Raiders/Chargers in Joint Proposal for Los Angeles - Page 10 - NFL UK Forums
NFL UK Mobile Logo
Go Back   NFL UK Forums > National Football League > NFL season

  #91  
Old 20.08.2015, 03:56 PM
stocksy's Avatar
stocksy stocksy is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 25.10.2008
Posts: 6,195
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider12 View Post
This is one of the problems with the NFL. Location/Revenue/Popularity. Its a difficult balancing act to achieve if your team is not performing, at least satisfactorily year after year. The Raiders haven't which explains in some ways truthfully our demise.

However maybe by having a cleaner fresher approach to this, including stadium sharing some difficulties including performance will improve.


Mark
Do you think relocation can alter performance?

Never really thought about it like that. I guess a better location makes you more appealing to FAs.

Draft policy is still killing a few franchises IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 20.08.2015, 04:07 PM
iffies's Avatar
iffies iffies is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 08.09.2006
Posts: 5,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
so how much did the Raiders make last season?

(as it must of been something since NFL teams seem to make profits due to the setup.)
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11...ers-financials
According to figures released by the Packers (obliged to do so as a publicly owned team), total NFL revenue was $6bn, meaning each team got $180m (before expenses). If, on average, using the above figures, each team makes a profit of $25m, that means owners have to have a substantial reserve away from the team to be able to fund a new stadium entirely on their own (fine for the Jerry Joneses but Mark Davis has to rely on the team for any income).
Davis has said he can contribute $400m to a new stadium, but even with a possible $200m contribution from the NFL, that's still some way short of the estimated $1bn for a new stadium.

Last edited by iffies; 20.08.2015 at 04:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 20.08.2015, 04:12 PM
goodkarma84's Avatar
goodkarma84 goodkarma84 is offline
GOAT
 
Join Date: 15.09.2008
Posts: 27,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iffies View Post
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11...ers-financials
According to figures released by the Packers (obliged to do so as a publicly owned team), total NFL revenue was $6bn, meaning each team got $180m (before expenses). If, on average, using the above figures, each team makes a profit of $25m, that means owners have to have a substantial reserve away from the team to be able to fund a new stadium entirely on their own (fine for the Jerry Joneses but Mark Davis has to rely on the team for any income).
Davis has said he can contribute $400m to a new stadium, but even with a possible $200m contribution from the NFL, that's still some way short of the estimated $1bn for a new stadium.
surely a bank would be willing to offer up a loan for the rest?

an NFL side seems like a pretty safe investment
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 20.08.2015, 05:58 PM
Raider12's Avatar
Raider12 Raider12 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 05.09.2003
Posts: 11,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stocksy View Post
Do you think relocation can alter performance?

Never really thought about it like that. I guess a better location makes you more appealing to FAs.

Draft policy is still killing a few franchises IMHO.
I think location can affect performance Stocksy. If you work in a bad environment eventually it does impact on your performance and the flipside fir a good one.
Al moved us in 95 with a decent team, but eventually we have got so low is no laughing matter. I know a lot has to do with Al/staff/players and more including the stadium. The Coliseum is a dump and I have never liked it. But relocation may seem like running away from a problem, without first finding a solution. This is probably tge reverse of 95, but money and Al were speaking then.

Sometimes you have to cut your losses and take different approach, like this.

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 21.08.2015, 12:24 AM
jack1's Avatar
jack1 jack1 is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 20.10.2006
Posts: 2,517
Send a message via MSN to jack1 Send a message via Skype™ to jack1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider12 View Post
It really is an odd situation with 3 teams obviously vieing for a realistic one team LA.

In all honesty I can live with a Chargers/raiders shared stadium, makes sense financially and probably televison rites as well.

Mark
Have you not been following the news recently? It looks likely that 2 teams will be moved to LA.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 21.08.2015, 12:34 AM
jack1's Avatar
jack1 jack1 is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 20.10.2006
Posts: 2,517
Send a message via MSN to jack1 Send a message via Skype™ to jack1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by European Bob View Post
I assume because it will be a privately financed stadium and neither has the cash nor the backing to afford it by itself. They've bought the land together so it is very much a joint project, not a one-team project.

Both stadiums won't be built. We'll either have the Rams in their stadium or the Chargers/Raiders in their stadium. I've heard nothing to suggest that if it is the Rams we'll have a 2nd team trying to share that stadium. To me, LA doesn't need 2 teams and 1 is enough. But if the best way to make a team happen is the shared Raiders/Chargers one then 2 it will have to be. I think if there are 2 it is very important that they start at the same time. I'm not sure if that's the reason, but the Jets started a lot later than the Giants and have significantly fewer fans than the Giants too.
The Rams haven't ruled out sharing as far as I'm aware but IMO if that happened it would be with the the other team as the tenant. I definitely agree about the teams starting at the same time, if that didn't happen it would be very difficult for the team starting second.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 21.08.2015, 12:38 AM
jack1's Avatar
jack1 jack1 is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 20.10.2006
Posts: 2,517
Send a message via MSN to jack1 Send a message via Skype™ to jack1
Default

Here's some new visuals of the Carson project, it definitely doesn't look as ready as Inglewood.

http://www.sbnation.com/2015/8/18/91...-valet-parking
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 21.08.2015, 03:41 PM
boknows34's Avatar
boknows34 boknows34 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 03.03.2006
Posts: 15,471
Default

Just Move Baby.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 22.08.2015, 02:43 PM
Marcus_H's Avatar
Marcus_H Marcus_H is offline
Rookie
 
Join Date: 08.10.2013
Posts: 17
Default

There is also an idea floating around that the two teams will literally do this;

Oakland Raiders move to San Diego using the Chargers old stadium, and the Chargers move to LA.

Raiders have said they don't need a new place they only require somewhere to suit their needs.

This is a poll of Chargers 3000+ chargers fans to this question...

If the Chargers move to LA and the Raiders move to San Diego, who would have your support?

27% I would root for the Los Angeles Chargers
(842 votes)
36% I would root for the San Diego Raiders
(1123 votes)
14% I would root for some other team
(420 votes)
11% I would not root for any team, but would continue watching the NFL
(348 votes)
11% I would stop watching the NFL
(352 votes)

Even the LA Sun Times believe the Chargers are the most likely franchise to move to LA. Any team moving to the city would require approval from at least 24 of the 32 teams and that isn't likely to come until Jan 2016 earliest.

I am pleased that Rivers is finishing his career with the Chargers in San Diego. He has done us great for 11 years. I find it difficult to think that my beloved San Diego could be without the Chargers.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 22.08.2015, 03:43 PM
iffies's Avatar
iffies iffies is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 08.09.2006
Posts: 5,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus_H View Post
There is also an idea floating around that the two teams will literally do this;

Oakland Raiders move to San Diego using the Chargers old stadium, and the Chargers move to LA.

Raiders have said they don't need a new place they only require somewhere to suit their needs.

This is a poll of Chargers 3000+ chargers fans to this question...

If the Chargers move to LA and the Raiders move to San Diego, who would have your support?

27% I would root for the Los Angeles Chargers
(842 votes)
36% I would root for the San Diego Raiders
(1123 votes)
14% I would root for some other team
(420 votes)
11% I would not root for any team, but would continue watching the NFL
(348 votes)
11% I would stop watching the NFL
(352 votes)

Even the LA Sun Times believe the Chargers are the most likely franchise to move to LA. Any team moving to the city would require approval from at least 24 of the 32 teams and that isn't likely to come until Jan 2016 earliest.

I am pleased that Rivers is finishing his career with the Chargers in San Diego. He has done us great for 11 years. I find it difficult to think that my beloved San Diego could be without the Chargers.
Does that not say something about the fickle nature of (admittedly a small sample size) Chargers fans? So 9% would rather change allegiance to a new team than keep following their team that moves just down the road (in US geographical terms anyway)?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 02:01 AM.