bosrs1 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 The Raiders are dead in Oakland and I don't see Santa Clara or San Antonio as a real options. Mark Davis can sell majority the team to AEG or whomever and let it go to Los Angeles. Mark lives most of the time in L.A. anyways.Exactly. Mark is starting to realize he can't own the team. He doesn't have the money to do anything being the Raiders are his only asset so he can't pay for a new stadium or even a decent team. And on top of that he's got no clue what he's doing managing the franchise either. If he sells the majority to AEG the Anschutz folks can rehabilitate his team's image, infuse it with cash, etc... and still keep Mark on as a minority owner with a luxury suite and practice access which is really all he seems to want or need. San Antonio really seems to be nothing more than his last ditch attempt to get Oakland to shell out for something they can't afford. When that fails which will be this winter, he'll fall into Uncle Phil's warm embrace and relocate to LA.It's really a race between bowl cut and Kroenke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It's really a race between bowl cut and Kroenke.I suspect that the Raiders are going to lose that one, as well. Wouldn't be at all surprised if they end up as lodgers in Stan's house. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It's really a race between bowl cut and Kroenke.I suspect that the Raiders are going to lose that one, as well.Wouldn't be at all surprised if they end up as lodgers in Stan's house.And honestly I don't think they'd mind. The Raiders are still very popular in the greater LA area, more popular in fact than they are in the Bay Area. So they'll take it as long as they don't have to pay much for it. Because it's really the only thing they'll get. SA is never happening thanks to Jerry Jones and the NFL lodge. And Oakland isn't happening due to simple economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 So they'll take it as long as they don't have to pay much for it.I would tend to agree, if only because it shows how pathetic the Raiders are. I'm sure they would be glad to forego all the revenue streams of a new stadium. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 How would Davis/the NFL justify turning down sharing Levis with the 49ers just to be tenants to the Rams in a move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Second banana in the 2nd largest metro area in the United States versus second banana in the 11th. You do the math. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I'm still not sure I've seen a convincing argument for two teams in a market that's been dormant for 20 years. Is there really the demand for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I'm still not sure I've seen a convincing argument for two teams in a market that's been dormant for 20 years. Is there really the demand for that?It has the population needed to support two teams, as the other three "big four" show. It would also please the league's television partners to have one team from each of the country's two largest media markets in each conference. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 For all this talk about how something would have gotten out already if the Rams were headed back, I still somehow kind of doubt that. Sports moguls must have taken to meeting in the war room for Dr. Strangelove lately, because in spite of everyone telling everything to Gawker Media, big stuff isn't getting out like it used to. With little to no leakage, the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg, the Braves got a park in Cobb County, and the NHL sold the Coyotes again. It's totally possible that arrangements have been made in secret. Nothing surprises me anymore. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I'm still not sure I've seen a convincing argument for two teams in a market that's been dormant for 20 years. Is there really the demand for that?It has the population needed to support two teams, as the other three "big four" show. It would also please the league's television partners to have one team from each of the country's two largest media markets in each conference.The TV deal isn't really the NFC-AFC split of yesteryear. Plenty of "Flex" dates are built in, every network has a piece, and in the case of CBS even moreso with the addition of Thursday night. FOX can even steal a CBS game and vice versa.If it was simply market math, wouldn't a third team in New York be up there, too?And it still doesn't address the accepted dormamcy of two decades. It's not quite the traveling Nordiques fans and grassroots soccer supporters that demand to be heard and/or seen. One would no doubt be a huge success. But why not let that success dictate that a second is needed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Even with the changing tv contracts and constant interleague play, there is still very much an AFC and NFC. Your hypothetical third New York team would have a hard niche to fill, given that there's already one team in each (I would suggest only the "Brooklyn _____s" would be able to gain any real traction). But Los Angeles... there's an opportunity for two clubs to carve out part of the marketplace with a relative lack of overlap. One could market a rivalry with San Francisco, the other with San Diego. One would have the opportunity to more regularly face the Saints and Packers, the other the Steelers and Patriots. Not an inconsequential factor. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Fair point on the lack of overlap. It's still been a quiet 20 years. Separate stadiums serving different areas would also help, in my mind. Not sure that's where this is headed, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I'm still not sure I've seen a convincing argument for two teams in a market that's been dormant for 20 years. Is there really the demand for that?It has the population needed to support two teams, as the other three "big four" show. It would also please the league's television partners to have one team from each of the country's two largest media markets in each conference.If it was simply market math, wouldn't a third team in New York be up there, too?Where would a third New York team play? You'd have to do something stupid like have the new team play every home game on Thursday night (Roger Goodell's wet dream). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 It would need to be a new stadium, just like L.A. needs. Not arguing in favor of a third team in New York. Just saying that market size can't be the sole reason that an L.A. stadium with 2 teams > Santa Clara stadium with 2 teams. The x-factor being that it's been a dormant market for 20 years.Plus, the league of Green Bay is certainly not all about market size. But one team needs to be in L.A. Just not sure two do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DustDevil61 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Things may be getting serious from the league's standpoint, though nothing besides "sources" listed. Still, it lends credence to the Rams' and Raiders' report and situation. AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 If the league wants to get this right, they won't let a bunch of scoundrels and idiots get to make the big return. Hang in there, OAKLAND Raiders. Let the Rams have Los Angeles back. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 That's what I've been saying for quite a while. Rams would be the preferred team. But we'll see. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkJourney Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Oakland ain't got a lot of CA$H and neither does Mark Davis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Oakland ain't got a lot of CA$H and neither does Mark Davis.....and Mark Davis looks like a creepier version of Moe Howard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.