Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

As someone mentioned in the thread earlier, we should throw out any thing we know about PSL's as a standard thing these days because the St. Louis PSLs were one of the first set of PSLs ever sold. There wasn't a standard way of doing it back then, and it's very possible it was done differently and in a way that may have been less legally shored up than the way new PSLs are handled.

 

Also, I think the Dome probably will make more money without the Rams than with them. That probably won't happen in 2016, but I think it could begin happening in the years beyond that. Reed is just (poorly) skewing one line of reasoning to fit his motives in that letter.

 

Again, if Reed was going to do this, he should have requested reimbursement to the RSA on the stadium planning funding, not help paying off the remaining Dome debt. Both are unlikely, but one makes some reasonable sense to ask for. He asked for the other.

 

We'll find out how frivolous the lawsuits are in the coming weeks and months. (Reed's, of course, was just a letter, not a lawsuit.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way the NFL allows a team to relocate/expand to Las Vegas. I personally wouldn't care/mind if it happened, but I just don't think it would.

 

SN: Which team(s) currently has the territorial rights over Nevada? I'd assume the Cardinals would consider Vegas to be their territory since the city is close to the Arizona state border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 4_tattoos said:

No way the NFL allows a team to relocate expand to Las Vegas. I personally wouldn't care/mind if it happened, but I just don't think it would.

 

SN: Which team(s) currently has the territorial rights over Nevada? I'd assume the Cardinals would consider Vegas to be their territory since the city is close to the Arizona state border.

The Super Bowl possibilities alone would sway them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 4_tattoos said:

No way the NFL allows a team to relocate/expand to Las Vegas. I personally wouldn't care/mind if it happened, but I just don't think it would.

 

SN: Which team(s) currently has the territorial rights over Nevada? I'd assume the Cardinals would consider Vegas to be their territory since the city is close to the Arizona state border.

judging only by 506sports maps, looks like no one with a light SD bias. looks like they got the national game all the time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot going on with Las Vegas including that UNLV has tried for nearly a decade with varying plans, each which had a thread here. 

The Nevada Legislative session is every other year, so it is this spring.  That property has virtually zero parking and the nearby MGM Grand (and the sister MGM-Mirage properties) are starting to $10/day charge for parking.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, the admiral said:

If the A's move out of the Oakland Coliseum, why don't the Raiders just keep Mount Davis and build three-fourths of a new stadium around it?

The A's currently have a lease through 2017 at minimum, the Raiders are year to year.  The Warriors not leaving for JP Morgan Chase Center until 2019 hurts both MLB and NFL in terms of that land.

 

Mt.Davis is now tarped off and still needed to be paid for.  Plus, Davis has no real idea/plan:  http://newballpark.org/2015/05/30/mark-davis-revises-his-coliseum-vision/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

If the A's move out of the Oakland Coliseum, why don't the Raiders just keep Mount Davis and build three-fourths of a new stadium around it?

 

Because that would make sense, and Mark doesn't want any of that :censored:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 4_tattoos said:

No way the NFL allows a team to relocate/expand to Las Vegas. I personally wouldn't care/mind if it happened, but I just don't think it would.

 

SN: Which team(s) currently has the territorial rights over Nevada? I'd assume the Cardinals would consider Vegas to be their territory since the city is close to the Arizona state border.

 

I think under Tagliabue, or especially Rozelle, Las Vegas would be verboten.  With Goodell?  Not so much.

 

And no one holds territorial rights to Las Vegas.  NFL territorial rights only extend 75 miles radially from the outer corporate limits of the city a team plays its home games in.  Las Vegas, San Antonio and the like are 'open' territories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.