|
Ultimately the problem with NFL stadiums is that they get used like 8 days a year. Blowing a billion or two on a stadium that has no purpose for 357/365th of the time is idiotic. There's a reason why baseball stadiums are far, far easier to finance and get built. Mulit-use stadiums sure seem to suck when you're watching your NFL team play on a baseball diamond, but dedicating several acres of prime downtown real estate and a billion dollars of taxpayer money for a facility that sits empty almost all the time just doesn't make sense, even if you can find suckers willing to pay for it.
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
Yeah. If we generously call that 50 events in the last six years, that improves utilization to an amazing ~16 days per year! And most of those events have much lower ticket prices than an NFL game. Throw in some preseason games, maybe a few playoff games, you're still struggling to hit 20 days per year. Meanwhile, a major league baseball stadium hosts 162/2 = 81 days per year of utilization, and that's not including the other events held in the facility. An NBA team arena hosts 82/2 = 41 days per year, plus a basketball court is a lot smaller than a baseball field or football field, so the overall stadium footprint can be smaller, and they're all indoors so they can all host year-round events irrespective of the weather. NHL teams also do 82/2 = 41 days per year, and an indoor ice rink can host lots of other events too, although (I'm guessing) maybe some of them aren't great at doing non-ice events? I don't know. The point is, all those filler events are completely essential for any chance of an NFL stadium to earn money, whereas they're just revenue-enhancing items for most other sports teams.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Wasn't the San Antonio Raiders a possibility being discussed last year? And, I know nobody has raised it as a possibility, but I still say Sacramento is the ideal place for the Raiders to move to. There's room for a stadium, Sac just built one for the Kings, it's close enough to the Bay Area for Raiders fans here to commute to games, it's a large market with no NFL team, and there's even train service between Sacramento and Oakland. Which should get a lot better if they ever get that high speed rail thing going. I just wish it was being discussed. I suppose Sacramento would have to show some interest.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:I don't know how often you travel from Oakland to Sacramento and back, but that is really not a very appealing prospect for anyone. Isn't it similar in distance to the trip from San Diego to Carson? Google says it's about a 2-hour drive. 80 through Emeryville sucks rear end, but after that, it's a big drat freeway and on a Sunday it shouldn't be too bad. It'd be a hell of a lot better deal for Raiders fans in Oakland than if the team moves to LA or Texas or pretty much anywhere else that's been in consideration.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
The Raiders, A's, and Warriors should all get together and build a new megastadium on Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Brazil has a shitload of empty stadiums they built for the world cup that are basically going unusued. The Rio Raiders sounds pretty good to me. And they're in a way better time zone than London, for having normal games at normal times.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Run down the List of Metropolitan Areas in the US, and find the ones near the top that don't have a football team. Obviously LA is the first, at #2. The next one at #13 is Riverside/San Bernadino/Ontario. San Diego is at #17 and would be third if it lost its team. St. Louis is #19. The next area currently lacking an NFL team is Portland at #24, and then San Antonio at #25. From a financial standpoint, the NFL wants a team in LA and it would make sense for them to take one from literally any met area further down the list. It's approximate population of 13M people is more than double that of every area from #5 (Houston) on down. It's quadruple that of San Diego (~3.3M), and nearly five times that of St. Louis. Oakland and San Francisco are in the same met area, with a total pop of ~4.6M, but SF's team is now midway between SF and San Jose, and the San Jose met area is treated separately, with a further ~2M people. What strikes me, though, are the cities waaaay down the list that do have teams. I think in many of these cases, the teams are accouting for much more widespread audiences of TV watchers. So the Saints in #45 New Orleans claim not just the 1.3M people there, but add in the rest of the state. The worst that I can find is #157 Green Bay, which has just 315k people, but Green Bay as we all know, is special. These numbers obviously don't tell the whole story. But from the NFL Owner's perspective, they want to invest in TV markets first and foremost. Putting two (or three or four) teams in LA makes more sense than having even one team in St. Louis, purely from a TV licensing perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:You're right up until the last point, there's no real limit on how many people can watch a game at once but too many teams will end up stealing audiences away from others. 2 teams in a city is pretty much something only NYC and LA can possibly get away with. If the Bengals can get by in a metropolitan area of 2M people, two teams can get by in the 4.6M Oakland/SF area - especially when you add another 2M for San Jose. As long as one of those teams isn't consistently dogshit. The Bay Area can and has supported two NFL teams for decades, and is richer today than it's ever been. The Raiders are suffering because they've been terrible at playing football, and their home base is in a city that has struggled financially for decades. So Oakland just isn't willing (or able) to buy the Raiders a stadium with taxpayer money. It's possible that the Jets steal audiences from the Giants or vice-versa, but that's OK: the total audience size is enormous. The total audience size of the Bay Area - especially once you include San Jose - is big enough that, even split between two teams, each team has more potential eyeballs than half the other teams in the US. My point here basically is that when a team is struggling in a large market, you can't blame its struggles on not having enough market. And, when there's an enormous untapped market, it can definitely make sense to put two teams into it. Consider: if the Raiders or the Rams moved to LA, would they capture 100% of the LA football market? Probably not. If a second team, say, the Chargers, moved to LA, would there be enough market - between those not interested in the Raiders/Rams, and those more interested in the second team than the Raiders/Rams - to provide lots of tasty profits? Almost definitely. Even with three teams, especially if you include Riverside and add in some chunk of San Diego, southern california would still be giving the worst of those three teams a bigger TV-watching audience than probably half of the rest of the NFL.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
The Shanghai Raiders would be perfect. Wealthy Chinese nationals buying up California properties is already a thing, right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:This isn't what Oakland actually wants to do though Oakland would be happy to have a new Raiders stadium. They're just not going to pay for it. If the owners and/or NFL fully funded a stadium project, I'm sure Oakland would be happy to keep the Raiders. To be honest this is the attitude that every city should have.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Empty stands look really really bad on TV. And, I think ticket sales correlate pretty well to the team's current popularity, which obviously affects television viewership. Lastly, fans who are big enough fans to want to buy tickets tend to also be the ones who buy the most merch. So I think it's probably all interrelated and having a big new stadium filled with fans is an important component of the business of football entertainment.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
I'm sure I've said it before, but The London Raiders could be a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The Raiders have to give some of their gameday gate revenues to the A's, so even if they had identical attendance numbers as the Rams, they'd be getting less revenue from it. e. Also they're still paying for the stadium/refurb/rehab or some poo poo, despite it being the oldest NFL stadium in the country.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:It's because filing for trademarks means absolutely nothing. You do it if the chance of moving is anything >0%. This. The cost (on NFL cost scales) is miniscule, you just do it immediately because you don't want a situation where the decision gets made to move, and you don't have your team name trademarked yet. I wouldn't be surprised if the Raiders go ahead and TM the LA Raders (if they don't have it already, which they probably do), just in case they wind up going in 2017. Maybe grab San Antonio Raiders too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Like 30% of the LA market is still a bigger market than probably three quarters of the NFL franchises have. The skullboat is an impossible dream, you guys know that, right? The liability issues alone, for building a what, 50k-seat stadium on a decommissioned ship? Doing it so that no fan ever falls over a rail or gets pitched off a balcony by the ship rolling, somehow managing to move that many people on and off, hell, probably they'd have to somehow have enough lifeboats on board to handle the entire capacity... Purpose-built cruise liners don't have anything close to that kind of passenger capacity and they're hideously expensive. It's fun to think about but a completely ludicrous idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
If there are, let's say, 50 cities that would want and could support an NFL team, if they could get one; but only a subset are willing to pay taxpayer money to build a stadium, then the exact number of cities willing to pay does have an economic effect. It's basic macroeconomics: supply (there are a limited supply of NFL teams) and demand (there is a limited demand for NFL teams). Lower the demand by setting a minimum taxpayer contribution, and you lower the amount of money that the NFL can effectively demand from those taxpayers. Think of it as a sort of bidding war: the more bidders, the higher the final bid will be. Of course, it's not that straightforward at all; it's actually even more in the bidders' (cities') favor, because the NFL doesn't only care about how much taxpayer money a given city will contribute. They also care about the size of the city's media market, the likelihood that they can sell tons of seat licenses and season tickets, and (since the NFL is beholden to the owners collectively), owners will tend to reject proposals to move a team to a city that is currently part of their media market/domain. So for example, the San Antonio proposal likely sees a lot of pushback from the Cowboys and Texans, because together they basically split the entire Texas media market, and acceding to a team in San Antonio almost certainly means losing some of that media market to the newcomer. So it's not as simple as, well, if San Diego or Oakland won't pay up, someone somewhere will. It has to be a city the NFL is actually interested in, and that is a fairly limited number of cities: and the more of those cities refuse to pay up (or refuse to pay more than X, where X is less than the total cost of the stadium), the lower the final taxpayers' bid needs to be in order to get the team deal done. Every city that figures out that paying $500M+ for an NFL stadium in taxpayer money is a economically losing proposition adds to the overall pressure pushing downward on taxpayer contributions to NFL stadiums. It might not be very visible, but it's a real pressure. e. Of course, the limitation on the supply side acts as a counter: if there is only going to be one NFL team available for the next 20 years, that puts pressure on cities to pay up or miss the opportunity. But this year we had at least two and maybe three teams obviously available; the Rams found a buyer, the Chargers and Raiders did not. Let's see what happens next year, but my guess is, a huge lucrative taxpayer-supported deal just isn't going to be so forthcoming, because any city who finds they've underbid for one team probably still gets a shot at bidding for the other. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Feb 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Parmesan Basil posted:None of this would be a problem if the league just abandoned California, like they should have long ago. Why? Because the NFL doesn't want money from the country's most populous state? California has about 12% of the country's population (37M people), and a GDP of over 2.4 trillion dollars, which is almost 14% of the US GDP. Since there are 32 NFL teams, California ought to have about 12-14% of them, which would be 3.8 to 4.5 teams. With the Rams moving in, if we keep the Niners, Raiders, and Chargers, we'll be about right.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
effectual posted:Why not? Could they change it to prevent more ugly poo poo like the frisco stadium? Please. That's the Santa Clara stadium, and it's emblematic of Santa Clara. It's the kind of stadium Santa Clara deserves.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Kirios posted:Absolutely. It's going to look dated as gently caress in 10 years and it's exactly what the Bay Area deserves. This is "the San Francisco stadium"  It's very nice. The niners should have stayed in SF. Maybe just rebuilt at Candlestick Point, or maybe done a deal instead of fleeing to lovely soulless Santa Clara. I don't know about "what the Bay Area deserves" though. It's certainly the results we should expect given the conditions we've created.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Imagine how much trouble the football players can get up to in vegas. It'll be spectacular.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Lessail posted:Yeah maybe they can kill somebody Ross Angeles posted:yeah, they never get into trouble in other cities Kind of my point, though. If Johnny can get in trouble in Cleveland, how much more trouble can they all get into in Vegas? warcrimes posted:Yeah, not just that, there's way more real security, I mean dudes who will gently caress you up, in Vegas clubs. Adam Jones aside, poo poo gets snuffed quickly in Vegas. I'm not just talking about being rowdy in nightclubs, either. Gambling, prostitution (legal and not), drugs, the Mob, Cirque du Soleil... the opportunities aren't just there, they're pushed in your face constantly. If you're a regular Joe and you get out of control a the casino, you're out on your rear end pronto. But if you're a wealthy and famous athlete? The rules are a lot more flexible.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Install little touchscreens into every single seat in the stadium and let the fans all bet on the outcome of every play of the game, just before it happens. Throw in sports book access to all the other games playing live at that time. Plus if they get bored, keno and video poker.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Calling it now: at some point the race to the bottom will spawn literally free airplane tickets in which everything is a microtransaction, like those terrible mobile game apps. Want to board the plane? $5. Want to sit down? $50. Want to use the toilet? $30. Each carry-on (including a purse or whatever) is $20. Carry-ons that only fit in the overhead: $35. Check-in luggage is already a micro-transaction. This is how the market responds when consumers have perfect access to pricing, and shop totally on pricing, and the basic functionality (in this case, actual transport from A to B) is a commodity.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
That would be a very interesting and useful chart if all of those casinos had sports books, but I bet they don't.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
kiimo posted:The California casinos are such a joke. No thanks on your crooked odds Japanese card game or whatever. You don't even have slots. Not all of them are like that. The indian casinos don't have to follow those rules. Just the "card rooms." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_casinos_in_California
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Alaois posted:i've never understood playing video-based gambling games, at least at table games you can see the drat deck in front of you, how can you trust a computer enough to not completely gently caress you The machines are heavily regulated and the regulators review the software code and payout tables. A dealer, on the other hand, can and will make errors. I've caught a blackjack dealer loving up at least twice, and I've only played blackjack at a casino maybe six times, ever. Just basic poo poo like failing to add up their own four cards correctly, or accidentally flipping a card when they shouldn't, or failing to correctly calculate what 2.5x $8 is, poo poo like that. Also there's no peer pressure to tip your video poker machine. That said, the only games you can actually win at are ones where you take other players' money (poker), and sports betting. Everything else is for suckers.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
If the public funds come out of Vegas hotel room taxes going up, why would the residents of Vegas be upset about that? Do they think it'll negatively impact tourist dollars spent?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Yeah, that's fair.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Loved the little dig in Hard Knocks ep 2. Some dude's wife commenting that there's way more fans attending the preseason game than they would have had in St. Louis. Just a little NFL boosterism. Also portraying Kroenke as this beloved figure.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:
You're paying $12 in SF for indeterminte craft brews? I take it you exclusively drink in hotel bars, night clubs, and strip joints?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 00:38
|
|
in San Francisco those prices are cheaper than most bars.
|
Also if I can't imagine something changing in the next five to ten years, that's the same thing as it never changing in all of the yawning billions upon billions of years in the future, marching endlessly into eternity. Or even like, thirty years from now!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
That 8-8 season was a shocking decline that most niners fans viewed as the tragic destruction of what should have been a great team on its way to a revenge match in the superbowl.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Remember Chris Borland? God. He was too beautiful to be real.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
I'm guessing if they've got a severe classroom shortage, the idea is for one batch of kids to attend 7 hours of school from 4 AM to 11 AM, and then the second batch to go from like 11:30 AM to 6:30PM. Probably have all the teachers, custodial staff, etc. work 15 hour days, too. This seems like a brilliant idea! Obviously parents will be fine with getting up at 3 AM to get their kids to school, and then paying for six hours of after-school daycare a day, and then trying to go to bed by 7 PM.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
You would think that the city with the most convention space on Earth could find some classrooms?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 01:25
|
|