NFL To LA Positive Progress

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by challenger99 » Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:57 pm

Paolo X wrote:
challenger99 wrote:Off Topic but I hope you enjoy the ABE and Pocono area!


Challenger thank you. Now I am working on it for as early as June. :)


That area will always be my Home, born and raised in the "hard" coal region of the Appalachain Mts, I was a true Pennsylvania Ridge Runner!
Veteran
 
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:18 am

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by TravelPatB » Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:58 pm

Aerial wrote:Well, Buffalo needs a new stadium because of too many drunks at games. Hmm, that's a new argument for a new stadium I'll admit. :lol:

Should poor fan behavior bump up new Buffalo Bills stadium plans?

The Bills are saying that they're not working on a replacement to Ralph Wilson Stadium right now - but if nationally-known, notorious poor fan behavior outside of the stadium continues, should the team's new stadium plans accelerate?
...

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/buffalo ... dium-plans


I can confirm - Bills fans are the drunkest lot I've ever encountered at a sporting event. One game I went to this season as we were approaching the huge parking lots / tailgate areas surrounding the stadium at 10:30AM - not only could you see the smoke for blocks of the literally thousands of grills going - but before we got parked I spotted three guys mooning everybody from on top of a trailer, dozens of others already staggering drunk and some even passed out in chairs or curled up on blankets on the ground, groups of guys doing shots and almost everybody with beer in their hand - and that was with two hours of tailgating still to go at 10:30AM!
All-Star
 
Posts: 7507
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:35 pm
Location: Hamilton

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Aerial » Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:28 pm

Wow Travel, hey I like a drink like a lot of people but that is over the top I would say.
“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 2528
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:22 pm
Location: Hamilton, ON

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by FootbalYouBet » Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:48 pm

TravelPatB wrote:
Aerial wrote:Well, Buffalo needs a new stadium because of too many drunks at games. Hmm, that's a new argument for a new stadium I'll admit. :lol:

Should poor fan behavior bump up new Buffalo Bills stadium plans?

The Bills are saying that they're not working on a replacement to Ralph Wilson Stadium right now - but if nationally-known, notorious poor fan behavior outside of the stadium continues, should the team's new stadium plans accelerate?
...

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/buffalo ... dium-plans


I can confirm - Bills fans are the drunkest lot I've ever encountered at a sporting event. One game I went to this season as we were approaching the huge parking lots / tailgate areas surrounding the stadium at 10:30AM - not only could you see the smoke for blocks of the literally thousands of grills going - but before we got parked I spotted three guys mooning everybody from on top of a trailer, dozens of others already staggering drunk and some even passed out in chairs or curled up on blankets on the ground, groups of guys doing shots and almost everybody with beer in their hand - and that was with two hours of tailgating still to go at 10:30AM!

these guys are probably all from toronto :wink:
Live well and please God

FYB has left the building
User avatar
Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 17518
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:51 pm
Location: Delta BC

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Aerial » Sun Feb 07, 2016 11:09 am

Or Southern Ontario. :wink:
“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 2528
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:22 pm
Location: Hamilton, ON

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by TravelPatB » Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:14 pm

This link was in that story but worth being highlighted. This really is some of the scenes you can see at a Bills tailgate.

http://deadspin.com/the-year-in-bills-fans-1749444127

It really is insane. The guy at the 3:30 mark must have ended up with a concussion.
All-Star
 
Posts: 7507
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:35 pm
Location: Hamilton

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by okie » Fri Feb 12, 2016 3:57 am

ESPN Article: The Wow Factor. Few could have guessed that the league's return would become so bloody, bitter and, most of all, emblematic of how power in the NFL truly works.

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_ ... os-angeles
All-Star
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:33 pm

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by okie » Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:37 pm

Chargers yesterday said they want Downtown; not Mission Valley. City wanted Mission Valley (where their old stadium currently sits) because they already have the land, would cost less overall, no need to increase taxes, would be built faster, and only requires a majority of voters to pass the measure.

However, the Chargers said that Downtown would be actually be cheaper then Mission Valley. Team is also saying that they no longer need $350 million for the city and county. Just exactly how they are going to pay for the stadium is still unclear. The land Downtown currently is owned by 11 different entities. Esimates of how long it would take to finally have a finished stadium have been 6 to 8 years which is why city officials are perplexed at the route the Chargers have taken. There is also a question of how many voters are required to approve this proposal. Chargers are hoping for a majority as having a two-thirds requirement means this idea will unlikely pass. Team needs support from not only the voters but also from the Hotel, Port, and Convention sectors.
All-Star
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:33 pm

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Mightygoose » Thu Feb 25, 2016 12:36 pm

okie wrote:Chargers yesterday said they want Downtown; not Mission Valley. City wanted Mission Valley (where their old stadium currently sits) because they already have the land, would cost less overall, no need to increase taxes, would be built faster, and only requires a majority of voters to pass the measure.

However, the Chargers said that Downtown would be actually be cheaper then Mission Valley. Team is also saying that they no longer need $350 million for the city and county. Just exactly how they are going to pay for the stadium is still unclear. The land Downtown currently is owned by 11 different entities. Esimates of how long it would take to finally have a finished stadium have been 6 to 8 years which is why city officials are perplexed at the route the Chargers have taken. There is also a question of how many voters are required to approve this proposal. Chargers are hoping for a majority as having a two-thirds requirement means this idea will unlikely pass. Team needs support from not only the voters but also from the Hotel, Port, and Convention sectors.


What a mess.

This is the same cat flight that Spanos walked away from a year ago. Plus he already has one foot in LA so I don't see this ending too well.

Doesn't need 350 million? I guess that's now 250 mil since the NFL is putting up an additional 100 from their deal in not approving Carson.

My understating is don't they need to have a stadium site decided by March 24? That is a date the measure has to be drafted in order to get enough petitions from the citizens initiative to hopefully get the stadium on the ballot in November.

If they don't meet that one of many hurdles, a lame duck season in SD may in the works, 5 months before the season starts.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 1479
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:04 am

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:33 pm

Mightygoose wrote:
okie wrote:Chargers yesterday said they want Downtown; not Mission Valley. City wanted Mission Valley (where their old stadium currently sits) because they already have the land, would cost less overall, no need to increase taxes, would be built faster, and only requires a majority of voters to pass the measure.

However, the Chargers said that Downtown would be actually be cheaper then Mission Valley. Team is also saying that they no longer need $350 million for the city and county. Just exactly how they are going to pay for the stadium is still unclear. The land Downtown currently is owned by 11 different entities. Esimates of how long it would take to finally have a finished stadium have been 6 to 8 years which is why city officials are perplexed at the route the Chargers have taken. There is also a question of how many voters are required to approve this proposal. Chargers are hoping for a majority as having a two-thirds requirement means this idea will unlikely pass. Team needs support from not only the voters but also from the Hotel, Port, and Convention sectors.


What a mess.

This is the same cat flight that Spanos walked away from a year ago. Plus he already has one foot in LA so I don't see this ending too well.

Doesn't need 350 million? I guess that's now 250 mil since the NFL is putting up an additional 100 from their deal in not approving Carson.

My understating is don't they need to have a stadium site decided by March 24? That is a date the measure has to be drafted in order to get enough petitions from the citizens initiative to hopefully get the stadium on the ballot in November.

If they don't meet that one of many hurdles, a lame duck season in SD may in the works, 5 months before the season starts.


Yes indeed. That's why I'm sticking with the following sentiment by some, upon the recent NFL on the matter, and as copied here by me on 13 January though now I don't think the referenced referendum in June is going to happen.

Apparently there is going to be a referendum in San Diego County in June, but in not only my view it is a fait accompli that any resolution to tax and spend to fund the Chargers' new facility is not going to pass.

Then Spanos and the NFL would have political cover, as I believe is all part of their intent, so to justify the deal that the Chargers' Spanos cuts with the Rams' Kroenke for this move to play in Inglewood. Word is also that Spanos is not going to wait for the referendum to cut his deal.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:07 pm

Well related to the chatter about Los Angeles are the Chargers, who had their bid to stay in San Diego backed by the Commissioner Goodell though I still wonder if that bid is anything but grandstanding given the local apathy to funding a new venue with taxpayer dollars. Note the following from the same article linked below but with a key spelling correction from 2015 to 2018 on the second date referenced in it:

The Chargers have until Jan. 15, 2017 to decide whether to join the Rams in L.A., according to a relocation agreement between the two teams. The deadline could be extended until Jan. 15, 2018, if a referendum for public financing in San Diego is not approved prior to Nov. 15 of this year. A $1.8 billion stadium project for the Chargers has been proposed.


I had no idea that the Chargers had a contingent option on the one-year option they have to decide the matter did you? And apparently they have now until November 15, 2016, not until June for which the originally-reported deadline had passed, to have a referendum for public financing approved by the voters in the City of San Diego and in San Diego County.

And now let's note this development on the Raiders to Las Vegas:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15387 ... -las-vegas

It's not mere chatter when billionaire Sheldon Adelson is the main reason for the meeting along with national commercial real estate firm Majestic Realty, which has its corporate headquarters in Southern California as well.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Hank01 » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:30 pm

Something to keep the locals and tourists to play with especially the betting on pro sports .

It is seen as a possible loss leader for entertainment to keep the concerts and sports events pulling in that international attention to Vegas . Plus construction is cheaper there . I am surprised they would want to compete with the casino entertainment but that maybe factored in to see a game or concert and enjoy the other events at the hotels as well.

Another reason to fly to Vegas ?
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:27 pm

Hank01 wrote:Something to keep the locals and tourists to play with especially the betting on pro sports .

It is seen as a possible loss leader for entertainment to keep the concerts and sports events pulling in that international attention to Vegas . Plus construction is cheaper there . I am surprised they would want to compete with the casino entertainment but that maybe factored in to see a game or concert and enjoy the other events at the hotels as well.

Another reason to fly to Vegas ?


Having lived there in Las Vegas as well (and it still feels like home to me mind you and I still have a 702 phone number), I concur with your view as is excellent Hank. No doubt with a casino mogul and mega-billionaire Adelson involved, he would not see it as any threat to his bottom line and has a broader strategy for such an investment.

And also king as the NFL is for sport in the US, and nothing is a close second, Adelson would have a lock on literally the only non-gambling major professional league game in town!

And so I think Adelson, given quite the successful track record beyond Las Vegas, sees far more opportunity than I would think opportunity cost.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Wed May 04, 2016 7:39 am

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/m ... ove-crazy/

Here's another take on the current proposal still in the works for the Raiders to Las Vegas. Right now given the way things run in Las Vegas and before a looming recession in my opinion, I don't think this proposal is as out of order as represented in the article. Even so I think that the onset of lower hotel rates in places like Hawai'i and Las Vegas, which foreshadow a deep recession to hit also the Eastern US later much as they did in late 2007, would kill this proposal now.

The proposal is a long shot now, and it will be dead if recession starts as anticipated by 1Q2017 with a new president in office.

For the Raiders' backers, though, even a long shot with such a potentially huge payoff is no doubt worth it, especially since the cost of putting forward this plan, as Nagourney says, is "tip money for lunch" for Adelson. And if Nevada officials do fall for this, it seems impossible that the NFL would force one of its owners to turn down a $1 billion gift, regardless of whether Vegas makes much sense as an addition to the league.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Tue May 10, 2016 8:10 pm

Here are more developments on the Raiders to Las Vegas though I am not as optimstic as is the Mayor of the City of Las Vegas, who as most do not know has zero to do with the properties on The Strip that most visit and know because The Strip is in Clark County and not in the City of Las Vegas. But the Goodmans are incredibly well-connected, including with casino mogul and one of the richest men in the US Sheldon Adelson, given that one or the other have been mayors for so long.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15499 ... s-relocate

The Raiders and investors are asking for whopping $750 million of the $1.4 billion projected for construction to come from taxpayers in the State of Nevada via part of the room taxes.

The proposal goes to the Nevada State Legislature next and then if approved, the relocation would have to be approved by at least 24 of the 32 NFL teams.

I'm already a fan of the Raiders as my second team behind the Eagles even before I happened to hear of this positive development for Las Vegas, a town near and dear to me that still feels like home after living there for three years, but with that kind of proposal at the expense of of the State of Nevada, well I certainly would not be optimistic about making much of a living there as a wage-earner.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

PreviousNext

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests