Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Oakland Raiders were approved by the NFL to move to Las Vegas, it is official, they are Las Vegas bound now and when the stadium is completed in 2020, they will become the Las Vegas Raiders:
Quote:
The Oakland Raiders will move to Las Vegas after garnering enough votes from NFL owners on Monday to relocate to Southern Nevada.
Las Vegas Raiders will test NFL's opposition to sports betting
No betting on the Super Bowl in Nevada? Don't laugh, it's possible with the arrival of the Las Vegas Raiders. Here's why the Raiders' move will test the NFL's opposition to sports betting.
Raiders, Mark Davis see culmination of 14-month effort in move to Vegas
The Raiders' dalliance with Las Vegas began some 14 months ago. Here is a look at how the team got approval and the roadblocks it had to overcome.
The Raiders received 31 of 32 votes to approve the move. Only 24 votes were needed.
"I have mixed feelings; it's very bittersweet," Raiders owner Mark Davis told ESPN.com after the announcement was made Monday. "I understand [Oakland fans] will be angry and disappointed. I want them to know that I do understand that it's emotional. Raider Nation is the greatest fan base in the world and we're going to build something to make them proud.
"But I also want them to give as much support to the team as possible as we attempt to bring a championship to the Bay Area."
The Miami Dolphins were the only team to vote against the move.
"My position today was that we as owners and as a league owe it to the fans to do everything we can to stay in the communities that have supported us until all options have been exhausted. I want to wish Mark Davis and the Raiders organization the best in Las Vegas," Dolphins owner Stephen Ross said in a statement.
The Raiders will still play in Oakland in 2017, and possibly longer.
The vote was 31-1 in favor of the Las Vegas relocation. The Miami Dolphins were the only team to vote against the relocation. That marks 3 NFL teams that have relocated in the last 14 months, likely an NFL record. This time period has also seen the vacating of the Oakland, Saint Louis, and San Diego markets.
St Louis, San Diego and Oakland are all pretty large markets.
Wonder if we'll ever see some new teams created to fill those markets. New teams, not moving the bills or whoever, that'd be kinda cool.
St Louis, San Diego and Oakland are all pretty large markets. Wonder if we'll ever see some new teams created to fill those markets. New teams, not moving the bills or whoever, that'd be kinda cool.
- Saint Louis: No. The NFL seems disinterested in the market, in fact, when the relocation efforts came to a head last year as the Chargers, Rams, and Raiders were all pitted against one another to relocate to Los Angeles, the NFL seemed more comfortable with letting the Rams relocate, although for a variety of reasons. One reason was because the NFL didn't want to vacate the Oakland and San Diego markets, the San Diego market because it had been in rotation to host superbowls, had enough money, was growing adequately, and the natural setting and location only helped the NFL since it was viewed as an attractive market. Oakland was also favored in the eyes of the NFL because of the money in the San Francisco Bay Area market.
- Oakland: No. At the end of the day money rules all, the San Francisco Bay Area media market had 2 NFL teams but Jed York the owner of the San Francisco 49ers prefers it if he can have the ENTIRE Bay Area market to himself. It is the 6th largest market but more than size, it is one of the richest places on the planet and now he benefits because he's the only NFL game in town with no competition from another football team anywhere else in Northern California. The NFL also completely dismissed Ronnie Lott's attempts to keep the Raiders in Oakland, he and his management and investment group Fortress Investments were pretty far along with plans to construct a new stadium in Oakland for the Raiders, in collaboration with the city and county. However both the NFL and the Raiders rebuffed them and dismissed them as nothing more than simply inadequate. Meaning, the NFL had a chance to keep the Raiders rooted in Oakland but they didn't care to do it because they felt they found a better solution with Las Vegas.
- San Diego: Yes. The NFL expressed excessive dismay and frustration when the Chargers announced they are vacating the San Diego market. The NFL was hoping that there was a chance that the Chargers could backtrack and remain in San Diego, which the NFL views as a highly desirable market for the reasons I outlined earlier under the Saint Louis tab. San Diego is a large metropolitan area, growing too, has plenty of money, and an adequate sized media market (though not really large) and now only has 1 professional sports team; the San Diego Padres of the MLB. Needless to say, the NFL feels that by leaving San Diego that they are leaving a great market and opportunity behind but the decision was ultimately the Chargers' and they have spoken clearly about wanting to move to Los Angeles.
Here's an article that discussed the NFLs anger towards the Chargers relocating to Los Angeles, note, they never once expressed that frustration with the Rams vacating Saint Louis or even the Raiders vacating Oakland for Las Vegas:
Quote:
The early days of the Chargers’ return to L.A. haven’t gone well. There’s now a question as to whether they’ve gone so poorly as to spark a full-fledged case of mover’s regret.
Adam Schefter of ESPN.com recently wrote that the move “angered NFL owners and executives just as much” as it angered folks in San Diego, if not more.
Per the report, the NFL has been “beside itself” regarding the move.
“There are a ton of owners very upset that [the Chargers] moved,” an unnamed source told Schefter, adding that the NFL actually wants the Chargers to move back to San Diego.
While there may be some who believe that the Chargers shouldn’t have moved and who may be pushing that agenda now, the prevailing view in league circles is that it’s a done deal. Indeed, it was a done deal a year ago, when the owners specifically gave the Chargers a 12-month window to move to L.A.
That should give you an idea of where their priorities lie. If they were to expand the league and identify expansion markets to enter, it seems almost guaranteed that San Diego would be on their shortlist. However, there is nothing, no evidence that suggests that either Oakland or Saint Louis would get that same treatment.
In the long run, this works out for Saint Louis because now they are elevated in the MLS expansion talks, they seem almost 100% poised to get one of the next two MLS expansion teams. Which is good, Saint Louis is a more proficient soccer market than football market as it is. So this works out for that region. Oakland will be left hanging dry outside, they wont be getting another team in any sports for the foreseeable future or potentially even longterm. Oakland now also has the issue of dealing with the departure of the Golden State Warriors, who are leaving Oakland behind for their new digs (Chase Center) in the city of San Francisco across the bay. Oakland will now refocus all their civic efforts to accommodating the Oakland Athletics, the least team left standing in Oakland, as the Athletics are looking for a new stadium of their own to move to.
- Saint Louis: No. The NFL seems disinterested in the market, in fact, when the relocation efforts came to a head last year as the Chargers, Rams, and Raiders were all pitted against one another to relocate to Los Angeles, the NFL seemed more comfortable with letting the Rams relocate, although for a variety of reasons. One reason was because the NFL didn't want to vacate the Oakland and San Diego markets, the San Diego market because it had been in rotation to host superbowls, had enough money, was growing adequately, and the natural setting and location only helped the NFL since it was viewed as an attractive market. Oakland was also favored in the eyes of the NFL because of the money in the San Francisco Bay Area market.
It didn't hurt that Kroenke was privately funding his stadium in Inglewood. He was also signaling that he was going to move even if the NFL tried to block him. He was willing to take the sanctions.
Quote:
In the long run, this works out for Saint Louis because now they are elevated in the MLS expansion talks, they seem almost 100% poised to get one of the next two MLS expansion teams. Which is good, Saint Louis is a more proficient soccer market than football market as it is. So this works out for that region.
Hopefully, but there's currently public pushback against the city financing the needed stadium. It's going to a vote before the city, and the people may shoot it down.
- Saint Louis: No. The NFL seems disinterested in the market, in fact, when the relocation efforts came to a head last year as the Chargers, Rams, and Raiders were all pitted against one another to relocate to Los Angeles, the NFL seemed more comfortable with letting the Rams relocate
Which is utterly ridiculous given St Louis's reputation for support and loyalty to their pro sports teams, despite being burned twice by the NFL. I am hoping for the absolute worst for the Raider move to Las Vegas in terms of area support and attendance, as the NFL does not deserve any good out of it.
Which is utterly ridiculous given St Louis's reputation for support and loyalty to their pro sports teams, despite being burned twice by the NFL. I am hoping for the absolute worst for the Raider move to Las Vegas in terms of area support and attendance, as the NFL does not deserve any good out of it.
As a long time Raiders fan, I think they will do just fine in Las Vegas. Las Vegas has a lot going for it. The Raiders have a national following and with almost 2 million people living in the Las Vegas metro area plus millions of tourists, attendance shouldn't suffer.
I lived many years in the SF Bay area and to me the Raiders belonged in Oakland. I hated it when they moved to Los Angeles. However times change and it is time for them to move on.
That's what I figured also. Out of the Top Ten, I see a few that may be able to in a decade or two if many things go their way, those are:
Omaha (Corporate Presence/Passion/Isolation)
El Paso (Market is misleadingly big, kinda*)
Fort Myers (Growth)
Charleston (Growth)
San Juan (think MLS here I would assume, if anything)
Albuquerque (if I was using personal judgement this would be in my top 10)
Austin seems overdue for a team. Hampton Roads and Inland Empire even though they ranked high I don't anticipate having one soon.
I wouldn't vote for a Republican to save my life, but I give him props for consistency.
I don't think Omaha has any chance at the NFL. The numbers don't add up, and the market is too close to Kansas City. Here are the the markets that are larger without the NFL: (2016 MSA population)
San Diego
St. Louis
San Antonio
Orlando
Sacramento
Portland
Columbus
Austin
Virginia Beach/Norfolk
Providence
Memphis
Oklahoma City
Louisville
Richmond
Raleigh/Durham
Hartford
Salt Lake City
Birmingham
Rochester
Grand Rapids
Tucson
Honolulu
Tulsa
Fresno
If Omaha can beat out all these, then more power to them!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
