Glad to see Jacksonville not being a subject of these type of articles anymore:
Quote
Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis and two top lieutenants met recently with several San Antonio officials to discuss the potential of moving the NFL team to the Alamo City.
During the weekend of July 18, Davis met with the officials, including Henry Cisneros, then-Mayor Julián Castro, City Manager Sheryl Sculley, Mario Hernandez of the San Antonio Economic Development Foundation, and both Richard Perez and David McGee, the president and chairman of the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce, respectively, according to a statement from Sculley tonight.
Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2014/07/29/oakland-raiders-san-antonio-los-angeles.html
Find it hard to believe that this is anything other than a power play for LA.
I saw a lot of Jags fans gloating about this on social media. If the past (and still sometimes present) is any reminder, these rumors suck for the current NFL city and fans of the team. I promised I'd never throw moving a team in some fans face ever again.
The Oakland Coliseum is truely a D-U-M-P. The Bay areas other Dump (Candlestick) has been replaced in the South Bay (Santa Clara). The Raiders have been trying to get a new stadium for decades... Both the A's and Raiders play in very sub standard facilities... screw Oakland.
The company I work for has an office in San Antonio. Everybody I talked to is taking it with a grain of salt as they went through the same thing with New Orleans a decade ago.
Jacksonville went through the same thing with the Colts and a few other franchises.
They are being played.
My guess is the Raiders end up in LA.
Quote from: Bridges on July 30, 2014, 08:22:39 AM
Find it hard to believe that this is anything other than a power play for LA.
I saw a lot of Jags fans gloating about this on social media. If the past (and still sometimes present) is any reminder, these rumors suck for the current NFL city and fans of the team. I promised I'd never throw moving a team in some fans face ever again.
The difference though is the Jacksonville rumors were based on nothing. The team plays in a nice facility and has a lease well into the next decade. Oakland plays in a dump and is able to move as they do not have a lease.
Not sure if this is true or not but I remember hearing Jerry Jones owns the market rights to San Antonio and can block any team moving there.
Quote from: FSBA on July 30, 2014, 08:51:17 AM
Not sure if this is true or not but I remember hearing Jerry Jones owns the market rights to San Antonio and can block any team moving there.
Im not sure if he alone could block anything. All owners have to approve a relocation anyways. I dont think in any situation one onwer has that much control.
Quote from: Bridges on July 30, 2014, 08:22:39 AM
Find it hard to believe that this is anything other than a power play for LA.
I saw a lot of Jags fans gloating about this on social media. If the past (and still sometimes present) is any reminder, these rumors suck for the current NFL city and fans of the team. I promised I'd never throw moving a team in some fans face ever again.
+1
I still don't believe San Antonio is a serious contender for an NFL team. Metro San Antonio by itself is not that much bigger than metro Jacksonville and is not a particularly wealthy area, and it's already supporting another pro franchise very strongly. I don't think it could handle a second.
San Antonio and Austin combined make more sense as a market, because those two metros together are around 4 million people and only 60-70 miles apart. But you'd probably have to build a modern, expensive stadium halfway between, in San Marcos or someplace. The UT stadium is far too big, and the Alamodome is 25 years old and not up to the standards of most NFL stadiums.
And the X factor in all of this is that the Cowboys have such a death grip over most Texans' loyalties that it's hard to imagine a new team in Texas luring that many fans away, even though there's more than enough population to support a third one.
QuoteThe Raiders have been trying to get a new stadium for decades... Both the A's and Raiders play in very sub standard facilities... screw Oakland.
Quote from: pierre on July 30, 2014, 08:31:55 AM
The difference though is the Jacksonville rumors were based on nothing. The team plays in a nice facility and has a lease well into the next decade. Oakland plays in a dump and is able to move as they do not have a lease.
Everyone always says there's a difference. But in the end, one team's fans will be crushed. Leases can be broken, I assure you. The threat of moving teams is always present and a weapon that teams can use against their city, state, and fans.
Just caution people to not gloat over others misfortunes.
It just may be a power a play. How many NFL team used Jax for the same thing? The Houston Oliers were one of many who used us as power play and ended striking a deal with their city at the end. I dont by any means gloat over this, but the Raiders are in a bad situation. Their attendance has been dead last in the league for a very long time now. Reality is how long will the Raiders be able to survive in Oakland? At the this point they are on life support and the city has no money and no answers. Unfortunate for them, relocating may end up being the end result.
Quote from: pierre on July 30, 2014, 08:31:55 AM
Quote from: Bridges on July 30, 2014, 08:22:39 AM
Find it hard to believe that this is anything other than a power play for LA.
I saw a lot of Jags fans gloating about this on social media. If the past (and still sometimes present) is any reminder, these rumors suck for the current NFL city and fans of the team. I promised I'd never throw moving a team in some fans face ever again.
The difference though is the Jacksonville rumors were based on nothing. The team plays in a nice facility and has a lease well into the next decade. Oakland plays in a dump and is able to move as they do not have a lease.
nothing n wishful thinking on behalf of national media and sports fans who have it set in their mind Jacksonville is no where and should remain as such.
Then there's all these people asking why the Raiders don't consider Portland, which just strikes me as bizarre.
Is Portland wealthy and populous enough to support another pro franchise? Absolutely.
But it's obvious Seahawks territory, to the extent it shows interest in the NFL at all; and it has nothing even remotely close to an NFL-size or -grade stadium. After adding a new NBA arena and MLS stadium in recent years and a protracted battle over a AAA baseball stadium, I can't imagine Portland would have any interest in funding a modern NFL stadium.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 30, 2014, 08:29:32 AM
The Oakland Coliseum is truely a D-U-M-P. The Bay areas other Dump (Candlestick) has been replaced in the South Bay (Santa Clara). The Raiders have been trying to get a new stadium for decades... Both the A's and Raiders play in very sub standard facilities... screw Oakland.
And the Golden State Warriors are moving back to San Francisco in 2018.
Speaking of potential relocations, it sounds like a Buffalo billionaire has made an enormous bid to buy the Bills, possibly as high as $1.3 million.
I've had bad experiences with a fair number of Bills fans, but good for Buffalo if that is true. I'd hate to see any city lose a franchise to relocation.
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on July 30, 2014, 10:10:26 AM
Then there's all these people asking why the Raiders don't consider Portland, which just strikes me as bizarre.
Is Portland wealthy and populous enough to support another pro franchise? Absolutely.
But it's obvious Seahawks territory, to the extent it shows interest in the NFL at all; and it has nothing even remotely close to an NFL-size or -grade stadium. After adding a new NBA arena and MLS stadium in recent years and a protracted battle over a AAA baseball stadium, I can't imagine Portland would have any interest in funding a modern NFL stadium.
Portland has had a bad track record of supporting major league football, I think the WFL averaged about 4,000 per game. San Antonio has been in this quest at least as long as Jacksonville. I don't know about Austin, but it would seem to me to be an even better choice due to growth. San Antonio should be great for Futbol however... If they can pull it off, more power to them.
I think we should rename that team 'THE USA RAIDERS' hell just a couple more cities and 'they've been everywhere!'
Interesting that a "dump" is anything built between 1958 and 1998 now. Wrigley and Fenway have less amenities than any pro sports stadium in use today. And they seem to work OK.
Oakland is constrained by the fact it is one of the last multi use stadiums still around.
Portland has already come out and said they have no interest in NFL.
San Antonio has some things that drives the interest. ATT HQ and the Austin TV market. I could think of several mid size metros that could support NFL just as easily as SA.
Birmingham comes to mind first.
NFL won't allow the west coast to lose 2 teams, so if anything its leverage to get a deal back into LA.
Quote from: funwithteeth on July 30, 2014, 10:59:09 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 30, 2014, 08:29:32 AM
The Oakland Coliseum is truely a D-U-M-P. The Bay areas other Dump (Candlestick) has been replaced in the South Bay (Santa Clara). The Raiders have been trying to get a new stadium for decades... Both the A's and Raiders play in very sub standard facilities... screw Oakland.
And the Golden State Warriors are moving back to San Francisco in 2018.
Lol... I forgot about THAT dump! The sports teams of Oakland have put up with substandard facilities for decades...
Quote from: spuwho on July 30, 2014, 12:23:17 PM
Birmingham comes to mind first.
Yep. If Birmingham could get a stadium funded, it would make perfect sense, even though it's not a high-growth area. It has football passion and the only-game-in-town factor very much in its favor.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 30, 2014, 12:19:09 PM
Portland has had a bad track record of supporting major league football, I think the WFL averaged about 4,000 per game. San Antonio has been in this quest at least as long as Jacksonville. I don't know about Austin, but it would seem to me to be an even better choice due to growth. San Antonio should be great for Futbol however... If they can pull it off, more power to them.
I think we should rename that team 'THE USA RAIDERS' hell just a couple more cities and 'they've been everywhere!'
Portland also didn't support the USFL Breakers well, nor did San Antonio take to the Gunslingers.
I remember seeing a joke years ago suggesting the Raiders be renamed the Atchison, Topeka, and the Santa Fe Raiders.
London Raiders? ;)
Quote from: spuwho on July 30, 2014, 12:23:17 PM
Interesting that a "dump" is anything built between 1958 and 1998 now. Wrigley and Fenway have less amenities than any pro sports stadium in use today. And they seem to work OK.
Oakland is constrained by the fact it is one of the last multi use stadiums still around.
Portland has already come out and said they have no interest in NFL.
San Antonio has some things that drives the interest. ATT HQ and the Austin TV market. I could think of several mid size metros that could support NFL just as easily as SA.
Birmingham comes to mind first.
NFL won't allow the west coast to lose 2 teams, so if anything its leverage to get a deal back into LA.
If your house was built in 1958 and not properly taken care of, it would be considered a dump. Thats the issue. The Saints dome was built in the 70's (correct me if Im off), and the dome is by far a dump. You have to put money into these facilities. Everbank field is nearing 20 years old. Had we not renovated it and added amenities multiple times, it would be complete DUMP
Quote from: spuwho on July 30, 2014, 12:23:17 PM
Interesting that a "dump" is anything built between 1958 and 1998 now. Wrigley and Fenway have less amenities than any pro sports stadium in use today. And they seem to work OK.
Oakland is constrained by the fact it is one of the last multi use stadiums still around.
Portland has already come out and said they have no interest in NFL.
San Antonio has some things that drives the interest. ATT HQ and the Austin TV market. I could think of several mid size metros that could support NFL just as easily as SA.
Birmingham comes to mind first.
NFL won't allow the west coast to lose 2 teams, so if anything its leverage to get a deal back into LA.
That is because the Oakland Coliseum is a dump. It has been poorly maintained. It has constant sewer problems.
Al Davis did major renovations on it less than 20 years ago and it actually made it worse.
The bar has been set a lot higher in the last 20 years by all the Taj Mahal stadiums that have been built. College football stadiums are almost without exception "dumps" compared to NFL stadiums, and generally much older, but it doesn't hurt them at all. In fact, a number of them draw even bigger crowds. The big leagues are monopolies so they can get what they want from the host cities.
I think San Antonio would be a great NFL market. However, it's hard to see this as anything but a power play to work a stadium deal of some sort back home. And I'm with Bridges, I don't take any joy in another city potentially losing its team.
Other than Soldier Field and Lambeau, which have been so heavily renovated in the recent past as to have been virtually rebuilt, Oakland's Coliseum is the oldest stadium in the NFL now that the 49ers get to go to their new palace. It was built in the 60s, shortly before the Chargers' stadium.
An older stadium can stay competitive with extensive renovations. The Saints and Chiefs are proof of that. But Buffalo, Oakland, and San Diego's stadiums have been looking pretty ratty, especially Oakland with the sewage issues. Candlestick also looked awful in recent years.
It's also possible for a not-very-old stadium to lose its competitiveness. The best description I've read of the Rams' stadium is that of a "poorly lit Costco." The Falcons are looking to replace the Georgia Dome, and San Antonio's Alamodome is no longer NFL-grade either.
1920s: Bears (but saying Soldier Field was built in the 20s is almost like saying EverBank Field was built in the 20s)
1950s: Packers
1960s: Raiders, Chargers
1970s: Bills, Chiefs, Saints
1980s: Dolphins
1990s: Ravens, Browns, Jaguars, Titans, Redskins, Panthers, Bucs, Falcons, Rams
2000 to present: Patriots, Jets/Giants, Bengals, Steelers, Colts, Texans, Broncos, Cowboys, Eagles, Lions, Vikings, 49ers, Seahawks, Cardinals
Lambeau is constantly being upgraded...
(http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/51/files/HLIC/6d6a3dfcf1960a485717bbdcd77eb33e.jpg)
(http://prod.static.packers.clubs.nfl.com/assets/images/lambeau-field/lambeau--field-1985.jpg)
(http://www.turnerconstruction.com/Files/ProjectImage?url=%2Fsites%2Fmarketingstories%2FMarketing%2520Story%2520Images%2Foriginal.9bbaf0e0-3d09-4185-8c65-fbc598ceb453.jpg&width=707&height=470&crop=True&jpegQuality=95)
Seating capacity
32,500 (1957–1960)
38,669 (1961–1962)
42,327 (1963–1964)
50,852 (1965–1969)
56,263 (1970–1984)
56,926 (1985–1989)
59,543 (1990–1994)
60,890 (1995–2001)
65,290/66,110 (2002)
72,515 (2003)
72,569 (2004)
72,601 (2005)
72,922 (2006)
72,928 (2007–2010)
73,128 (2011)
73,094 (2012)
80,750 (2013)
80,978 (2014)