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

Mt. Davis to be covered during 2013 season
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 5907
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DOCLEW 28 wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Ya know, one or two more moves like this and we better see this team move back to LA.

I really fear this team dying at this rate if it stays in Oakland.


Bingo!

Catch-22 as the Raiders are also the lowest revenue generating team now as well. Imo, the writing is on the wall. I think Mark is making plans to jettison those not on board with moving (ie-Trask).


And what do you have to back up that silly claim? Rolling Eyes


I have absolutely nothing to back up my claims other than a hunch and the personal pleasure it brings me to drive you batty every time this subject comes up.

(Here I'll interject a typical Doc response )HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The ONLY thing this thread is now missing is the usual "It's the OAKLAND Raiders!" retort.

Admittedly, gate tickets will be difficult to sell if the team is losing (and because LA fans are apathetic) but it should be significantly compensated by corporate sales in bulk (considering there are exponentially more Fortune 500 companies in LA) although the stadium will look sparse. What I am hoping for is that Mark will funnel his new windfall of revenue into coaching and team amenities that will make the team attractive to FAs. Obviously, there will be two teams in LA so they odds are getting better with each passing month. I'm already emotionally invested in a shiny new stadium with all the fufu amenities I enjoy conveniently located to expedite travel both in and out. Can't wait . . . I think I just pittled.
_________________
Nodisrespect on building inside out wrote:
teams without highly draft DT's make the playoffs and win the superbowl regularly.

Bonez wrote:
Teams that win Superbowls and make the playoffs aren't picking in the Top 5, clearly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justwinbaby81


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 3811
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
DOCLEW 28 wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Ya know, one or two more moves like this and we better see this team move back to LA.

I really fear this team dying at this rate if it stays in Oakland.


Bingo!

Catch-22 as the Raiders are also the lowest revenue generating team now as well. Imo, the writing is on the wall. I think Mark is making plans to jettison those not on board with moving (ie-Trask).


And what do you have to back up that silly claim? Rolling Eyes


I have absolutely nothing to back up my claims other than a hunch and the personal pleasure it brings me to drive you batty every time this subject comes up.

(Here I'll interject a typical Doc response )HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The ONLY thing this thread is now missing is the usual "It's the OAKLAND Raiders!" retort.

Admittedly, gate tickets will be difficult to sell if the team is losing (and because LA fans are apathetic) but it should be significantly compensated by corporate sales in bulk (considering there are exponentially more Fortune 500 companies in LA) although the stadium will look sparse. What I am hoping for is that Mark will funnel his new windfall of revenue into coaching and team amenities that will make the team attractive to FAs. Obviously, there will be two teams in LA so they odds are getting better with each passing month. I'm already emotionally invested in a shiny new stadium with all the fufu amenities I enjoy conveniently located to expedite travel both in and out. Can't wait . . . I think I just pittled.


I pretty much agree here. There's no way this team would die in LA even if they sucked. I don't think the same applies for Oakland. Doc just said it's on the team. Well if the team fails like it has been, I don't want it on the team. I want this team around good or bad. LA offers that security.

This is without even taking into account the attractiveness it offers to free agents, etc.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nightmare


Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 2778
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Raiders will never die in Oakland, but the cycle of garbage has far more chance of continuing with a team that has no money to pay coaches and in a small market town that is pretty much impossible to attract FAs to. This move is reducing the capacity to 53,000, and the tickets are still some of the cheapest out there. That's the sort of revenue stream that you just can't do anything with in the NFL. Competing at the top is impossible.

The team must move to LA.
_________________
Quote:
Warren Sapp is a fool. That dude is stupid. He played for the Raiders 20 years ago, no one cares what he says, nobody likes him, hes a joke.
^ ^ ^ Chaz Schilens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14283
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nightmare wrote:

The team must move to LA.


You probably weren't a fan when the team was in LA but it didn't make the situation any better. The only way to improve the situation is to win games. California is that kind of state.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nightmare


Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 2778
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
Nightmare wrote:

The team must move to LA.


You probably weren't a fan when the team was in LA but it didn't make the situation any better. The only way to improve the situation is to win games. California is that kind of state.


What does the length of time I've supported the Raiders have anything to do with... well, anything?

Al Davis does not own the Raiders any more. The Raiders are working towards becoming a modern franchise, and a modern franchise needs to play in the city where it can get the most money, in front of the biggest crowd possible, and where it can attract the biggest/best names possible. LA fits the bill ahead of Oakland in all of these categories.

But I'm sorry I wasn't a fan in 1995, this must make that untrue.
_________________
Quote:
Warren Sapp is a fool. That dude is stupid. He played for the Raiders 20 years ago, no one cares what he says, nobody likes him, hes a joke.
^ ^ ^ Chaz Schilens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14283
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nightmare wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Nightmare wrote:

The team must move to LA.


You probably weren't a fan when the team was in LA but it didn't make the situation any better. The only way to improve the situation is to win games. California is that kind of state.


What does the length of time I've supported the Raiders have anything to do with... well, anything?

Al Davis does not own the Raiders any more. The Raiders are working towards becoming a modern franchise, and a modern franchise needs to play in the city where it can get the most money, in front of the biggest crowd possible, and where it can attract the biggest/best names possible. LA fits the bill ahead of Oakland in all of these categories.

But I'm sorry I wasn't a fan in 1995, this must make that untrue.


It doesn't make anything you say untrue. It's just that the Raiders were struggling with attendance when they were in LA and if you weren't a fan back then, you're probably not aware of that.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nightmare


Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 2778
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
Nightmare wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Nightmare wrote:

The team must move to LA.


You probably weren't a fan when the team was in LA but it didn't make the situation any better. The only way to improve the situation is to win games. California is that kind of state.


What does the length of time I've supported the Raiders have anything to do with... well, anything?

Al Davis does not own the Raiders any more. The Raiders are working towards becoming a modern franchise, and a modern franchise needs to play in the city where it can get the most money, in front of the biggest crowd possible, and where it can attract the biggest/best names possible. LA fits the bill ahead of Oakland in all of these categories.

But I'm sorry I wasn't a fan in 1995, this must make that untrue.


It doesn't make anything you say untrue. It's just that the Raiders were struggling with attendance when they were in LA and if you weren't a fan back then, you're probably not aware of that.


I wasn't a fan back then, but I am aware of that. I am the logic destroyer.

Seriously, other than tradition, there isn't really a reason for the Raiders to remain in Oakland. 53,000 attendance (if it sells out) isn't enough to get by in the NFL when your tickets are also pretty cheap. In the short term, a new team in LA will generate fans if it's winning or losing. And thanks to the appeal of LA to top coaches/FAs, the team hopefully wouldn't stay losing for long, and then there would be sellouts anyway.

Don't get me wrong, if I was a fan of the Raiders who lived in Oakland, I'd hate to see the team move. I'd be pisssed off to have my team taken away from me. But it just doesn't make sense for the team to stay there any more; something you can take a far more neutral look at if you're not from the Bay Area.
_________________
Quote:
Warren Sapp is a fool. That dude is stupid. He played for the Raiders 20 years ago, no one cares what he says, nobody likes him, hes a joke.
^ ^ ^ Chaz Schilens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14283
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nightmare wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Nightmare wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Nightmare wrote:

The team must move to LA.


You probably weren't a fan when the team was in LA but it didn't make the situation any better. The only way to improve the situation is to win games. California is that kind of state.


What does the length of time I've supported the Raiders have anything to do with... well, anything?

Al Davis does not own the Raiders any more. The Raiders are working towards becoming a modern franchise, and a modern franchise needs to play in the city where it can get the most money, in front of the biggest crowd possible, and where it can attract the biggest/best names possible. LA fits the bill ahead of Oakland in all of these categories.

But I'm sorry I wasn't a fan in 1995, this must make that untrue.


It doesn't make anything you say untrue. It's just that the Raiders were struggling with attendance when they were in LA and if you weren't a fan back then, you're probably not aware of that.


I wasn't a fan back then, but I am aware of that. I am the logic destroyer.

Seriously, other than tradition, there isn't really a reason for the Raiders to remain in Oakland. 53,000 attendance (if it sells out) isn't enough to get by in the NFL when your tickets are also pretty cheap. In the short term, a new team in LA will generate fans if it's winning or losing. And thanks to the appeal of LA to top coaches/FAs, the team hopefully wouldn't stay losing for long, and then there would be sellouts anyway.

Don't get me wrong, if I was a fan of the Raiders who lived in Oakland, I'd hate to see the team move. I'd be pisssed off to have my team taken away from me. But it just doesn't make sense for the team to stay there any more; something you can take a far more neutral look at if you're not from the Bay Area.


I'm not fan living in Oakland, i live in Europe like you. I don't have any allegiance to a city. I'm just saying it's not about the Oakland Raiders or the LA Raiders, it's about winning games. If the team is in LA but keep losing, fans will have a ton of other things to do rather than going to a Raider game. It won't improve a thing. The Raiders haven't had a winning season for a decade. It shouldn't surprise anyone they struggle to sell tickets. Fix the product on the field and the rest will follow.
The thing is they can't keep playing in a 40 years old stadium though. If Oakland can't provide a new one, then it's time to move.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justwinbaby81


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 3811
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry oakdb but by staying in Oakland it's a bad business move.

Say the team turns it around in Oakland. On the field that's great. In the books it's a maximum of 53,000 seats at dirt prices.

This same team turns it around in LA and we are talking more seats at higher prices. It's better business.

If the team needs to rely on wins to turn things around, why not capitalize on those wins if/when they come with a better revenue stream? Tradition is the only answer you will find.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 7709
Location: CA
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

justwinbaby81 wrote:
Sorry oakdb but by staying in Oakland it's a bad business move.

Say the team turns it around in Oakland. On the field that's great. In the books it's a maximum of 53,000 seats at dirt prices.

This same team turns it around in LA and we are talking more seats at higher prices. It's better business.

If the team needs to rely on wins to turn things around, why not capitalize on those wins if/when they come with a better revenue stream? Tradition is the only answer you will find.


These all sound like valid concerns if you're Mark Davis. As fans, why does it matter how much money the teams making?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raiiiiidersssss


Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 5209
Location: The Black Hole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Sorry oakdb but by staying in Oakland it's a bad business move.

Say the team turns it around in Oakland. On the field that's great. In the books it's a maximum of 53,000 seats at dirt prices.

This same team turns it around in LA and we are talking more seats at higher prices. It's better business.

If the team needs to rely on wins to turn things around, why not capitalize on those wins if/when they come with a better revenue stream? Tradition is the only answer you will find.


These all sound like valid concerns if you're Mark Davis. As fans, why does it matter how much money the teams making?


Because if there is opportunity to make more money in a different location (LA), then there is increased incentive to move the franchise.
_________________
MACKiavelli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 5907
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

justwinbaby81 wrote:
Sorry oakdb but by staying in Oakland it's a bad business move.

Say the team turns it around in Oakland. On the field that's great. In the books it's a maximum of 53,000 seats at dirt prices.

This same team turns it around in LA and we are talking more seats at higher prices. It's better business.

If the team needs to rely on wins to turn things around, why not capitalize on those wins if/when they come with a better revenue stream? Tradition is the only answer you will find.


The problem with LA the first time was not gate sales, which admittedly were poor, it was the lack of luxury boxes which were promised to Al Davis first when he went to LA and then when he returned to Oakland. Luxury boxes (ie: corporate sales) are the reason the Redskins (pre-RGIII) were still one of highest grossing teams despite rare playoff appearances. LA is so attractive to the NFL because of the presence of so many fortune 500 companies looking to write off another entertainment expense. Hell if it were up to owners they'd do a stadium of nothing but luxury boxes if the game wasn't on TV and they didn't want the stadium to appear empty.

Once again we think micro (gate sales) big business thinks macro (luxury boxes). Can bluecollar Oakland afford to spend the kind of money (via taxes) to give the Raiders a state of the art facility comparable to other teams that recently built new facilities (ie: Dallas)?
_________________
Nodisrespect on building inside out wrote:
teams without highly draft DT's make the playoffs and win the superbowl regularly.

Bonez wrote:
Teams that win Superbowls and make the playoffs aren't picking in the Top 5, clearly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 7709
Location: CA
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raiiiiidersssss wrote:
Darkness wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Sorry oakdb but by staying in Oakland it's a bad business move.

Say the team turns it around in Oakland. On the field that's great. In the books it's a maximum of 53,000 seats at dirt prices.

This same team turns it around in LA and we are talking more seats at higher prices. It's better business.

If the team needs to rely on wins to turn things around, why not capitalize on those wins if/when they come with a better revenue stream? Tradition is the only answer you will find.


These all sound like valid concerns if you're Mark Davis. As fans, why does it matter how much money the teams making?


Because if there is opportunity to make more money in a different location (LA), then there is increased incentive to move the franchise.


Read his post again. He's concerned with how much money the Raiders are making. Whether in Oakland or LA, it really doesn't mean anything to the fans.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nightmare


Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 2778
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Sorry oakdb but by staying in Oakland it's a bad business move.

Say the team turns it around in Oakland. On the field that's great. In the books it's a maximum of 53,000 seats at dirt prices.

This same team turns it around in LA and we are talking more seats at higher prices. It's better business.

If the team needs to rely on wins to turn things around, why not capitalize on those wins if/when they come with a better revenue stream? Tradition is the only answer you will find.


These all sound like valid concerns if you're Mark Davis. As fans, why does it matter how much money the teams making?


If the team isn't making as much money as it could, then the team won't be able to pay the best possible coaches available at the time, and the team will suffer on the field as a result.
_________________
Quote:
Warren Sapp is a fool. That dude is stupid. He played for the Raiders 20 years ago, no one cares what he says, nobody likes him, hes a joke.
^ ^ ^ Chaz Schilens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14283
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nightmare wrote:
Darkness wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Sorry oakdb but by staying in Oakland it's a bad business move.

Say the team turns it around in Oakland. On the field that's great. In the books it's a maximum of 53,000 seats at dirt prices.

This same team turns it around in LA and we are talking more seats at higher prices. It's better business.

If the team needs to rely on wins to turn things around, why not capitalize on those wins if/when they come with a better revenue stream? Tradition is the only answer you will find.


These all sound like valid concerns if you're Mark Davis. As fans, why does it matter how much money the teams making?


If the team isn't making as much money as it could, then the team won't be able to pay the best possible coaches available at the time, and the team will suffer on the field as a result.


http://www.statista.com/statistics/195286/revenue-of-the-oakland-raiders-since-2006/

They can't afford to pay coaches? How much is the highest paid HC making per year?
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
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