Las Vegas Raiders?

Quote: RogerKint

Do you think crime would steadily drop in the area if the Bills left?

All that extra tax money may be spent on law enforcement jobs. Detective Shackleford?

I'm sure the Wizard would have no comment, as he is a Ravens fan.

As for the money going away, certainly a large portion is gong to stay in Las Vegas. Remember that the Davis trust is putting in hundreds of millions of their own money into the 2 Billion dollar project.

And not all stadiums are losers. Soldier Field in Chicago, the Olympic Memorial Coliseum in Los Angeles field have certainly been paid for a couple times over by now.

Quote: billryan

I suppose it's all relative. I just moved here from NY, where I paid more in property taxes than I currently spend on rent.
Taxes here could double tomorrow and I'd still say they were cheap.
I guess if you have lived here twenty years, you might think things are getting expensive. I'm still adjusting to paying a dollar less for a gallon of milk, no state( or city) income tax and while house hunting, I still do a double clutch to make sure they haven't left a zero or two off prospective tax rates.
I'm a football fan who will enjoy going to games. My personal seat license fee, like the other 65,000 will, as far as I know, be used to pay back the cost of the stadium and the City is getting an NFL team at almost no cost to the locals.
Some will appreciate what that means, some wouldn't, some will be apathetic.

Basically, it sounds like you think rest of the city's population should pay for your extraordinarily expensive, personal hobby. Including many people who will never be able to afford a game themselves or who don't care about football.

I think football fans should pay for their own hobby.

Quote:

Some won't realize what having two major league sports franchises means for a city.

Maybe... and I say, maybe, there are some secondary benefits to a city like San Antonio being seen as a major city, and having it's name on TV a lot. Though, even then, it is a zero sum game played between different cities, with billionaires collecting the vig. There is no net benefit to the people of those cities, they're just all being shaken down.

This is not true of Vegas. It's one of the most famous cities in the world.

Other than that, it's not really even that debatable. Economists have weighed in. Even cites that were paying far less than we are, were being scammed. I know it's surprising that giving your entire city budget, several times over, to a billionaire and a bank as a gift isn't +ev, but turns out, that's what the facts say.

With the price we're paying, it might be wiser to try our luck with a Nigerian prince. It would certainly be wiser to either 1) not raise taxes. or 2) raise taxes and use these enormous sums to improve the city for the people who live here, instead of donating it to billionaires.

I know 2 begs the question a bit. Is it better to have 8 games that most people can't afford and/or don't care about, or would it be better to have a world class university that has games in the same sport, with many millions left over to improve the schools or roads or whatever you like?

Very tough call.

Quote: SOOPOO

We have a long history of commitment to mediocrity.....

Jesus Christ. Such a perfect slogan for the city, I literally have tears in my eyes. Buffalo: a long history of commitment to mediocrity. Well done, SOOP =D

Quote: RogerKint

Do you think crime would steadily drop in the area if the Bills left?

Negative, or at least I don't see how.

Like a few arenas, the Bills stadium is well out of city limits, on the edge of a posh suburb. It doesn't have the solitude of, say, Richmond International Raceway, but there's not a whole lot near it. A community college, <5 small bars / restaurants / C-stores, a motorsports / bicycle shop... and that's about it. The south edge of the property is bang in residential zoning. If there's a crime component, it's the typical public intox / DUI stuff you'd see a drop in.

There for sure would be an economic hit. I recall all the crying from downtown during the NHL lockout, and as one who patronizes the Pearl Street eateries when the Leafs come to town, it's obvious how much of a hit something like that is. Of course, the Sabres live in the heart of the city. It's a bit different.

If the Bills left, y'all would hear the crying from wherever you are (if, of course, you could hear it over my maniacal laughing). And though I refuse to believe it would be like if the Sabres left, I can obviously see the economic impact that would result. However, it is not the duty of the people to subsidize business. If you want this, that, or the other, then f#$%ing earn it. The (insert NFL team here) is the kingpin to your own personal success? Then YOU pay the fare. If I want to invest in my area to make it more likely for commerce to come my way, I don't go sifting through SOOPOO's wallet to cover it. I commission my own sign, commission my own road repair, commission my own parking lot crew, and pay for it MYSELF.

.gov is for providing the essentials of society, PERIOD. Roads, bridges, infrastructure like that, 5-0, defense, etc. It's not to fleece the public for a GD game so 3 people can add a few tons to their money pile.

Eat the rich.

I think the best idea for a Vegas stadium is make sure it has double or triple duty purpose. You know, indoor NASCAR track,

Let the football players practice in the desert if necessary. Toughen them up.

Quote: SOOPOO

Missing in this discussion is the value of the enjoyment one gets by having a football team in your city. For me, I like listening to the off season drivel surrounding the Bills, I enjoy the games, I enjoy taking care off the occasional player, I enjoy the feel of the town after a win. Exactly how much is it worth to me? Who knows? But it is not zero.

I'm not in to all that home town/that's my team pride. My team is the team im betting on at that time.


No one can think of any benefits a local will gain from this happening?

As a long time passionate football fan that appreciates the importance of a team's brand being consistent with the city's brand, (I'm a steeler fan.) I think that this move is awesome! In fact, I can not think of a better city on earth for the Raiders and feel it's almost a no-brainer. Here's a few reasons why:
-The Raiders always had a collective reputation of being a bad ass and that seems fitting for Vegas.
-The Raiders have led the league in penalties or has been in the top 5 an insane number of seasons. Vegas is definitely a place people go to live a little bit more loosely and may conduct themselves in ways they normally wouldn't.
-They used to be run by an owner with the motto "Just win baby!"
-As far as I can tell Vegas can generate money as good if not better than most other cities and that should help.
- The NFL is a master of entertainment and so is Vegas.
I'm sure there are plenty more that are even more on point but I say "it is about time!!" As far as the gambling concern goes I really don't see that being a legit problem given how the gaming industry has evolved to where it is presently and where it looks like it is heading in the future. Clearly, nowadays there are casinos just about everywhere including online. I think 30 years ago that may have been a legit obstacle but not so much now. That being said, they should probably put on a good show of openly taking steps to monitor that situation for all to see but I would be shocked if it actually causes major problems.

It will be cool to see that is for sure!

Quote: rxwine

I think the best idea for a Vegas stadium is make sure it has double or triple duty purpose. You know, indoor NASCAR track,

Let the football players practice in the desert if necessary. Toughen them up.

Even the smallest NASCAR track is far too big to be enclosed, not to mention the equipment required to ventilate some 39,000hp worth of emissions out of an enclosed area.

Football, motocross, monster trucks, rodeo, yeah. Just f#$% off out of the hockey game until QC gets a team =p

Quote: Face

Even the smallest NASCAR track is far too big to be enclosed, not to mention the equipment required to ventilate some 39,000hp worth of emissions out of an enclosed area.

er, was kidding!

But then there is the 100 foot deep lake with fishing. Paint a fake sky on the ceiling.

1. In public polling of area residents 60-70% of them were opposed, similar to public response in most metro areas (see: San Diego), which is why they were not allowed to vote on the matter here. Easier to pull that trick off with attention-deficient Las Vegans.

2. The ephemeral magic free money of the extra room tax is not what will actually be paid out to create the stadium, and the sports franchise and those who will pay to be the color background for their eight yearly made for TV events certainly aren't coughing up most of the capital. It is being built with the proceeds of selling municipal bonds. For purposes of putting the deal together County and State government decided to make believe the room tax hike might cover repayment of those bonds, but almost nobody who has looked at the financing believes the fairy tale assumptions about that.

3. These are NOT going to be "revenue bonds" secured by the particular project, in this case the franchise or the stadium or a related revenue stream. Or by a tourist tax. Instead, they are what are called "general obligation bonds" and repayment is ultimately guaranteed by everybody and everything in Southern Nevada. As a mortgage on everybody and everything, rather than just putting a specific thing in hock, it is a type of government bond usually used for things like roads, schools, municipal water delivery systems and sewers and flood control, and the like, for a term of something like ten to twenty years.

The reason 'general obligation' bonds are being used for this, instead of the more typical use of 'revenue' bonds for quasi-public economic projects, is that almost nobody with money to invest in purchasing municipal bonds is stupid enough to buy them for this, even at pawn shop or loan sharking rates, if repayment was dependent on the success of this ridiculous project, or the economically absurd assumptions about the total cost and the revenue stream from the extra magic money room tax.

4. This very large bond issuance has the effect of reducing the available bonding capacity for raising public capital for anything and everything else in Clark County and the State of Nevada, and will continue to do so throughout the life of these general obligation bonds until final repayment.

5. They are not ten, fifteen, or twenty year bonds. In order to pretend that repayment can be covered by the magic money, these are going to be thirty-three year bonds. And this particular kind of government bond financing is and will remain secured by everything within Clark County, Nevada for all of those thirty-three years.

6. Since it came into existence in 1960, the average length of time this particular "sports" enterprise has been marketing itself as if it was "in" any one place is nineteen years, and the longest continuous period it has remained anywhere at all is twenty-two years.

O/U on how much longer after they are gone the people of Southern Nevada, including many not yet born, will still be on the hook for the scheme and what to do with what it leaves behind? I'd say about twenty extra years or so.

Las Vegans are now odds-on to win the championship for biggest saps in the land. LVNV, the official mecca & spiritual center of "TL;dr (because we can't)" which will be inscribed on the trophy. Gotcha suckers.

Quote: billryan

the City is getting an NFL team at almost no cost to the locals

So $750000000 is now "almost no cost" ?????

That's a huge cost. And avoiding bad deals like that for the past 100 years is why our our taxes so low. It's what we value most. New Yorkers value things like education, jobs, and an infrastructure that can support 10 times the population density. So that's what their high taxes help them get. This is the type of deal that can put us on the path to the worst of both worlds. Consider the next time Las Vegas is faced with the possibility of another down turn? If not for this stadium we could have an extra billion dollars to help stop it. Instead we'll be looking at revisiting the 2008-13 recession.

The projected costs of the stadium is $1.9 billion. The public is already paying $750 million, plus any overruns. And then all the profits go to back to the billionaires. Phoenix built their stadium 10 years ago for a half-billion. The newest stadiums in Minnesota and San Francisco both cost under $1 billion. Given the amount we're spending, we could have easily built an NFL quality stadium for ourselves and kept all the profits instead of giving it them all away (UNLV still has to pay to play there?????). Very few people have the hardline stance against any public funding. We just don't want to have to take on what is quite certainly the worst deal in sports history -- which is absolutely coming at a huge cost to all of us who live here.

There are reasons both the governor and legislature were insistent it not go to a public vote and instead be decided by a special session: a combination of incompetence and putting their own interests above their constituents.

Quote: Face

Jesus Christ. Such a perfect slogan for the city, I literally have tears in my eyes. Buffalo: a long history of commitment to mediocrity. Well done, SOOP =D



Negative, or at least I don't see how.

Like a few arenas, the Bills stadium is well out of city limits, on the edge of a posh suburb. It doesn't have the solitude of, say, Richmond International Raceway, but there's not a whole lot near it. A community college, <5 small bars / restaurants / C-stores, a motorsports / bicycle shop... and that's about it. The south edge of the property is bang in residential zoning. If there's a crime component, it's the typical public intox / DUI stuff you'd see a drop in.

There for sure would be an economic hit. I recall all the crying from downtown during the NHL lockout, and as one who patronizes the Pearl Street eateries when the Leafs come to town, it's obvious how much of a hit something like that is. Of course, the Sabres live in the heart of the city. It's a bit different.

If the Bills left, y'all would hear the crying from wherever you are (if, of course, you could hear it over my maniacal laughing). And though I refuse to believe it would be like if the Sabres left, I can obviously see the economic impact that would result. However, it is not the duty of the people to subsidize business. If you want this, that, or the other, then f#$%ing earn it. The (insert NFL team here) is the kingpin to your own personal success? Then YOU pay the fare. If I want to invest in my area to make it more likely for commerce to come my way, I don't go sifting through SOOPOO's wallet to cover it. I commission my own sign, commission my own road repair, commission my own parking lot crew, and pay for it MYSELF.

.gov is for providing the essentials of society, PERIOD. Roads, bridges, infrastructure like that, 5-0, defense, etc. It's not to fleece the public for a GD game so 3 people can add a few tons to their money pile.

Eat the rich.

COMMITMENT TO MEDIOCRITY ? DO THE WORDS " TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS " RING A BELL ???

Of course, you non-football guys could do the AP move and buy yourself four tickets.
Every game at the stadium will be bringing in tens of thousands of fans looking for tickets.

Aren't the Bills the only post merger team to win their Conference four years in a row?

Quote: billryan

Of course, you non-football guys could do the AP move and buy yourself four tickets.
Every game at the stadium will be bringing in tens of thousands of fans looking for tickets.

I'm not sure how you can assume it will be an AP move without knowing how much the PSL's are and what the demand will be.

Fifty plus years of experience gives me a pretty decent idea what the demand will be. Putting down the $100 deposit for the PSL
is a no brainer. Either they are priced right and I buy, or I sell my spot for a profit or I can get a refund if I choose not to do either.

Quote: billryan

Aren't the Bills the only post merger team to win their Conference four years in a row?

The commitment to mediocrity started after those 4 Super Bowl years. Around 1990-1993. We are now on a 17 year No Playoffs run. Since 12/32 of the teams make the playoffs each year, the likelihood of a team which theoretically has a 3/8 chance each year to make the playoffs ofnot making the playoffs for 17 straight years is 0.034%. It takes a commitment to mediocrity to pull that off. I will bet anyone who is interested we extend to 18 years this season....

Quote: billryan

Fifty plus years of experience gives me a pretty decent idea what the demand will be. Putting down the $100 deposit for the PSL
is a no brainer. Either they are priced right and I buy, or I sell my spot for a profit or I can get a refund if I choose not to do either.

Not necessarily. My friend has NY Football Giants tickets, with a hefty PSL already paid. If you add the PSL cost per game to the ticket price per game he cannot get his money back selling those tickets on the secondary market. In Buffalo, some of the season tickets required PSL's, some didn't. You have NO CHANCE of recouping your money for Bills tickets if you decide to sell on the secondary market for those tickets. There may be a single game or two (Patriots) that you can exceed your costs, but then you are stuck going to see trash (Browns).

Quote: SOOPOO

The commitment to mediocrity started after those 4 Super Bowl years. Around 1990-1993. We are now on a 17 year No Playoffs run. Since 12/32 of the teams make the playoffs each year, the likelihood of a team which theoretically has a 3/8 chance each year to make the playoffs ofnot making the playoffs for 17 straight years is 0.034%. It takes a commitment to mediocrity to pull that off. I will bet anyone who is interested we extend to 18 years this season....

The Four Falls of Buffalo is on Netflix. I suggest seeing it, and not just for the shadenfreude like I did. It's a pretty good way to waste 90min.

Quote: SOOPOO

There may be a single game or two (Patriots) that you can exceed your costs, but then you are stuck going to see the Bills

Fixed your post ;)

(Disclaimer: Post edited for comedic effect)

Quote: SOOPOO

Not necessarily. My friend has NY Football Giants tickets, with a hefty PSL already paid. If you add the PSL cost per game to the ticket price per game he cannot get his money back selling those tickets on the secondary market. In Buffalo, some of the season tickets required PSL's, some didn't. You have NO CHANCE of recouping your money for Bills tickets if you decide to sell on the secondary market for those tickets. There may be a single game or two (Patriots) that you can exceed your costs, but then you are stuck going to see trash (Browns).

Are thousands of people flying into Buffalo to see most games? I lived in Brockport and then Webster for several years and we'd go once a year, to see the Jets. Back then, Jet fans were a slight minority in the stands. One MNF, there was as much Green as Blue there.
I own Giant season Tickets( been in the family since sometime in the 1950s) and while we got our new seats through a trade and didn't pay the PSLs, they offered ten year financing at a great rate for anyone with tickets in the old stadium. I expect they'll do the same here.
Our seats in the old stadium were $110 a game. They wanted $50,000 a seat PSL and $770 a game going forward. No way we could have afforded that, but the Giants put us in touch with some young Wall St guys who had 300 level seats that had a $5,000 PSL. They paid the $5,000 and the $50,000 and we swapped seats. The only caveat was if we ever sell the four PSLs, they get right of first refusal at the going rate for the section. It sucked having to move. The seats were much worse, for one thing, but I'd been going to games for over forty years in that section. Saw Billy L. go from a College student to head of Grace Brothers. Attended the wedding of the son of a guy I used to play catch with at the Yale Bowl when I was eight. It was rough breaking up our football family, one that had shared the same section since 1976, many even before that. One guy, a few years younger than me, was a freshman in HS when we met. He went on to be All State, went to West Point and retired a General. Didn't see him much but saw his parents and then his brothers a few times a year.
Wellington Mara never would have allowed that to happen.
Giant tix almost always sell for a premium, Jets not so much. I actually know of several people who simply defaulted on their loan agreements and the Jets quietly let them out of it, not wanting bad publicity .

Quote: SOOPOO

The commitment to mediocrity started after those 4 Super Bowl years. Around 1990-1993. We are now on a 17 year No Playoffs run. Since 12/32 of the teams make the playoffs each year, the likelihood of a team which theoretically has a 3/8 chance each year to make the playoffs ofnot making the playoffs for 17 straight years is 0.034%. It takes a commitment to mediocrity to pull that off. I will bet anyone who is interested we extend to 18 years this season....

Sounds like its time to institute a Martingale betting system. I don't really follow the AFC. I'm surprised when I see who is in their playoffs. As a newcomer to Raider Nation, I need to start, but Big Blue will always have my heart.

Quote: billryan

Fifty plus years of experience gives me a pretty decent idea what the demand will be. Putting down the $100 deposit for the PSL
is a no brainer. Either they are priced right and I buy, or I sell my spot for a profit or I can get a refund if I choose not to do either.

The ticket market for sporting events has changed significantly since the 1960s.

If it is really that easy for re-sellers to earn a profit, the pricing model they choose to use is definitely inefficient and could easily be changed to make their business more successful. It's completely baffling that anyone thinks the tax payers should subsidize the Raiders customers just so they can avoid using a more profitable pricing structure.

Quote: TomG

The ticket market for sporting events has changed significantly since the 1960s.

If it is really that easy for re-sellers to earn a profit, the pricing model they choose to use is definitely inefficient and could easily be changed to make their business more successful. It's completely baffling that anyone thinks the tax payers should subsidize the Raiders customers just so they can avoid using a more profitable pricing structure.

It won't be long until the NFL and other major leagues do not allow the reselling of tickets on third party sites. The leagues will get together and have designated sites where they can collect the majority of the fees.

Quote: DRich

It won't be long until the NFL and other major leagues do not allow the reselling of tickets on third party sites. The leagues will get together and have designated sites where they can collect the majority of the fees.

They already do have such sites. (NFL ticket exchange). They also (I think the NHL?) make deals with some of the established sites.

Quote: SOOPOO

They already do have such sites. (NFL ticket exchange). They also (I think the NHL?) make deals with some of the established sites.

StubHub for MLB.

Quote: TomG

The ticket market for sporting events has changed significantly since the 1960s.

If it is really that easy for re-sellers to earn a profit, the pricing model they choose to use is definitely inefficient and could easily be changed to make their business more successful. It's completely baffling that anyone thinks the tax payers should subsidize the Raiders customers just so they can avoid using a more profitable pricing structure.

No, because people have Personal Seat Licenses that guarantee them seats each year.
I'm not sure every team has these, but the majority do.
When the Yankees were hot, 1998- 2005 give or take a year, we could sell about 25 regular season games and the first game of every playoff series and pretty much pay most of that seasons costs.

Quote: billryan

No, because people have Personal Seat Licenses that guarantee them seats each year.
I'm not sure every team has these, but the majority do.
When the Yankees were hot, 1998- 2005 give or take a year, we could sell about 25 regular season games and the first game of every playoff series and pretty much pay most of that seasons costs.

And that shows very clearly that there is no question the Yankees could have increased profits by increasing ticket prices.

The Yankees have their huge YES deal bringing in millions every year, so it is definitely acceptable and understandable for them to keep ticket prices somewhat reasonable. The Raiders have their huge raping of taxpayers bringing in millions every year, so it is a travesty for them to run their business inefficiently

So they should rape their ticket holders as well?
You have your opinions, I have mine. Obviously, neither is going to change the others.
May I ask ,though, why you object so strenuously to the state taking a dollar from the tourist to build this, yet are quiet on corporations taking thirty dollars a day from the same people for resort fees?
Forget the college, think of the first class public schools your city could have with just a portion of those resort fees.

Quote: billryan

So they should rape their ticket holders as well?

By your account, they would pay the exact same. By your account of the ticket market, they could charge what the free-market commands in order to reduce the burden on the tax payers. Why not just give this money to McDonald's or Wal-Mart instead so we can buy other stuff for less?

Unlike taxes, resort fees are also based on free-market forces

Again, very few of us are against using taxes to pay for a stadium. We are against the worst deal in the history of sports. Like every other NFL team in every other city it could have been done for a lot less and for a much better return on our investment.

Informative article about how he did it: see

49ers-Rams tickets reselling for the price of two stadium pretzels

Quote: Bill Disbrow @SF Gate

...As of Wednesday, resale tickets were being offered on StubHub for as low as $14 to see the team host the Los Angeles Rams at 7 p.m. That price is just cheaper than buying a pair of $7.50 pretzels through the Levi's Stadium app and comparable to the price of a beer and a hot dog at the the three-year-old arena. According to the team's seat licensing map, the cheapest original face value for any seat is $85...

Las Vegas Stadium (this is the current “working” name) is proceeding...
This article suggests a projected completion in June 2020:
http://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/raiders/proposed-las-vegas-stadium-raiders-could-be-done-june-2020

View after takeoff today (sorry not the best photo):

Lol at the Raiders. They just traded for martavis Bryant. Seems like a good idea to me. Trade for someone that can't stop smoking pot when you will be in a city that has legal pot. What can possibly go wrong.

The NFL better loosen up their drug policy and allow players to smoke weed.

It's a changing world, and most of the brotha's like the herb.

Where is the harm in it?

Sweet View!

Quote: Keeneone

View after takeoff today (sorry not the best photo):

I thought it was a darn good one.

Quote: Wizard

I thought it was a darn good one.

Thanks. Here is another (from late May) about a month after the first one.



I have not had another opportunity since. The stadium is coming together fast and it is fun to drive by and see it rise from the desert.

What a shame they're wrecking a perfectly good hole in the ground.

https://deadspin.com/why-your-team-sucks-2018-oakland-raiders-1828217248

I was reading that once the Raiders leave the Coliseum in Oakland there will be no more duel-use (NFL/MLB) stadiums in the country. I doubt anyone will miss them but it's interesting how something once so common just slipped away without anyone really noticing.

Quote: Gialmere

I was reading that once the Raiders leave the Coliseum in Oakland there will be no more duel-use (NFL/MLB) stadiums in the country. I doubt anyone will miss them but it's interesting how something once so common just slipped away without anyone really noticing.

That's correct. No more dual use stadiums. No more dirt and grass football.

Living in Vegas for 10 years I was skeptical that the city could and would support a NHL team. How wrong I was. They are not only selling out every night, the tickets are prime wants and their merchandise is selling like mad. The practice facility draws huge crowds....the Golden Knights are HUGE in Vegas. I suspect the Raiders will get the same type of support even though they are a transplant team. Next up baseball. The minor league stadium draws great crowds and I suspect we may see a MLB team soon if baseball stadiums are not approved in Oakland, Tampa and Phoenix.

I never thought Vegas would support pro teams. They do and they will.

Quote: Gialmere

I was reading that once the Raiders leave the Coliseum in Oakland there will be no more duel-use (NFL/MLB) stadiums in the country. I doubt anyone will miss them but it's interesting how something once so common just slipped away without anyone really noticing.

They really are a case of, "it seemed like a good idea at the time." If you think about that era, they were. By 1970 old baseball parks were falling apart. Football was not the money machine it would become by the 1990s. You went to a game, not some all-day "experience." So why not combine and save money?

I forget where it was that had a baseball and football stadium attached as one megastructure but their own fields. It was ugly but probably worked. My dad told me how when the PIrates moved to Three Rivers Stadium (mid season move) Bob Prince was saying it was a facility "second to none." Surely they were compared to what came before.

By the 1990s it was noticed most of these places were islands, surrounded by huge lots, that when empty did nothing for the neighborhood. Nobody stopped at a nearby bar or restaurant before or after. A look at the North Side district of Pittsburgh is a near model. 25 years ago it was a dual use stadium. Around it was a dangerous place. Thanks to legalized gambling and two stadiums the place is now bustling and viably joins with the downtown side of the river.

What on earth were they thinking back then?

Quote: TDVegas

Living in Vegas for 10 years I was skeptical that the city could and would support a NHL team. How wrong I was. They are not only selling out every night, the tickets are prime wants and their merchandise is selling like mad. The practice facility draws huge crowds....the Golden Knights are HUGE in Vegas. I suspect the Raiders will get the same type of support even though they are a transplant team. Next up baseball. The minor league stadium draws great crowds and I suspect we may see a MLB team soon if baseball stadiums are not approved in Oakland, Tampa and Phoenix.

I never thought Vegas would support pro teams. They do and they will.

I still wonder if Las Vegas would be so hockey crazy if the Knights were a typical expansion team and went 20-60 for the first couple of years. My guess is the stands would be empty.

Quote: DRich

I still wonder if Las Vegas would be so hockey crazy if the Knights were a typical expansion team and went 20-60 for the first couple of years. My guess is the stands would be empty.

Obviously winning helps...but I still think they will continue to draw great crowds and vibe regardless.

A lot of people predicted failure even before they dropped the first puck and had no clue how they would fare. As I see it, they got it wrong.

The system is better now where expansion teams get a good selection of players and aren’t toiling 2-16 to an empty arena.

NHL did it right....they gave these teams a shot right out of the gate. The Golden Knights took full advantage.

The buzz for this team out here is HUGE.

Quote: TDVegas

Obviously winning helps...but I still think they will continue to draw great crowds and vibe regardless.

I agree. The great start introduced people here to hockey and they will continue to be fans.

Quote: DrawingDead

49ers-Rams tickets reselling for the price of two stadium pretzels

Omg that's stupid. That's a great game.

Quote: AZDuffman

They really are a case of, "it seemed like a good idea at the time." If you think about that era, they were. By 1970 old baseball parks were falling apart. Football was not the money machine it would become by the 1990s. You went to a game, not some all-day "experience." So why not combine and save money?

I forget where it was that had a baseball and football stadium attached as one megastructure but their own fields. It was ugly but probably worked. My dad told me how when the PIrates moved to Three Rivers Stadium (mid season move) Bob Prince was saying it was a facility "second to none." Surely they were compared to what came before.

By the 1990s it was noticed most of these places were islands, surrounded by huge lots, that when empty did nothing for the neighborhood. Nobody stopped at a nearby bar or restaurant before or after. A look at the North Side district of Pittsburgh is a near model. 25 years ago it was a dual use stadium. Around it was a dangerous place. Thanks to legalized gambling and two stadiums the place is now bustling and viably joins with the downtown side of the river.

What on earth were they thinking back then?

Well they had to build them I think.

If you are using hijacked tax money to build your store, sky is the limit.

Assuming you have zero regard for the community that supports you.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Well they had to build them I think.

If you are using hijacked tax money to build your store, sky is the limit.

Assuming you have zero regard for the community that supports you.

They "had" to in that the old ones were falling apart and sports teams were just learning to pit cities against each other. At the time it was thought any big civic project was a good thing. I once worked a a mall converted to office space. Ate at a lunch counter and the guy was an old timer. He said that planners thought an in-city mall was a great idea, but it tore the heart out of the community. Disrupted traffic and was a huge "island" that did not fit.

Dual use stadiums are the same way. Big islands often in ghetto areas. They all failed. Now we seem to be building megaplexes that will shut off the outside. Similar to how the casinos did not help anything outside them in AC. 1990-2015 might be seen as a "golden age" of stadium design.

From our arrival into Las Vegas this past August. On our arrival back at Oakland International Airport, a male flight attendant announced "Welcome to Oakland, home of the Las Vegas Raiders." Groans ensued.

Quote: AZDuffman

They "had" to in that the old ones were falling apart and sports teams were just learning to pit cities against each other. At the time it was thought any big civic project was a good thing. I once worked a a mall converted to office space. Ate at a lunch counter and the guy was an old timer. He said that planners thought an in-city mall was a great idea, but it tore the heart out of the community. Disrupted traffic and was a huge "island" that did not fit.

Dual use stadiums are the same way. Big islands often in ghetto areas. They all failed. Now we seem to be building megaplexes that will shut off the outside. Similar to how the casinos did not help anything outside them in AC. 1990-2015 might be seen as a "golden age" of stadium design.

Some misinformed people think this crap, casinos and publicly funded stadiums are good for the cities. But it's one of those issues where, regardless of your general perspective, there really is no legitimate debate.

I assume the politicians who support something like the raiders are just crooks, as they should have access to enough information to know better. Even if it is just an aid saying, "literally zero economic studies to suggest this is good" But sometimes I wonder if many are somehow that incompetent.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Some misinformed people think this crap, casinos and publicly funded stadiums are good for the cities. But it's one of those issues where, regardless of your general perspective, there really is no legitimate debate.

I assume the politicians who support something like the raiders are just crooks, as they should have access to enough information to know better. Even if it is just an aid saying, "literally zero economic studies to suggest this is good" But sometimes I wonder if many are somehow that incompetent.

I can use the North Side of Pittsburgh (where you see the stadiums on TV) and what has happened to it. When I was delivering luggage a hotel desk jockey told me how much busier they were when the Pirates were in town. I know I saw all kinds of out of towners around the ballpark before games when I worked and walked the area. IOW, it does draw.

In the mid-1990s it was an empty area. A slum. Unsafe. The stadiums were public funded. Now you have a baseball park on one end, a casino about 20 blocks away. A football stadium in-between. And while it took near 20 years, it is now hopping and gentrifying. The area between the stadiums is full of entertainment, Alcoa moved their HQ there, along with some other office buildings. Residential, too. I have seen graffiti expressing less than pleasure at the gentrification. The old mall I mentioned earlier is now offices and coworking space.

IOW, it *can* make things happen. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth? Hard to judge. But cannot argue it did not come out nice.

Now, how will say the Raiders new home work out? It is not going to spin off very much in this fashion. LV is already a tourist city, there will be outside fans coming to see their own team. Impossible to quantify how many would not have otherwise come. Raiders and UNLV will fill it what, 18 times a year? It will be usable for other things besides. In the end, LV has to keep building bigger and bigger venues.