Raiders relocating to San Antonio?

[bing101]

 Its been 20 years since the Raiders since Left LA for Oakland. What do you think of this Raiders Moving to San Antonio.


http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/2014/10/09/raiders-san-antonio/17011315/

[1995hoo]

I have a feeling Los Angeles may be more likely, in part because it won't face the same stiff opposition from the Cowboys and the Texans that San Antonio would.

It's kind of amusing that all three teams being mentioned in conjunction with Los Angeles used to play there (the Rams, the Raiders, and the Chargers–the Chargers originated in Los Angeles but moved because the city couldn't support two teams).

[bing101]

I have a feeling Los Angeles may be more likely, in part because it won't face the same stiff opposition from the Cowboys and the Texans that San Antonio would.

It's kind of amusing that all three teams being mentioned in conjunction with Los Angeles used to play there (the Rams, the Raiders, and the Chargers–the Chargers originated in Los Angeles but moved because the city couldn't support two teams).

What about the fanbase is low for football while Basketball, Hockey, futbol and Baseball do better in LA. But somehow LA does better in NBA , NHL, MLS, and MLB deals compared to the NFL.

Another factor is that Oakland still has to negotiate a new MLB and NFL stadium deal but San Jose is still at play here for the Oakland A's while Los Angeles was still fighting for an NFL deal but cracked.

[Billy F 1988]

Sacramento is a possibility. They have the Kings from NBA. They'd end up as the Sacramento Raiders. Moving to San Antonio would not be a very sound investment because SA would face hefty opposition from Dallas and Houston and blow them off the walls.

[Pete from Boston]

More major-league extortion.  Whoever mentioned playing off car dealers against one another was in the wrong thread.

This sucks for Oakland but Oakland has much bigger problems and should not kowtow to the extremely rich at the expense of the extremely poor.  Let San Antonio be the next sucker to be held captive to the demands for corporate welfare with dubious benefits.

[jeffandnicole]

It's all about the money.  The Raiders would move to Dallas if Dallas gave them a billion dollars for a new stadium.  They could care less about that other Dallas team.

[bing101]

Was there ever supposed to be a football stadium near Staples Center at one point? But Wait Didn't the Raiders hold on to Los Angeles Territory even though the team has been in Oakland for 20 years.

[bing101]

http://www.kgw.com/story/local/2014/10/10/12614046/

Apparently The Raiders were planning to go to Portland, Oregon too.

[Stephane Dumas]

With all the rumors of the Buffalo Bills moving to Toronto.... (But they had now a new owner Terry Pegula http://grantland.com/the-triangle/whos-that-guy-new-buffalo-bills-owner-terry-pegula/ )

Could we imagine the Raiders moving to Toronto? "Toronto Raiders" rings well to my ears.   Some folks in Toronto wish a NFL franchise even at the risk to kill the Argonauts of the CFL.

[bing101]

http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/10/10/47318/la-committee-backs-bid-for-more-time-to-lure-nfl/

A Los Angeles committee is backing AEG's request for more time to lure a professional football team to Los Angeles.
The City Council's Economic Development Committee on Friday approved a six-month extension of an agreement with the developer to find an NFL team to play at a downtown stadium.
If the full council approves next week, AEG will have until April to find a team.
It's had no luck so far but Mayor Eric Garcetti said Thursday that a team is "highly likely" to come to the city in the next year.
Speaking on KNX-AM radio, the mayor said he thinks the NFL is finally interested in LA again.


By KPCC News.

[amroad17]

Since we all are surmising where the Raiders can go, how about Oklahoma City?

[english si]

Raiders have quite a fan base this side of the Atlantic that the Jags certainly don't have and only a couple of teams can boast similar support here that aren't going anywhere. It comes down to the 80s exposure to the game and the 49ers being successful and the Raiders being their rivals and thus getting British attention (and support as we like the underdog). Plus they marketed it well and so their logo is going to be the most recognised of the 32 in England (even if people don't know what the logo is for).

London Raiders anyone? Obviously they'd need to change Divisions, as a West Coast division and 8/9 hour time difference isn't going to be good!

[texaskdog]

Sacramento is a possibility. They have the Kings from NBA. They'd end up as the Sacramento Raiders. Moving to San Antonio would not be a very sound investment because SA would face hefty opposition from Dallas and Houston and blow them off the walls.

Since most of their California fan base is in LA, they played in LA, Oakland, and if they went to Sacramento, why not the California Raiders?  or better yet West Coast Raiders to sound like that show?

[texaskdog]

Its been 20 years since the Raiders since Left LA for Oakland. What do you think of this Raiders Moving to San Antonio.


http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/2014/10/09/raiders-san-antonio/17011315/

Would be a great in-state rival for the Cowboys.  SA is big enough for a team but SA people do love the Cowboys.

[Pete from Boston]

The problem with a team in London is that each team only plays six games in its division.  Most of the other games are teams in some other division (two, actually–one NFC and one AFC).  You're going to periodically end up with a season where four or more games involve a  9-hour time difference between teams and 5,000-mile flights. 

[1995hoo]

Toronto would have stadium issues. The Raiders currently play in the second-smallest stadium in the league. SkyDome would be the smallest stadium and would likely have very high ticket prices (I think I read somewhere tickets average $183 when the Bills play there).

The bigger question would be whether Parliament would take steps to prevent an NFL team from moving to Toronto. Back in the 1970s they enacted legislation to protect the CFL that caused the World Football League's planned Toronto franchise to move to Memphis before playing even a single game.

[ZLoth]

Let me see here....

• The St Louis Ram were originally the Los Angeles Rams, and played in Los Angeles from 1946 to 1994.
  
• The Oakland Raiders were temporarily the Los Angeles Raiders from 1982-1994.
  
• San Diego Charges were originally the Los Angeles Chargers in 1960 before moving the San Diego in 1961.
  

In terms of media market size, Los Angeles is number 2, while New York City is number 1. In fact, the top 18 Neilson markets with the exception of Los Angeles all have a NFL team.

Also, after the Rams and Raiders left, Los Angeles was very bitter towards the NFL, and I don't hear any screaming for a NFL franchise.

[english si]

The problem with a team in London is that each team only plays six games in its division.  Most of the other games are teams in some other division (two, actually–one NFC and one AFC).  You're going to periodically end up with a season where four or more games involve a  9-hour time difference between teams and 5,000-mile flights.

Indeed, but the NFL want a London team by 2022 despite that.

And a game every year with another 3 games every 3 years and another 4 games every 4 years is better than 6 games a year with Western division teams after a move - hence why Raiders would need to change divisions (and why the Jags are the team they are trying to get Londoners to endere to the most).

[Brandon]

Its been 20 years since the Raiders since Left LA for Oakland. What do you think of this Raiders Moving to San Antonio.


http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/2014/10/09/raiders-san-antonio/17011315/

Would be a great in-state rival for the Cowboys.  SA is big enough for a team but SA people do love the Cowboys.

That would make three Texas teams (one for each large metro area) with the Cowboys, Texans, and then Raiders (if moved).

[1995hoo]

Let me see here....

• The St Louis Ram were originally the Los Angeles Rams, and played in Los Angeles from 1946 to 1994.
  
• The Oakland Raiders were temporarily the Los Angeles Raiders from 1982-1994.
  
• San Diego Charges were originally the Los Angeles Chargers in 1960 before moving the San Diego in 1961.
  

In terms of media market size, Los Angeles is number 2, while New York City is number 1. In fact, the top 18 Neilson markets with the exception of Los Angeles all have a NFL team.

Also, after the Rams and Raiders left, Los Angeles was very bitter towards the NFL, and I don't hear any screaming for a NFL franchise.

The St. Louis Rams were originally the Cleveland Rams, actually.

[Pete from Boston]

The problem with a team in London is that each team only plays six games in its division.  Most of the other games are teams in some other division (two, actually–one NFC and one AFC).  You're going to periodically end up with a season where four or more games involve a  9-hour time difference between teams and 5,000-mile flights.

Indeed, but the NFL want a London team by 2022 despite that.

And a game every year with another 3 games every 3 years and another 4 games every 4 years is better than 6 games a year with Western division teams after a move - hence why Raiders would need to change divisions (and why the Jags are the team they are trying to get Londoners to endere to the most).

It would make more sense to have a London team in an eastern rather than a western division, but it puts at least one team at a disadvantage in the inevitable very-long-distance games.  It isn't good for parity of play, no matter how much the NFL likes putting marketing above the limitations of reality in every way possible.

[Laura]

More major-league extortion.  Whoever mentioned playing off car dealers against one another was in the wrong thread.

This sucks for Oakland but Oakland has much bigger problems and should not kowtow to the extremely rich at the expense of the extremely poor.  Let San Antonio be the next sucker to be held captive to the demands for corporate welfare with dubious benefits.

Pretty much this. It makes no logical sense that taxpayers end up having to pay the bill for football teams to have new fancy stadiums. The teams make all of the profits while the taxpayers are the losers. Don't like the stadium in Oakland? Then build your own damn new stadium. Instead, they'll just wait for a new city full of taxpaying suckers to build them a new stadium.

/endrant

[texaskdog]

Let me see here....

• The St Louis Ram were originally the Los Angeles Rams, and played in Los Angeles from 1946 to 1994.
  
• The Oakland Raiders were temporarily the Los Angeles Raiders from 1982-1994.
  
• San Diego Charges were originally the Los Angeles Chargers in 1960 before moving the San Diego in 1961.
  

In terms of media market size, Los Angeles is number 2, while New York City is number 1. In fact, the top 18 Neilson markets with the exception of Los Angeles all have a NFL team.

Also, after the Rams and Raiders left, Los Angeles was very bitter towards the NFL, and I don't hear any screaming for a NFL franchise.

Yet they keep considering giving them TWO.  What's wrong with one?

[texaskdog]

Its been 20 years since the Raiders since Left LA for Oakland. What do you think of this Raiders Moving to San Antonio.


http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/2014/10/09/raiders-san-antonio/17011315/

Would be a great in-state rival for the Cowboys.  SA is big enough for a team but SA people do love the Cowboys.

That would make three Texas teams (one for each large metro area) with the Cowboys, Texans, and then Raiders (if moved).

And it's a huge state, and California has three, four if LA gets a team.  Still don't know why the bay has TWO, especially when neither play in SF anymore.

[DTComposer]

And it's a huge state, and California has three, four if LA gets a team.  Still don't know why the bay has TWO, especially when neither play in SF anymore.

First, why would it matter whether the teams play in SF or not, as long as they're playing somewhere in the market? The Cowboys don't play in Dallas, correct? Both New York teams play in New Jersey, right?

Second, the Bay Area has two teams because historically they have been one of the largest markets in the country. According to Nielsen, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose is currently #6, just behind Dallas, but they have the #20 market (Sacramento-Stockton) immediately adjacent. If you combined the two you'd have the #3 market in an area geographically comparable in size to the Dallas market, and the markets adjacent to Dallas are nowhere near that large (Waco is #88).

All that said, San Antonio (or Austin) could easily support an NFL team, and should be a serious candidate for any relocation or expansion.