Lights Out Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 8 hours ago, Rebuy said: There is no reason to change a thing about the Raiders. Bringing back the silver numbers on the road would be a worthwhile change. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynasty Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 The only change they need is a better stadium (which is obviously a given). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bolton Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 So is it pretty much a given that they will play at Sam Boyd Stadium, at least for a couple years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWhiz96 Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 They needn't change a thing. The Raiders brand is timeless and unique, and it will flow into Las Vegas nicely. Although, if something were to change, I wouldn't mind silver numbers on the road jerseys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinsUp1214 Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 1 hour ago, Lights Out said: Bringing back the silver numbers on the road would be a worthwhile change. Meh, maybe as a once-in-a-while alternate, but not full time. Black numbers are more imposing, provide better color balance, and are more legible from a distance. I've always thought the silver road numbers look is a tad overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sykotyk Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 1 hour ago, Lights Out said: Bringing back the silver numbers on the road would be a worthwhile change. The NFL may allow it as a throwback, but I think the silver numbers may have a TV viewership issue. 1 hour ago, Michael Bolton said: So is it pretty much a given that they will play at Sam Boyd Stadium, at least for a couple years? With the Chargers playing at StubHub, you'd think the Raiders would play there, but the first indications are that the Raiders intend to play two years in Oakland as a lame duck before moving to their finished stadium. I think that idea is fanciful for one glaring reason: Memphis. When the Oilers moved to Nashville, they intended to play two years in Memphis before their new stadium in Nashville was open. The Tennessee Oilers had games with less than 20,000 reported (not turnstile count) fans in attendance. It was so bad, the Oilers moved to Vanderbilt's stadium the next year, which sat about 40,000. I can't imagine the Raiders doing well, at all, in Oakland if they announce they're moving to Las Vegas IN TWO YEARS. The Raiders name may be 'national' and they can feel like they draw fans from all over, but there's bound to be a ticket revolt by fans refusing to buy seats knowing the team will be hours away representing another city in a few seasons. So, if they do try it, my guess is the Raiders would move to Sam Boyd in 2018 after 2017 becomes an attendance snuff film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Tsubasa Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 3 hours ago, Sykotyk said: The Raiders name may be 'national' and they can feel like they draw fans from all over, but there's bound to be a ticket revolt by fans refusing to buy seats knowing the team will be hours away representing another city in a few seasons. If the Raiders are looking at Chargergate and have enough sense to learn from it, they make two loooong Oakland-tribute-and-thanks seasons out of their remaining time there. That way they don't burn all the bridges and may keep some of the fans even when they relocate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd77 Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 5 hours ago, Captain Tsubasa said: If the Raiders are looking at Chargergate and have enough sense to learn from it, they make two loooong Oakland-tribute-and-thanks seasons out of their remaining time there. That way they don't burn all the bridges and may keep some of the fans even when they relocate. Does anyone think Vegas may be the last city to bilk taxpayers into paying for a new NFL stadium?...or will there always be somebody willing to do it to get a team? There is more taxpayer push back now than ever as we have seen in San Diego and Oakland. Next situation like this will be in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 5 minutes ago, mjd77 said: Does anyone think Vegas may be the last city to bilk taxpayers into paying for a new NFL stadium?...or will there always be somebody willing to do it to get a team? There is more taxpayer push back now than ever as we have seen in San Diego and Oakland. Next situation like this will be in Buffalo. It'll be tourism tax most likely, which in a city like vegas is totally feasible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd77 Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 18 minutes ago, dont care said: It'll be tourism tax most likely, which in a city like vegas is totally feasible I do understand the situation may be a little different in Vegas than most other cities since they get most of their revenue form tourism. But like San Diego and Oakland, I think Buffalo will say no as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 1 hour ago, mjd77 said: I do understand the situation may be a little different in Vegas than most other cities since they get most of their revenue form tourism. But like San Diego and Oakland, I think Buffalo will say no as well. If it comes down to Buffalo and/or Erie County by itself, they couldn't afford it. However, the current governor and some other powerful people have been behind the Bills at higher levels. I actually think a deal for a new stadium could have been done by now, but the Bills have somewhat strangely backed off recently; there was good momentum building for a while. We don't put important things up for public vote in NY, so that probably won't be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandMooreArt Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 they've moved twice before and never changed anything drastically. the Raiders will very likely always be as they are. yea the logo is ugly and rough, but that's kind of who they are too. silver numbers? naw. the original white/black shield? too connected to the AFL. a new secondary logo? i bet everyone has cold feet about that after this week GRAPHIC ARTIST BEHANCE / MEDIUM / DRIBBBLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCM0313 Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 Wherever the Raiders may one day play, be that Vegas, San Antonio, Toronto, Albuquerque, Columbus, Louisville, Syracuse, or your mom's house, they shouldn't change their brand at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygers09 Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Nothing changed when they had that stint in Los Angeles, so why would they change when they move to Vegas?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swisherHOU Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 19 hours ago, Sykotyk said: When the Oilers moved to Nashville, they intended to play two years in Memphis before their new stadium in Nashville was open. The Tennessee Oilers had games with less than 20,000 reported (not turnstile count) fans in attendance. It was so bad, the Oilers moved to Vanderbilt's stadium the next year, which sat about 40,000. And the only reason they were in Memphis is because in 1996 the Oilers decided to continue playing in Houston as a lame duck team. It was a disaster to say the least. Now, the Oiler brand wasn't the same as the Raiders brand but I can't imagine things will go well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Fool Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Attendance won't be much of an issue for the Raiders in Oakland, especially if the team continues playing great like they did this season. I highly doubt it will be anything bad. The thing about the Raiders is that it's fanbase isn't just situated in Oakland, its practically everywhere, hell, it even reaches the UK and Europe. When they move to Vegas, the LA fans will show up to their games. The Chargers move to LA is practically useless in this case. The NFL really should've tried to get the Raiders to go with LA and not the Chargers. Atleast it makes sense for the Raiders to be in LA as opposed to Las Vegas. Las Vegas is a city that does not need professional sports teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ Sands Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 The Raiders were never going to have first crack at LA because Kroenke wouldn't want his tenant to be more popular than his team. And the other owners like Spanos more than Davis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrosby Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 https://twitter.com/OutOfThisWC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayMac Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 33 minutes ago, mcrosby said: The Raider looks like Liam Neeson. Not that it's a bad thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCM0313 Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 11 hours ago, mcrosby said: Okay, that's kind of funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.