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

Raiders will file relocation papers; 1/30-Investor pulls out
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
91jmay


Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 29946
Location: Wonderland
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrOaktown_56 wrote:
Thelonebillsfan wrote:
This is gonna be a tire fire.

They're gonna end up in San Antonio or something just because it's the only place that will finance a stadium.


If anything, this buys the city of Oakland time to get their [inappropriate/removed] together.

City of Oakland has it's crap together, which it is why it is refusing to fund an NFL stadium.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Silver&Black88


Moderator
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 41571
Location: Los Angeles, CA
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

91jmay wrote:
MrOaktown_56 wrote:
Thelonebillsfan wrote:
This is gonna be a tire fire.

They're gonna end up in San Antonio or something just because it's the only place that will finance a stadium.


If anything, this buys the city of Oakland time to get their [inappropriate/removed] together.

City of Oakland has it's crap together, which it is why it is refusing to fund an NFL stadium.


This. They can't afford to support the team. The cost burden of building stadiums should not fall onto the host city as much as it does. For the same reasons, I'm doubtful of a San Diego move as well (although that's my top choice since the NFL decided we can't move to LA)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
y*so*blu


Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 1490
Location: Valhalla, MN
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thelonebillsfan wrote:
Goodell and the owners refuse to realize that they keep shooting themselves in the foot in search of just that one billion more in revenue.

There is absolutely no long term planning, remove teams from long established markets and rob their fans while in search of a short term shot in the arm of $$$.

The league is more of a business than ever before, and we aren't done seeing this musical chairs BS.

The Raiders, as a team, had their own reasons for looking for a new home. But in general, you're absolutely right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TXsteeler


Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 2489
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silver&Black88 wrote:
91jmay wrote:
MrOaktown_56 wrote:
Thelonebillsfan wrote:
This is gonna be a tire fire.

They're gonna end up in San Antonio or something just because it's the only place that will finance a stadium.


If anything, this buys the city of Oakland time to get their [inappropriate/removed] together.

City of Oakland has it's crap together, which it is why it is refusing to fund an NFL stadium.


This. They can't afford to support the team. The cost burden of building stadiums should not fall onto the host city as much as it does. For the same reasons, I'm doubtful of a San Diego move as well (although that's my top choice since the NFL decided we can't move to LA)


Why not share the 49ers stadium? It's equidistant between the two cities and that way they can keep the team name and everything. That's the best way to handle cities that have multiple teams imo, why pay for 2 stadiums that are an hour away from eachother?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
91jmay


Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 29946
Location: Wonderland
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TXsteeler wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
91jmay wrote:
MrOaktown_56 wrote:
Thelonebillsfan wrote:
This is gonna be a tire fire.

They're gonna end up in San Antonio or something just because it's the only place that will finance a stadium.


If anything, this buys the city of Oakland time to get their [inappropriate/removed] together.

City of Oakland has it's crap together, which it is why it is refusing to fund an NFL stadium.


This. They can't afford to support the team. The cost burden of building stadiums should not fall onto the host city as much as it does. For the same reasons, I'm doubtful of a San Diego move as well (although that's my top choice since the NFL decided we can't move to LA)


Why not share the 49ers stadium? It's equidistant between the two cities and that way they can keep the team name and everything. That's the best way to handle cities that have multiple teams imo, why pay for 2 stadiums that are an hour away from eachother?

Agree 100%
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Speed_Wrench


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 6138
Location: Bay area
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

91jmay wrote:
TXsteeler wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
91jmay wrote:
MrOaktown_56 wrote:
Thelonebillsfan wrote:
This is gonna be a tire fire.

They're gonna end up in San Antonio or something just because it's the only place that will finance a stadium.


If anything, this buys the city of Oakland time to get their [inappropriate/removed] together.

City of Oakland has it's crap together, which it is why it is refusing to fund an NFL stadium.


This. They can't afford to support the team. The cost burden of building stadiums should not fall onto the host city as much as it does. For the same reasons, I'm doubtful of a San Diego move as well (although that's my top choice since the NFL decided we can't move to LA)


Why not share the 49ers stadium? It's equidistant between the two cities and that way they can keep the team name and everything. That's the best way to handle cities that have multiple teams imo, why pay for 2 stadiums that are an hour away from eachother?

Agree 100%


These cities need to wise up and stop letting these owners use one market to force another into a bad long term investment, the NFL can do more and should.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patman


Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 1491
Location: Tiverton RI
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TXsteeler wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
91jmay wrote:
MrOaktown_56 wrote:
Thelonebillsfan wrote:
This is gonna be a tire fire.

They're gonna end up in San Antonio or something just because it's the only place that will finance a stadium.


If anything, this buys the city of Oakland time to get their [inappropriate/removed] together.

City of Oakland has it's crap together, which it is why it is refusing to fund an NFL stadium.


This. They can't afford to support the team. The cost burden of building stadiums should not fall onto the host city as much as it does. For the same reasons, I'm doubtful of a San Diego move as well (although that's my top choice since the NFL decided we can't move to LA)




Why not share the 49ers stadium? It's equidistant between the two cities and that way they can keep the team name and everything. That's the best way to handle cities that have multiple teams imo, why pay for 2 stadiums that are an hour away from eachother?



Because then all the signage, naming rights, luxury box market would be split between two teams. something like that has to be done upon inception of the stadium deal. The niners do not want to share a market with Oakland. they want Oakland to leave so they can grow thier brand into the whole bay area over the next 10-15 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JBURGE25


Joined: 25 Jan 2012
Posts: 18426
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a lot of respect for the staff at the city of Oakland refusing to give in. It simply doesn't make sense to put forward that amount of money for a new stadium. I know it won't, but I can only hope that this shows he NFL they need to front more for stadium upgrades/new stadiums for long standing teams.
_________________

FF Big Brother III Winner Cool
[sig by El ramster]
blueswedeshoes wrote:
JBURGE25 wrote:
I don't hunt
So I gathered.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PapaShogun


Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 1492
Location: Macau
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jed would never share his stadium with the Raiders. As a 49ers fan, I'll say that's the one decision he'd make that wouldn't tick people off. Personally I would hate that having always seen my team have it's own stadium.
_________________

- Five Time Super Bowl Champion San Francisco 49ers -
1981*1984*1988*1989*1994*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Non-Issue


Joined: 13 Jan 2016
Posts: 1527
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Every city in the US should use St Louis as a profound lesson in why they shouldn't be footing the bill for NFL stadiums. Those tax payers are currently paying for an empty stadium.

Good for Oakland and good for San Diego. I think St Louis would have done the same had the state actually let it go to a vote rather than circumventing the tax payers.
_________________

Kiltman on the sig!

2016 Adopt-a-Ram Jared Goff:
Comp:99 Att:185 Yards:969 TD:5 INT:7 Rating:65.7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BayRaider


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 5080
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Non-Issue wrote:
Every city in the US should use St Louis as a profound lesson in why they shouldn't be footing the bill for NFL stadiums. Those tax payers are currently paying for an empty stadium.

Good for Oakland and good for San Diego. I think St Louis would have done the same had the state actually let it go to a vote rather than circumventing the tax payers.


If you want a team in your city, this is going to have to be how it is though. Whatever cities what a team the most will pay the most. Every team will have to deal with this eventually as their stadium gets older.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TXsteeler


Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 2489
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BayRaider wrote:
Non-Issue wrote:
Every city in the US should use St Louis as a profound lesson in why they shouldn't be footing the bill for NFL stadiums. Those tax payers are currently paying for an empty stadium.

Good for Oakland and good for San Diego. I think St Louis would have done the same had the state actually let it go to a vote rather than circumventing the tax payers.


If you want a team in your city, this is going to have to be how it is though. Whatever cities what a team the most will pay the most. Every team will have to deal with this eventually as their stadium gets older.


And the cities will smart leaders/voters will let teams leave and Pro sports teams will end up having to pay for their own stadiums when only a handful of cities will be willing to pay for them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BayRaider


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 5080
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TXsteeler wrote:
BayRaider wrote:
Non-Issue wrote:
Every city in the US should use St Louis as a profound lesson in why they shouldn't be footing the bill for NFL stadiums. Those tax payers are currently paying for an empty stadium.

Good for Oakland and good for San Diego. I think St Louis would have done the same had the state actually let it go to a vote rather than circumventing the tax payers.


If you want a team in your city, this is going to have to be how it is though. Whatever cities what a team the most will pay the most. Every team will have to deal with this eventually as their stadium gets older.


And the cities will smart leaders/voters will let teams leave and Pro sports teams will end up having to pay for their own stadiums when only a handful of cities will be willing to pay for them.


Which will be fine for the team and NFL, plenty of cities would jump at the chance of having a pro football team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TXsteeler


Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 2489
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BayRaider wrote:
TXsteeler wrote:
BayRaider wrote:
Non-Issue wrote:
Every city in the US should use St Louis as a profound lesson in why they shouldn't be footing the bill for NFL stadiums. Those tax payers are currently paying for an empty stadium.

Good for Oakland and good for San Diego. I think St Louis would have done the same had the state actually let it go to a vote rather than circumventing the tax payers.


If you want a team in your city, this is going to have to be how it is though. Whatever cities what a team the most will pay the most. Every team will have to deal with this eventually as their stadium gets older.


And the cities will smart leaders/voters will let teams leave and Pro sports teams will end up having to pay for their own stadiums when only a handful of cities will be willing to pay for them.


Which will be fine for the team and NFL, plenty of cities would jump at the chance of having a pro football team.


Not if people stop electing idiots to run their cities. It's an established fact amongst economists that sport's teams don't bring enough wealth to a city to offset the costs of giving these billionaire owners welfare stadiums.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PapaShogun


Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 1492
Location: Macau
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TXsteeler wrote:
BayRaider wrote:
Non-Issue wrote:
Every city in the US should use St Louis as a profound lesson in why they shouldn't be footing the bill for NFL stadiums. Those tax payers are currently paying for an empty stadium.

Good for Oakland and good for San Diego. I think St Louis would have done the same had the state actually let it go to a vote rather than circumventing the tax payers.


If you want a team in your city, this is going to have to be how it is though. Whatever cities what a team the most will pay the most. Every team will have to deal with this eventually as their stadium gets older.


And the cities will smart leaders/voters will let teams leave and Pro sports teams will end up having to pay for their own stadiums when only a handful of cities will be willing to pay for them.
If Gillete Stadium was a zillion years old now I don't think New England would let the Patriots leave. They'd foot the bill for a new venue. If Kraft didn't want to finance all of it himself.
_________________

- Five Time Super Bowl Champion San Francisco 49ers -
1981*1984*1988*1989*1994*
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 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 10 of 11

 
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