|
Rams proposal also includes idea of stadium & surrounding area hosting NFL Network, Pro Bowl, and Combine. LA Times Article about it too.
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Probably not, but the choice probably isn't between that, it's between building a stadium and building gentrified property development that kicks all the poor people out anyway. I get that. Still, given how much trouble cities and states have gotten themselves into, perhaps it is better to just do nothing than to risk ruin or major program cuts to help a long suffering billionaire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Yudo posted:Walker did the Bucks owners a solid by helping to shift $250 million cut from the Wisconsin University system to fund the new arena. I love Walker bashing but that is a misleading statement. The state is paying like 6 million a year to pay off a 55 million bond. The university cut really isn't related despite being retarded in its own right. The state still gets the income tax money which is set to explode so it is a pretty good deal for them. Milwaukee County and the city is a different story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Dubious posted:gently caress Norm Green forever gently caress Norm Green.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Hand Row posted:I love Walker bashing but that is a misleading statement. The state is paying like 6 million a year to pay off a 55 million bond. The university cut really isn't related despite being retarded in its own right. I don't think that I am mistaken, though I apologize in advance if I am. This is not the best source, but I am tired. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevens...ts-team-owners/ Forbes posted:Walker, who is currently running for the Republican nomination for President, is moving to eliminate tenure for professors at the University of Wisconsin, while at the same time implementing an enormous $250 million budget cut. This week we learned a new reason why Gov. Walker cut that $250 million: He wants to give it to wealthy hedge fund managers to build a new basketball arena for the Milwaukee Bucks. I do agree completely that the UW system funding was cut (and traditional tenure ended--kind of a big deal too) for other reasons and on a separate budget; the question is where those cuts went. Nonetheless, it doesn't pass the smell test and it is terrible for Milwaukee and the state of Wisconsin that desperately needs a college educated workforce to attract white collar employers. Edit: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/bipartisan-deal-on-arena-could-come-in-senate-today-b99538510z1-315358581.html JSentinal posted:The plan would preserve Milwaukee's stake in professional basketball but at a cost to state, city and county residents, who ultimately would pay $400 million, when accounting for interest over 20 years. What a deal! The Buck's owners are only worth $2-3 billion; I'm sure Wisconsinites are glad to help those in need! Yudo fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Please don't bring up skull boat because it hurts me too much that it's not being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
The bill was 250 million but the state is on the hook for 55 million of that. This is a one time cost of about 6 million per year to pay off the bond versus 250 million of a biannual budget for the UW system. It is the county taking it hard, but at least there is further development of the area occurring. And not made up fairy tale stuff, the Bucks HQ and new practice facility is not part of the arena deal. Sorry I get annoyed when the Bucks get compared to the UW cuts because the attention should be on the bullshit property tax cuts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Going by what most of the national people seem to be saying, the way the wind is blowing today is that it's going to be a Kroenke/Spanos team-up in Inglewood, assuming of course that they can work together. If that happens I wonder what happens with the Raiders? Does the NFL give them a "we will give you a lot money to help with a new stadium if you don't sue" consolation prize?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
They mail the Hooters that Mark Davis lives in a pizza box full of Roger Goodell's poo poo and toenail clippings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
ColonelJohnMatrix posted:Going by what most of the national people seem to be saying, the way the wind is blowing today is that it's going to be a Kroenke/Spanos team-up in Inglewood, assuming of course that they can work together. If that happens I wonder what happens with the Raiders? Does the NFL give them a "we will give you a lot money to help with a new stadium if you don't sue" consolation prize? I believe so, and Davis really does want to stay in Oakland. It's not a matter of attendance or anything like that. When the Raiders were good in Oakland, they were profitable. They just can't get a deal done. Of course, if the NFL goes above and beyond to make a deal in Oakland that spares the city a lot of the financial burden, what happens when the next city begins negotiations and says "Oakland only had to spend this much to get a deal done, so why should we have to spend any more?" It's for that reason I don't think a one year rental of the coliseum and negotiations to move to another city beginning for the Raiders is off the table.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I believe so, and Davis really does want to stay in Oakland. It's not a matter of attendance or anything like that. When the Raiders were good in Oakland, they were profitable. I had not read anywhere that even at the depths of this past decade they were losing money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I had not read anywhere that even at the depths of this past decade they were losing money. Well no, but it's not about not losing money, it's about being profitable. They've flirted with the 30's in team rankings at times in that miserable decade after Gruden left. But for instance, in 2001 and 2002 they were up around the top 5 in selling out. They have shown they can not just get by, but thrive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Well no, but it's not about not losing money, it's about being profitable. They've flirted with the 30's in team rankings at times in that miserable decade after Gruden left. But for instance, in 2001 and 2002 they were up around the top 5 in selling out. They have shown they can not just get by, but thrive. Maybe I have to dust off my textbooks but not losing money and being profitable are the same thing. Maybe you mean a difference in degree. Just being at the bottom of attendance doesn't mean the team is losing money especially when so much revenue is shared. But maybe they were losing money. It's a possibility. The books iirc are closed. The only way we get a peek into them is sideways by looking at the packers finances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Maybe I have to dust off my textbooks but not losing money and being profitable are the same thing. Maybe you mean a difference in degree. Just being at the bottom of attendance doesn't mean the team is losing money especially when so much revenue is shared. profitable is a subjective word. yes, it's a matter of degree. if you're flirting with the 30's in income win lose or draw, it's probably not going to last long, because there's better opportunities out there. making a dollar a year as an NFL team would not be profitable, for example. it's extremely rare for an nfl team to lose money. the only one i know of were the lions one year when they were really lovely and paying the bulk of the balance on some major stadium renovations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
I get what you mean, but no NFL team gets close to losing money. It's a license to print money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
ColonelJohnMatrix posted:I get what you mean, but no NFL team gets close to losing money. It's a license to print money. It's also expensive as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:profitable is a subjective word. No, actually it isn't. If your revenues exceed your costs, you're profitable. It's only subjective if you're being vague about degrees of profitability, because "how profitable" is also a quantifiable thing. But in any case, you might be focused too much on selling out seats. Filling seats at an arena is the most important source of team revenue, but it's not the only source. You need to get people to watch the games on TV, and the size and value of your television market has a huge impact on the value of your team to the NFL as a whole. TV revenues are split between teams... but the NFL as a whole wants to increase TV revenues, and that means maximally exploiting the most important television markets. The Bay Area has a two teams splitting its markets, and LA has zero. This is a bad arrangement for the NFL as a whole. The money left on the table, split 32 ways, affects the profitability of the lowest-revenue teams. That said: TV revenues are up a lot. quote:For the 2014 fiscal year, teams received $226.4 million apiece from the revenue pool, according to financial disclosures from the Green Bay Packers. That number is higher for 2015. So the NFL is not suffering, and even the poorest franchises are getting larger chunks of ad revenues. As TV money grows, filling seats becomes less critical for any given team. There are other sources of shared revenue as well; brand licensing, merch sales, etc, and a lot of that is shared too. Basically what I'm getting at is, a poorly-performing team in a split market like the Raiders is a bigger money problem for the NFL, than a poorly-performing team in a not-split market, like the Rams and the Chargers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
I like how the NFL keeps their revenues in their own private little club but the Packers have to release it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:But in any case, you might be focused too much on selling out seats. Filling seats at an arena is the most important source of team revenue, but it's not the only source. You need to get people to watch the games on TV, and the size and value of your television market has a huge impact on the value of your team to the NFL as a whole. TV revenues are split between teams... but the NFL as a whole wants to increase TV revenues, and that means maximally exploiting the most important television markets. The logistics of the television market isn't the NFL's problem, it's the broadcasters. The broadcasters pay basically the entirety of that 7 billion per your source. $3.1bn for Fox, CBS, and NBC, $1.9bn for ESPN, and $1.5bn for Sunday Ticket. They aren't buying the Raiders. They're buying the NFL. And the NFL is only getting more and more viewers. The rest is league sponsorships. That it's a split market matters none if the market is capable of supporting two teams, which the bay area is. People in the bay are watching football on Sunday somehow or another, which is all that matters. The Raiders are top 3 in jersey sales, and the 49ers are also extremely popular, and both of them can fill a stadium. There's no necessity for either one to move, as there's quite a few other teams in worse position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
No, you're creating a separation where it doesn't really exist. The price the NFL can command from the broadcast is directly related to the ratings; more eyeballs = higher value = higher price. And, there's overlap between the Raiders and the Niners in terms of viewership. If the Raiders leave town, how many eyeballs do the networks lose? If they go to LA, how many do they gain? If it's a net positive, that's good for the overall ratings. If the net positive includes "higher-value" eyeballs - because advertisers do care what kind of money those eyeballs make, how they spend it, e.g. the demographics affect ad revenue - then that's even better. The NFL markets its product and if it can claim more eyeballs of a higher quality by moving the Raiders, then it will do so, and then charge more for its product.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Then why are they likely going to move two teams to LA? Why do they have two teams in New York?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Then why are they likely going to move two teams to LA? Why do they have two teams in New York? In a two team market, it's less likely that both teams will suck at the same time thus always holding onto the tv share in that large market. Going back a few posts, the Raiders had a big problem with ticket sales and tv revenue for a while. The whole reason the tarps were put up on mount davis was to meet the percentage threshold of tickets sold in order to avoid tv blackouts. iirc, they ended up signing an agreement that gave a larger share of the revenue to the visiting team in exchange for a lower threshold to avoid blackouts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Then why are they likely going to move two teams to LA? Why do they have two teams in New York? Both markets are more than twice as big as any other market in the country lacking a football team, and probably every other market that has a football team, too. The aberration here is a market as small as the SF Bay Area having two teams. Personally I think a team (the Raiders) should be moved to the next largest no-NFL-team television market: Sacramento. Moving the chargers to LA probably retains most of the san diego TV market while adding viewers in LA, and the Rams can stay put. But that's not even in discussion, presumably because Sacramento doesn't want an NFL team, having just paid a bunch of money for the new Kings stadium. e. for reference: Top 100 US TV markets. Keep in mind some of the separations here are pretty artificial. I'm looking down the list and after LA, the next market I don't think has a team is #19, " Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne" but they're close enough to Tampa Bay that they're all presumably bucs fans and get included in their market. #20 is Sacramento, and then the next no-NFL market is Portland at #22. e2. so if the NFL wanted to maximally take advantage of US television markets, its first preference should be to move the Raiders (or the Jets) to LA (only), and its second preference if it has to let one of the Rams or Chargers move to LA, would be to move the Chargers, whose home market is only #28 and is also close enough to LA to possibly retain some of it. The Rams' home market is #21, so it's more valuable to retain, and there are no other NFL teams particularly close to St. Louis (although the chiefs, bears, and colts are all within 200ish miles, that's too far for most people to drive to a game, and they're all in other states which is a psychological barrier to accepting a team as your "home team"). My argument would be that the Rams disappearing likely loses more viewers in St. Louis than the Chargers moving to LA loses viewers in San Diego. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
I was reading the La Time's piece on the move, and they mentioned that the NFL wasn't to hot on the Raiders going back because of the "Reputation they cultivated in the LA Market before they moved in 1995" Please tell me that isn't code for "Too black"
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
LordPants posted:I was reading the La Time's piece on the move, and they mentioned that the NFL wasn't to hot on the Raiders going back because of the "Reputation they cultivated in the LA Market before they moved in 1995" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
LordPants posted:I was reading the La Time's piece on the move, and they mentioned that the NFL wasn't to hot on the Raiders going back because of the "Reputation they cultivated in the LA Market before they moved in 1995" I don't think it is. I lived in LA at the time, and the gangs of South Central (adjacent to the Coliseum) enthusiastically adopted the Raiders, their logo, and everything about them. Games became dangerous to attend because of the number of active street gang members who would come to games. My recollection is that the Raiders winked and nodded at first, then began in turn to happily bask in the aura of "toughness" they acquired from their most criminal fans. I always hated the Raiders but their arrival in LA, the whole gangster thing, their abrupt departure, and the way they poo poo up the town for any NFL team for 20 years to follow all converted my hate to pure white hot loathing. My two favorite NFL teams are the Packers and whoever is playing the Raiders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Bacon Taco posted:I don't think it is. I lived in LA at the time, and the gangs of South Central (adjacent to the Coliseum) enthusiastically adopted the Raiders, their logo, and everything about them. Games became dangerous to attend because of the number of active street gang members who would come to games. My recollection is that the Raiders winked and nodded at first, then began in turn to happily bask in the aura of "toughness" they acquired from their most criminal fans. Yeah, the Raiders own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Yeah, the Raiders own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Yeah, the Raiders own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:How so? If they stayed, the 25% of people who go to their games in LA would gradually drift to an LA team due to convenience. So they lose that market. What do they lose if they move to LA? Where do SD Charger fans go? Sure they have a longer drive and you're going to get less people from San Diego at games, but that's easily outweighed by the perks of having a city as massive as LA to get fan outreach going on. Not to mention that being in LA with such a huge amount of people means they'll be getting larger turnout from fans of other teams that come to visit, which sells tickets. From a business sense, they're absolutely right in trying to get into LA. To drag this up from a few pages ago, I think you're drastically overestimating the amount of fans in SD that are willing to drive up to LA. It takes forever to get anywhere in SD county, and if you add an extra 100 miles of highway driving through one of the worst traffic corridors to that, no one south of Oceanside is going to make that trek. Also keep in mind that the vast majority of Charger fans in SD don't have a lot of money: hell, not many people in SD have a lot of money. The only reason that Qualcomm doesn't have last place attendance rates is that it's fairly easy to get to, is relatively affordable to enter, and has parking lot is practically designed for cheap tailgating. I think it would be healthy to say that, as it pertains to fans that live in SD county: -30% of current fans will just give up on the franchise and focus on the Padres/change allegiance to the Cardinals. -50% won't be able to afford LA tickets plus travel plus tailgate, won't even make the effort to attend home games. -15% of the fans who would could afford to go to LA won't travel for logical/logistical reasons because oh my god it's a not fun drive, especially during checkpoint or PM peak times. -5% remainder that can and will travel will do so, but you're talking about a net loss of millions of ticket sales per home game, exacerbated over the season(s). Spanos is making a huge gamble hoping that LA folks will be willing to shell out any money in order to attend games for a team that they don't give a poo poo about. You can't build an attendance model around the hopes that transplants will want to see their teams playing because the Chargers can only play the Bears or Steelers so many times every decade. If the Chargers decide to shack up with Kroenke, they're not going to see any cashflow from PSLs or advertising because the Rams have no intention of sharing that poo poo. Also, attempting to get your foot in the door in LA alongside a resurgence of the Raiders or Rams returning to LA, especially with how both teams are on the upswing, is a incredibly naive. tl;dr: The amount of fans they will gain by moving will not outpace the amount of fans they will lose, SD fans don't travel well, LA Chargers is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Yeah, the Raiders own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Yeah, the Raiders own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
I live in LA and I plan to go to at least one Chargers game a year (to see the Broncos). I'm sure other NFL fans will do the same to see their teams. Chargers with 16 away games every season
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
I, for one, think the Raiders do not own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
The Los Angeles Raiders own. NWA owns. Bo Jackson owns. The Oakland Raiders can eat a mile of dicks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
Kevyn posted:The Los Angeles Raiders own. well hell, 3/4 ain't bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
It may be the San Diego Raiders before too long. I don't think I could bring myself to root for them, though. I'll burn all my Chargers poo poo if they move. Or pack it in a box and forget about it until it's worth a lot more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:It may be the San Diego Raiders before too long. I don't think I could bring myself to root for them, though. I really hope that doesn't happen. I'd hate rooting against both San Diego teams
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
I'm keeping my Tomlinson jersey 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
chupacabraTERROR posted:I'm keeping my Tomlinson jersey *Looks through jersey collection* Ryan Leaf Tomlinson Brees Gates Merriman Phillips Rivers Chambers Weddle Osgood Fluker ....ronnie hillman
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 19:43
|
|