[82 Card]

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201...omists-say

This article is about RAMS move to Los Angeles but most of the arguments would apply to any stadium deal. My favorite passage:

"You have to get people in Los Angeles to spend money there that they wouldn’t have spent otherwise or money they would have spent outside of L.A. Or you get people to come from outside of L.A. and spend money in L.A.," he says. "The team itself is very small potatoes. It does not generate much revenue at all. If a Nordstrom was to leave L.A., it would have a bigger impact on the Los Angeles economy than a football team leaving St. Louis or moving into Los Angeles or whatever."

The Vegas boosters are counting on Vegas being the exception and being able to attract net new visitors. MT's suggestion that the stadium will just cannibalize casino spending seems more likely to me. It seems likely that a lot of visits to Vegas for Raiders games will displace trips that would have happened on other weekends anyway and will result in less spending at the usual attractions. There will be some additional trips for the games. However, there will also probably be people who stay away on game weekends in order to avoid Raiders fans.

Oakland's economy will be better off without sinking resources into a stadium. For a stadium to be successful, it would have to be on a site with good transit and auto access. A site like that would also be desirable for other types of development, most of which would produce higher value and more tax revenue for the city.

[82 Card]

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201...omists-say

This article is about RAMS move to Los Angeles but most of the arguments would apply to any stadium deal. My favorite passage:

"You have to get people in Los Angeles to spend money there that they wouldn’t have spent otherwise or money they would have spent outside of L.A. Or you get people to come from outside of L.A. and spend money in L.A.," he says. "The team itself is very small potatoes. It does not generate much revenue at all. If a Nordstrom was to leave L.A., it would have a bigger impact on the Los Angeles economy than a football team leaving St. Louis or moving into Los Angeles or whatever."

The Vegas boosters are counting on Vegas being the exception and being able to attract net new visitors. MT's suggestion that the stadium will just cannibalize casino spending seems more likely to me. It seems likely that a lot of visits to Vegas for Raiders games will displace trips that would have happened on other weekends anyway and will result in less spending at the usual attractions. There will be some additional trips for the games. However, there will also probably be people who stay away on game weekends in order to avoid Raiders fans.

Oakland's economy will be better off without sinking resources into a stadium. For a stadium to be successful, it would have to be on a site with good transit and auto access. A site like that would also be desirable for other types of development, most of which would produce higher value and more tax revenue for the city.

[dabigv13]

I like the basic premise of the article, boiled down at the end there- the populace as a whole is pretty dumb.

Then again 60 thousand people don't get together on Sundays to watch these econ nerds do their thing, so  :P there!

[dabigv13]

I like the basic premise of the article, boiled down at the end there- the populace as a whole is pretty dumb.

Then again 60 thousand people don't get together on Sundays to watch these econ nerds do their thing, so  :P there!

[Phogge]

I actually think that Orchard Park Bills and Inglewood Rams are pretty cool. Carson Chargers rolls off the tongue. All the young boys named Irving by their parents could be proud of the Cowboys.

[Phogge]

I actually think that Orchard Park Bills and Inglewood Rams are pretty cool. Carson Chargers rolls off the tongue. All the young boys named Irving by their parents could be proud of the Cowboys.

[Mick]

I like the basic premise of the article, boiled down at the end there- the populace as a whole is pretty dumb.

Then again 60 thousand people don't get together on Sundays to watch these nerds do their thing, so  :P there!

I'm writing this in the lobby of the Aria.  We have an office in Las Vegas.  It's very difficult to find good employees here, background checks are a nightmare compared with our other dozen-and-a-half locations.  So I'm guessing the basic premise is pretty accurate... :P

[Mick]

I like the basic premise of the article, boiled down at the end there- the populace as a whole is pretty dumb.

Then again 60 thousand people don't get together on Sundays to watch these nerds do their thing, so  :P there!

I'm writing this in the lobby of the Aria.  We have an office in Las Vegas.  It's very difficult to find good employees here, background checks are a nightmare compared with our other dozen-and-a-half locations.  So I'm guessing the basic premise is pretty accurate... :P

[French Rage]

[quote author=Phogge link=topic=16724.msg190728#msg190728 date=1490645510]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.
[/quote]

And if Snyder gets his way, they may soon be the Ashburn Redskins.

[French Rage]

[quote author=Phogge link=topic=16724.msg190728#msg190728 date=1490645510]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.
[/quote]

And if Snyder gets his way, they may soon be the Ashburn Redskins.

[Spiny_Norman]

This topic is definitely NOT OT for Stanford or the Pac 12. After the new Raiders stadium is open, how long do you think it will be before the conference moves the football championship game from Santa Clara to Las Vegas?

[Spiny_Norman]

This topic is definitely NOT OT for Stanford or the Pac 12. After the new Raiders stadium is open, how long do you think it will be before the conference moves the football championship game from Santa Clara to Las Vegas?

[dabigv13]

Hopefully soon, and hopefully they do it on a Saturday.

[dabigv13]

Hopefully soon, and hopefully they do it on a Saturday.

[OutsiderFan]

Do Las Vegas voters not have to approve this profligate spending to lure the NFL?  Nearly a billion dollars of public money and tax payers have no say?

[OutsiderFan]

Do Las Vegas voters not have to approve this profligate spending to lure the NFL?  Nearly a billion dollars of public money and tax payers have no say?

[Mick]

Do Las Vegas voters not have to approve this profligate spending to lure the NFL?  Nearly a billion dollars of public money and tax payers have no say?

The locals know that it will be financed by hotel taxes, not an increase in local sales or income taxes.  Outsiders will pay for it one way or another.

[Mick]

Do Las Vegas voters not have to approve this profligate spending to lure the NFL?  Nearly a billion dollars of public money and tax payers have no say?

The locals know that it will be financed by hotel taxes, not an increase in local sales or income taxes.  Outsiders will pay for it one way or another.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16724.msg190864#msg190864 date=1490813683]
Do Las Vegas voters not have to approve this profligate spending to lure the NFL?  Nearly a billion dollars of public money and tax payers have no say?

The locals know that it will be financed by hotel taxes, not an increase in local sales or income taxes.  Outsiders will pay for it one way or another.
[/quote]

This isn't the point.  You could put a tax on hotels to raise money for any number of things.  Why should it go to pay for a football stadium?  That's more the point.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16724.msg190864#msg190864 date=1490813683]
Do Las Vegas voters not have to approve this profligate spending to lure the NFL?  Nearly a billion dollars of public money and tax payers have no say?

The locals know that it will be financed by hotel taxes, not an increase in local sales or income taxes.  Outsiders will pay for it one way or another.
[/quote]

This isn't the point.  You could put a tax on hotels to raise money for any number of things.  Why should it go to pay for a football stadium?  That's more the point.

[jhftb]

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201...omists-say

This article is about RAMS move to Los Angeles but most of the arguments would apply to any stadium deal. My favorite passage:

"You have to get people in Los Angeles to spend money there that they wouldn’t have spent otherwise or money they would have spent outside of L.A. Or you get people to come from outside of L.A. and spend money in L.A.," he says. "The team itself is very small potatoes. It does not generate much revenue at all. If a Nordstrom was to leave L.A., it would have a bigger impact on the Los Angeles economy than a football team leaving St. Louis or moving into Los Angeles or whatever."

The Vegas boosters are counting on Vegas being the exception and being able to attract net new visitors. MT's suggestion that the stadium will just cannibalize casino spending seems more likely to me. It seems likely that a lot of visits to Vegas for Raiders games will displace trips that would have happened on other weekends anyway and will result in less spending at the usual attractions. There will be some additional trips for the games. However, there will also probably be people who stay away on game weekends in order to avoid Raiders fans.

Oakland's economy will be better off without sinking resources into a stadium. For a stadium to be successful, it would have to be on a site with good transit and auto access. A site like that would also be desirable for other types of development, most of which would produce higher value and more tax revenue for the city.

I'm one of what's likely a very small number of Season Ticket Members (I hate that term) for both Stanford Football and Oakland Raiders.  Last time I was in Vegas was in the early 1990's for the last of a series of bachelor parties.  I've been to at least one Raider game per year since 1968 and will continue that string when they move. I don't gamble so I'm an example of a net new visitor that won't cannibalize casino spending.  I may be one of a very small in that regard also but I do know of a few others.  Time will tell. 

I'm sure the folks behind this know that Vegas hotel occupancy rates are at their lowest in the fourth quarter (around 82% in 2015) http://cber.unlv.edu/publications/Gaming&HospitalityForecast.pdf

Oakland DOES have a stadium that has good transit and auto access.  It will be interesting to see what they do with what's essentially an urban wasteland now.  The city is certainly not making any money on that area now. 

The only positive I have from the Raiders leaving is that I will no longer have to worry about enjoying myself at a 7:00pm Stanford game then meeting my Raider group at 8:00am the next morning.

[jhftb]

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201...omists-say

This article is about RAMS move to Los Angeles but most of the arguments would apply to any stadium deal. My favorite passage:

"You have to get people in Los Angeles to spend money there that they wouldn’t have spent otherwise or money they would have spent outside of L.A. Or you get people to come from outside of L.A. and spend money in L.A.," he says. "The team itself is very small potatoes. It does not generate much revenue at all. If a Nordstrom was to leave L.A., it would have a bigger impact on the Los Angeles economy than a football team leaving St. Louis or moving into Los Angeles or whatever."

The Vegas boosters are counting on Vegas being the exception and being able to attract net new visitors. MT's suggestion that the stadium will just cannibalize casino spending seems more likely to me. It seems likely that a lot of visits to Vegas for Raiders games will displace trips that would have happened on other weekends anyway and will result in less spending at the usual attractions. There will be some additional trips for the games. However, there will also probably be people who stay away on game weekends in order to avoid Raiders fans.

Oakland's economy will be better off without sinking resources into a stadium. For a stadium to be successful, it would have to be on a site with good transit and auto access. A site like that would also be desirable for other types of development, most of which would produce higher value and more tax revenue for the city.

I'm one of what's likely a very small number of Season Ticket Members (I hate that term) for both Stanford Football and Oakland Raiders.  Last time I was in Vegas was in the early 1990's for the last of a series of bachelor parties.  I've been to at least one Raider game per year since 1968 and will continue that string when they move. I don't gamble so I'm an example of a net new visitor that won't cannibalize casino spending.  I may be one of a very small in that regard also but I do know of a few others.  Time will tell. 

I'm sure the folks behind this know that Vegas hotel occupancy rates are at their lowest in the fourth quarter (around 82% in 2015) http://cber.unlv.edu/publications/Gaming&HospitalityForecast.pdf

Oakland DOES have a stadium that has good transit and auto access.  It will be interesting to see what they do with what's essentially an urban wasteland now.  The city is certainly not making any money on that area now. 

The only positive I have from the Raiders leaving is that I will no longer have to worry about enjoying myself at a 7:00pm Stanford game then meeting my Raider group at 8:00am the next morning.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16724.msg190870#msg190870 date=1490820664]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16724.msg190864#msg190864 date=1490813683]
Do Las Vegas voters not have to approve this profligate spending to lure the NFL?  Nearly a billion dollars of public money and tax payers have no say?

The locals know that it will be financed by hotel taxes, not an increase in local sales or income taxes.  Outsiders will pay for it one way or another.
[/quote]

This isn't the point.  You could put a tax on hotels to raise money for any number of things.  Why should it go to pay for a football stadium?  That's more the point.
[/quote]

The obvious answer being that the stadium should be a boon for the city's tourism industry. It wouldn't make sense to levy a hotel tax to fund a new Home Depot, for example. However it seems like a bit of a stretch in Vegas. Their tourism industry isn't exactly struggling without the Raiders.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16724.msg190870#msg190870 date=1490820664]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16724.msg190864#msg190864 date=1490813683]
Do Las Vegas voters not have to approve this profligate spending to lure the NFL?  Nearly a billion dollars of public money and tax payers have no say?

The locals know that it will be financed by hotel taxes, not an increase in local sales or income taxes.  Outsiders will pay for it one way or another.
[/quote]

This isn't the point.  You could put a tax on hotels to raise money for any number of things.  Why should it go to pay for a football stadium?  That's more the point.
[/quote]

The obvious answer being that the stadium should be a boon for the city's tourism industry. It wouldn't make sense to levy a hotel tax to fund a new Home Depot, for example. However it seems like a bit of a stretch in Vegas. Their tourism industry isn't exactly struggling without the Raiders.

[stupac2]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16724.msg190872#msg190872 date=1490822564]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16724.msg190870#msg190870 date=1490820664]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16724.msg190864#msg190864 date=1490813683]
Do Las Vegas voters not have to approve this profligate spending to lure the NFL?  Nearly a billion dollars of public money and tax payers have no say?

The locals know that it will be financed by hotel taxes, not an increase in local sales or income taxes.  Outsiders will pay for it one way or another.
[/quote]

This isn't the point.  You could put a tax on hotels to raise money for any number of things.  Why should it go to pay for a football stadium?  That's more the point.
[/quote]

The obvious answer being that the stadium should be a boon for the city's tourism industry. It wouldn't make sense to levy a hotel tax to fund a new Home Depot, for example. However it seems like a bit of a stretch in Vegas. Their tourism industry isn't exactly struggling without the Raiders.
[/quote]

Also that answer has been pretty thoroughly demolished by everyone who's looked into it, at least that I've seen.

[stupac2]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16724.msg190872#msg190872 date=1490822564]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16724.msg190870#msg190870 date=1490820664]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16724.msg190864#msg190864 date=1490813683]
Do Las Vegas voters not have to approve this profligate spending to lure the NFL?  Nearly a billion dollars of public money and tax payers have no say?

The locals know that it will be financed by hotel taxes, not an increase in local sales or income taxes.  Outsiders will pay for it one way or another.
[/quote]

This isn't the point.  You could put a tax on hotels to raise money for any number of things.  Why should it go to pay for a football stadium?  That's more the point.
[/quote]

The obvious answer being that the stadium should be a boon for the city's tourism industry. It wouldn't make sense to levy a hotel tax to fund a new Home Depot, for example. However it seems like a bit of a stretch in Vegas. Their tourism industry isn't exactly struggling without the Raiders.
[/quote]

Also that answer has been pretty thoroughly demolished by everyone who's looked into it, at least that I've seen.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=16724.msg190938#msg190938 date=1490917725]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16724.msg190872#msg190872 date=1490822564]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16724.msg190870#msg190870 date=1490820664]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16724.msg190864#msg190864 date=1490813683]
Do Las Vegas voters not have to approve this profligate spending to lure the NFL?  Nearly a billion dollars of public money and tax payers have no say?

The locals know that it will be financed by hotel taxes, not an increase in local sales or income taxes.  Outsiders will pay for it one way or another.
[/quote]

This isn't the point.  You could put a tax on hotels to raise money for any number of things.  Why should it go to pay for a football stadium?  That's more the point.
[/quote]

The obvious answer being that the stadium should be a boon for the city's tourism industry. It wouldn't make sense to levy a hotel tax to fund a new Home Depot, for example. However it seems like a bit of a stretch in Vegas. Their tourism industry isn't exactly struggling without the Raiders.
[/quote]

Also that answer has been pretty thoroughly demolished by everyone who's looked into it, at least that I've seen.
[/quote]

What has been demolished, exactly? The question was why should hotel taxes go toward building a tourist destination. I was simply pointing out the (what I thought was) obvious connection. I didn't allege that it made sense from a policy standpoint.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=16724.msg190938#msg190938 date=1490917725]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16724.msg190872#msg190872 date=1490822564]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16724.msg190870#msg190870 date=1490820664]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16724.msg190864#msg190864 date=1490813683]
Do Las Vegas voters not have to approve this profligate spending to lure the NFL?  Nearly a billion dollars of public money and tax payers have no say?

The locals know that it will be financed by hotel taxes, not an increase in local sales or income taxes.  Outsiders will pay for it one way or another.
[/quote]

This isn't the point.  You could put a tax on hotels to raise money for any number of things.  Why should it go to pay for a football stadium?  That's more the point.
[/quote]

The obvious answer being that the stadium should be a boon for the city's tourism industry. It wouldn't make sense to levy a hotel tax to fund a new Home Depot, for example. However it seems like a bit of a stretch in Vegas. Their tourism industry isn't exactly struggling without the Raiders.
[/quote]

Also that answer has been pretty thoroughly demolished by everyone who's looked into it, at least that I've seen.
[/quote]

What has been demolished, exactly? The question was why should hotel taxes go toward building a tourist destination. I was simply pointing out the (what I thought was) obvious connection. I didn't allege that it made sense from a policy standpoint.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

The traditional sports franchise business model is that season ticket holders buy the tickets, create home field atmosphere etc...
I do not believe the Las Vegas area resident population has either the numbers of people or disposable income necessary to buy a majority of the stadium's season tickets. Certainly a new Las Vegas Raiders Stadium has been celebrated by fans from all over the nation,  but will enough of them pay for Personal Seat Licenses and season tickets ? I doubt it.
My expectation is that Las Vegas Raiders home games will suffer from low attendance, especially after the stadium is a few years old and the novelty has worn off a bit. I don't foresee enough tourists willing to pay several hundred dollars to attend a Sunday afternoon game and then rush to catch an airplane home.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

The traditional sports franchise business model is that season ticket holders buy the tickets, create home field atmosphere etc...
I do not believe the Las Vegas area resident population has either the numbers of people or disposable income necessary to buy a majority of the stadium's season tickets. Certainly a new Las Vegas Raiders Stadium has been celebrated by fans from all over the nation,  but will enough of them pay for Personal Seat Licenses and season tickets ? I doubt it.
My expectation is that Las Vegas Raiders home games will suffer from low attendance, especially after the stadium is a few years old and the novelty has worn off a bit. I don't foresee enough tourists willing to pay several hundred dollars to attend a Sunday afternoon game and then rush to catch an airplane home.

[stupac2]

I don't foresee enough tourists willing to pay several hundred dollars to attend a Sunday afternoon game and then rush to catch an airplane home.

You'd be surprised. Some time I was flying down to LA on a Monday after a Raiders game and the plane was full of fans in silver and black.

Will that still happen with Vegas? I dunno, but I think the Raiders have a better chance of succeeding in Vegas than the Chargers do in LA.

[stupac2]

I don't foresee enough tourists willing to pay several hundred dollars to attend a Sunday afternoon game and then rush to catch an airplane home.

You'd be surprised. Some time I was flying down to LA on a Monday after a Raiders game and the plane was full of fans in silver and black.

Will that still happen with Vegas? I dunno, but I think the Raiders have a better chance of succeeding in Vegas than the Chargers do in LA.

[82lsju]

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 isn’t zero, but it is pretty close to zero.”

Relying on economic forecasting studies, Nevada officials expect to draw 451,000 new visitors because of the 65,000-seat stadium. These tourists would spend an average of 3.2 nights per visit, leading to an additional $650,000 in annual income to the area. 

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/22/ra...mist-says/

[82lsju]

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 isn’t zero, but it is pretty close to zero.”

Relying on economic forecasting studies, Nevada officials expect to draw 451,000 new visitors because of the 65,000-seat stadium. These tourists would spend an average of 3.2 nights per visit, leading to an additional $650,000 in annual income to the area. 

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/22/ra...mist-says/

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

[quote author=SF_Cardinal_Fan link=topic=16724.msg191899#msg191899 date=1492541737]I don't foresee enough tourists willing to pay several hundred dollars to attend a Sunday afternoon game and then rush to catch an airplane home.

You'd be surprised. Some time I was flying down to LA on a Monday after a Raiders game and the plane was full of fans in silver and black.

Will that still happen with Vegas? I dunno, but I think the Raiders have a better chance of succeeding in Vegas than the Chargers do in LA.
[/quote]

I am sure that there will be airplanes full of Las Vegas Raiders fans. But, a 747 has a capacity of about 500 people. Most of the planes flying in an out of Las Vegas probably have a capacity of about 200 passengers.
I expect each week a few thousand fans may make the 4 hour drive  from the LA metro area. And, probably another few thousand travel by airplane to see a Raiders game. So, these two groups combined I would guess buy will 10,000 seats.
The new Raiders Las Vegas stadium will have a capacity of about 65,000 people. My expectation is that there will be games with dismal attendance, such as only 20,000 spectators, two thirds of the seats empty.
As for the Chargers in Los Angeles, I don't see the logic of that move.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

[quote author=SF_Cardinal_Fan link=topic=16724.msg191899#msg191899 date=1492541737]I don't foresee enough tourists willing to pay several hundred dollars to attend a Sunday afternoon game and then rush to catch an airplane home.

You'd be surprised. Some time I was flying down to LA on a Monday after a Raiders game and the plane was full of fans in silver and black.

Will that still happen with Vegas? I dunno, but I think the Raiders have a better chance of succeeding in Vegas than the Chargers do in LA.
[/quote]

I am sure that there will be airplanes full of Las Vegas Raiders fans. But, a 747 has a capacity of about 500 people. Most of the planes flying in an out of Las Vegas probably have a capacity of about 200 passengers.
I expect each week a few thousand fans may make the 4 hour drive  from the LA metro area. And, probably another few thousand travel by airplane to see a Raiders game. So, these two groups combined I would guess buy will 10,000 seats.
The new Raiders Las Vegas stadium will have a capacity of about 65,000 people. My expectation is that there will be games with dismal attendance, such as only 20,000 spectators, two thirds of the seats empty.
As for the Chargers in Los Angeles, I don't see the logic of that move.

[yvonne]

I was surprised to discover that someone associated with my youth track club in New Jersey is a member of Raider Nation. He was excited about the Las Vegas move. Lord knows why because I seriously doubt he will make more than a single trip from NJ, and that if he did, he would be just as likely to have gone to Oakland. I really don't understand anyone outside of Las Vegas praising the move.

I'm trying to understand the vagaries of the new NFL team revenue model. Certainly in-seat revenue from general fans is less important than TV money, but maybe the idea is to gain new money from PSLs, but that probably only pays for the stadium itself. I just don't get it.

[yvonne]

I was surprised to discover that someone associated with my youth track club in New Jersey is a member of Raider Nation. He was excited about the Las Vegas move. Lord knows why because I seriously doubt he will make more than a single trip from NJ, and that if he did, he would be just as likely to have gone to Oakland. I really don't understand anyone outside of Las Vegas praising the move.

I'm trying to understand the vagaries of the new NFL team revenue model. Certainly in-seat revenue from general fans is less important than TV money, but maybe the idea is to gain new money from PSLs, but that probably only pays for the stadium itself. I just don't get it.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

I was surprised to discover that someone associated with my youth track club in New Jersey is a member of Raider Nation. He was excited about the Las Vegas move. Lord knows why because I seriously doubt he will make more than a single trip from NJ, and that if he did, he would be just as likely to have gone to Oakland. I really don't understand anyone outside of Las Vegas praising the move.

I'm trying to understand the vagaries of the new NFL team revenue model. Certainly in-seat revenue from general fans is less important than TV money, but maybe the idea is to gain new money from PSLs, but that probably only pays for the stadium itself. I just don't get it.

Yvonne,
My understanding is that NFL owners share the revenue from standard seat sales. In contrast, private luxury suite sales revenue is not shared, but retained by the owner of that particular stadium.This is why the 49ers Santa Clara new stadium was designed with a focus of maximizing  luxury suite capacity.
Theoretically, an owner of a stadium with relatively small luxury suite sales is at a competitive disadvantage. For example, if owner A brings in $20 million annually from luxury suite leasing, and owner B only brings in $5 million, then owner A has a larger budget with which to finance his team's operations.
However, I think the reality is that luxury suite seating may do more harm than good. For example, spectators in those suites are essentially removed from the playing field environment, so they do not contribute much towards game day energy, noise, atmosphere etc...
Also, luxury suite patrons are often wealthy corporate clientele without much passion or knowledge of the game, and if the team is not winning, they may have a reluctance to attend the games.
Finally, an equal sharing of the League's television revenues is the largest component to a team's annual revenue inputs. This and the salary cap does  ensure that all team's are able to compete on a "level playing field". So, I consider an owner determined to create a "luxury suite filled new stadium", such as the one produced by the Santa Clara 49ers, as little more than senseless greed.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

I was surprised to discover that someone associated with my youth track club in New Jersey is a member of Raider Nation. He was excited about the Las Vegas move. Lord knows why because I seriously doubt he will make more than a single trip from NJ, and that if he did, he would be just as likely to have gone to Oakland. I really don't understand anyone outside of Las Vegas praising the move.

I'm trying to understand the vagaries of the new NFL team revenue model. Certainly in-seat revenue from general fans is less important than TV money, but maybe the idea is to gain new money from PSLs, but that probably only pays for the stadium itself. I just don't get it.

Yvonne,
My understanding is that NFL owners share the revenue from standard seat sales. In contrast, private luxury suite sales revenue is not shared, but retained by the owner of that particular stadium.This is why the 49ers Santa Clara new stadium was designed with a focus of maximizing  luxury suite capacity.
Theoretically, an owner of a stadium with relatively small luxury suite sales is at a competitive disadvantage. For example, if owner A brings in $20 million annually from luxury suite leasing, and owner B only brings in $5 million, then owner A has a larger budget with which to finance his team's operations.
However, I think the reality is that luxury suite seating may do more harm than good. For example, spectators in those suites are essentially removed from the playing field environment, so they do not contribute much towards game day energy, noise, atmosphere etc...
Also, luxury suite patrons are often wealthy corporate clientele without much passion or knowledge of the game, and if the team is not winning, they may have a reluctance to attend the games.
Finally, an equal sharing of the League's television revenues is the largest component to a team's annual revenue inputs. This and the salary cap does  ensure that all team's are able to compete on a "level playing field". So, I consider an owner determined to create a "luxury suite filled new stadium", such as the one produced by the Santa Clara 49ers, as little more than senseless greed.