OT -- Report: Raiders Have Met with San Antonio Officials and Discussed Move

[houstonravensfan]

Could just be a ploy to get the city coffers in Oakland to pony up a new stadium but still ....

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...onio-officials

+1 Love to see it happen, but extremely unlikely.

[houstonravensfan]

It really is an awful stadium too.

I went to a few O's games there and there's nothing about it that's good. You feel like you're miles away from the field even in the lower bowl, the concessions area is dark & damp, the food options are terrible. And forget about tailgating before the game or hitting a local bar near the stadium -- they don't exists.

And then there are the bad points . . .

[ursula]

LA doesn't sell out stadiums. It's been tried three times.

Anyone would make a ton more money in LA even if the team doesn't sell out every game.

[HotInHere]

Anyone would make a ton more money in LA even if the team doesn't sell out every game.

It's more the league than the team that would make money in LA. The great revenue drive there is the TV market, and all that money is shared.

[lowrider]

LA doesn't sell out stadiums. It's been tried three times.

Yet they still want a team there? There is a huge market potential in L.A., not so much in S.A.

The old Coliseum doesn't work, that has been proven. I'm pretty sure plans are in place to build a state of the art stadium. All they are waiting for is a team to occupy it, which is why I reason that Davis would stand a better chance to get approval from the other 31 owners for a move to L.A..

[HoustonRaven]

Anyone would make a ton more money in LA even if the team doesn't sell out every game.

How?

Lack of sell outs = blackouts

Blackouts = lack of TV revenue

Not to mention, ticket sales and the stadium concessions go to the teams for operating costs.

[Captain Silver]

How?

Lack of sell outs = blackouts

Blackouts = lack of TV revenue

Not to mention, ticket sales and the stadium concessions go to the teams for operating costs.

Exactly, round hole meet square peg.

I want to bang Katy Perry. Just cause we have comparable parts does not mean it will ever happen! That is L.A. and football....

[alien bird]

Exactly, round hole meet square peg.

I want to bang Katy Perry. Just cause we have comparable parts does not mean it will ever happen! That is L.A. and football....

The Rams were popular and did well until they moved 40 miles out of LA and into the suburbs in Orange County. Moving the Raiders to LA didn't work because the people in LA don't like the Raiders. It would be almost like moving the Redskins to Baltimore. Additionally, the last team in LA (or the suburbs) was over 20 seasons ago. A lot has happened to football in the last 20 years - for one, revenues are up 450%. A team might not sell out the 94,000 seat Colliseum, but they would do well in a 70,000 seat stadium, especially if the LA public thought that was a team that would stay. As for the market, LA - without a team - has a better ratings share for NFL games than 12 cities with teams. There would be plenty of support for a team there, but I don't think it's happening any time soon.

[MarkS]

How?

Lack of sell outs = blackouts

Blackouts = lack of TV revenue

Not to mention, ticket sales and the stadium concessions go to the teams for operating costs.

Tho Oakland Raiders were dead-last in attendance last season, averaging 50K per game. The only way they avoided blackouts was by both applying the NFL's 85% policy, AND using tarps to reduce the stadium capacity.

Also, the last time LA had football, there were 2 teams competing for the locals affection, attention, and $. That won't be the case this time. The last year the Rams and Raiders played in LA, the Rams had 45K in attendance, the Raiders about the same. Even if only about 50% of those fans embrace the new team, that's a full stadium.

AS for TV markets:
LA has a metro area (actually, Combined Statistical Area, along with Long Beach) of 19Mil.
Oakland is a city of under 400K, and shares a Combined Statistical Area (along with San Jose and San Fran) that is less than 1/4 the size of LA's...and one which already has another team.

The LA Raiders are WAY more attractive to a national TV network, which it the big $ the NFL is after.

[Captain Silver]

The Rams were popular and did well until they moved 40 miles out of LA and into the suburbs in Orange County. Moving the Raiders to LA didn't work because the people in LA don't like the Raiders. It would be almost like moving the Redskins to Baltimore. Additionally, the last team in LA (or the suburbs) was over 20 seasons ago. A lot has happened to football in the last 20 years - for one, revenues are up 450%. A team might not sell out the 94,000 seat Colliseum, but they would do well in a 70,000 seat stadium, especially if the LA public thought that was a team that would stay. As for the market, LA - without a team - has a better ratings share for NFL games than 12 cities with teams. There would be plenty of support for a team there, but I don't think it's happening any time soon.

California can't afford shit. Much less building a stadium...

[wickedsolo]

If I were wanting to relocate a team...I'd be most interested in Oklahoma City.

It is one of the top 10 cities in the country for businesses, decent real estate costs, and that region of the country LOVES football. Many thought the Oklahoma City Thunder NBA team wouldn't work too well there and they've done quite well as the first major pro-sport franchise.

In addition, those college rivalries between Oklahoma and Texas could carry over to the NFL. Plus, there are a lot of people in Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, and maybe even northern Texas that might not really have a team they call their own.

[Nightman]

Could just be a ploy to get the city coffers in Oakland to pony up a new stadium but still ....

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...onio-officials

I remember Baltimore was used in a similar situation a few NFL teams like the Cardinals, Rams, and the Buccaneers years ago before the Ravens came here.