[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.