(07-30-2014 12:06 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:11 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:02 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  As a native San Antonian, I'd love for us to have a NFL franchise, but I can see a lot of powerful interests that don't want SA to have one because it would keep them from following an established franchise.

Still, I hope it happens anyway because SA has passion that makes up for its lack of size relative to other markets.

(and the downside would be that an NFL franchise would probably kill most of the enthusiasm for UTSA)

SA is being played again...Doubt the Cowboys and Texans want a 3rd team.

I agree if it ever came, UTSA would be playing in front of 10-12k fans.

Disagree. You would have the same situation as you would with the Bucs/USF in Tampa, and USF has had several seasons in the 40-50K range with the Bucs also in town. Not to mention, UTSA tickets would be much more affordable to the average Joe than the NFL. If UTSA puts out a good product, they'll always draw a relatively decent crowd.

The key thing is UTSA would have to be good and the SA NFL team pretty bad for that to happen. I heard UTSA is serious about building a stadium on campus. If that happens, not as many Big Boy schools would be willing to sign up for a home/home with UTSA. BullsFaninTX...I sent you a PM.

(07-30-2014 12:52 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  The key thing is UTSA would have to be good and the SA NFL team pretty bad for that to happen. I heard UTSA is serious about building a stadium on campus. If that happens, not as many Big Boy schools would be willing to sign up for a home/home with UTSA. BullsFaninTX...I sent you a PM.

I don't think UTSA is going to build an on campus stadium anytime soon. UTSA just doesn't have the money for it. Plus, UTSA needs a new basketball/volleyball arena. That would have to happen first.

The Convocation Center is substandard.

(07-30-2014 11:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:13 AM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:09 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 10:45 AM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  Articles like that are exactly what he and his staff want. You think MySanAntonio has any idea how serious Mark Davis is?

But he has no audience for this power play. Again, Oakland has no money and LA won't ever play the game. So I think the interest is legit because San Antonio can give Davis everything he wants.

Oakland can give the Raiders what they want, any sizeable city can get money. Their audience is Oakland.

Some cities might be able to do that, but not Oakland. Atlanta is paying its portion of the new Dome via a hotel/motel tax. Others metro areas bankroll these new deals via an increased sales tax. But no one wants to travel to Oakland and the median income levels don't justify raising taxes. You could issue a bond, but who would buy it, Oakland residents? I'm sure they'd prefer more cops. Banks are of course well aware of most major cities unfunded pension liabilities and requisite negative credit ratings. I just think that this is more than just a leverage play.

Panthers just funded their stadium renovations via a sales tax increase. You don't question raising a sales tax 1/4 of a penny based on median income, that's ridiculous. That's a question you ask when talking about income tax. Some take money from the estate tax, some use tax incentives to pry a corporation or private investment firm to do something. If a city wants a sports team to stay, they can get the money.

In Oakland's case, they have one of the busiest ports in the country, and a lot of companies do utilize Oakland. In fact, Oakland is considered one of the gateways to American commerce. They do also gain a lot of tax revenue from the Port of Oakland. It is a sh*thole, but it's got a more robust economy than you think.

I agree it will be awhile before UTSA leaves the Alamo dome. money and space are a big issue for them and as pointed out, the big boys wont be so quick to sign series with them if they arent playing at the Alamodome where their alums can buy up a lot of tickets and then walk to the Riverwalk/downtown after the game.

(07-30-2014 01:27 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I agree it will be awhile before UTSA leaves the Alamo dome. money and space are a big issue for them and as pointed out, the big boys wont be so quick to sign series with them if they arent playing at the Alamodome where their alums can buy up a lot of tickets and then walk to the Riverwalk/downtown after the game.

My coworker siad the land is set aside already...it will be part of the new Athletics complex. That is what he was told by a UTSA rep during FR orientation.

Are you talking about the Park West development? Because I thought Lynne Hickey said there wouldn't be enough room there for a stadium after all the other projects are completed. Maybe thats changed or I'm not remembering it correctly.

(07-30-2014 10:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  As the city of LA has demonstrated for the past 20 years, they have no intention of financing a new stadium. As such, a new stadium must be privately financed. The NFL won't allow any team to play in the Colisuem or Rose Bowl unless construction has already begun on the new facility. But the two current investors with the potential and the capital to build a new stadium want either a 50% stake or total ownership of a franchise before a shovel hits the ground, thus running counter to Mark Davis' wishes of total control. Any hope for the Raiders move to LA rests on the NFL's desire build its own stadium in LA and lease it to Mark Davis for the homes games. Talk is that the the NFL would move the Draft, the Combine and the Pro Bowl all to this new facility. Sales from naming rights, parking and hosting events such as Super Bowls, Final Fours, World Cup matches would easily allow the Shield to recoup their investment.

(My dream scenario is that the NFL buy to LA Live site and then build the Dodgers a new ballpark there, thus allowing the NFL to build a great stadium in Chavez Ravine)

There is enough room in Chavez Ravine to build a football stadium next to Dodger Stadium. But a monstrosity with a giant footprint like some of the newer NFL stadiums wouldn't fit next to Dodger Stadium.

Here's a guess: The NFL is waiting out the Raiders and hoping that Mark Davis gets no stadium and will be so squeezed financially that he sells the team. Then the NFL would work with the new Raiders owner on an LA stadium.

(07-30-2014 01:21 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:13 AM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:09 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 10:45 AM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  Articles like that are exactly what he and his staff want. You think MySanAntonio has any idea how serious Mark Davis is?

But he has no audience for this power play. Again, Oakland has no money and LA won't ever play the game. So I think the interest is legit because San Antonio can give Davis everything he wants.

Oakland can give the Raiders what they want, any sizeable city can get money. Their audience is Oakland.

Some cities might be able to do that, but not Oakland. Atlanta is paying its portion of the new Dome via a hotel/motel tax. Others metro areas bankroll these new deals via an increased sales tax. But no one wants to travel to Oakland and the median income levels don't justify raising taxes. You could issue a bond, but who would buy it, Oakland residents? I'm sure they'd prefer more cops. Banks are of course well aware of most major cities unfunded pension liabilities and requisite negative credit ratings. I just think that this is more than just a leverage play.

Panthers just funded their stadium renovations via a sales tax increase. You don't question raising a sales tax 1/4 of a penny based on median income, that's ridiculous. That's a question you ask when talking about income tax. Some take money from the estate tax, some use tax incentives to pry a corporation or private investment firm to do something. If a city wants a sports team to stay, they can get the money.

In Oakland's case, they have one of the busiest ports in the country, and a lot of companies do utilize Oakland. In fact, Oakland is considered one of the gateways to American commerce. They do also gain a lot of tax revenue from the Port of Oakland. It is a sh*thole, but it's got a more robust economy than you think.

We'll see. But the Oakland Coliseum was on its last legs when they added Mt. Davis 20 years ago. It facility obviously hasn't gotten any better. Combined with intransigence from the city with the A's as well, I just don't see any way the Raiders can stay in Oakland.

(07-30-2014 01:56 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 01:21 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:13 AM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:09 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  But he has no audience for this power play. Again, Oakland has no money and LA won't ever play the game. So I think the interest is legit because San Antonio can give Davis everything he wants.

Oakland can give the Raiders what they want, any sizeable city can get money. Their audience is Oakland.

Some cities might be able to do that, but not Oakland. Atlanta is paying its portion of the new Dome via a hotel/motel tax. Others metro areas bankroll these new deals via an increased sales tax. But no one wants to travel to Oakland and the median income levels don't justify raising taxes. You could issue a bond, but who would buy it, Oakland residents? I'm sure they'd prefer more cops. Banks are of course well aware of most major cities unfunded pension liabilities and requisite negative credit ratings. I just think that this is more than just a leverage play.

Panthers just funded their stadium renovations via a sales tax increase. You don't question raising a sales tax 1/4 of a penny based on median income, that's ridiculous. That's a question you ask when talking about income tax. Some take money from the estate tax, some use tax incentives to pry a corporation or private investment firm to do something. If a city wants a sports team to stay, they can get the money.

In Oakland's case, they have one of the busiest ports in the country, and a lot of companies do utilize Oakland. In fact, Oakland is considered one of the gateways to American commerce. They do also gain a lot of tax revenue from the Port of Oakland. It is a sh*thole, but it's got a more robust economy than you think.

We'll see. But the Oakland Coliseum was on its last legs when they added Mt. Davis 20 years ago. It facility obviously hasn't gotten any better. Combined with intransigence from the city with the A's as well, I just don't see any way the Raiders can stay in Oakland.

It's difficult to imagine a city government as incompetent as Oakland's being a part of a solution that would allow both the A's and Raiders to get new stadiums in Oakland.

(07-30-2014 01:56 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 01:21 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:13 AM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:09 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  But he has no audience for this power play. Again, Oakland has no money and LA won't ever play the game. So I think the interest is legit because San Antonio can give Davis everything he wants.

Oakland can give the Raiders what they want, any sizeable city can get money. Their audience is Oakland.

Some cities might be able to do that, but not Oakland. Atlanta is paying its portion of the new Dome via a hotel/motel tax. Others metro areas bankroll these new deals via an increased sales tax. But no one wants to travel to Oakland and the median income levels don't justify raising taxes. You could issue a bond, but who would buy it, Oakland residents? I'm sure they'd prefer more cops. Banks are of course well aware of most major cities unfunded pension liabilities and requisite negative credit ratings. I just think that this is more than just a leverage play.

Panthers just funded their stadium renovations via a sales tax increase. You don't question raising a sales tax 1/4 of a penny based on median income, that's ridiculous. That's a question you ask when talking about income tax. Some take money from the estate tax, some use tax incentives to pry a corporation or private investment firm to do something. If a city wants a sports team to stay, they can get the money.

In Oakland's case, they have one of the busiest ports in the country, and a lot of companies do utilize Oakland. In fact, Oakland is considered one of the gateways to American commerce. They do also gain a lot of tax revenue from the Port of Oakland. It is a sh*thole, but it's got a more robust economy than you think.

We'll see. But the Oakland Coliseum was on its last legs when they added Mt. Davis 20 years ago. It facility obviously hasn't gotten any better. Combined with intransigence from the city with the A's as well, I just don't see any way the Raiders can stay in Oakland.

Perhaps not, but I just see Oakland flat out folding and doing something. Oakland loses baseball and football (after losing the Warriors) in 1 fail swoop? Then we're really talking about problems.

But I do agree that you can't trust someone after they've let a disaster like that facility go on for as long as it has. I just don't think they're stupid enough to ruin their economy any more than they already have.

I'm interested in knowing what the citizens of Oakland think. Do they even care enough whether their team stays or not? They're a fantastic fan base, but are they willing to pay taxes to keep their team from moving? I don't think that's as easy of a question to answer (many would assume no).

(07-30-2014 01:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Are you talking about the Park West development? Because I thought Lynne Hickey said there wouldn't be enough room there for a stadium after all the other projects are completed. Maybe thats changed or I'm not remembering it correctly.

Yes, I think so...my coworker said it will be out by the Jock Dorms. Who knows if the UTSA rep knoew the real story...just threw it out there.

I love San Antonio. Great city. I visit there fairly often for ND football and baseball games.

ND hosts the week long "Irish Classic" at Nelson Wolff Stadium every late February/early March.

I would like to see San Antonio get an NFL franchise. I recall watching the San Antonio Gunslingers of the USFL circa 1984.

(07-30-2014 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 10:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  As the city of LA has demonstrated for the past 20 years, they have no intention of financing a new stadium. As such, a new stadium must be privately financed. The NFL won't allow any team to play in the Colisuem or Rose Bowl unless construction has already begun on the new facility. But the two current investors with the potential and the capital to build a new stadium want either a 50% stake or total ownership of a franchise before a shovel hits the ground, thus running counter to Mark Davis' wishes of total control. Any hope for the Raiders move to LA rests on the NFL's desire build its own stadium in LA and lease it to Mark Davis for the homes games. Talk is that the the NFL would move the Draft, the Combine and the Pro Bowl all to this new facility. Sales from naming rights, parking and hosting events such as Super Bowls, Final Fours, World Cup matches would easily allow the Shield to recoup their investment.

(My dream scenario is that the NFL buy to LA Live site and then build the Dodgers a new ballpark there, thus allowing the NFL to build a great stadium in Chavez Ravine)

There is enough room in Chavez Ravine to build a football stadium next to Dodger Stadium. But a monstrosity with a giant footprint like some of the newer NFL stadiums wouldn't fit next to Dodger Stadium.

Here's a guess: The NFL is waiting out the Raiders and hoping that Mark Davis gets no stadium and will be so squeezed financially that he sells the team. Then the NFL would work with the new Raiders owner on an LA stadium.

My understanding is that while you could fit an NFL stadium in the current Ravine footprint, but as you referenced, it wouldn't be ideal. While Dodgers Stadium was recently renovated, there are a great many improvement that a new coat of paint can't fix. The main complaint is that its difficult to get to from a traffic perspective during the weekday.

Like I said, its just a dream but I think it would be one that the NFL and MLB could make happen faster than any other stadium alternative. I agree with you though that the shield wants to kick Mark Davis out of the clubhouse. I just don't think they can out wait him.

I would see the Dallas Cowboys, Houston Texans, and the San Antonio Spurs fighting to keep a NFL team out of San Antonio. The Spurs want to rule the city. (I think) Dallas claims San Antonio as part of their extended television market even though Dallas is a long way from San Antonio.

I also think the Los Angeles issue is fairly significant for the NFL. The Raiders, Chargers, Rams, and (I feel) Jaguars are the prime teams to move to LA.

I agree with the person who speculates the NFL would prefer to shed Davis. Al Davis was a pain to the NFL. Davis's son just may not have the expertise to run a franchise.

(07-30-2014 10:34 AM)goofus Wrote:  http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/texas...ion-072914

The Raiders are talking with Alamo Dome and San Antonio about relocation. Odds are the Raiders are just using San Antonio to get a better deal somewhere in California but you never know.

I wonder how it would affect attendance for UTSA football if San Antonio would ever be able to land an NFL team.

An NFL team would kill UTSA, if time and rust (i.e. the novelty wearing off) wouldn't already.

(07-30-2014 11:14 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  This, people always knock the SA market, but don't realize just how huge the Austin/SA area is. It is one mega metro with over 4 million people combined. Downtown to downtown is 80 miles but from city limit to city limit it's only about 40 or 45 with New Braunfels and San Marcos in between as one continuous suburb.

That works for NFL because it's a one day, weekend event but not other sports (just for future reference when people tout SA for an MLB franchise).

(07-30-2014 12:52 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:06 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Disagree. You would have the same situation as you would with the Bucs/USF in Tampa, and USF has had several seasons in the 40-50K range with the Bucs also in town. Not to mention, UTSA tickets would be much more affordable to the average Joe than the NFL. If UTSA puts out a good product, they'll always draw a relatively decent crowd.

The key thing is UTSA would have to be good and the SA NFL team pretty bad for that to happen. I heard UTSA is serious about building a stadium on campus. If that happens, not as many Big Boy schools would be willing to sign up for a home/home with UTSA. BullsFaninTX...I sent you a PM.

Not only that but there's more disposable income in Tampa/St. Pete and South Florida was in a BCS conference almost immediately while UTSA may not even make it to the American any time soon. And SA is a transient city, are they gonna support not one but two novelties when one (the NFL) has a higher status (not to mention Texas State and very well established UT is only an hour or so away)? UTSA would be done short of going on a decade long Boise State type run. And even that may only do so much with an NFL team in town and limited dollars to go around.

This wouldn't have much impact on UTSA, which there isn't much to anyways.

(07-30-2014 10:55 AM)jarmzet Wrote:  A stadium built half way between Austin and San Antonio on I-35 (maybe in or near San Marcos) might work best. If you combine those two markets, you get about the 15th largest media market. The drive for most people from those two cities to a game would be about 45 minutes.

Truth be told, with the NFL, market size isn't as important as simply having a strong economy. Considering how many people drive from Milwaukee to Green Bay on game day, or really how many drive long distances to go to college games, if they got that far, they could easily build one in SA and still draw in Austin.

Besides if you build one half way between, that only works if you are paying for it yourself. SA is not going to pay to build a stadium 20 minutes outside of the city. As no city would.

(07-30-2014 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's difficult to imagine a city government as incompetent as Oakland's being a part of a solution that would allow both the A's and Raiders to get new stadiums in Oakland.

I don't know much about Oakland, but from afar that is a hard point to argue.

(07-30-2014 03:44 PM)chess Wrote:  I would see the Dallas Cowboys, Houston Texans, and the San Antonio Spurs fighting to keep a NFL team out of San Antonio. The Spurs want to rule the city. (I think) Dallas claims San Antonio as part of their extended television market even though Dallas is a long way from San Antonio.

I also think the Los Angeles issue is fairly significant for the NFL. The Raiders, Chargers, Rams, and (I feel) Jaguars are the prime teams to move to LA.

I agree with the person who speculates the NFL would prefer to shed Davis. Al Davis was a pain to the NFL. Davis's son just may not have the expertise to run a franchise.

Spurs owner said yesterday and Houston Texans owner said today they are not opposed to NFL in SA.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/pro-s...656931.php

“They need a new stadium,” McNair told the Houston Chronicle. “If San Antonio turns out to be the best option, I wouldn't oppose it just cause it's San Antonio.”

More news, Oakland officials realizing it could happen:

http://www.mercurynews.com/raiders/ci_26...-officials

The Raiders are in the final year of their lease in Oakland. Davis' often-stated preference is to build a new stadium on the current site, a wish complicated by a recent 10-year lease agreement by the A's to remain in Oakland.

While the A's lease includes a provision for allowing the Raiders to knock down O.co Coliseum to make way for a new football stadium, there remains an estimated $600 million funding gap, according to Oakland officials.

Moreover, city and team officials haven't even agreed on what type of stadium should be built. The Raiders have said they prefer a smaller, less expansive open-air stadium, while the city is studying the feasibility of a more expensive dome stadium that could attract additional events.

A city-driven effort to find private investors to pump money into a football stadium and adjacent entertainment center so far has been a failure. With both Oakland and Alameda County unwilling to issue stadium bonds -- both agencies are still on the hook for about $140 million for the stadium renovations that brought the Raiders back from Los Angeles -- politicians on Tuesday didn't fault Davis for exploring a move.

"We want the Raiders to stay, but not at any cost," Councilman Larry Reid said. "If the city of San Antonio is willing to float $600 million worth of bonds, then certainly that is an option for the Raiders to consider."
Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley, who also heads the board that oversees the Coliseum complex, said he would talk to team management next month to gauge their interest in a lease extension and discuss stadium options.

"(Mark Davis) has made it clear his preference is to stay in Oakland, but his preference may not cut it if we can't get the financing," Miley said. "If he can get it somewhere else, that is a business decision, and I respect that."

(07-30-2014 04:28 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 03:44 PM)chess Wrote:  I would see the Dallas Cowboys, Houston Texans, and the San Antonio Spurs fighting to keep a NFL team out of San Antonio. The Spurs want to rule the city. (I think) Dallas claims San Antonio as part of their extended television market even though Dallas is a long way from San Antonio.

I also think the Los Angeles issue is fairly significant for the NFL. The Raiders, Chargers, Rams, and (I feel) Jaguars are the prime teams to move to LA.

I agree with the person who speculates the NFL would prefer to shed Davis. Al Davis was a pain to the NFL. Davis's son just may not have the expertise to run a franchise.

Spurs owner said yesterday and Houston Texans owner said today they are not opposed to NFL in SA.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/pro-s...656931.php

“They need a new stadium,” McNair told the Houston Chronicle. “If San Antonio turns out to be the best option, I wouldn't oppose it just cause it's San Antonio.”

Interesting quote, but not surprising. It continues to show that even in this age of massive TV deals for sports rights that pro sports owners consider top stadium deals to be priority #1 (regardless of the market). McNair reflects the thinking that he's less worried about the poaching of San Antonio-based Texans fans than the larger game of ensuring that there is a pool of cities willing pony up $1 billion-plus for new stadiums for NFL teams to use as threats against existing NFL markets.