Sport teams moving cities

[araine]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...aign=editorial

So Oakland Raiders are moving to Las Vegas

Why do Americans even bother to support sports teams when there team could up sticks before your team tattoo you got on your arm is even 10 years old?

I mean does local pride mean nothing?

They are corporations without any ties to the area they are in, if business will be better for teams like the patriots elsewhere they will ditch the boston market and move .

[draynay]

Teams don't move very often, but the Raiders do, this is the third time they've moved in my lifetime.

[araine]

This has been answered - its bad for most people in this scenario. It sucks for the loyal fans there, but with poor fan turnout, a shitty stadium that the city won't help with... I'm not surprised at the result.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance

Oakland is at the bottom. Look who is on top though.. Dallas at 1, and Green bay at 4. Dallas is fucking hot, and haven't even been good until this season. Green Bay has been good, but it can get below zero there. So a stadium that is extremely cold is selling out tickets to every game....

I know the city doesn't want to give money away, but they also make money off these stadiums, through travel, through taxes, through other expenses as well. It seems like Oakland doesn't even want them there.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah I totally agree on your last point.. the teams are making off like bandits here.

If a sports team wants a new stadium they can pay for it. taxpayer money for this kind of stuff is like writing welfare checks to billionaires. that hold the oh we will move the team and blame you scapegoat over the city councils.

If they move the team consider it a blessing that you are now of the hook for that spending with nothing in return. If stadiums are as good investments as some sports owners and supporters of them seems to say. why dont they build it themself

[Puupi]

Teams don't move very often, but the Raiders do, this is the third time they've moved in my lifetime.

Nomen est omen.

[Ayirasi]

As an Oakland fan, I'm torn. It sucks to see them leave, but it sucked to have supported their mediocrity for years, especially when they've already pulled this moving away and back bullshit before. Sure, the Coliseum might not have been all glitter and rainbows and shiny new stuff, but... whatever, man. At least I still have my stupid A's.

[draynay]

As an Oakland fan, I'm torn. It sucks to see them leave, but it sucked to have supported their mediocrity for years, especially when they've already pulled this moving away and back bullshit before. Sure, the Coliseum might not have been all glitter and rainbows and shiny new stuff, but... whatever, man. At least I still have my stupid A's.

Hopefully this move makes it easier for them to get a baseball only stadium and stay put.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

If a sports team wants a new stadium they can pay for it. taxpayer money for this kind of stuff is like writing welfare checks to billionaires. that hold the oh we will move the team and blame you scapegoat over the city councils.

If they move the team consider it a blessing that you are now of the hook for that spending with nothing in return. If stadiums are as good investments as some sports owners and supporters of them seems to say. why dont they build it themself

I won't disagree with you. But when a city will willingly pay for a massive stadium for you, in addition to having a better fan market, why wouldn't you move? NFL isn't big in South Africa, why would a team try to move there? This is a prospect for more fans, a free stadium, and more money overall. I'm not a fan of teams moving, but its obvious why they did. Oakland as a city seems hostile towards them.

- - - Updated - - -

As an Oakland fan, I'm torn. It sucks to see them leave, but it sucked to have supported their mediocrity for years, especially when they've already pulled this moving away and back bullshit before. Sure, the Coliseum might not have been all glitter and rainbows and shiny new stuff, but... whatever, man. At least I still have my stupid A's.

New lol, isn't that stadium from the 60's?!

[Nellise]

I know the city doesn't want to give money away, but they also make money off these stadiums, through travel, through taxes, through other expenses as well. It seems like Oakland doesn't even want them there.

Most stadiums are absolute crap for generating money for cities, especially NFL stadiums which have so few events each year. It's usually just a gift to billionaire owners. Why do you think owners almost never pay for them themselves?

[callipygoustp]

From what I have been told, the Raiders have poor fan turnout anyway, with a shitty stadium that the city won't help pay for. ./shrug I don't know about Buffalo, but Detroit has a strong fan base even though... its in Detroit.

Yeah, the Raiders do have very low attendance numbers compared to other teams in the league. Check out the following, if you are curious:http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance

Amazingly, for such a small city with such a lackluster team, Buffalo has a pretty solid average; and that's also with an open air stadium in an area with notoriously horrible weather.

Edit: @Lemonpartyfan: just noticed you provided the espn attendance link in an earlier post.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Most stadiums are absolute crap for generating money for cities, especially NFL stadiums which have so few events each year. It's usually just a gift to billionaire owners. Why do you think owners almost never pay for them themselves?

Because they don't have to pay for it? Like I said, Vegas is literally giving them millions. And you know why? Vegas will make those millions back, easily.

[talwynn]

If a sports team wants a new stadium they can pay for it. taxpayer money for this kind of stuff is like writing welfare checks to billionaires. that hold the oh we will move the team and blame you scapegoat over the city councils.

If they move the team consider it a blessing that you are now of the hook for that spending with nothing in return. If stadiums are as good investments as some sports owners and supporters of them seems to say. why dont they build it themself

I agree to some degree the deals that owners get for the stadiums is somewhat ridiculous. I live in Indianapolis, where for years, the Colts threatened to leave without a new stadium.

But to get to that point, city planners began a very long term plan that began in the 70's to bring business to downtown Indianapolis. It started with the Pacers coming out of the ABA into the NBA, then the Colts in the early 80's and it has turned what once was a small sleepy town in the middle of the country into a very vibrant sports town.

In that 40+ years, Indianapolis has gained 2 Major pro teams, it has had a minor league baseball team for years, a minor league hockey team, minor league soccer (which is trying to become an MLS member, and sorry to the Europeans who call it football, but have to distinguish american vs. european football), the NCAA headquarters, multiple headquarters for US Olympic sports, one of the biggest races in the world in the Indy 500. And all of this has an economic impact. Going to a Pacers or Colts game in the 80's compared to now is very very different. Downtown is clean, there is a lot to do. Shopping, eating, museums. All of it was brought to downtown because of sports franchises. Building a city through the economic stimulace of sports is a viable option for growing a city, it can just take a very long time.

[Puupi]

Why NFL teams play so little amount of games and the season is so short? I find it very odd that this game is so widely popular when the season is running for like a quarter of a year and they play like 15 games.

[Nellise]

Because they don't have to pay for it? Like I said, Vegas is literally giving them millions. And you know why? Vegas will make those millions back, easily.

Vegas won't even come close to making their money back, not sure why you think that. Read anything about the economic impact of stadiums and they're almost all garbage for the cities that spend money on them.

[draynay]

Yeah, the Raiders do have very low attendance numbers compared to other teams in the league. Check out the following, if you are curious:http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance

Amazingly, for such a small city with such a lackluster team, Buffalo has a pretty solid average; and that's also with an open air stadium in an area with notoriously horrible weather.

Edit: @Lemonpartyfan: just noticed you provided the espn attendance link in an earlier post.

The stadium capacity is 56,063. Average attendance is 54,584. This is a stadium issue more than a fan support issue. Oakland's rejected stadium proposal was for a new 55,000 capacity stadium, not doing much to help things. The Vegas proposal was for 65,000 IIRC, this is in the range of where most NFL stadiums fall. More importantly the Vegas facility is more expensive and sophisticated and will generate more luxury box revenue than the Oakland would, while also being in a better location for tourism if they're hoping California fans will make the trip.

[Ayirasi]

Hopefully this move makes it easier for them to get a baseball only stadium and stay put.

According to an SF Chronicle article, Oakland wanting to keep the A's in the Coliseum helped drive out the Raiders, who didn't want to share.

New lol, isn't that stadium from the 60's?!

Oakland's Coliseum is almost as old as the one in Rome. I think a year or two newer.

[draynay]

Oakland's Coliseum is almost as old as the one in Rome. I think a year or two newer.

To be fair, it is 45 years newer than the LA Coliseum

[purebalance]

That's why you need to give the big sport teams a name with the city they belong to ---> fc barcelona, real madrid etc.

They can easily rename when they move. Tennessee Titans are an example. They were the Oilers still for two years then changed names since it made sense in Houston and not in Tennessee.

[callipygoustp]

The stadium capacity is 56,063. Average attendance is 54,584. This is a stadium issue more than a fan support issue. Oakland's rejected stadium proposal was for a new 55,000 capacity stadium, not doing much to help things. The Vegas proposal was for 65,000 IIRC, this is in the range of where most NFL stadiums fall. More importantly the Vegas facility is more expensive and sophisticated and will generate more luxury box revenue than the Oakland would, while also being in a better location for tourism if they're hoping California fans will make the trip.

Oakland's seating capacity is 63k - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaklan...ounty_Coliseum
Granted, even at 63k, it is still one of the smallest stadiums in the league.

Edit:
Never mind, just noticed in the wiki that seating capacity for Football games is in fact 56k.

[Kellhound]

From now on EVERY Raiders fan in the Bay Area should refuse to go to the games, that is the only thing the teams will listen to, empty stands.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Vegas won't even come close to making their money back, not sure why you think that. Read anything about the economic impact of stadiums and they're almost all garbage for the cities that spend money on them.

Read post 31... I won't agree with your post here.