Ben in LA

Las Vegas Raiders Brand Discussion

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Anyway, the point is that the Raiders transcend both Oakland and Los Angeles in a way that is unique amongst sports teams, even amongst the other big teams with continent-wide followings.  Consider that the Cowboys' identity derives its meaning from Dallas; likewise, the identities of the Celtics, Yankees, and Canadiens depend entirely on their hometowns.  But not so for the Raiders.  They alone do not need any particular home city in order to be the Raiders.

 

although it is somewhat odd having nautical/pirate imagery for a team that's going to be based in the middle of the desert. 

 

(awaits Treasure Island jokes....) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Anyway, the point is that the Raiders transcend both Oakland and Los Angeles in a way that is unique amongst sports teams, even amongst the other big teams with continent-wide followings.  Consider that the Cowboys' identity derives its meaning from Dallas; likewise, the identities of the Celtics, Yankees, and Canadiens depend entirely on their hometowns.  But not so for the Raiders.  They alone do not need any particular home city in order to be the Raiders.

 

They are un-bound by geography in a way no other team really is. The moves are weirdly part of their identity to me (same with the Rams and Cardinals, moving is just something those teams do). Part of me thinks they should just abandon any city reference and just be the Raiders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RichO said:

 

They are un-bound by geography in a way no other team really is. The moves are weirdly part of their identity to me (same with the Rams and Cardinals, moving is just something those teams do). Part of me thinks they should just abandon any city reference and just be the Raiders.

I'm all for that. They can be the mercenaries of the NFL and can just up and move whenever it's beneficial. I actually heard this morning they may play one season in Mexico City before the move if it gets too ugly in Oakland. 

 

Actually, what they should do is play one season in St. Louis, one in Mexico City, and then one in San Diego to further strengthen their appeal. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RichO said:

 

They are un-bound by geography in a way no other team really is. The moves are weirdly part of their identity to me (same with the Rams and Cardinals, moving is just something those teams do). Part of me thinks they should just abandon any city reference and just be the Raiders.

I love, love, LOVE this idea for the next three seasons or however long before they're in Vegas. They won't have any home-field advantage and Oakland won't want to be associated with them. Seems like a good solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the super bowl era will the Raiders be the only team to call 3 different cities home? If you think about it the Cardinals and Rams only moved once in modern times, the Chicago Cardinals and Cleveland Rams are similar to the Philadelphia A's and Boston Braves as they feel very ancient compared to the Raiders moves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ltjets21 said:

In the super bowl era will the Raiders be the only team to call 3 different cities home? If you think about it the Cardinals and Rams only moved once in modern times, the Chicago Cardinals and Cleveland Rams are similar to the Philadelphia A's and Boston Braves as they feel very ancient compared to the Raiders moves.

 

only other "modern times" comparable to the Raiders might be the Buffalo Braves/San Diego/LA Clippers.  

 

The Sacramento Kings franchise has a history in FOUR cities (Rochester/CIncinnati/KC/Sacto) but two of those moves were prior to 1960. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BrianLion said:

The Sacramento Kings franchise has a history in FOUR cities (Rochester/CIncinnati/KC/Sacto) but two of those moves were prior to 1960. 

FIVE if you count Omaha. They were the Kansas City Omaha Kings due to a split market.

 

And Cincinnati wasn't prior to 1960.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rams80 said:

What is there about Oakland that makes it such a prize to have today as a market?

Proximity to San Francisco that the 49ers ceded in moving to the South Bay, plus Oakland/the East Bay is getting better. The combined Bay Area/Sacramento market is worth keeping a second team in given that between the Yorks and the Davises, one of the two is always going to be crapping all over itself at any given moment, so they're kind of a mutual contingency plan.

 

Semi-related, but let me add that it's so galling to say that this relocation works because the Raiders are an outlaw team. If you want to talk about the Raiders as a team of the counterculture, Northern California is the epicenter of the counterculture. Las Vegas is the American monoculture: crass capitalism, consumption, waste, mindless sprawl of cheap foreclosed houses. Vegas is Wayne Newton and Bette Midler, the Bay is the Grateful Dead and Metallica. You tell me who the outlaws are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, rams80 said:

Serious question.

 

What is there about Oakland that makes it such a prize to have today as a market?  And the Raiders have been trying for a new stadium since the mid-2000s at least, so I'm not quite sure you can point to "bad faith negotiating."

They've been trying to get a new stadium 5 years after mandating improvements that the city is still paying for? 

 

I think thats bad faith right there. Should have tried to get a stadium right then and there, not force improvements and waste mineh that can go towards a new stadium.

 

bad faith because they didn't even try for the last two years to sit with Oakland and discuss the situation. From what I've read (I'm a dolphins fan in Miami) he's walked away from oaklands negotiating table and tried LA and Las Vegas over the last three years. He hasn't been trying to get a stadium built in Oakland- he's been dead set on moving and didn't know where. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tubby34 said:

They've been trying to get a new stadium 5 years after mandating improvements that the city is still paying for? 

 

It is possible to :censored: things up further with a renovation or a rebuild.  Hard to believe, but true.

 

4 hours ago, tubby34 said:

 

I think thats bad faith right there. Should have tried to get a stadium right then and there, not force improvements and waste mineh that can go towards a new stadium.

 

Perhaps.  Or maybe a new stadium was a political non-starter back then.

 

4 hours ago, tubby34 said:

 

bad faith because they didn't even try for the last two years to sit with Oakland and discuss the situation. From what I've read (I'm a dolphins fan in Miami) he's walked away from oaklands negotiating table and tried LA and Las Vegas over the last three years. He hasn't been trying to get a stadium built in Oakland- he's been dead set on moving and didn't know where. 

 

Because it was bloody obvious even 2-3 years ago after years of negotiation that 1) Oakland needed a new stadium (no, sewage backing up in locker rooms is perfectly normal and signs of a healthy building) and 2) that Oakland the city wasn't going to pay for much of it and the Raiders' ownership lacked the money to cover what Oakland and the NFL wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I'm all for that. They can be the mercenaries of the NFL and can just up and move whenever it's beneficial. I actually heard this morning they may play one season in Mexico City before the move if it gets too ugly in Oakland. 

 

Actually, what they should do is play one season in St. Louis, one in Mexico City, and then one in San Diego to further strengthen their appeal. 

 

I'm pretty sure St. Louis wouldn't turn out for an NFL game - even one with two teams that have a pulse. The wounds would still be fresh in San Diego, too. 

 

My completely impractical idea would be to have them barnstorm for a couple of years and include some fun (but in no way profitable) football venues like Boise and Fargo. Throw Birmingham, Mexico City, Vancouver, OKC (Norman), Montreal and Louisville into the mix and you've got a full 8 game "home" schedule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

FIVE if you count Omaha. They were the Kansas City Omaha Kings due to a split market.

 

And Cincinnati wasn't prior to 1960.

 

they moved to Cincinnati in 1957, that was my point in saying they relocated prior to 1960. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

 

they moved to Cincinnati in 1957, that was my point in saying they relocated prior to 1960. 

Got it - I thought you meant moving FROM Cincinnati.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That still means only one move before 1960 -- Rochester to Cincy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's sad to see a city lose it's team but if any team in the NFL is to go to Vegas its best to be an established brand with a regional (and arguably national) fan base like the Raiders.  If the Chargers were the ones to bounce to Vegas, they'd be better off rebranding.

 

A small porton of LV locals will likely support the team, but Raider Nation will likely travel.  As I have understood, a good amount of people traveled to Oakland and if I recall a solid amount of Raider fans made the trip to Jacksonville and Tampa this year, so they're all over.  It's the visiting fans and football fans in general that will make Vegas work in the NFL.  Its only 8-10 events and some people will work a weekend trip to vegas just for football.

 

I give the hockey team 10 years tops...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2017 at 10:46 AM, flyersfan said:

all i want is for them to keep LAS in the name. vegas raiders sounds horrible. AND DON'T MESS WITH THE UNIFORMS

Unlike the Golden Knights, they will be the Las Vegas Raiders. The Raiders have already trademarked the name "Las Vegas Raiders". Even Las Vegas Golden Knights would be better than Vegas Golden Knights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2017 at 9:40 PM, the admiral said:

Proximity to San Francisco that the 49ers ceded in moving to the South Bay, plus Oakland/the East Bay is getting better. The combined Bay Area/Sacramento market is worth keeping a second team in given that between the Yorks and the Davises, one of the two is always going to be crapping all over itself at any given moment, so they're kind of a mutual contingency plan.

 

Semi-related, but let me add that it's so galling to say that this relocation works because the Raiders are an outlaw team. If you want to talk about the Raiders as a team of the counterculture, Northern California is the epicenter of the counterculture. Las Vegas is the American monoculture: crass capitalism, consumption, waste, mindless sprawl of cheap foreclosed houses. Vegas is Wayne Newton and Bette Midler, the Bay is the Grateful Dead and Metallica. You tell me who the outlaws are.

 

 

I wish this was still as true as it was even, like, ten years ago. Honestly, the way the Bay Area has pretty much fallen at the hands of capitalism and consumerism since the tech boom (Ok, so maybe a bit longer than ten years) has kinda squelched a LOT of this "outlaw" vibe and taken so much of the wind out of it's sales. :censored:, at this point, you'd be more likely to run into a Whole Foods in Oakland than you would a revolutionary movement. I mean, that's probably the norm in most cities, but... It's Oakland. How did it get to this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2017 at 6:24 AM, rams80 said:

 

It is possible to :censored: things up further with a renovation or a rebuild.  Hard to believe, but true.

 

 

Perhaps.  Or maybe a new stadium was a political non-starter back then.

 

 

Because it was bloody obvious even 2-3 years ago after years of negotiation that 1) Oakland needed a new stadium (no, sewage backing up in locker rooms is perfectly normal and signs of a healthy building) and 2) that Oakland the city wasn't going to pay for much of it and the Raiders' ownership lacked the money to cover what Oakland and the NFL wouldn't.

 

OAK/Alameda is still on the hook for >$160M which is likely grow due to having to continually refinance their bonds for mt. davis and the arena.  Of course they never negotiated in good faith because they were burned twice and the city knows that land is a goldmine if put to other uses. Numerous economic studies support the $0 economic benefit of pro sports subsidies. So why on earth would they continue to sacrifice the fiscal health of the city? By far the best solution the best option for taxpayers and residents is to auction that land off to residential developers for actual tax revenue yielding purposes (sorry A's).

 

Davis found his suckers in LV/NV. I honestly feel bad for the poor citizens of nevada as they live in one of the poorest and under-funded states in the union. They've been gutting essential services like elementary education yet somehow found close to $2B to become a nfl city/state. On second thought....it probably makes sense to make this investment to get the message out for LV as a tourist destination.

 

Totally agree that the raiders are the perfect team for barnstorming. Regular rotations between bay area/SD/MX city/san anton etc. could be a viable business model. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.