[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by Grumpypotpie

With this move looking more and more likely I'm curious where everyone's preferred site for the new stadium is.

As I understand it the two sites under consideration are basically the same place. I cannot see much difference.

In either case they need to do a really clever job of cementing the things into the infrastructure...both highway and the Strip. Be terribly if we got a massive traffic screw up out of the deal. I think the speedway was poorly done and hope we can do better than that.

[juppiter]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

You're not going to want to live here if stadium gets built and Raiders bail early. The law makes it very clear the investor, whoever it is, can walk away at any time and have the Stadium Authority collapse, forcing taxpayers to clean up the mess. There is no reason to think there will be any other outcome if stadium loses money down the road. The law doesn't even require an NFL team to pay a penalty to break lease.

I'll be retired and moved on by then. Even if it may never affect me, I still think that was dirty to allow the law to be written that way. They let the lobbyists have everything they wanted.

Wow, I wasn't aware of that. Surely Las Vegas could have gotten a better deal than that. Especially after what just happened in St. Louis, there was no need to give the team so much leverage.

[lvmensch]

The discussion is getting a little hysterical. The worst likely case is no big deal. Las Vegas is not like anywhere else. And even if the Raiders bomb or something it is unlikely to be a large problem. We might pick up a piece of it at some point but no one will notice.

And again it helps perfect the strip. The thing we all need most. Keep the Strip the best such place in the world. Now is we can just get Genting going or something done with the blue monster.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

The discussion is getting a little hysterical. The worst likely case is no big deal. Las Vegas is not like anywhere else. And even if the Raiders bomb or something it is unlikely to be a large problem. We might pick up a piece of it at some point but no one will notice.

And again it helps perfect the strip. The thing we all need most. Keep the Strip the best such place in the world. Now is we can just get Genting going or something done with the blue monster.

I've seen you say 'perfect the strip' very often. What do you think is the location that best perfects it?

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

The discussion is getting a little hysterical. The worst likely case is no big deal. Las Vegas is not like anywhere else. And even if the Raiders bomb or something it is unlikely to be a large problem. We might pick up a piece of it at some point but no one will notice.

And again it helps perfect the strip. The thing we all need most. Keep the Strip the best such place in the world. Now is we can just get Genting going or something done with the blue monster.

This whole "Las Vegas is different" argument is absolutely ridiculous. Las Vegas would be by far the smallest NFL market. It isn't a stretch to think a team would bail early if things didn't go their way, especially with no investment of their own and no lease term in the law that discourages breaking it. If the team leaves, so do the investors. They wrote their exit plan right into the law.

The Raiders would come in at a disadvantage seen by no other NFL team in modern times. This includes the Jacksonville Jaguars expansion in 1995. That market was more than twice the size of Las Vegas 22 years ago and by any objective metric, it's been a complete failure. They tarp of 10k+ seats and still can't sell games out with a market that is 2.5 times what the Raiders would have here. The box office ails of that team make it play one game a year in London where they can at least get a sellout.

Property tax payers would get stuck with the bailout. It's in the law. That's why the bonds are GO and not solely based on the actual tax and performance. They are planning on a failure because they know how big this risk is.

I've only heard a few people make this "Las Vegas is different" argument. All fall into one of two categories:

1) Adelson's lobbyists in the Legislature and similar shills like the guy that doesn't post here anymore after being outed as a non-resident

2) People involved with real estate that hope they can benefit from the transaction or use it as a selling point in some other way

Which is it here? Do you have a relationship with Sands or are you involved with the real estate industry? I feel certain the answer is one or the other, even if you refuse to admit it.

[Merrily Gather]

The developers preferred location is on the southern portion of the Strip near Russel Rd and the two main vein hwy intersections. This one needs a study for roads and built up infrastructure for the stadium. It's also a smaller parcel of land to develop on. Something like 63 acres.

Their second preferred location is the Bali Hai Golf Club also in the same area but next to the airport which causes some restrictions for construction and concerns. This one also needs a study for roads and built up infrastructure for the stadium. Approval from the airport for where to build so it's not being affected or affecting flight paths. It's more property to build on, around 100 acres, but they'll only build the stadium and parking on 62 acres of it in the top North East portion of the property. With the rest of the acreage they could develop a strip mall and shops to patron the facility or leave it desolate. They're also negotiating a bargain on the property because the city owns the property and the guy who leases it is under federal charges and the business isn't doing so well so they're able to make a deal with him facing time.

The third location that is being pushed for is the city's preferred location which is the Cashman Center property because all the infrastructure for roads are built, or being worked on currently such as the Neon hwy, or have been studied and approved for future projects that will be done before the stadium is completed. This one will cost the city less because the supporting infrastructure is already built up around this facility and it won't take much more.

They looked at several other location but said that nearly all those locations are going to be more trouble than it's worth.

I think it should be on The Strip and impressively visible when you fly in, so one of the two southern locations. However, the city's preferred location makes a lot of sense to me too because the city will have hundreds of thousands in savings when they're already putting so much out there to bring them in and we'll have less traffic snarls. It will be a smoother process for all.

The other thing going for the southern locations is the Stadium will be shared with UNLV football so it makes more sense to be closer to the main campus.

[weidner6]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

This whole "Las Vegas is different" argument is absolutely ridiculous. Las Vegas would be by far the smallest NFL market. It isn't a stretch to think a team would bail early if things didn't go their way, especially with no investment of their own and no lease term in the law that discourages breaking it. If the team leaves, so do the investors. They wrote their exit plan right into the law.

The Raiders would come in at a disadvantage seen by no other NFL team in modern times. This includes the Jacksonville Jaguars expansion in 1995. That market was more than twice the size of Las Vegas 22 years ago and by any objective metric, it's been a complete failure. They tarp of 10k+ seats and still can't sell games out with a market that is 2.5 times what the Raiders would have here. The box office ails of that team make it play one game a year in London where they can at least get a sellout.

Property tax payers would get stuck with the bailout. It's in the law. That's why the bonds are GO and not solely based on the actual tax and performance. They are planning on a failure because they know how big this risk is.

I've only heard a few people make this "Las Vegas is different" argument. All fall into one of two categories:

1) Adelson's lobbyists in the Legislature and similar shills like the guy that doesn't post here anymore after being outed as a non-resident

2) People involved with real estate that hope they can benefit from the transaction or use it as a selling point in some other way

Which is it here? Do you have a relationship with Sands or are you involved with the real estate industry? I feel certain the answer is one or the other, even if you refuse to admit it.

Las Vegas would be the NFL’s fifth-smallest media market | ProFootballTalk

The article above disagrees. There are risks but don't ignore the potential rewards at the same time.

[OmegaSupreme]

Do we, as taxpayers, get to vote on whether we want to chip in $750m?

Even though supply creates demand, I still feel like this is one huge gamble. I suppose we have a reputation to uphold

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by OmegaSupreme

Do we, as taxpayers, get to vote on whether we want to chip in $750m

No. You vote for your representatives.

[vegasfan1985]

It looks more likely than ever that this is going to happen. Here's some further analysis:

http://www.cyinterview.com/2017/01/raiders-to-vegas-chris-yandek-breaks-it-down-for-us