconic logo in the NFL other than the Cowboys?  To have them out of Cali?  Unreal. 

The NFL is trash.  Pure trash.  It's a stupid, scripted, predictable league, that revolves around 1 positoin and the only thing that matters is driving revenue.  I hope this is a disaster, just like the Rams and Chargers are bound to be.

 

If I'm not mistaken, overall TV viewership, attendance and merchandise sales are down across the board for the NFL.  It's been trending that way.  What the NFL lives on is the ridiculous TV deals they sign, which is based on the biggest fraud in entertainment IMO, the Nielsen ratings.

[thadude]

9 hours ago, Jet Life said:

NFL wouldn't even let preseason games in Vegas a few years ago . Anything for a buck 

Goodell is a spineless idiot

 

This is such a stupid shortsighted move that will backfire.  The owners think TV ratings suck now?  Wait til people start thinking the games are rigged because guys named "The Fixer" live and work just down the road from where the raiders play home games 

[thadude]

6 hours ago, SMC said:

If I'm not mistaken, overall TV viewership, attendance and merchandise sales are down across the board for the NFL.  It's been trending that way.  What the NFL lives on is the ridiculous TV deals they sign, which is based on the biggest fraud in entertainment IMO, the Nielsen ratings.

Which is why the networks were so upset over night games' ratings being down 10% last year.  They are paying crazy money for games with decreasing ratings and ad revenue

 

I love the "it was cuz a da election" bs.  So what happened 2012? 2008? 2004?

[thadude]

7 hours ago, David Harris said:

It will be fun to see what percentage of fans in attendance traveled for the away team bc it's ******* Vegas!

Probably 75% of the home crowds will be road warriors 

 

The locals in Vegas don't have a lot of money.

 

[thadude]

14 hours ago, The Crusher said:

Dana White as the new face  of the Raiders? Good heavens. 

That's an ugly face

[thadude]

14 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Maybe the Jets can share the stadium in Vegas? 

After next seasons horror show they can move

[thebuzzardman]

17 hours ago, Raideraholic said:

You can't blame any city that doesn't want to use tax payer money to fund a private stadium.  That's there right, but it's also the right of the owner to take his team to a place where they are willing to give him 950,000,000 of free money.( someone offered you that deal you wouldn't take it ) 

The Bay Area is one of the most expensive areas in the country, but no one giving anything unless they get some control of the team.   Mark Davis isn't given up any of his control in the Raiders.

if Davis was willing to sell the team( which he can't - it's in his mother name) than the Raiders might have been able to find a buyer to finance their own stadium in the Bay Area.

It's the Bay Area. They should start a Crowdsource campaign.  Maybe give away Lyle Alzado statuettes crafted from artisanal toast.