[robr2]

Originally Posted by Vegas_Cabbie

If the NFL requires stadiums to have a capacity of at least 70,000 to host a Super Bowl, someone please explain to me how US Bank stadium in Minneapolis (capacity 66,000) in hosting the Super Bowl in 2018.

Seating can be expanded to 70K for special events.

[Merrily Gather]

The Fontainebleau location from what I understand was stopped because of engineering. The entire site needs to be dismantled and taken down piece by piece because it's not structurally sound. It just sits there waiting for a buyer to take it up and fix it.

[calisoccer99]

Originally Posted by Vegas_Cabbie

If the NFL requires stadiums to have a capacity of at least 70,000 to host a Super Bowl, someone please explain to me how US Bank stadium in Minneapolis (capacity 66,000) in hosting the Super Bowl in 2018.

Most stadiums can be expanded for special events. I would highly doubt they are building a 2 billion dollar stadium that could not hold the super bowl. But of course one special poster will say I am a liar and Vegas will never get the super bowl

[Evan702]

Originally Posted by Vegas_Cabbie

If the NFL requires stadiums to have a capacity of at least 70,000 to host a Super Bowl, someone please explain to me how US Bank stadium in Minneapolis (capacity 66,000) in hosting the Super Bowl in 2018.

Originally Posted by robr2

Seating can be expanded to 70K for special events.

Correct. Of course there is no reason that a potential Las Vegas stadium for the Raiders or whoever can't be designed to support 65K seats under normal circumstances with the ability to expand seating for special events.

[bryan85]

I believe Las Vegas will support an NFL team. However, it's so unfair to the fans in Oakland that have supported them for so long.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

Most stadiums can be expanded for special events. I would highly doubt they are building a 2 billion dollar stadium that could not hold the super bowl.

Never underestimate the incompetence of public sector officials when it comes to spending other people's money.

[weidner6]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

People keep posting this article and I've explained several times why it is inaccurate. Here we go again:

The author doesn't understand how the NFL measures markets. He says Las Vegas would be larger than four other NFL markets by taking the Nielsen market size of the DMA where the stadium is located and that's it. That isn't what the NFL does. The NFL has what are called primary and secondary markets. The DMA where the stadium is located is the primary. All teams have one primary except Green Bay, which has two. Milwaukee is the other and is bigger by itself than Las Vegas. The PFT author automatically gets an F for not knowing that.

Secondary markets are the DMAs where any portion is within 75 miles of the stadium. For example, the Detroit Lions have Lansing, Flint, Toledo and Windsor. These DMAs are its additional marketing territories. This is where all road games are required to be aired, merchandising exclusivity agreements exist, and where additional team media is exclusive. These markets could not air non-sellouts back when the blackout rule existed.

There are two DMAs located within 75 miles of the proposed Las Vegas stadium. The Raiders couldn't claim either one because both are primary markets of other NFL teams (Los Angeles and Phoenix). Therefore, Las Vegas would be the only NFL team without any secondary markets. This is where every other team would beat Las Vegas.

But wait, New Orleans, Buffalo and Jacksonville are smaller!!!

The cities themselves are smaller than the Las Vegas DMA, but the markets aren't. Buffalo has Toronto as a secondary market. Jacksonville has Orlando. Both are bigger than Las Vegas before including other secondaries like Erie and Rochester for the Bills and Savannah and Gainesville for the Jaguars.

Baton Rouge and Biloxi are secondaries of the Saints. It is currently the smallest NFL market. It is 50% larger than what would be the Las Vegas Raiders' territory.

You may think none of this matters but it is exactly what the NFL owners are discussing. They don't care about the "Las Vegas is different" nonsense. In fact, it works against it. The NFL wants local fans to buy all the tickets. The market size makes that about impossible.

But Oakland is a market covered by San Francisco 49ers already. Las Vegas hardly overlaps with anyone with Phoenix to the south and LA to the west. Plus, with the NFL continually trying to expand reach with Europe Las Vegas is a known international city all over the world which will draw additional interest.

[weidner6]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

I think the stadium is going to give the whole city a much needed boost. Having two pro teams in town will bring the city together like we haven't seen since UNLV did it in the 80's and early 90's

I agree, Las Vegas has to continue pushing the envelope of being the ultimate vacation/business destination. Gambling alone is not enough anymore. What does make us unique is we depend on tourism as the life blood of the city. So a stadium may not be a priority in San Diego or Oakland, but it has a greater value to our city holding on to the ultimate destination logo. The fair value of building these things may not appear fair but in a free market we have to pay top dollar to be considered. This opportunity may not come again for decades so I am glad we are going for it when the opportunity is there.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by Merry Lee Gather

The Fontainebleau location from what I understand was stopped because of engineering. The entire site needs to be dismantled and taken down piece by piece because it's not structurally sound. It just sits there waiting for a buyer to take it up and fix it.

That's not what I have read. According to the people who are responsible for selling it, it's in tip-top shape and would only require about $1.2 billion more to finish as opposed to a $4 billion tag on a brand new resort build.

“The structure has been well-maintained and is ready for immediate development to bring to fruition the vision of its next owner,” read a statement from John Knott, Executive Vice-President for CBRE Las Vegas. “This is an unparalleled asset with significant potential on one of the most landmark streets in the world. Opportunities like this are few and far between.”

Knott says he thinks the new buyers will finish the existing structure
Because it will be too costly to blow up the structure and start over.

https://news.worldcasinodirectory.co...as-vegas-31143

Fontainebleau expected to be sold soon - Story | LasVegasNow

[Merrily Gather]

Originally Posted by Grumpypotpie

That's not what I have read. According to the people who are responsible for selling it, it's in tip-top shape and would only require about $1.2 billion more to finish as opposed to a $4 billion tag on a brand new resort build.

“The structure has been well-maintained and is ready for immediate development to bring to fruition the vision of its next owner,” read a statement from John Knott, Executive Vice-President for CBRE Las Vegas. “This is an unparalleled asset with significant potential on one of the most landmark streets in the world. Opportunities like this are few and far between.”

Knott says he thinks the new buyers will finish the existing structure
Because it will be too costly to blow up the structure and start over.

https://news.worldcasinodirectory.co...as-vegas-31143

Fontainebleau expected to be sold soon - Story | LasVegasNow

Hmm. I distinctly remember reading that several years ago. That they stopped construction because engineers said this portion is wrong and needs to be fixed before we can continue. They ran the numbers and it wasn't worth it so it just sits there waiting for a buyer. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe they just want to unload it because that recent article reads like a pitch. "It's the greatest thing ever! You'll want to finish it and not start new!" That makes me skeptical.