[calisoccer99]

Originally Posted by robr2

The Sounders are the 1 team out of the 20 MLS teams that can fill a good sized stadium and they only fill about 2/3 of Centurylink Field. Paul Allen owns the Seahawks and the Sounders and gets 100% of the revenue from the stadium and parking and 80% of the exhibition center through First and Goal, his management company, while paying only $850K a year in rent. It makes financial sense for for the Sounders to play at Centurylink.

Every other team (except for Vancouver) playing in a football stadium is looking to build a soccer only facility:

Orlando City FC - Citrus Bowl to downtown stadium under construction
NYC FC - Yankee Stadium to Queens or Brooklyn
DC United - RFK to Buzzard Point DC construction beginning later this year
Revolution - Gillette to a Boston stadium - most likely in the Dorchester neighborhood.

Well after the Raiders build a stadium in Vegas maybe a MLS team can come out here and test the waters. And if successful they can build a soccer stadium downtown

[Lyndarn]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

Well after the Raiders build a stadium in Vegas maybe a MLS team can come out here and test the waters. And if successful they can build a soccer stadium downtown

Why not have a multi-use stadium..that can transform from Baseball>Soccer>Football??? If taxpayers dollars are used..then since Taxpayers in general have various sport interests..so why should each Sport event require their own specific stadium??

I find this notion missing in some of the comments...I also will suggest..this same stadium is used by many other entities..Political style rallies or international sport events or any other events that need the seats required for attendance of whatever it is!

SO, generally..building a Stadium under a banner of one "Sport Team" seems silly. The Stadium makes $$ for/from vendors as well as gate receipts for any event that utilizes their venue?? The naming of any Stadium should never be associated with ONE Sport/Team Name ever IMO!

[calisoccer99]

Originally Posted by Lyndarn

SO, generally..building a Stadium under a banner of one "Sport Team" seems silly. The Stadium makes $$ for/from vendors as well as gate receipts for any event that utilizes their venue?? The naming of any Stadium should never be associated with ONE Sport/Team Name ever IMO!

It won't be used for only one sport. They have already said they want to make it a multi use stadium. But I don't think baseball is in future for Vegas

[NLVgal]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

It won't be used for only one sport. They have already said they want to make it a multi use stadium. But I don't think baseball is in future for Vegas

I saw my first major league home run here in Vegas. The Dodgers were in town for a pre-season game and a guy knocked it out of the park.

The 51s were a Dodgers farm team back then. We've also had a kid from CSN who became an MVP.

We play year round softball here. Soccer, too.

I think we need a stadium. I don't give a flying fig about the Raiders. Nor did anyone I met in NCAL over the last five months.

Wouldn't it be funny if Vegas became the first ever city to screw an NFL owner out of a few million bucks for something we were going to do anyway?

[calisoccer99]

Originally Posted by NLVgal

I saw my first major league home run here in Vegas. The Dodgers were in town for a pre-season game and a guy knocked it out of the park.

The 51s were a Dodgers farm team back then. We've also had a kid from CSN who became an MVP.

We play year round softball here. Soccer, too.

I think we need a stadium. I don't give a flying fig about the Raiders. Nor did anyone I met in NCAL over the last five months.

Wouldn't it be funny if Vegas became the first ever city to screw an NFL owner out of a few million bucks for something we were going to do anyway?

Personally I don't want the Raiders here, im pretty sure I would take ANY other NFL team in Vegas over them. BUT it is very very rare for NFL teams to relocate to a new city so im not going to be very picky.

[Merrily Gather]

Some of the calls for a multi-use stadium is being answered by the T-Mobile arena. They opened it today to hockey fans to come take a look at what it looks like with ice in it. The layout and the view was great! I'm excited for hockey here.

Hockey fans invited to check out T-Mobile Arena | KSNV

Here's the time lapse video of it. LINK

[robr2]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

Well after the Raiders build a stadium in Vegas maybe a MLS team can come out here and test the waters. And if successful they can build a soccer stadium downtown

The MLS isn't about testing the waters. They want teams in places that will successful. If LV were given an MLS team, could it be successful with a 70K seat stadium with only 15K spectators?

[robr2]

Originally Posted by Lyndarn

Why not have a multi-use stadium..that can transform from Baseball>Soccer>Football??? If taxpayers dollars are used..then since Taxpayers in general have various sport interests..so why should each Sport event require their own specific stadium??

I find this notion missing in some of the comments...I also will suggest..this same stadium is used by many other entities..Political style rallies or international sport events or any other events that need the seats required for attendance of whatever it is!

SO, generally..building a Stadium under a banner of one "Sport Team" seems silly. The Stadium makes $$ for/from vendors as well as gate receipts for any event that utilizes their venue?? The naming of any Stadium should never be associated with ONE Sport/Team Name ever IMO!

The issue with multiple use stadiums is that the individual teams want to get as much revenue from the facility. In order to do that, the team has to own or get preferential rental agreements from the owner. The Oakland Coliseum is the only stadium shared between a baseball and football team and it is owned by the county. That sharing doesn't allow either team to be financially successful which affects the ability to be athletically successful.

Further, multi use stadiums have logistic issues when changing between sports. Baseball prefers natural turf which you can't do with an indoor stadium as proposed in Las Vegas. A baseball acceptable synthetic turf is different than the synthetic turf that the NFL prefers. MLS is OK with football grade synthetic turf but it may not meet FIFA specification with eliminates the possibility of World Cup or friendly matches unless there is the willingness to lay down natural turf over the synthetic field, the growth of which may be difficult to do in an indoor stadium. The NFL, MLB, and MLS all want different capacities.

[beachhead]

Originally Posted by robr2

The issue with multiple use stadiums is that the individual teams want to get as much revenue from the facility. In order to do that, the team has to own or get preferential rental agreements from the owner. The Oakland Coliseum is the only stadium shared between a baseball and football team and it is owned by the county. That sharing doesn't allow either team to be financially successful which affects the ability to be athletically successful.

Further, multi use stadiums have logistic issues when changing between sports. Baseball prefers natural turf which you can't do with an indoor stadium as proposed in Las Vegas. A baseball acceptable synthetic turf is different than the synthetic turf that the NFL prefers. MLS is OK with football grade synthetic turf but it may not meet FIFA specification with eliminates the possibility of World Cup or friendly matches unless there is the willingness to lay down natural turf over the synthetic field, the growth of which may be difficult to do in an indoor stadium. The NFL, MLB, and MLS all want different capacities.

Seems the answer to the dilemma would be a stadium like they have in Phoenix, with a retractable natural grass field. Which seems to be the best of all worlds.

BTW, the phoenix stadium was built in 2006 for "only" $455 million. A quick google search for an inflation calculator says that same $455 million is about $546 million in 2015 dollars. That's "only" $46 million more than the $500 million the raiders/nfl have offered to put up. You would think that with a $500 million down payment, any old billionaire could get a loan for a measly $46 million bucks (or just swear off having a mistress for a year, and use that savings) and own the stadium outright. Why do the raiders need anything better than one of the nicest stadiums in the world? Why do they need a $1-$2 BILLION dollar stadium? (my answer...they don't, certainly not on the taxpayer's/visitor's backs)

So, bottom line, the raiders can have a really nice stadium, Las Vegas can have those (questionably) awesome benefits of a stadium, UNLV could even contribute that extra $46 million, and have use as well, all of those people who need the accomplishment of others to have self-worth would find fufillment, and best of all, no taxpayer obligations. Or maybe even better..this no-win debate could be over..

[robr2]

Originally Posted by beachhead

Seems the answer to the dilemma would be a stadium like they have in Phoenix, with a retractable natural grass field. Which seems to be the best of all worlds.

That only deals with the playing surface. It doesn't address the revenue issues of shared stadiums.

BTW, the phoenix stadium was built in 2006 for "only" $455 million. A quick google search for an inflation calculator says that same $455 million is about $546 million in 2015 dollars. That's "only" $46 million more than the $500 million the raiders/nfl have offered to put up. You would think that with a $500 million down payment, any old billionaire could get a loan for a measly $46 million bucks (or just swear off having a mistress for a year, and use that savings) and own the stadium outright. Why do the raiders need anything better than one of the nicest stadiums in the world? Why do they need a $1-$2 BILLION dollar stadium? (my answer...they don't, certainly not on the taxpayer's/visitor's backs)

So, bottom line, the raiders can have a really nice stadium, Las Vegas can have those (questionably) awesome benefits of a stadium, UNLV could even contribute that extra $46 million, and have use as well, all of those people who need the accomplishment of others to have self-worth would find fufillment, and best of all, no taxpayer obligations. Or maybe even better..this no-win debate could be over..[/quote]

Mark Davis isn't a billionaire. All his wealth is tied up in the team. I doubt he could find $25 million to ante up never mind $500 million.

There weren't any land acquisition costs associated with the U of P Stadium as the land was already own by the tourism authority. Land costs in Vegas will be upwards of $200 million. Further, U of P Stadium was built out in the middle of nowhere making it cheaper to build versus on the Strip. Lastly, would Vegas build anything that wasn't over the top? That adds cost as well.