Raiders with current ownership are not going to LA. Any prospective team in LA will need tons of private money for a stadium bill to pass. The Davis family does not have that kind of money. Davis family would have to sell to someone else with deep pockets (or a group) before Raiders move to LA and I don't see the Davis family selling.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11321363/buy-oakland-raiders-get-move-san-antonio McCombs: Davis' S.A. visit went well Billionaire Red McCombs told the San Antonio Express-News on Wednesday that he and his family would be interested in buying a piece of the Oakland Raiders "if that's what it would take to get them" to San Antonio. McCombs, however, said he's not sure whether Raiders owner Mark Davis would seek out local investors if he was to relocate the team. "But I told him if he wanted some, they wouldn't be hard to get," he told the newspaper. Davis and two high-ranking Raiders front-office personnel met with several city officials in July about the potential of moving his team from Oakland to San Antonio, the Express-News reported last month. McCombs and Spurs owner Peter Holt also were at the meeting. Davis has acknowledged the visit in a statement he released last month. McCombs, who owned the Minnesota Vikings from 1998 until 2004, told the Express-News on Wednesday that Davis' visit couldn't "have gone better." McCombs told the newspaper that it is his belief there is a "definite possibility there may be a relocation" and he doesn't think San Antonio is being used as a "bargaining chip."
... said every city that was ever used as leverage. That being said, if Nashville and Jacksonville can get teams... I guess San Antonio could get one too. That also being said, those above cities financial issues now may play a role in why owners would not want to go to another city with smallish corporate support.
It's never a smart idea to put a pro team by a beach. And Nashville is full of hillbillies that are busy making moonshine. And obviously San Antonio just doesn't have to depend on the corporate support in San Antonio... Did you not here what Red said...???
I've mentioned the San Marcos idea years ago, it's the only way an NFL team goes to central Texas. Could work very well considering the future growth of that area along with just 8 games a season. The Texas Oilers would be a fun pipe dream. The problem with SA is that OKC is a better option, same number of Fortune 500 companies but a franchise potentially gets the whole state of Oklahoma fan base over SA fans that choose to jump the Cowboys ship. One could argue that Cowboys losing most of Oklahoma fan base to OKC would hurt more than losing SA fan base. As a Cowboy hater I'm all for OKC getting an NFL team. I disagree with the article not mentioning that Oakland shares the 6th biggest media market with 49ers. It's pretty misleading to not mention but Raider nation is pretty large around the country no matter where they wind up. I just don't see them leaving California. As far as the Rio Grande Valley area being SA market, um no. Laredo yes because I-35 has a straight route but it's a very long drive from SA to RGV with no direct interstate highways. I-69C and I-69E will actually connect Houston to RGV through north Corpus and Victoria so Houston can actually "claim" RGV as much as SA can try and "claim" it. Someone said this area loves football yet UT Pan Am has no football team, not even FCS level, they should start with that. RGV with I69 routes are about to really change that area if the interstate is ever completed all the way to Canada. Going to help Houston as well.
Call me crazy, but I'm not sure the outlet mall provides a tax base that could support financing an NFL caliber stadium
But they would have a large number of potential hot cheerleaders! I think he mentions San Marcos becuase it is so close to both San Antonio and Austin. It's close to just being one huge city ala DFW.
You're not wrong! And Grin's for post-game comfort. yeah...I hear ya. I'm just not sure who finances a stadium there. It's not Arlington.
Mark is basically the red-headed stepchild owner of the NFL, but Jerry Jones has taken him under his wing. Jerry is probably advising Mark and told him he could use SA as leverage as long as it was clear they both don't want that to actually happen. Based on how Jerry responded to questions about the new LA Stadium project yesterday, my inkling is that there is currently a plan in motion to get the Raiders back to LA and Jerry is helping pull the right strings.
The NFL expects a ton of corporate support to keep the value of their franchises where they want it. The franchise in Nashville would be worth more in Houston. The franchise in Jacksonville would be worth more in LA. Yes, a team can be supported in middle of nowhere towns in Oklahoma, the Dakotas, Idaho, etc just as well as it could be in San Antonio. Its not just about fans showing up for games. I just don't see a team voluntarily leaving the huge Oak-SF media market, or California for that matter. But they'll keep San Antonio on pins and needles till they know for sure they can't get a deal elsewhere... hell, they may even build another stadium (like they built the Alamodome) without any guarantees, and maybe the Spurs will play there! That's why even though they say they're not being used for leverage, they really are. Hell, Houston was used as leverage in the expansion race against LA... and they ultimately ended up with the team, so you can still win even though you were initially a bargaining chip.
Mark isn't stubborn like his daddy was. Al would have stayed in that ****hole forever just to stick it LA and the NFL. Mark is much more concerned about image and status and I believe he is sick of seeing his team play in that dump.
Here is the LA article posted by LaConfora who was at the Raiders/Cowboys joint practice the past 2 days. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer...ering-steam-and-jerry-jones-might-be-on-board Possible Raiders move to Los Angeles is gathering steam
I'm not saying San Antonio isn't being used for leverage... But you can't use a city for leverage unless that city is capable of supporting an NFL team and San Antonio is. And the Oak-SF media market isn't enough to keep a NFL team there IMO. The Raiders had the worst attendance in the NFL for a couple of years and they must not be getting much corporate support because they can't even get a new stadium built. The 49ers had to fight tooth and nail to get a new stadium and now they are asking the Raiders to share that stadium with them. I just know McNair better do everything he can to keep the Raiders out of Texas because that would hurt him far more than it would hurt Jerry. Probably would hardly effect Jerry at all.
Probably wouldn't affect the Texans either... there's not hoards of fans traveling from San Antonio to watch them play. I don't see countless Texans shirts when I go through there. San Antonio will always be a city full of Cowboys fans... so its far more likely that there would be more converted cowboys fans than Raiders fans. As far as it being a viable city to support an NFL team, it could be... no more so than Nashville, Jacksonville, St. Louis or New Orleans already are. The problem is, they don't have a team... and are unlikely to ever get an expansion team, thus they will always have to be at the mercy of some team trying to get a stadium deal done. Additionally, while the NFL can do well in small markets... nobody looks at it as a viable long-term plan when they keep taking teams from big markets and relocating them to smaller ones (especially when there are available bigger markets out there). St. Louis has struggled, Nashville's franchise value is maxed out, and Jacksonville seems right for the picking. I doubt the NFL would want to add another city with questionable variables.
It's enough people in that area to keep the stadium full. I was speaking in terms of TV market which would effect McNair more than it would Jerry... IMO. L.A. may not be a viable long-term plan either. I always felt they were just a city teams use as leverage. Beautiful weather, beaches, huge transplant city, competition with UCLA and USC, and medical grade kush... Too much stuff to do out there and if the team isn't succeeding _ they wouldn't get the support like a team like the Texans get.
Having a team in LA is too enticing for the NFL owners. As the article I posted alluded to, the Raiders are a bottom feeder in revenue sharing contributions right now. Put them back in LA and they instantly become a top 5 market which puts more money in the owner's pockets.
The NFL negotiates its TV deals on behalf of the teams... a team in San Antonio would not affect the TV market of either team. Now, they may get some radio distribution in those other cities, and perhaps that gets affected (but more likely they just have all the teams available state-wide on all radio networks... just like Cowboys games are available on the radio in Houston). I don't think anybody is debating whether or not a team in LA would make money... they would. They would instantly be one of the most valuable franchises in all of sports. Its certainly a viable long-term solution (the most viable of all possible solutions). The main issues have been how to get a stadium built there, and who pays for it.... and they've made major head-way in that aspect as of late. Sure, LA can survive without the NFL... and for the most part, the NFL has done just fine without LA... but things only get better/more lucrative/more enticing when they figure out how to get these two together.
The Cowboys get a lot of play in the Houston area on TV as well on Fox because they are an NFC team. The Raiders are an AFC team and that would be taking the Texans off a lot of TV's in that area which is why I say it would affect McNair more than it would Jerry. And I'm sure the NFL would make a lot of money as a whole with a team being in L.A. from the start. But once that new car smell wares off and if that team isn't winning _ the individual owner of the team may not make as much money as he could in a different city. Which is probably why teams left L.A. before... So if Davis gets his with and the Raiders move back to L.A. _ he better be putting a super bowl contending team on the field.
It's not about attendance. It's about franchise value...how much can they sell this thing for when they're finished with it... LA could sell 75% of their seats and still have a far higher franchise valuation than a franchise in San Antonio. If an owner has his pick, there's no way on God's green earth he's picking SA over LA unless he's from SA and has emotional ties there.
McNair makes the same amount of $$$ on the tv deals if the Texans are on TV in San Antonio or they are not. And in this day/age, you can pretty much watch any team anywhere if you really want to. Teams left LA before due to bad stadium situations and short-term windfalls/gains/promises made by other cities. Now, its no surprise that both of those teams (Raiders/Rams) are in limbo and could both move back. That was also before the NFL became the "IT" league (which is why franchise relocation is far less likely now, unless you're talking about moving a team to LA). Sure, there could be a degree of dis-interest in the team if they start routinely performing poorly... but as long as they get the stadium situation figured out, the franchise will always have a high value simply by being in LA. Whereas on the flip-side, your "new car smell" analogy could be applied just as well (and has been proven) if the NFL goes to smaller markets... where we see teams in Nashville and Jacksonville completely maxed out in franchise value, and are struggling to keep the stadium filled, because they both play in smaller markets. Even with a good team, and a sold out venue, their chance for further growth is limited simply in the market they play in.
