Just Jack Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 The visiting teams fans will bundle a trip to Vegas for shows, maybe some gambling and see there favorite football team. Flights to Vegas are cheaper than any other city and hotel rooms are plenty and reasonable. Especially cold weather teams, A trip to Vegas in December doesn't sound all that bad. That's my plan if/when the Bills play the Raiders in LV You can get tickets for $39 each way to Vegas. In theory, you could fly in the morning , watch the game and fly home after the game. I think it was Guffalo a couple years ago mentioned (living on Long Island) he flew to Buffalo, watched the Bills, flew home, in less time than it took his neighbors to drive out to the Meadowlands for a game there.
reddogblitz Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 The whole heat thing is just a set up for the campaign to start in about 8-10 years, "We need a dome. Build us a done or we move to X".
Saxum Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) The whole heat thing is just a set up for the campaign to start in about 8-10 years, "We need a dome. Build us a done or we move to X". Well with 20 year agreement that is a long buildup. or 40 year (I believe it is a 20 year lease with 20 year option) depending on what source you listen to. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2637752-49ers-file-arbitration-with-city-of-santa-clara-over-levis-stadium-rent-dispute The San Francisco 49ers reportedly filed for arbitration with the city of Santa Clara on Tuesday because they could not lower the rent on Levi’s Stadium during negotiations. Ramona Giwargis of the San Jose Mercury News reported the franchise has been negotiating with Santa Clara since November in hopes of lowering the rent on the rest of the 40-year lease it holds at the stadium. Giwargis noted “the team argues it is entitled under its lease contract to a reduction of more than $4 million a year because of better-than-expected financial performance.” Edited September 16, 2017 by Limeaid
reddogblitz Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) Why should citizens of San Diego pay for Spanos's workplace? Nobody pays for my workplace except for me. Spanos could have easily borrowed money to build a new stadium, he had $400 mil in relocation fees? Spanos is a cheap skate who does not deserve to own an NFL team. The Rams owner is paying for his own workplace, Jerry Jones paid for his own, Pegula will pay for his own, Spanos doesn't have the smarts to run that franchise. F--- Spanos and the Chargers! He did? https://www.upi.com/Arlington-approves-Dallas-Cowboys-stadium/42411099494767/ ARLINGTON, Texas, Nov. 3 (UPI) -- Arlington voters have approved a tax increase to help Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones build a $650 million stadium in the North Texas city. Voters approved a measure that would raise the city sales tax by a half-cent, hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent, The Dallas Morning News reported. Edited September 16, 2017 by reddogblitz
re enlightener Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 I think it was like 90 degrees in LA last weekend. Who wants to go sit in that sweltering heat. Maybe attendance will improve when it cools off a bit? its dry not like 90s in miami.
bobobonators Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 That post bobo 1. The article itself didn't mention the temperature of gameday when it referenced where the seats are situated: "Here's the thing, the NFL's plans for relocating teams have been hilariously ham-fisted. Moving the 49ers to Santa Clara, 45 minutes from San Francisco was a moronic decision. Levi's Stadium is also positioned so roughly 70 percent of the stadium bakes in the sun with no chance of shade." 2. I didn't specifically say it was 60 at that game, but I apologize for the confusion if it sounded like I was. My reference to 60 was an arbitrary number I threw out there for the average temperature of homes games for the the 49ers that will last well into November. The article makes it sound like the seats being positioned in the sun is something that's bad for all 8 home games, which is nonsense. 3. Last but not least: The stadium being empty has absolutely little to do with the position of the sun relative to the seats and everything to do with the fanbase not caring about their team. Which comes back full circle to how pathetic 49ers fans are that they are unable to at least put more than 10,000 people in the stands for a home opener considering their franchise has had dynasties and also recent success. Not to mention the stadium is only what 3 years old?
Fan in San Diego Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 He did? https://www.upi.com/Arlington-approves-Dallas-Cowboys-stadium/42411099494767/ That's a really old article 2004, I don't know for sure but I thought I heard somewhere he put up the money for stadium. I found this article about Jerry Jones http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/rDwevggkAJrXyC8APXfuk It's still a hell of a lot more than Spanos was offering to put up. But the thing that rubs me really the wrong way with Spanos, he paid $400 mil cash to leave but he wouldn't put up anywhere close to that amount to stay.
bobobonators Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) Your post misses a couple of big changes in recent decades. First off, there's a substantial permanent population which, I believe, is equal to Buffalo's metro. Second, Vegas is essentially a suburb of LA these days. Especially for younger people, it's no biggie to jump one of the ton flights and go over for the day or night. Third, I expect Oakland people to make it there in large numbers like they did when the Raiders were in LA. As someone mentioned above, there will be plenty of packages for visiting teams which I think will be very popular. Don't know if they'll all make it to the stadium, but tickets will be sold. There is serious talk about a high speed train. We'll see. Personally, I wish they'd stay in Oakland. 1. I didnt miss the point about a permanent population. In fact, my point specifically mentioned how its the permanent population, not the tourists, that will have to carry this team. And nobody has any idea how thats going to pan out. The large majority of the permanent population in Vegas doesnt work 9-5, M-F. They work all kinds of shifts in 24 hrs, including weekends; especially weekends. Sunday is a work day in Vegas. 2. Im relatively young (30s). But i whole heartedly disagree about the ease of flying to Vegas from LA just to watch the game for the day. Again, thats not to say that it wont happen but like anything else, it will lose its luster after a couple of years. And this is all assuming that the Raiders are good for a while. No one is flying anywhere consitently to watch a 6-10 team. Which reverts back to the Las Vegas population that lives there having to back the team for its long-term success. Initially it can be successful especially since the Raiders may be good for a while and it will be the trendy thing to do for the young fans. However, like anything else, the new shiny toy wont be as shiny in 8yrs and the tourists will revert to the main reason they're in Vegas: Gambling, Sex, Parties. Football cant compete with those 3 things. Edited September 16, 2017 by bobobonators
Rocky Landing Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 LA is a bandwagon town. Always has and always will be. The Dodgers (who have cooled off immensely) had a 3/4 filled stadium all summer when they were kicking everyone's butt. Do you live in Los Angeles?
cba fan Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) LA is a bandwagon town. Always has and always will be. The Dodgers (who have cooled off immensely) had a 3/4 filled stadium all summer when they were kicking everyone's butt. Yes LA is band wagon for football. But stop with including Dodgers in that group. It completely flys in the face of reality. My thoughts are completely valid especially considering I don't really like Dodgers as a Mets fan. Dodgers have consistently drawn mid 40 K per game avg since mid 80's playing in a huge stadium.(56k) They set the bar for attendance. I believe first team to draw 3 mill per year and Drawing 3 million per year when it was a pipe dream of other franchises. They are #1 as we speak at 46K per game. What the hell more do you expect from a baseball franchise? Edited September 16, 2017 by cba fan
bobobonators Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 Yes LA is band wagon for football. But stop with including Dodgers in that group. It completely flys in the face of reality. My thoughts are completely valid especially considering I don't really like Dodgers as a Mets fan. Dodgers have consistently drawn mid 40 K per game avg since mid 80's playing in a huge stadium.(56k) They set the bar for attendance. I believe first team to draw 3 mill per year and Drawing 3 million per year when it was a pipe dream of other franchises. They are #1 as we speak at 46K per game. What the hell more do you expect from a baseball franchise? I agree about the Dodgers. They are always at the top or near the top in attendance. There is a die hard baseball contingent that follows the Dodgers. Such a historic franchise too. Like you said, football is another matter.
purple haze Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 For the Coliseum is in a bad neighborhood so attendance is hurt crowd, are you watching SC and Texas? Same stadium Rams play in; same neighborhood, after dark too. It isn't the neighborhood that's the real issue: the real issue is the Rams and NFL competing with many other things to do.
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 For the Coliseum is in a bad neighborhood so attendance is hurt crowd, are you watching SC and Texas? Same stadium Rams play in; same neighborhood, after dark too. It isn't the neighborhood that's the real issue: the real issue is the Rams and NFL competing with many other things to do. Exactly. A place like that on Gameday is swarming with too many cops/security guards for that to be an issue.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 You guys don't really understand. People just don't like to go down there. It's South Central LA. I live here. Your average Joe just doesn't want to go deal with the crappy stadium in one of the worst parts of town. I dont know one person that likes that stadium or likes going there. Outside of diehard USC alums and there are a lot of them. Hundreds of thousands. The actual danger you are in is non existent. But no one likes to go down there.
Mark Vader Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 How about some facts bobo ... In San Jose the lowest day time high was in high 70s and on Sunday it was 94° Yes, but Limeaid, it's not going to be over 90 degrees the entire season.
purple haze Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 You guys don't really understand. People just don't like to go down there. It's South Central LA. I live here. Your average Joe just doesn't want to go deal with the crappy stadium in one of the worst parts of town. I dont know one person that likes that stadium or likes going there. Outside of diehard USC alums and there are a lot of them. Hundreds of thousands. The actual danger you are in is non existent. But no one likes to go down there. I live here too. And the Coliseum is a terrible stadium. I guess it depends on the average joe's you hang with. Whenever I'm at the museums around the Coliseum there are large crowds. As we said, SC draws well. That's my point about the Rams. They don't have the cachet with the city, and unless they start winning they won't have it. I don't think the new stadium will make that much difference if they aren't winning.
Wayne Cubed Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 You guys don't really understand. People just don't like to go down there. It's South Central LA. I live here. Your average Joe just doesn't want to go deal with the crappy stadium in one of the worst parts of town. I dont know one person that likes that stadium or likes going there. Outside of diehard USC alums and there are a lot of them. Hundreds of thousands. The actual danger you are in is non existent. But no one likes to go down there. Yup. It is a dump of a stadium. Been to USC games and the Bills game last year, just a horrible stadium to watch football in. Add in, besides the USC campus, there is nothing around it besides South Central. USC is like an oasis in a really crappy neighborhood.
SoTier Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 You guys don't really understand. People just don't like to go down there. It's South Central LA. I live here. Your average Joe just doesn't want to go deal with the crappy stadium in one of the worst parts of town. I dont know one person that likes that stadium or likes going there. Outside of diehard USC alums and there are a lot of them. Hundreds of thousands. The actual danger you are in is non existent. But no one likes to go down there. The real issue is that the Rams haven't been in LA for 20+ years. They no longer have a following there. The LA situation wasn't like those in the other cities that got teams in the 20 years since the Rams left where much, if not most, of the impetus for bringing in an NFL franchise came from local people. Who was agitating for the NFL in LA? The NFL itself for TV ratings and real estate developers. If the Rams can turn themselves around on the field, they may eventually have a successful run in LA but I'm guessing that even the promised new stadium isn't going to save the LA Chargers. They'll leave eventually ... possibly back to San Diego.
DriveFor1Outta5 Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 (edited) I live here too. And the Coliseum is a terrible stadium. I guess it depends on the average joe's you hang with. Whenever I'm at the museums around the Coliseum there are large crowds. As we said, SC draws well. That's my point about the Rams. They don't have the cachet with the city, and unless they start winning they won't have it. I don't think the new stadium will make that much difference if they aren't winning. Ultimately it will come down to winning. Bandwagon LA football fans won't care otherwise. A new stadium will be a short term draw, but that will dry up without a winning team on the field. In mega cities like LA and NY, how intrigued with shiney new stadiums can people really be? People simply care more about USC than pro football at this point. None of this "bad neighborhood" stuff has a thing to do with it. Does everyone forget how the Rams and Raiders time ended in LA? The Rams were playing in Anaheim at the time, you can't even use the bad neighborhood excuse for that debacle. Edited September 17, 2017 by DriveFor1Outta5
YoloinOhio Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 To be fair, if I lived in some beach community south of LA I wouldn't be wasting a Sunday on either of these teams either.
Recommended Posts