Roger Goodell was asked on Sunday if the NFL would approve an Oakland Raiders move to Las Vegas, and said everything you would expect from a man who needs to balance keeping various owners happy, not pissing off local elected officials, and keeping open the option of some kind of stadium bidding war:
“There’s still a lot that has to happen before we would get to that stage,” Goodell said of the owners approving Las Vegas as an NFL city. “Recognizing that they came out of committee with a bill, but there’s still a lot of work to be done to improve that recommendation.”
He said he is still evaluating whether having a team play in a casino-filled city is a good idea…
“Well, you never want to see a community lose their franchise once, much less twice,” Goodell said. “That’s why we work so hard with our communities to say, ‘This is what you have to try to get to,’ because you need to try to make sure this franchise continues to be successful.’
“The Minnesota community did that in a great way. I think we can do it in Oakland. I think there’s a solution there, but it takes the community to help identify it.”
You can parse this in a million different ways, but the way that makes the most sense is “We’re keeping our options open.” Or maybe “Keep throwing money on the table, we’ll count it up later to see who wins.” Right now it’s tough to imagine the NFL owners turning down an offer of at least $750 million if the Nevada legislature offers it, casino city or no, but there’s still a lot of haggling left to go.
“That’s a nice little team you got there, Oakland… it’d be a shame if something bad were to happen to it.”
Plus he sent Eric Grubman to hang around and, uh, grub:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/19/purdy-yes-the-nfl-and-oakland-are-talking-this-week-about-a-raiders-stadium-but-to-what-end/
Raiders are heading to Vegas or LA. I know NFL does not want Raiders in LA for some strange reason even know Raiders are the most popular NFL team in the LA Market. But Oakland is not going to pay and Mark Davis the owner HATES that city with passion now and honestly I don’t blame him. The fans are jerks to the guy for no reason. They all think he should pay for his own stadium but they don’t get he does not have the money to do that. In reality it would cost Oakland tax payers 9 cents a year to keep The Raiders. Nobody will even notice 9 cents a year in their taxes! Not to mention this is the NFL which is BIG business now in 2016. If you want a home team then you got to pay for one. I don’t know why that’s “not fair”
The population of Oakland is 400,000 — many of whom are children, but let’s ignore that for the moment. Multiplying 400,000 by nine cents a year gets us $36,000 a year — enough to pay for a nifty $500,000 stadium.
Yeah even MLS won’t do it from that much
I totally agree. I so want my dream home in the Caribbean but I don’t have the money to build it.
Therefor, the government of Curacao should pay for it.
Oakland has lost the Warriors, will lose the Raiders and it’s about 50/50 if they keep the A’s. People may praise them for standing tall to sports owners, but the A’s leave the City will not only be further behind San Francisco in the minds of the average person, but below Canadian Cities like Calgary and Winnipeg, because at least on Sports Center the Flames and Jets get mentioned once in awhile.
The A’s aren’t 50/50 to leave/stay. They have nowhere outside of Oakland to go right now. And if the Raiders leave (and with the Warriors already leaving), they get the current Coliseum site all to themselves.
I’m not sure what to make of this “average person” business. Lots of people and lots of business make decisions on where to live and work–decisions generally not determined by whether a city has a football team or not.
Put the decision on the other foot–for the “average person” considering living in Vegas–does an NFL team cause the lightbulb to go off and the person to say “that settles it! Vegas it is!!”
GDub, many Vegas decisions aren’t made for the benefit of the people living here, but for the benefit of the people staying here 48-72 hours. Oakland is different. Vegas has always relied on having an airport far too large for it’s residential population, rampant development etc. The difference is the Raiders want government money, while other projects either succeeded on their own or went bust (sometimes for the worse, we have a 50-60 story tower of an unfinished hotel here.)
And that’s how both cities should be.
Or Raider fans could stay in Oakland, buy NFL Sunday Ticket, and watch the Raiders play wherever they end up for FAR LESS than the cost of going to a single game every year. That won’t work for all fans, but it will for many.
Living in a city that does not host a team can provide huge financial benefits for a fan… particularly for football fans as travelling to one game a week (or every other week) is a lot easier than doing same for baseball, basketball or other sports.
I consider myself a sports fan, but would be more inclined to live in a nearby city/town to my favourite team than in it’s actual home city. I get the benefits without most of the drawbacks… and if I am far enough away to be considered out of market, I can watch most/all of their games on tv even without Sunday Ticket.
There are many ways to support your team besides being fleeced on game day experience and taxed to pay for their insanely expensive facilities (both practise and game).
That’s what many (most?) soccer fans in the U.S. do. I’ve never been to a Barça game, but that doesn’t stop me from being a fan (or my son from buying gear, etc.).
How many Raiders fans actually live in Oakland? For far less than the price of whatever stadium deal Davis is demanding, Libby Schaaf could buy each of them all-expenses paid trips to Vegas to watch the team.
I didn’t realize cities were judged by mentions on sportscenter. I figured number of people, jobs and entertainment options were much more important. Sure sports is an entertainment option but just one of many.
Yes. This would be a tragic result for Oakland. Without the Raiders, Oakland will only be left with the A’s and will have to survive as an increasingly hip and prosperous place within the Bay Area.
I don’t see how that city will make it.
Well said. The reality is the A’s are in a much better position if the Raiders vacate. They will control their own site (assuming negotiations go reasonably well).
As you say, Oakland is changing (from what I read at least)… it may not even be true “Raider” territory the way it once was, not sure.
Goodell says “That’s why we work so hard with our communities to say, ‘This is what you have to try to get to,’ because you need to try to make sure this franchise continues to be successful” Then the NFL goes and blows off St; Louis after they come up with a legit new stadium solution. What a joker!
That was great quote indeed. Of course it’s up to the city to make sure that the Raiders are successful. Who else’s responsibility would it be?
It’s bad for a city to loose its team twice….except if you’re st louis.
Or Cleveland.
Or Los Angeles (3 times, if you want to count the AFL Chargers)
I have question to make sure my understanding of the math is correct. The $750m is to be spread out over 15 years, so while committed to the total, the math is that we’d be giving them $50m/yr, correct? The proposal from last weeks meeting showed that it would be returning ~$30m/yr, with ~$12m for EDU. The EDU increase is just a fallout of the fact that tourism tax is already budgeted at ~30% for EDU. Correct? if this math is correct, and my understanding is correct, this actually seems to indicate that we are only providing a net of $20m/yr for 15 years. Is my math/understanding of porposal correct or not?
also, meant to ask those that are opposed, if they are just truly opposed to the stadium, or really want to improve EDU funding? because, if the stadium proposal didnt exist do you think any commission member or leg member would be able to get $50m/yr for 15 years committed to 100% going to EDU? or even $13m/yr for 15 years? I personally do not think those proposals would get passed or even heard. our schools being 49th is an outrage. however this money wouldnt be going to it, as this money doesnt exist without the stadium. I really believe that this is just a convenient excuse for people to not fund an NFL stadium. Also remember that UNLV needs a new stadium, which will come out of EDU funds, if this NFL stadium isnt funded.
“This money doesn’t exist without the stadium” is only true if everyone spending money on Raiders games (and staying in hotels for Raiders games) otherwise wouldn’t be visiting Las Vegas at all. That’s an *extremely* dubious proposition — studies of Florida during spring training, for example, show that hotel usage is identical regardless of whether there’s a team there playing games or not.
When I say doesn’t exists. I mean the $750m and the .88 increase. In other words w/o the stadium that inc doesn’t exist. Big arg in town is “let’s spend $ on edu” since we are 49th in country. That money isn’t avail to spend on something else. And I highly doubt that tourism board would say they would do it for edu…so it would have to come from some other tax inc. I guess my point is that getting that much spent on edu is certainly not a given and I would say it’s improbable. So arg to vote against stadium bc ppl want to fund edu w that money is a pipe dream
I assume UNLV’s stadium would be a lot cheaper if no NFL; most college stadiums are.
Your math is incorrect: It’s $750 million worth of bonds, so you need to add in interest to determine annual costs. Looks like the SNTIC is guesstimating $35-40m a year for 30-year bonds, or $55-60m a year for 15-year bonds:
http://sntic.org/meeting/10/stadium%20/aguero/SNTIC%20Stadium%20Model%20Presentation%20FINAL.pdf
That shows the hotel tax hike as providing $55-60m a year, though. Where are you seeing ~$30m?
The ~$30m annual return was in the couple page proposal summary last week. Show $30m annual return w $12m going to edu from tour tax increase. Btw those nbrs are what I remember could be a little off
Can you provide a link? It’s hard to explain what those numbers mean without actually seeing them.
just tweeted it to you
Ah, okay:
https://twitter.com/sports8/status/776452772707176448
That has nothing to do with projected hotel tax revenues. That’s how much new tax revenue overall the SNTIC is projecting the presence of the Raiders will generate from increased economic activity.
Of course, they got this number just by plugging a bunch of numbers into an IMPLAN algorithm, which is absolutely the wrong way to do it — IMPLAN can’t tell you whether people going to Vegas NFL games would be new visitors or existing ones who’d be taking in a game while already in town. But in any event, it has zero to do with what Nevada would be spending.
Maybe not so much “keep throwing money on the table, we’ll count it up later to see who wins” as only one city is throwing money on the table.
It’s perhaps the closely-related pushing Las Vegas to go through with the money while trying yet again to make people in Oakland care about the possibility of not having a football team instead of worrying about superficial things like a shortage of affordable housing or the scandals of the Oakland Police Department or any of the issues that actually are on the local agenda.
“Maybe not so much “keep throwing money on the table, we’ll count it up later to see who wins” as only one city is throwing money on the table.”
You’d make a terrible carnival barker.
This is to be expected from the son of a failed politician.