Chargers, Raiders propose to share stadium in Carson, CA

I'm surprised there is this much sympathy when they were the ones doing the same thing to Los Angeles back in 95.

 

Out of curiousity
Has that 289 Million be paid back/made up since the Texans been here?

Is it still part of the local taxing?

Rocket River

 

I think it was because Pheonix did it them in 1987

These Cities constantly screwing each other for the pretty girl that is the NFL

Rocket River

 

I have no idea. I do know that more than half of it was privately financed along with an additional 700 million from Bob McNair to purchase the team from the NFL. If you factor that in then the tax payers paid %25 for the team. IIRC the money came from taxes from hotels and something else. The "tourist tax."

I meant to ask Major about his assertion that this was a mistake. We would not have a baseball or football team without that vote.

I would think the only real hope in order to put this under control is for the NFL being subject to more regulation from the Federal Government but Reagan and Clinton put an end to all of that. They are a monopoly in every sense of the word but you can't fix the problem but splitting them into another company.

 

Not true regarding Washington. I lived in Maryland from '93 - '09 and, while I never attended an event there, the complaints about FedEx Field were many and constant, the least of which is access.

By all accounts it is a HORRIBLE venue and the game day experience leaves a lot to be desired. Friends with season tickets rarely go to games any more and when they do, it's often a fairly miserable day.

Regardless, Li'l Danny Snyder wants out: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ocate-hire-googles-architect-for-new-stadium/

It will be interesting to see if Snyder runs into the same problem Jack Kent Cooke did 20 years ago; he was willing to build the stadium himself with his own money, but nobody (the District, VA or MD) would let him.

 

Yes, again - they were spending other people's money since it was hotel/rental car/etc taxes charged mostly to out of towners. They structured it that way because they knew directly taxing the voters wasn't going to fly. It still hurts the city by making tourism or visiting more expensive - it's just not directly affecting people's pocketbooks.

Agree with that - and that's the fundamental problem. The private sector is using this scarcity to siphon money from the public sector. The public sector should never be involved in giving businesses tax abatements - it goes against the basic elements of free market competition. If Dell gets a tax abatement from Round Rock to locate their HQ there, that's unfair to other companies that don't get that same tax treatment. In effect, the city is then picking winners and losers, which is has no business doing.

That's not true at all. If a company has 1000 employees in City A, and moves them to City B due to a tax abatement, no new net jobs were created between the two cities and the total tax revenues coming to City A+B is less. The only difference is that the company has more money.

I completely understand WHY cities do it - they are essentially coerced into it through blackmail. I'm saying public funding of private sector non-essential projects should not be allowed at all. Ultimately, if Houston is an attractive place for a successful football or baseball team, the owners should be able to find private sector money to fund the project. If they truly couldn't do that, then it's not a very wise investment.

The economics of sports should not depend on public sector subsidies to function any more than other entertainment options like restaurants or movie theaters should depend on government funding.

 

SAN MARCOS RAIDERS?
NEW BRAUNFELS RAIDERS?


http://www.sacurrent.com/Blogs/arch...-the-oakland-raiders-will-move-to-san-antonio

 

The Texas Raiders?

That would pretty well gut a lot of McNair's hope of being "Texas' Team" by brand name.

 

Good!

We can then change the team name.

 

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

 

I really hope SA gets the Raiders. The AFC South champion Texans need a better rival than the hapless Cowboys.

 

I would like to see the Raiders move to the San Antonio area. We could have a NFL version of the Texas Triangle that works so well with the Rockets/Mavs/Spurs. Plus the Raiders and Spurs would have matching black and silver team colors.

 

If the Raiders do move to Texas, I would like to see the divisions change and for the Texans/Cowboys/Raiders/Saints to be in one division.

 

I don't think that would ever happen, but holy crap that would be cool

 

Regardless of what happens now, no one is moving divisions or conferences.

 

If the land is really between San Antonio and Austin, they really should call it Texas Raiders

You combine both cities and the towns in between, that's a larger population than Oakland.

 

The cholos and gangbangers faint

 

Schlitterbaun Stadium

 

None of those cities could commit the funds to build a stadium like the cities of Arlington and Santa Clara did for the Cowboys and 49ers. The place that makes the most sense is at the very edge of Bexar County (San Antonio) around I-35 and the 1604 loop. That would be about 70 miles from downtown Austin. They would probably plan to upgrade 1604 between i-35 and i-10 for easy access from the east.

Bexar County Map:


Just for fun...
Also, this could prompt some changes in the division alignment. The easiest solution would be for the Chiefs and Texans to switch Divisions. That would put Houston, San Antonio, Denver and the Chargers in the west. However, the Chargers could move to the NFC west to join the Rams if they move to L.A. and Seattle could switch back to the AFC. You would put Kansas City with Indianapolis which makes sense. I've been a diehard Texans fan since the NFL took them away from LA and gave them to McNair but I have no sentimental attachment to the AFC south. The only real rivalry I feel is with the Titans. We haven't been competitive enough with the colts to make the "rivalry" mean much. If you wanted to get crazy then you could try to get New Orleans, Houston and San Antonio in a division but that would require a lot of shifting.

Again, this will likely never happen but it's fun to think about the logistics:
Option 1)

AFC West
Houston Texans
San Antonio Raiders
Denver Broncos
Chargers or Seattle Seahawks

(Kansas City moves to AFC South)

Crazy Option 2

AFC South
Houston Texans
San Antonio Raiders
New Orleans Saints
Tennessee Titans

NFC South
Carolina Panthers
Atlanta Falcons
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Jacksonville Jaguars

AFC West
Indianapolis Colts
Kansas City Chiefs
Denver Broncos
Padres/Seattle Seahawks

 

I haven't done dissertation-level research on this topic, but just off the top of my head, it also doesn't seem like there are a ton of rousing successes among the franchises in any sport that have moved from one city to another in recent years.

Sure, decades ago when there were untapped markets all over the country, there were success stories. The Dodgers to LA, the Colts to Indianapolis, and, of course, the Rockets to Houston are some that have worked out well, but with most of the major markets around the country already saturated, and perhaps more importantly, with the fans in those cities likely already calling an out-of-town team their own, it's far tougher to "stick" as a part of the new city's culture.

If we want to talk "deep cut" reasons why the Rams didn't work out in St. Louis, that's certainly one of them. I worked in an office of around 200 people, most of which were born and raised locally in that area, and I can only think of two legitimate Rams fans. I can think of many more Bears, Packers, Colts, and Steelers fans in that office, and while I don't know each and every back story, the back stories I do know of involve them becoming fans as kids, before the Rams ever came to town. When the Rams showed up in 1995, they stuck with the team that they had already been rooting for.