The other LA sports teams are doing just fine, financially. Do you think the Spurs would fetch $2 billion dollars if they were put up for sale? That's in comparison to a Clippers team that has done virtually nothing of note in their history of existence in the NBA.
That's pretty much you conceding that you have zero evidence of San Antonio being financially viable and more desirable than LA. And yes, most people "argue" or "debate" when they feel they're "right" about a certain topic. Also, I have never posted a single thing in my life about Blake Bortles... so not sure what you are referring to.
you didn't consider the only real facts that actually support your argument before arguing with LA lovers?!?! :grin:
How about my evidence? SA 100% stadium finance, LA LOL% stadium finance. Now let's talk Davis owned Raiders and LA viability? SA has made themselves viable by entertaining 100% financed stadium whether y'all like it or not.
Sure... they're willing to do anything/everything to get a team. We know that. Just like they built the Alamodome with 100% financing without even having a team secured, and they had to stick the Spurs there to justify spending all that money in the first place. I never said it "couldn't" happen... just saying that San Antonio is not the healthy corporate market that the NFL owners would typically want in an NFL city. If LA gets a stadium (which of course is the biggest "if"), its a no-contest between the two cities.
I didn't know the Davis family didn't have deep pockets but I did know the rich folks in L.A. are real cheap when it comes to paying for a stadium... But tushay sir... Tushay
Naw... I'm just conceding that I'm not going to burn energy beating up my keyboard debating with you Mr Crippling Reputation
The civic leaders of San Antonio should be placed in a stockade if they're offering 100% public financing for an NFL team.
So because the Raiders owner has entertained the idea of moving to SA, it's a certainty that the NFL believes that SA is a market they want to be in? Seriously?
Nick is right. And I'm right when I say OKC & getting most of the Oklahoma fan base is a better option than SA anyway. A smart owner of an MLB or NFL team would look at both options and there is no way they choose SA with two other franchises in state over OKC and get a huge % backing of the whole state. The SA Scorpions will be promoted to MLS(after stadium upgrades) before OKC gets an MLS team but that is it. Only other way is to find a super rich owner from SA that loves the city so much he doesn't care about making more money elsewhere
My point has been that San Antonio is a viable option for the Raiders and if they weren't _ San Antonio couldn't be used as leverage for the Raiders to get what they want from Oakland or another city and it wouldn't be the 1st time that they've been used for leverage. Simple as that. As far as what the other owners in the NFL want... I'm sure they would want a team in L.A. because it would be more money for them, but L.A. would have to cooperate for that to happen. If L.A. wanted a team bad enough they would have been had one. They probably could have had the Jaguars when that team was sold. Maybe they will get the Raiders because Davis did say he wants a small stadium which means a cheaper stadium. Or maybe Davis will agree to share the 49ers stadium. Who knows... Just have to wait to see what happens.
If Jerry Jones and Bob McNair dont want to share the market...there is absolutely no way in heck that San Antonio will see an NFL football team. Period.
I don't think they will end up offering 100% financing for a new stadium. but they will offer a large % and it will pass. That will entice Davis family since they don't have that kind of cash. LA voters want 0% financing or nothing will pass. Davis family could never do that. They would have to sell even more % of the Raiders. As it is now, they are majority owners with only ~60% ownership. They would lose majority to finance the stadium, never gonna happen. I would put Oakland as the favorites to keep the Raiders with SA a distant 2nd. LA would be a really far distant 3rd.
The city of houston approved funds for a new football stadium before Houston got the Texans. That is what you call a 100% financed stadium. It's incredibly presumptuous to say that San Antonio voters would approve the costs of a new football stadium when a lot of them might not want a team. Either way, the fact is there is no stadium financing in place. 0% The exact opposite of what you said.
OKC is tiny compared to SA; the whole state has only 4 million people vs 26+ for Texas. Even if an SA team only grabbed a portion of that, they'd be better off. If SA is not a good option, OKC definitely is not. But beyond that, the specific market size is getting less and less important because more and more of an NFL team's revenues comes from their national TV deal which is shared equally amongst all teams.
While this is true, as it allows franchises to exist in smaller market places like Nashville, Jacksonville, St. Louis, and New Orleans... it doesn't solve the problem of what happens to the team when the performance on the field is not up to par, attendance dwindles and the stadium has maxed out revenues, and the total franchise values for small market teams fail to appreciate as well as the big market teams. Out of the above teams, obviously New Orleans has benefited the most of its recent run of success (even though before Katrina... and definitely after Katrina... there was a strong sentiment that they would move). There's no doubt a team would work in San Antonio, OKC, or any smallish city on a short term basis. Its what happens down the road when they're in the same position as Nashville, Jacksonville, and St. Louis.
