Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Mark Davis in talks to move Raiders to San Antonio
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
iPwn


Global Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 46471
Location: Warbortles Nation
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nabbs4u wrote:
The sentence you highlighted was the first move , which didn't.
How was Al Davis supposed to know in 1980 that in 1994, Los Angeles's worst earthquake of the 20th century would destroy his stadium while renovations were already being done on the stadium, causing a significant financial strain on the city that no one was prepared for? The city was willing to make upgrades as necessary, they just got blindsided by the earthquake while in the middle of already renovating after already shelling out a ton of money.

How was Davis supposed to know in 1994 that in 2014, the city of Oakland would be strapped for cash and unable to pass legislation to provide proper renovations to a decrepit stadium? Sure the city had issues in 1980 doing so, but the city was much better off financially this go around and had completely different politicians in office making those decisions. Was Davis supposed to know that the city would be climbing out of a massive recession and tightening their belts financially the same time his stadium needed serious work?

It's also worth noting that arguably the least financially successful franchise in NFL history was based in Dallas just 8 years before the most financially successful team in NFL history took root in the same city.
_________________

- Best since day one -
It may not be easy, but we ain't riding no tire fire merry-go-round.
- Gus Bradley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30078
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nabbs4u wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
How many times should the Davis's be allowed to leave Oakland only to return a decade or so later? I can't understand how anyone would think moving a Franchise 4x in 30 yrs between two seoerate cities is acceptable. Sorry its a joke.
Why would it be a joke for an owner to operate in a way that he thinks is best for his business?


He has every right to do what's best for His business. The NFL doesn't have to cater to that type of upheaval for a fan base every decade. Don't move to LA if it won't work long term. Don't move back to Oak if it didn't work out long term the first time and damn sure don't move back again to a place that failed the time before that.

That's a joke.


Who is to say it wont?


The sentence you highlighted was the first move , which didn't. So if the Panthers moved to LA and left Charlotte. Would you be fine with that? How about if they actually came back to Charlotte only to a decade later say we're moving away again. How on Earth is that fair to either fan base? That's what Al Davis and now potentially his son are doing to millions of Raiders fan which is unfair in my mind.


So wait, you were actually saying they should predict the future before moving their teams with that comment? Thats impossible to know. You realize that, right?

How would I feel as a fan in that scenario? Ripped. What are you suggesting at this point? The Raiders not be allowed to move because it wouldnt be fair to the fans?

Georgia Frontierre treated me unfair when she moved the Rams to St Louis. I dont see you arguing that the Rams should be forced back to Los Angeles to be fair to the fans. In fact, according to you, neither St Louis nor Oakland should have ever gotten a team back in the first place. So how about it?
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nabbs4u


Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Posts: 23233
Location: North Carolina Kiltman on the Sig
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
How many times should the Davis's be allowed to leave Oakland only to return a decade or so later? I can't understand how anyone would think moving a Franchise 4x in 30 yrs between two seoerate cities is acceptable. Sorry its a joke.
Why would it be a joke for an owner to operate in a way that he thinks is best for his business?


He has every right to do what's best for His business. The NFL doesn't have to cater to that type of upheaval for a fan base every decade. Don't move to LA if it won't work long term. Don't move back to Oak if it didn't work out long term the first time and damn sure don't move back again to a place that failed the time before that.

That's a joke.


Who is to say it wont?


The sentence you highlighted was the first move , which didn't. So if the Panthers moved to LA and left Charlotte. Would you be fine with that? How about if they actually came back to Charlotte only to a decade later say we're moving away again. How on Earth is that fair to either fan base? That's what Al Davis and now potentially his son are doing to millions of Raiders fan which is unfair in my mind.


So wait, you were actually saying they should predict the future before moving their teams with that comment? Thats impossible to know. You realize that, right?

How would I feel as a fan in that scenario? Ripped. What are you suggesting at this point? The Raiders not be allowed to move because it wouldnt be fair to the fans?

Georgia Frontierre treated me unfair when she moved the Rams to St Louis. I dont see you arguing that the Rams should be forced back to Los Angeles to be fair to the fans. In fact, according to you, neither St Louis nor Oakland should have ever gotten a team back in the first place. So how about it?


I think your misunderstanding what I'm saying or I misspoke. No I do not believe any NFL franchise who left a city should be allowed to leave that city only to return to that city a decade or so later. Like the Raiders potentially 4x over.

No the Rams should not be able to move back to LA for any reason IMO. Yes I New Franchise can be started in LA like the Jags and Texans did years ago.
_________________

Bird Watch:
Jeremy Maclin: 7 Gm/ 39 Rec/ 632 Yds/ 6 TD/ 16.2 YPC/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Woz


Moderator
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 20454
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nabbs4u wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Georgia Frontierre treated me unfair when she moved the Rams to St Louis. I dont see you arguing that the Rams should be forced back to Los Angeles to be fair to the fans. In fact, according to you, neither St Louis nor Oakland should have ever gotten a team back in the first place. So how about it?


I think your misunderstanding what I'm saying or I misspoke. No I do not believe any NFL franchise who left a city should be allowed to leave that city only to return to that city a decade or so later. Like the Raiders potentially 4x over.

No the Rams should not be able to move back to LA for any reason IMO. Yes I New Franchise can be started in LA like the Jags and Texans did years ago.


So, by your logic, the Rams should have never moved in the first place to St. Louis in the first place (did we forget the Cardinals?). Or heck, since they were originally the Cleveland Rams, the Browns should never have joined the NFL? That was only four years between the Rams moving and the Browns joining. Of course, there wouldn't be a new Browns franchise either by your logic.

As for a new franchise, that would be ludicrous, since that would give the league 33 teams. How do you balance that? What do you do about schedules? Sure, you can go to 34, but you still have the same problem, except now for two divisions.

32 franchises is a magic number for the NFL. It allows a simple general scheduling arrangement for knowing who each team will play in upcoming years. (*) It allows for compact divisions comprised mainly of historical rivalries if not geographic ones. Unless you want to re-shuffle the league again, the next target number would have to be 40. That would also require a major re-think of how many games they play (18 would allow home-and-home in your division (8) plus intra-division (5) plus inter-division (5); no strength of schedule calculations at all).




(*) When each team plays its scheduled opponents is a bit more tricky based on requirements from the teams as well as maximizing interesting games. That's why it's a big deal when the schedule is released. However, who you are plen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nabbs4u


Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Posts: 23233
Location: North Carolina Kiltman on the Sig
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^ Don't understand why it's so hard to grasp this concept? No Franchise that leaves a City " IMO" should be allowed back to that same city at any time in the future! So if that means

Raiders leave OAK "again" stay the hell away ,don't be allowed to come back.
Raiders left LA, stay the hell away
Rams left LA, stay the hell away
Cards left STL, stay the hell away
Oilers left Hou, stay the hell away
Ravens left Cle, stay the hell away.

In all of those scenarios ( Oak as the only one allowed). Different franchise were either moved too or started brand new in those respective cities.At no point should the original team who left be allowed back to " the same city". Not sure what's so hard to understand?
_________________

Bird Watch:
Jeremy Maclin: 7 Gm/ 39 Rec/ 632 Yds/ 6 TD/ 16.2 YPC/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
iPwn


Global Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 46471
Location: Warbortles Nation
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nabbs4u wrote:
^ Don't understand why it's so hard to grasp this concept? No Franchise that leaves a City " IMO" should be allowed back to that same city at any time in the future! So if that means

Raiders leave OAK "again" stay the hell away ,don't be allowed to come back.
Raiders left LA, stay the hell away
Rams left LA, stay the hell away
Cards left STL, stay the hell away
Oilers left Hou, stay the hell away
Ravens left Cle, stay the hell away.

In all of those scenarios ( Oak as the only one allowed). Different franchise were either moved too or started brand new in those respective cities.At no point should the original team who left be allowed back to " the same city". Not sure what's so hard to understand?
Because that wasn't even your original argument?
Nabbs4u wrote:
Outside a New Franchise starting in LA , any city who loses a team should never get one back again IMO. If the current team wasn't worth fighting for now , don't reward the city a decade later with a second chance.

_________________

- Best since day one -
It may not be easy, but we ain't riding no tire fire merry-go-round.
- Gus Bradley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nabbs4u


Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Posts: 23233
Location: North Carolina Kiltman on the Sig
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iPwn wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
^ Don't understand why it's so hard to grasp this concept? No Franchise that leaves a City " IMO" should be allowed back to that same city at any time in the future! So if that means

Raiders leave OAK "again" stay the hell away ,don't be allowed to come back.
Raiders left LA, stay the hell away
Rams left LA, stay the hell away
Cards left STL, stay the hell away
Oilers left Hou, stay the hell away
Ravens left Cle, stay the hell away.

In all of those scenarios ( Oak as the only one allowed). Different franchise were either moved too or started brand new in those respective cities.At no point should the original team who left be allowed back to " the same city". Not sure what's so hard to understand?
Because that wasn't even your original argument?
Nabbs4u wrote:
Outside a New Franchise starting in LA , any city who loses a team should never get one back again IMO. If the current team wasn't worth fighting for now , don't reward the city a decade later with a second chance.


I also said
Nabbs4u wrote:
I think your misunderstanding what I'm saying or I misspoke


My reference with a "second chance" was with the same Franchise who left in the first place.
_________________

Bird Watch:
Jeremy Maclin: 7 Gm/ 39 Rec/ 632 Yds/ 6 TD/ 16.2 YPC/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
TheKillerNacho


Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 9777
Location: Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nabbs4u wrote:
^ Don't understand why it's so hard to grasp this concept? No Franchise that leaves a City " IMO" should be allowed back to that same city at any time in the future! So if that means

Raiders leave OAK "again" stay the hell away ,don't be allowed to come back.
Raiders left LA, stay the hell away
Rams left LA, stay the hell away
Cards left STL, stay the hell away
Oilers left Hou, stay the hell away
Ravens left Cle, stay the hell away.

In all of those scenarios ( Oak as the only one allowed). Different franchise were either moved too or started brand new in those respective cities.At no point should the original team who left be allowed back to " the same city". Not sure what's so hard to understand?


I disagree with your opinion. You don't have a "point" or "concept" since there is no logic or argument involved. The Raiders absolutely can move back to Los Angeles. There is still a fanbase there from the day they were there and any damage caused by them moving has been mended via time. It's kind of hard to call them the same franchise when no one in the current Raiders organization was part of the organization when they left LA.
_________________
With much cheese,

Nacho Simulation Football League
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Nabbs4u


Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Posts: 23233
Location: North Carolina Kiltman on the Sig
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheKillerNacho wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
^ Don't understand why it's so hard to grasp this concept? No Franchise that leaves a City " IMO" should be allowed back to that same city at any time in the future! So if that means

Raiders leave OAK "again" stay the hell away ,don't be allowed to come back.
Raiders left LA, stay the hell away
Rams left LA, stay the hell away
Cards left STL, stay the hell away
Oilers left Hou, stay the hell away
Ravens left Cle, stay the hell away.

In all of those scenarios ( Oak as the only one allowed). Different franchise were either moved too or started brand new in those respective cities.At no point should the original team who left be allowed back to " the same city". Not sure what's so hard to understand?


I disagree with your opinion. You don't have a "point" or "concept" since there is no logic or argument involved. The Raiders absolutely can move back to Los Angeles. There is still a fanbase there from the day they were there and any damage caused by them moving has been mended via time. It's kind of hard to call them the same franchise when no one in the current Raiders organization was part of the organization when they left LA.


Luckily opinions are like ......., everyone has one. You don't have to agree with mine. That's why they call it a Difference if opinion.
_________________

Bird Watch:
Jeremy Maclin: 7 Gm/ 39 Rec/ 632 Yds/ 6 TD/ 16.2 YPC/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Badger75


Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 7341
PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark Davis faces limited options in Oakland. A stadium initiative on the ballot would fail. Service taxes, state revenues all are stretched thin.

Moving to SA seems remote. As does Portland. Wedged in between Seattle and SF, with little history of supporting sports.

Moving to LA, again, seems a bit of a gamble. No good options unless the Oakland Raiders can privately finance the stadium. Idea
_________________
"I have to keep playing so people over 40 will have somebody to root for on Sunday afternoons." George Blanda who played until he was 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30078
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Badger75 wrote:
Mark Davis faces limited options in Oakland. A stadium initiative on the ballot would fail. Service taxes, state revenues all are stretched thin.

Moving to SA seems remote. As does Portland. Wedged in between Seattle and SF, with little history of supporting sports.

Moving to LA, again, seems a bit of a gamble. No good options unless the Oakland Raiders can privately finance the stadium. Idea


Did you just say Portland has little history of supporting sports???
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
disaacs


Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 22963
Location: Brownbackistan
PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nabbs4u wrote:
^ Don't understand why it's so hard to grasp this concept? No Franchise that leaves a City " IMO" should be allowed back to that same city at any time in the future! So if that means

Raiders leave OAK "again" stay the hell away ,don't be allowed to come back.
Raiders left LA, stay the hell away
Rams left LA, stay the hell away
Cards left STL, stay the hell away
Oilers left Hou, stay the hell away
Ravens left Cle, stay the hell away.

In all of those scenarios ( Oak as the only one allowed). Different franchise were either moved too or started brand new in those respective cities.At no point should the original team who left be allowed back to " the same city". Not sure what's so hard to understand?


No one has ever attempted to do so, so it's really difficult to come to that conclusion. And in fact, really no team has moved close enough to one of their previous locations to be able to move back. In many of the cases you provided, the team moved 1000+ miles away...except for the Raiders and Ravens (but they certainly won't be moving back to Cleveland Smile )

It should also be noted that the Chargers could move back to LA as well, since they were originally there.
_________________


Thx to Uncle Buck!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Badger75


Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 7341
PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Badger75 wrote:
M12 schools provide strong support for college football I Oregon. ark Davis faces limited options in Oakland. A stadium initiative on the ballot would fail. Service taxes, state revenues all are stretched thin.

Moving to SA seems remote. As does Portland. Wedged in between Seattle and SF, with little history of supporting sports.

Moving to LA, again, seems a bit of a gamble. No good options unless the Oakland Raiders can privately finance the stadium. Idea


Did you just say Portland has little history of supporting sports???


The Trailblazers are not evidence of large scale football support. In fact 2 PAC 12 college football teams make Oregon a poor bet for the NFL. Portland has a thriving soccer community.

Mark Davis should pursue private financing and stay in Oakland.
_________________
"I have to keep playing so people over 40 will have somebody to root for on Sunday afternoons." George Blanda who played until he was 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Badger75


Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 7341
PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

disaacs wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
^ Don't understand why it's so hard to grasp this concept? No Franchise that leaves a City " IMO" should be allowed back to that same city at any time in the future! So if that means

Raiders leave OAK "again" stay the hell away ,don't be allowed to come back.
Raiders left LA, stay the hell away
Rams left LA, stay the hell away
Cards left STL, stay the hell away
Oilers left Hou, stay the hell away
Ravens left Cle, stay the hell away.

In all of those scenarios ( Oak as the only one allowed). Different franchise were either moved too or started brand new in those respective cities.At no point should the original team who left be allowed back to " the same city". Not sure what's so hard to understand?


No one has ever attempted to do so, so it's really difficult to come to that conclusion. And in fact, really no team has moved close enough to one of their previous locations to be able to move back. In many of the cases you provided, the team moved 1000+ miles away...except for the Raiders and Ravens (but they certainly won't be moving back to Cleveland Smile )

It should also be noted that the Chargers could move back to LA as well, since they were originally there.


Ahh, the great LA Mirage...eight micro markets with no coherent whole... Idea
_________________
"I have to keep playing so people over 40 will have somebody to root for on Sunday afternoons." George Blanda who played until he was 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
iPwn


Global Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 46471
Location: Warbortles Nation
PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Badger75 wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Badger75 wrote:
M12 schools provide strong support for college football I Oregon. ark Davis faces limited options in Oakland. A stadium initiative on the ballot would fail. Service taxes, state revenues all are stretched thin.

Moving to SA seems remote. As does Portland. Wedged in between Seattle and SF, with little history of supporting sports.

Moving to LA, again, seems a bit of a gamble. No good options unless the Oakland Raiders can privately finance the stadium. Idea


Did you just say Portland has little history of supporting sports???


The Trailblazers are not evidence of large scale football support. In fact 2 PAC 12 college football teams make Oregon a poor bet for the NFL. Portland has a thriving soccer community.

Mark Davis should pursue private financing and stay in Oakland.
> says Portland doesn't have history of supporting sports
> backs up claim by saying Portland has too much of an in place sporting community already

what
_________________

- Best since day one -
It may not be easy, but we ain't riding no tire fire merry-go-round.
- Gus Bradley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 7 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group