[calisoccer99]

Originally Posted by Grumpypotpie

They supported it when there was no viable stadium option in Oakland. We don't know what they think now.

They are all behind Vegas...this stadium proposal oakland just put out isn't even big enough to host a superbowl

[Bps401]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

They are all behind Vegas...this stadium proposal oakland just put out isn't even big enough to host a superbowl

That was when Oakland was basically refusing to try and keep the team. With Oakland seemingly putting forth effort, the owners will change their tune real quick. I dont care either way if we get the team at this point.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by Bps401

That was when Oakland was basically refusing to try and keep the team. With Oakland seemingly putting forth effort, the owners will change their tune real quick. I dont care either way if we get the team at this point.

With San Diego pretty much refusing to build a new stadium for the Chargers, I wonder if the Raiders stayed in Oakland if they would prefer Las Vegas over sharing a stadium with the Rams.

[newopty]

St. Louis came up with a viable option for the Rams to stay. The Rams moved to Los Angeles anyway.

[weidner6]

Originally Posted by newopty

St. Louis came up with a viable option for the Rams to stay. The Rams moved to Los Angeles anyway.

Look for the same here. RAiders still coming when the fog thins.

[usnftcret]

Originally Posted by Grumpypotpie

They supported it when there was no viable stadium option in Oakland. We don't know what they think now.

The Raiders organization were not even part of the negotiations so how is this "viable"? This is just a last ditch effort to keep the Raiders in Oakland.

[calisoccer99]

Originally Posted by usnftcret

The Raiders organization were not even part of the negotiations so how is this "viable"? This is just a last ditch effort to keep the Raiders in Oakland.

A terrible effort at that

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by usnftcret

The Raiders organization were not even part of the negotiations so how is this "viable"? This is just a last ditch effort to keep the Raiders in Oakland.

If Oakland puts forth a stadium option that is NFL-suitable, it can't come up for a vote among owners. The Las Vegas relocation discussion ends per NFL rules. The only debate is whether it is suitable. The Oakland proposal not being appropriate for a Super Bowl is irrelevant as the Las Vegas proposal isn't either.

The St Louis stadium proposal wasn't really one. It had too many contingencies and the league was falling all over itself to get a team in LA. This Raiders' situation is not comparable. In that case, the NFL is falling over itself trying to keep the team in Oakland.

As for San Diego, its move LA and sharing with the Rams appears to be a done deal assuming SD does not come up with a solution.

The clock is ticking. The funding mechanism dies in about 13 months if there isn't NFL approval and a lease signed or at least something justifying the six month extension.

[Willy702]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

A terrible effort at that

Why is it terrible? Davis is completely unpopular in the Bay Area so if he got behind this it probably would fail to win local votes. It's a smart plan really because it gives NFL owners what they want. Stay in a better market and possibly coerce a sale of part or all of the franchise from an owner they don't like either.

So it will likely come down to keep Davis and have the team in Vegas or get rid of him or at least dilute his share and stay in Oakland. I don't know if you get 75% approval to go to Vegas if those are the choices.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by Willy702

Why is it terrible? Davis is completely unpopular in the Bay Area so if he got behind this it probably would fail to win local votes. It's a smart plan really because it gives NFL owners what they want. Stay in a better market and possibly coerce a sale of part or all of the franchise from an owner they don't like either.

So it will likely come down to keep Davis and have the team in Vegas or get rid of him or at least dilute his share and stay in Oakland. I don't know if you get 75% approval to go to Vegas if those are the choices.

A move to Las Vegas seems to involve Adelson getting equity in the Raiders. That isn't an easy sell considering the gambling ties forbid ownership, according to well established NFL rules. It was only last year the NFL wouldn't allow Romo to hold a convention at Sands Convention Center. Suddenly it's are going to get behind a deal that allows that company and/or its founder and CEO to hold equity in an NFL team?

NFL rules don't allow owners to have any gambling ties. Some Rooney heirs were forced to divest in the Steelers. They only owned tracks and poker clubs and were children of the late owner. There is full service gaming, including a sports book, at Venetian and Palazzo.

This doesn't even address that Las Vegas would be the smallest NFL market in terms of population within its allotted TV area. Arthur Blank went on record with that concern this week and it is a major issue with the league.

New Orleans is currently the smallest NFL TV market. It is about 50% larger than Las Vegas' would be. Including Reno, which wouldn't officially be a part of the Las Vegas Raiders market, but already airs nearly all Raiders games, would still not get it even to the size of the Saints' market.

There are no other markets that would have even a marginal interest in a Las Vegas Raiders franchise. SLC is essentially a Broncos market and is too far away for the Raiders to declare it otherwise. There are only three other DMAs that border Las Vegas. One is Reno. The other two already have NFL teams designated as a primary DMA.

These are all reasons that any deal to keep the team in Oakland is likely to derail the Las Vegas relocation effort. There really isn't any good argument beyond the absurd tax deal Adelson got. Maybe that is enough. I guess we'll find out within about a year.