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
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 34014
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally, I'm in a really interesting position on a possibly LA move.


In the past, I've been completely in favor of moving to LA. We are in dire need of a new stadium and would undoubtedly get a state of the art new one there. Not to mention the revenue stream generated by being the only football team in such a large city. I've even seen LA Raiders Snapbacks for sale last month.

But, I'm probably going to be moving to the Bay Area within a year or 2. Possibly as soon as June 2014. And knowing that there's a good chance I will be moving there, I'd feel heartbroken knowing that they moved.
_________________

Professor Oak wrote:
Don't listen to the naysayers, S&B88.

SoS is in fact French. I've frenched his toast a couple of times. I think I would know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nightmare


Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 2788
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
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?


I can't tell you that, just like how you won't be able to tell me how much it costs to rent the Coliseum, maintain all the other practice facilities, pay all the staff (not just coaches but doctors, physios, admin staff, cleaners, cooks, nutritionists, etc), provide transport/security round the clock for players, marketing for the team in the form of public events and fundraisers, and many more things I probably can't think of.

It doesn't just work that, "oh we've made $226m this year, here Bill Cowher, have a $226m contract." It's common knowledge in the NFL that top coaches demand top dollar. Top dollar that certain teams can't afford, and that's the reason you won't see the likes of a Cowher in Oakland or Buffalo.
_________________
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: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 14402
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nightmare wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
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?


I can't tell you that, just like how you won't be able to tell me how much it costs to rent the Coliseum, maintain all the other practice facilities, pay all the staff (not just coaches but doctors, physios, admin staff, cleaners, cooks, nutritionists, etc), provide transport/security round the clock for players, marketing for the team in the form of public events and fundraisers, and many more things I probably can't think of.

It doesn't just work that, "oh we've made $226m this year, here Bill Cowher, have a $226m contract." It's common knowledge in the NFL that top coaches demand top dollar. Top dollar that certain teams can't afford, and that's the reason you won't see the likes of a Cowher in Oakland or Buffalo.


I checked. Belichick is the highest paid coach (in all US sports) at 7.5M/year.
The Raiders are spending more than they earn.
The Raiders also had the second highest players payroll in the NFL from 2005 to 2011 and were 60M over the NFL average.
The Raiders could afford a high paid HC if they weren't spending so much on players.

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Quarterbacks_not_payroll_have_strongest_correlation_to_NFL_success091412
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 8193
Location: CA
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
Nightmare wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
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?


I can't tell you that, just like how you won't be able to tell me how much it costs to rent the Coliseum, maintain all the other practice facilities, pay all the staff (not just coaches but doctors, physios, admin staff, cleaners, cooks, nutritionists, etc), provide transport/security round the clock for players, marketing for the team in the form of public events and fundraisers, and many more things I probably can't think of.

It doesn't just work that, "oh we've made $226m this year, here Bill Cowher, have a $226m contract." It's common knowledge in the NFL that top coaches demand top dollar. Top dollar that certain teams can't afford, and that's the reason you won't see the likes of a Cowher in Oakland or Buffalo.


I checked. Belichick is the highest paid coach (in all US sports) at 7.5M/year.
The Raiders are spending more than they earn.
The Raiders also had the second highest players payroll in the NFL from 2005 to 2011 and were 60M over the NFL average.
The Raiders could afford a high paid HC if they weren't spending so much on players.

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Quarterbacks_not_payroll_have_strongest_correlation_to_NFL_success091412


Yup. The majority of the crazy contracts we've given out to players during the past decade far exceed what it'd cost to pay a lot for coaches. That's why I don't get why people on here say that the Raiders don't have the money to pay for quality coaches.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justwinbaby81


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 3811
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:
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.


You can only play with house money for so long. As far as I know Mark Davis doesn't have any other sources of income. If this team keeps hemorrhaging money, with a new stadium needed, it is inevitable he would have to sell the team in the future. That leads to the possibility of the team being moved outside of CA and other changes I am strongly strongly strongly against. He can move the team to LA and regain financial stability for the franchise instead of the franchise going bankrupt.

Short version: the risk of the team changing in location, name, unstable ownership, etc. is cut down in a major way. I want Mark Davis as the long-term owner, and if not Davis then someone who will keep the tradition of the Raiders alive. It is as important to me as winning football games.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GJT1347


Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1694
Location: Omaha
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let this move by the organization be a telling sign of things to come this offseason. We must feel like we can do absolutely nothing to improve our team with our contracts this year. We do not expect to win games and therefore do not expect to sell tickets. This is a sad and telling sign of things to come in the next year.
_________________


Props to Palooka ^
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 8193
Location: CA
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

justwinbaby81 wrote:
Darkness wrote:
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.


You can only play with house money for so long. As far as I know Mark Davis doesn't have any other sources of income. If this team keeps hemorrhaging money, with a new stadium needed, it is inevitable he would have to sell the team in the future. That leads to the possibility of the team being moved outside of CA and other changes I am strongly strongly strongly against. He can move the team to LA and regain financial stability for the franchise instead of the franchise going bankrupt.

Short version: the risk of the team changing in location, name, unstable ownership, etc. is cut down in a major way. I want Mark Davis as the long-term owner, and if not Davis then someone who will keep the tradition of the Raiders alive. It is as important to me as winning football games.


You're afraid of the Raiders no longer existing? Are you being serious?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justwinbaby81


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 3811
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Darkness wrote:
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.


You can only play with house money for so long. As far as I know Mark Davis doesn't have any other sources of income. If this team keeps hemorrhaging money, with a new stadium needed, it is inevitable he would have to sell the team in the future. That leads to the possibility of the team being moved outside of CA and other changes I am strongly strongly strongly against. He can move the team to LA and regain financial stability for the franchise instead of the franchise going bankrupt.

Short version: the risk of the team changing in location, name, unstable ownership, etc. is cut down in a major way. I want Mark Davis as the long-term owner, and if not Davis then someone who will keep the tradition of the Raiders alive. It is as important to me as winning football games.


You're afraid of the Raiders no longer existing? Are you being serious?


Throughout this thread you're still having trouble grasping that this is a business. Someone buys it they can basically do what they want with it. It's absolutely a possibility.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 8193
Location: CA
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

justwinbaby81 wrote:
Darkness wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Darkness wrote:
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.


You can only play with house money for so long. As far as I know Mark Davis doesn't have any other sources of income. If this team keeps hemorrhaging money, with a new stadium needed, it is inevitable he would have to sell the team in the future. That leads to the possibility of the team being moved outside of CA and other changes I am strongly strongly strongly against. He can move the team to LA and regain financial stability for the franchise instead of the franchise going bankrupt.

Short version: the risk of the team changing in location, name, unstable ownership, etc. is cut down in a major way. I want Mark Davis as the long-term owner, and if not Davis then someone who will keep the tradition of the Raiders alive. It is as important to me as winning football games.


You're afraid of the Raiders no longer existing? Are you being serious?


Throughout this thread you're still having trouble grasping that this is a business. Someone buys it they can basically do what they want with it. It's absolutely a possibility.


Problem is you're not being realistic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justwinbaby81


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 3811
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Darkness wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Darkness wrote:
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.


You can only play with house money for so long. As far as I know Mark Davis doesn't have any other sources of income. If this team keeps hemorrhaging money, with a new stadium needed, it is inevitable he would have to sell the team in the future. That leads to the possibility of the team being moved outside of CA and other changes I am strongly strongly strongly against. He can move the team to LA and regain financial stability for the franchise instead of the franchise going bankrupt.

Short version: the risk of the team changing in location, name, unstable ownership, etc. is cut down in a major way. I want Mark Davis as the long-term owner, and if not Davis then someone who will keep the tradition of the Raiders alive. It is as important to me as winning football games.


You're afraid of the Raiders no longer existing? Are you being serious?


Throughout this thread you're still having trouble grasping that this is a business. Someone buys it they can basically do what they want with it. It's absolutely a possibility.


Problem is you're not being realistic.


The fact you think it's unrealistic to think franchises don't change ownership and move....I don't really know what to say. I'll stop the debate here saying we can agree to disagree. Because there are dozens of professional sports franchises now that have done it.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 8193
Location: CA
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

justwinbaby81 wrote:
Darkness wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Darkness wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Darkness wrote:
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.


You can only play with house money for so long. As far as I know Mark Davis doesn't have any other sources of income. If this team keeps hemorrhaging money, with a new stadium needed, it is inevitable he would have to sell the team in the future. That leads to the possibility of the team being moved outside of CA and other changes I am strongly strongly strongly against. He can move the team to LA and regain financial stability for the franchise instead of the franchise going bankrupt.

Short version: the risk of the team changing in location, name, unstable ownership, etc. is cut down in a major way. I want Mark Davis as the long-term owner, and if not Davis then someone who will keep the tradition of the Raiders alive. It is as important to me as winning football games.


You're afraid of the Raiders no longer existing? Are you being serious?


Throughout this thread you're still having trouble grasping that this is a business. Someone buys it they can basically do what they want with it. It's absolutely a possibility.


Problem is you're not being realistic.


The fact you think it's unrealistic to think franchises don't change ownership and move....I don't really know what to say. I'll stop the debate here saying we can agree to disagree. Because there are dozens of professional sports franchises now that have done it.


Where did I say that? If the Raiders are sold and relocated, it's going to be to the LA ownership group. You think it's realistic that the Raiders go bankrupt, and are sold to someone that won't keep them in California and changes their name. Come on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justwinbaby81


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 3811
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Darkness wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Darkness wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Darkness wrote:
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.


You can only play with house money for so long. As far as I know Mark Davis doesn't have any other sources of income. If this team keeps hemorrhaging money, with a new stadium needed, it is inevitable he would have to sell the team in the future. That leads to the possibility of the team being moved outside of CA and other changes I am strongly strongly strongly against. He can move the team to LA and regain financial stability for the franchise instead of the franchise going bankrupt.

Short version: the risk of the team changing in location, name, unstable ownership, etc. is cut down in a major way. I want Mark Davis as the long-term owner, and if not Davis then someone who will keep the tradition of the Raiders alive. It is as important to me as winning football games.


You're afraid of the Raiders no longer existing? Are you being serious?


Throughout this thread you're still having trouble grasping that this is a business. Someone buys it they can basically do what they want with it. It's absolutely a possibility.


Problem is you're not being realistic.


The fact you think it's unrealistic to think franchises don't change ownership and move....I don't really know what to say. I'll stop the debate here saying we can agree to disagree. Because there are dozens of professional sports franchises now that have done it.


Where did I say that? If the Raiders are sold and relocated, it's going to be to the LA ownership group. You think it's realistic that the Raiders go bankrupt, and are sold to someone that won't keep them in California and changes their name. Come on.


Speculation is fun and all, but like I said ill agree to disagree. Once this team leaves the hands of the Davis family, all bets are off. That's the long and the short of it.

I'm sure Browns fans never thought there was a possibility their team would leave. I'm sure Oilers fans felt the same way. Things happen and its not probable, but you or I don't know that.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 14402
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyone buying the Raiders would be stupid to change the name, the logo or the colors. It's a very marketable product.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 34014
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
Anyone buying the Raiders would be stupid to change the name, the logo or the colors. It's a very marketable product.


Doesn't mean it can't happen. I think that's what JWB is getting at. I don't think it would either and I also think it would be stupid....but it still could possibly happen.
_________________

Professor Oak wrote:
Don't listen to the naysayers, S&B88.

SoS is in fact French. I've frenched his toast a couple of times. I think I would know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 14402
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silver&Black88 wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Anyone buying the Raiders would be stupid to change the name, the logo or the colors. It's a very marketable product.


Doesn't mean it can't happen. I think that's what JWB is getting at. I don't think it would either and I also think it would be stupid....but it still could possibly happen.


Yeah, i guess there's a chance. From a business standpoint, it wouldn't make sense though. If you're buying the Raiders franchise, you probably should keep the only thing it has going for it. Otherwise, you'd be better off waiting for an expansion.
_________________
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 - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 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