OT: the Raiders - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: OT: the Raiders (/thread-13628.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: OT: the Raiders (/thread-13628.html)
Re: OT: the Raiders - fullmetal - 03-27-2017
In this day and age, can you really bet against the NFL? There are worse bets out there...
Re: OT: the Raiders - dabigv13 - 03-28-2017
The NFL is clearly winning. Vegas taxpayers OTOH...
Re: OT: the Raiders - 82 Card - 03-28-2017
(03-27-2017, 02:40 PM)Mick link Wrote:.... And the New York Jets were the New York Titans for their first three years.....
Adopting Jets for a name when moving into a stadium built under the LaGuardia takeoff pattern was appropriate. Might as well own it instead of complaining about the din. By the same logic, the Raiders should become Vegas Hustlers.
Never been a fan of the Raiders or Vegas. To me, it's a perfect marriage.
Re: OT: the Raiders - Goose - 03-28-2017
(03-28-2017, 12:00 AM)dabigv link Wrote:The NFL is clearly winning. Vegas taxpayers OTOH...Being originally from Las Vegas, I can tell you that the Las Vegas taxpayers believe (and, in the past, were largely correct) that taxes on casinos and entertainment pay for everything. That was true in the past. It is still mostly true. There is no state income tax. For years, Nevada had a 3% sales tax while California had a 7% sales tax. However, in their continued efforts to act like California, Nevada has gotten away from this simpler time. I myself will believe this is all going to happen when the stadium is actually finished. Las Vegas has a long history of announcing projects with great fanfare and then seeing lots of them quietly slip away.
Re: OT: the Raiders - dabigv13 - 03-28-2017
Yeah, I mean most of these stadium deals get a lot of funding from hotel taxes and the like, but that just means less tourists will come or hotels have to lower their rates. No free lunch.
Re: OT: the Raiders - Goose - 03-28-2017
(03-28-2017, 07:11 AM)dabigv link Wrote:Yeah, I mean most of these stadium deals get a lot of funding from hotel taxes and the like, but that just means less tourists will come or hotels have to lower their rates. No free lunch.One would think that would be the case. One would also think that people wouldn't travel thousands of miles to a very hot, dry, place to play games the expected value of which is less than 0. But they do. In Las Vegas, for the taxpayers, it has been very much a free lunch for about 70 years. Not so much now, maybe only a very cheap lunch.
Re: OT: the Raiders - Mick - 03-28-2017
(03-27-2017, 03:27 PM)Phogge link Wrote:And why are they called the Dodgers Mick?
It's a pretty well-known fact that they were named because their customers had to dodge streetcars, or trolley cars in the vernacular of the day. Some people think they were originally referred to as the Trolley Dodgers in the Scranton, PA Tribune on May 11, 1895, but in fact, the first reference to "Trolley Car Dodgers" was in a May 4, 1895 article in none other than the San Francisco Chronicle. The actual word "Dodgers" didn't appear on their uniform until 1933.
What's less well known is that the old, 5 MPH, horse-drawn streetcars were replaced by 15 MPH electric street cars in 1892. Pedestrians were unaccustomed to having to dodge (or Dodge) any vehicle to that point, if you stepped out in front of a horse, they would just stop. But the new electric streetcars didn't and couldn't and wouldn't stop on a dime, so pedestrians got hit all the time. The Brooklyn Dodgers were named after terrified pedestrians at a time when the streets formerly belonged to pedestrians. Lots of children were killed and maimed by the new streetcars. 51 people were killed in 1983, 34 in 1894 because people weren't accustomed to having to look both ways when they crossed the street.
The Arctic explorer R. E. Peary said Brooklyn streets were more dangerous to travel than the Arctic. By 1895 more than 100 people had been killed and 450 had been injured.
Before they were the Dodgers, they were known as the Bridegrooms because seven Brooklyn players got married on the same day in 1888.
![[Image: Business+is+fully+resumed+on+all+our+lin...7+1895.jpg]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Kv1pPhS8ao8/U0NC-DzkcwI/AAAAAAAAAWE/wRwF3yh6XcY/s1600/Business+is+fully+resumed+on+all+our+lines+-+The+World+February+27+1895.jpg)
Re: OT: the Raiders - dabigv13 - 03-28-2017
(03-28-2017, 08:35 AM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=dabigv link=topic=16724.msg190780#msg190780 date=1490710301]One would think that would be the case. One would also think that people wouldn't travel thousands of miles to a very hot, dry, place to play games the expected value of which is less than 0. But they do. In Las Vegas, for the taxpayers, it has been very much a free lunch for about 70 years. Not so much now, maybe only a very cheap lunch.
Yeah, I mean most of these stadium deals get a lot of funding from hotel taxes and the like, but that just means less tourists will come or hotels have to lower their rates. No free lunch.
[/quote]
Vegas may be less sensitive to that than other locales. I remember when San Diego had their stadium deal on ballot, and hotel taxes were a big part of it. Some people just think that's free money....
Re: OT: the Raiders - fullmetal - 03-28-2017
(03-28-2017, 07:11 AM)dabigv link Wrote:Yeah, I mean most of these stadium deals get a lot of funding from hotel taxes and the like, but that just means less tourists will come or hotels have to lower their rates. No free lunch.
There are a lot of aging hotels just off-Strip with poor occupancy numbers in Vegas. Not really a good look for them anyway.
Re: OT: the Raiders - DC 86 - 03-28-2017
(03-28-2017, 02:04 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:[quote author=dabigv link=topic=16724.msg190780#msg190780 date=1490710301]
Yeah, I mean most of these stadium deals get a lot of funding from hotel taxes and the like, but that just means less tourists will come or hotels have to lower their rates. No free lunch.
There are a lot of aging hotels just off-Strip with poor occupancy numbers in Vegas. Not really a good look for them anyway.
[/quote]
Speaking as a part-time resident there are a handful of struggling hotels, but overall occupancy in 2016 was 90.8% which was the highest rate since 2007, and marked the third year in a row that overall occupancy rate has risen. In fact, occupancy has risen even as most hotels have repeatedly increased their infamous "resort fee" surcharges over the last few years.
Re: OT: the Raiders - Stymie - 03-28-2017
Vegas and the Radiers is a marriage made in Heaven (or maybe Hell). I was a massive AFL fan from 1960 onward, and actually attended a New York Titans game at the Polo Grounds and a Boston Patriots game at what used to be Braves Field, then (and now) the home of the BU football team.Â
The AFL was full of thugs and former has beens (e.g. George Blanda), and Al Davis was both the savoir of the league and the Public Enemy No. One of what was then the NFL. I've got a good friend from Wales who travels to watch the Raiders and stopping on the way in Vegas every year. This will cut their air fares significantly.
Re: OT: the Raiders - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 03-28-2017
(03-27-2017, 01:11 PM)Phogge link Wrote:Another silly name is San Francisco 49ers who play 44 miles away from The City.
They still play in the San Francisco Bay Area, though. I've never understood the consternation over the 49ers retaining the San Francisco name. The Glendale Cardinals, Irving Cowboys, Orchard Park Bills, East Rutherford Giants/Jets, Miami Gardens Dolphins, and Inglewood Rams/Chargers don't have very nice rings to them; I don't think Santa Clara 49ers would either. I'll hesitantly add Landover Redskins to that list while hoping any replies can keep their focus on the geography component of the name.
Re: OT: the Raiders - M T - 03-28-2017
(03-28-2017, 07:11 AM)dabigv link Wrote:Yeah, I mean most of these stadium deals get a lot of funding from hotel taxes and the like, but that just means less tourists will come or hotels have to lower their rates. No free lunch.
I HATE the fact that every time I go to Houston, I pay big bucks towards the Astros stadium in the way of car rental taxes. The total taxes are more than the amount the car rental company gets. I'm sure if I stay in a hotel, I'll be paying it more and more.
Is that happening in the South (SF) Bay now, now that there is a pro stadium? Is that what happened in SF for the new Giants stadium?
I heard a business reporter from Vegas on the radio who indicated it would be "$1" or so every night for tourists. (My guess is it will get tacked onto hotel bills, taxi rides, restaurant bills, car rental, airport fees, etc. You have to add up a lot of $1 to get to $750M) Bad deal for the tourists. Personally, I hope the casinos get fed up with the people coming in for games (or concerts) pushing out people who come to gamble, and in turn push out Al Davis.Â
The Nevada legislature surely bet a lot of money on one man who has proven to be rather fickle.
What was it our forefathers fought for? Taxation without representation is for tourists!
Well, why am I complaining? I've been to Vegas once, and I sure don't plan to go again anytime soon.
Re: OT: the Raiders - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 03-28-2017
(03-28-2017, 07:23 PM)MT link Wrote:[quote author=dabigv link=topic=16724.msg190780#msg190780 date=1490710301]
Yeah, I mean most of these stadium deals get a lot of funding from hotel taxes and the like, but that just means less tourists will come or hotels have to lower their rates. No free lunch.
I HATE the fact that every time I go to Houston, I pay big bucks towards the Astros stadium in the way of car rental taxes. The total taxes are more than the amount the car rental company gets. I'm sure if I stay in a hotel, I'll be paying it more and more.
Is that happening in the South (SF) Bay now, now that there is a pro stadium? Is that what happened in SF for the new Giants stadium?
I heard a business reporter from Vegas on the radio who indicated it would be "$1" or so every night for tourists. (My guess is it will get tacked onto hotel bills, taxi rides, restaurant bills, car rental, airport fees, etc. You have to add up a lot of $1 to get to $750M) Bad deal for the tourists. Personally, I hope the casinos get fed up with the people coming in for games (or concerts) pushing out people who come to gamble, and in turn push out Al Davis.Â
The Nevada legislature surely bet a lot of money on one man who has proven to be rather fickle.
What was it our forefathers fought for? Taxation without representation is for tourists!
Well, why am I complaining? I've been to Vegas once, and I sure don't plan to go again anytime soon.
[/quote]
AT&T Park (where the Giants play) was privately funded, as stadiums should be. The new arena for the Warriors in San Francisco (Chase Center) will be as well. The 49ers took significant public funding in the building of Levi's Stadium I believe.
Re: OT: the Raiders - Goose - 03-28-2017
Well, I am probably ahead of everybody on this board in one respect. I have actually seen the Raiders play in Las Vegas. I attended the 1964 exhibition game against the Houston Oilers. It was at the old Cashman field. At that time, the seats were all concrete and on the south side of the stadium (the "hill" side). I don't think there were any seats, even bleachers, on the other side. People could get down on the field easily. I actually stood down there as the players walked from the buses onto the field. They seemed decidedly unhappy to be there.
Re: OT: the Raiders - 82lsju - 03-28-2017
Roger Noll, Stanford economics professor emeritus, understands the inflamed passions of pro football fans. But he warns emotions can cloud good financial decisions when it comes to moving the Raiders to Las Vegas.
Noll rejects the financial projections Nevada lawmakers used to pass a bill to contribute $750 million to a proposed $1.9 billion NFL stadium next to the Strip.
It is a catenation of optimistic assumptions, he said. The probability that it could happen isnt zero, but it is pretty close to zero.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/22/raiders-las-vegas-plan-flimsy-stanford-economist-says/
Re: OT: the Raiders - BostonCard - 03-28-2017
Quick back-of-the-envelope calculation...
Interest rate for A rated municipal bonds is currently 3.6% (Las Vegas is rated AA2).
30-year amortization of $750 million is $40.4 million per year.
Number of tourist visits to Las Vegas in 2015... 42 million.
So yeah, $1 per tourist visit could pay for the stadium over 30 years.
BC
Re: OT: the Raiders - fullmetal - 03-28-2017
They haven't stayed put in a single location for 30 years yet :P
Re: OT: the Raiders - CompSci87 - 03-28-2017
(03-28-2017, 09:25 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:They haven't stayed put in a single location for 30 years yet :P
Raid and move on. Hence the name.
Re: OT: the Raiders - Nan3cy - 03-28-2017
They would do well to remember the first rule for Vikings: Always pillage before you burn...