|
this is a development deal. Kroenke already has the dirt and there are, in theory, many more ways to profit from that dirt than by moving a terrible team back to a place that has already, for a variety of reasons, kicked that team out. If that 1.3bn figure is correct that's a huge chunk of Kroenke's net worth and he's not likely to recoup that investment before he dies. The reason I said on paper it's a bad investment, though, is that he can afford to buy a sports team, move it, and build it a new stadium from his own pocket book probably four times before it would make any serious impact on his life. It really doesn't matter what he does with his money.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
kiimo posted:I know I'm supposed to hate Kroenke but he is businessing circles around other businessers. He's making them look like total chumps at this point and an insider was just on the radio saying the way this is going is increasingly that Kroenke will own the LA market alone and the Chargers and Raiders will use their 100m to stay in their towns. Unless the City of Oakland likes the $100 million contribution it looks likely that the Raiders are moving somewhere. Might as well be LA since they have the established history there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
I'm confused what you mean by "likes the 100m". Mostly because I'm ignorant of the problems in Oakland with building a new stadium.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
chupacabraTERROR posted:The only way Kroenke doesn't own LA is if the Raiders come. I just don't see how or why anyone here without a team would voluntarily choose the Chargers over the Rams as their team of choice. If I HAD to take the choice I'd choose the Chargers because of all the years growing up listening to 690 but that's really just because I love to go around saying random city names and demanding they show me their lightning bolt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
kiimo posted:I'm confused what you mean by "likes the 100m". Mostly because I'm ignorant of the problems in Oakland with building a new stadium. Oakland doesn't want to give money for a new stadium. They might be okay with giving $100 million less. But probably not, from what I heard about the city.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
The City of Oakland is probably not going to chip in any meaningful amount of money, but the Raiders will continue to look for sites and cities in the SF Bay Area. It's not just a question of the City of Oakland vs. move to LA or out of state. A number of Bay Area options were looked at over the last couple of years - check the early pages of this thread for discussion. With an extra 100M, that might be enough to tempt some BA community into chipping in the rest, who knows. There's a ton of money in the SF bay area right now. The Raiders wanted LA because it's easily the most lucrative untapped media market in the country. With the LA option now being "second shot at whatever second-fiddle deal is bad enough for the Chargers to reject," Davis is back to looking at every other option: and most of the remaining out-of-state options are probably worse than the option of retaining an established fan base in the Bay Area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The City of Oakland is probably not going to chip in any meaningful amount of money, but the Raiders will continue to look for sites and cities in the SF Bay Area. It's not just a question of the City of Oakland vs. move to LA or out of state. Raiders and Niners sharing Levi's.  What other places would be able to host the Raiders? Fremont? San Rafael? Richmond?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Las Vegas. Would be so amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
I was just thinking, hey wouldn't it be nice if the city of San Diego told the taxpayers how much economic benefit that a stadium would bring to the city? That way we could figure out how much would be a prudent investment in keeping the Chargers here, right? A quick google search says that they have done exactly this, and concluded that the Chargers provide absolutely zero economic benefit whatsoever, using several methods and case studies: https://www.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/pdf/baimcomments.pdf I wonder if voters will approve such a measure given the facts. I also wonder how much Dean will ask the City to pay...
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Stop thinking of it as and investment and starting thinking of it as entertainment and it starts to look like a bargain. (joking. mostly.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Can't some deranged tech billionaire in partnership with Ice Cube, Jessica Alba and Tiger Woods buy the Raiders and build them a new stadium out in Pleasanton/Dub/Liv next to the Santa Rita Jail? Makes it easier for all their fans from Stockton/Modesto/Sac too. lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
I'm increasingly believing that Spanos would be idiotic to move to LA. If the Chargers move to LA you're asking Angelinos to not only get behind one new "football" sport team, but two. The Chargers would be second-fiddle to their landlord. They'd alienate their only fanbase in the hopes of winning a new one that already follows the Rams and Raiders, in a stadium bought and paid for by the owner of their direct competition for entertainment dollars. Also Spanos would straight-up be Kroenke's Little Bitch. For life. You don't like the way I do things? Well you're welcome to shell out billions of your own dollars to do this on your own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
I don't understand why a stadium can't be built by financing it the same way other buildings are financed, like with a mortgage. Owner puts 20% down, finances the rest at some APR, and pays the mortgage from ticket sales. You don't have to have a billion dollars to finance a billion-dollar stadium, any more than I had to have $250k in cash in order to finance my $250k home purchase. You just have to have a revenue stream/income that is solid and reliable enough for a bank to be willing to extend a line of credit. Granted you're not walking out of a branch office of Wells Fargo Bank with a $1.2B loan, but there are outfits with that kind of money to lend, and with an attractive-enough APR, it should be do-able. Hijo Del Helmsley posted:Raiders and Niners sharing Levi's. I don't believe the Niners have any incentive to share Levi. I know at one point Davis was touring sites in the Bay Area. One brief consideration was the old decomissioned naval weapons depot land in Concord. I forget the other sites that were being looked at. At that point, though, the Raiders had already opened an office in LA and there were reports about cooperation with the Chargers, so I don't think he was taking some of the local proposals seriously. Davis also got served a lovely dinner and tour of San Antonio, but again I think he was mostly just attending out of a desire to appear to be on a big search, while he was already mostly committed to an LA move. The LA option is no longer reliable (if the Chargers move, it's off the table completely, and if they don't, the Raiders are presumably taking an offer that wasn't attractive to the Chargers, e.g. it must have been pretty poo poo) so everything that was previously dismissed is presumably back on the table. $100M is probably only 10% of a stadium at best, but it's still a pile of money that wasn't there before. Maybe it'll be enough to close a gap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
I don't see what real options there are in California aside from some Haily Mary offer in Oakland. To me, all signs point to the Raiders leaving the state. I feel the best thing for them would be to relocate to the rapidly growing Austin-San Antonio metroplex. Please welcome your Texas Raiders!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't understand why a stadium can't be built by financing it the same way other buildings are financed, like with a mortgage. Owner puts 20% down, finances the rest at some APR, and pays the mortgage from ticket sales. You don't have to have a billion dollars to finance a billion-dollar stadium, any more than I had to have $250k in cash in order to finance my $250k home purchase. You just have to have a revenue stream/income that is solid and reliable enough for a bank to be willing to extend a line of credit. It is not a liquid market like buying a normal house is. There are very few (if any) buyers in the event of default. A loan of this magnitude would be probably in the 15% range, which is not unreasonable but is definitely not attractive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Superior Bastard posted:Please welcome your Texas RED Raiders!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't understand why a stadium can't be built by financing it the same way other buildings are financed, like with a mortgage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
They can "wreck'em" all they want in Lubbock, but I don't think a team as iconic as the NFL's Raiders will be changing their name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Their image is too valuable to change. No matter where they end up, they're going to be the Raiders playing in black and silver. It's all about brand recognition 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
kiimo posted:I'm increasingly believing that Spanos would be idiotic to move to LA. Well, Spanos is an idiot, so...
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:Their image is too valuable to change. No matter where they end up, they're going to be the Raiders playing in black and silver. Not to mention how their color scheme matches the Spurs. It'll be kinda like how the Raiders and the Kings matched back in the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Superior Bastard posted:Not to mention how their color scheme matches the Spurs. It'll be kinda like how the Raiders and the Kings matched back in the 90s. poo poo, I didn't even consider that. God, I love when a city's sports team's colours match (Bless you, Pittsburgh).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
The Texas Raiders make a lot more sense than the San Diego ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
If the Raiders go to San Antonio they could keep their colors & go as the Banditos or Desperados. edit: definitely Desperados so their abbreviation would be SAD 
Android Apocalypse fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
There's no way in hell the Raiders are getting rebranded
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:They can be, but pro sports leagues have spent the past several decades honing their strategy to milk public money instead because it's more profitable. Exactly. Why go to the bank when you can get the public to pitch in half of it AND give you tax rebates on the rest!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
I think Spanos goes to LA if he doesn't think it's going to happen in SD, which for many reasons, it may not. -I don't think location matters so much. Downtown will make the team more valuable, but if the city offers some land in Mission Valley, which is a proposal from the very first years of negotiation, Spanos might take that in lieu of public money. Remember, relocating to LA isn't giving up $100M, it's giving up $650M - relocation fee + incentive money. -Having a public vote will kill any deal, I think. Spanos wants a sure thing, and if he thinks there's a chance it won't happen he'll go to LA. With all the burned bridges in San Diego, a public vote will turn out as badly as the owner's vote did. So I think Faulconer starts negotiating now, then leading up to the election he starts saying that if he's re-elected there's a mandate to get something done with the Chargers (he's running unopposed right now). June primary comes around, he's re-elected and a couple weeks later they unveil their plan. I'm personally avoiding the whole issue in media- so much poo poo is thrown around that it's exhausting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
My favorite impossible but comedy scenario wrt the PSLs is the city of St. Louis buys them all from current holders at a reasonable markup, then keeps them all and becomes the de facto ticket seller for Rams games, using the profits to pay off the dome
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
But they should never sell the tickets instead because that would be way funnier
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:I think Spanos goes to LA if he doesn't think it's going to happen in SD, which for many reasons, it may not. The Corey Briggs citizen initiative will avoid a public vote, which is what the Chargers will bank on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
There are 72 pages in this thread so I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed the striking similarity between Cory Briggs and Principle Ed Rooney.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
I dont care what happens, all I know is at the end of all this bullshit, we better have a team called the "Oilers" back in the league. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:The Corey Briggs citizen initiative will avoid a public vote, which is what the Chargers will bank on. That initiative is of questionable legality, and it also is based on getting $300M of relocation fee money from whoever moved to LA. It also doesn't specifically involve building a stadium, which will require a public vote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:46
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:My favorite impossible but comedy scenario wrt the PSLs is the city of St. Louis buys them all from current holders at a reasonable markup, then keeps them all and becomes the de facto ticket seller for Rams games, using the profits to pay off the dome I'm 99.9% sure that they will have a buy-back program where the PSL-owner either gets the "face value" (the money they originally bought them for) or, if sold via the official trade platform, the money he bought them for. I think it's extremely unlikely that they will carry over to LA.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I'm 99.9% sure that they will have a buy-back program where the PSL-owner either gets the "face value" (the money they originally bought them for) or, if sold via the official trade platform, the money he bought them for. I think it's extremely unlikely that they will carry over to LA. I'm sure they don't want them to carry over to LA. Question is, did their lawyers gently caress up and not give them a choice in the matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
It will never happen but I always though the Raiders should move to the IE. The Raiders and the 909 are a match made in heaven.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
The idea that current Rams PSL holders would be able to do anything to even mildly annoy Kroenke is just too good and I refuse to consider such a thing a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Android Bicyclist posted:If the Raiders go to San Antonio they could keep their colors & go as the Banditos or Desperados. Why would they change their name to something more Hispanic? That's what their current fanbase in LA and the Bay already are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Traxis posted:It will never happen but I always though the Raiders should move to the IE. The Raiders and the 909 are a match made in heaven.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
bawfuls posted:The Riverside Raiders make it happen NFL Palm Springs Raiders
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 00:02
|
|