Stephen Ross goes lone wolf against the NFL / Goodell

Got it, thanks.
Now let me ask you this. Do the "cold weather transplants" (who move to South Florida and buy Dolphins season tickets) become Dolphons fans or do they show up to every game after game wearing their Jets, Giants, Pats, Bills etc... gear ?
Regardless, I am thinking that these "cold weather transplants" have the money to be a Dolphins season ticket holder.

 

Brandon, I understand your points, and agree about the current state of spectator sports.
But, I do think that cultivating only financially wealthy customers, who are typically not especially knowledgeable or engaged in the event they are watching, may create an apathetic game day environment that diminishes traditional home field advantage.

 

Oh no. They stay very true to their Jets, Bills or Patriots roots. We all hate each other the way you guys hated the Chiefs and Broncos. There are HUGE Jets' contingents especially.

 

True, the Raiders didn't do themselves any favors when trying to get a stadium deal done in Oakland. The same could be said about the Chargers, they never really dug deep to make things happen in San Diego. But in the past couple of years we've seen three teams leave for pastures new and the league has been more than willing to let them pack up and go without any real hesitation. The league let Kroenke take his Rams to Los Angeles without too much trouble, despite there being no real negotiation with the city of St Louis despite them putting a fairly attractive riverfront stadium proposal on the table (which was deemed inadequate by Goodell), and why was that? Because Kroenke is going to build a palace out in Los Angeles that will make the league a ton of money, same goes with having the Rams back in Los Angeles, it will make the league a ton of money. That's why owners like Jerry Jones got behind it, and similarly why he got behind the Raiders moving to Las Vegas because it offered the opportunity to make more money.

I get it that these things happen, life isn't always fair and those at the top get to dictate to those at the bottom - that's life, sad, but true. But like I said, the people I feel for here are the fans that supported those teams through thick and thin because they have lost their team in their city/local area. No team is going to go back to Oakland. I doubt any team will go to San Diego with two teams down the road in Los Angeles. And it is unlikely that St Louis will attract another team in the near future unless they make a big push for the next team that fails to get a stadium done in their home market. Suffice to say, it is the fans that get hurt in this and the owners and league leaders don't really seem to care. They come out in front of the cameras with the usual PR, when really what they should be doing is coming out and saying that they have made the decision to relocate because it will make everyone a lot of money. Let's face it, that's why the three teams have been let out of their previous markets as easily as they have been - to make the league more money. And that's why I would be slightly concerned if I was a Bills or Bengals fan, because if another market comes along and offers a better deal than Buffalo or Cincinnati could possibly offer, then the league has shown it won't stand in a teams way and will in fact support them if it makes the league more money.

Don't get me wrong, the NFL is a business and I can understand why the three teams have all left for new markets. It makes business sense for them. The Rams and Chargers get a palace in Los Angeles, and the Raiders get one in Las Vegas. That secures their long term futures and should make each team a ton of money in the process. But I just don't like relocation and would hate to see the league allow other teams to bolt as easily as they have let the Chargers, Raiders and Rams. In the end if the league make it that easy, then it wouldn't surprise me if cities and states that want NFL teams manage to pry some of the smaller market teams away in the near future. The league seems to be hellbent on fancier upmarket stadiums, and while that makes business sense to the league, it could also hurt the chances of some of those smaller markets or less vibrant markets retaining their teams as time goes on.

 

So at an Eagles-Dolphins game in Miami there will be 5,000 or so Dolphins season ticket holders wearing Jets hats ?

 

While it was not fair to the St. Louis fans I can sort of understand the NFL's logic in accepting Kroenke's proposal to move to LA.
The Chargers decision to share the new LA-Inglewood stadium is very questionable. San Diego had some great Chargers fans, for decades.
The Chargers have always been loved there. It's my understanding that San Diego's public money contribution, combined with the League's financial contribution, had the proposed new San Diego Chargers stadium within only $200 million of being agreed upon by all parties involved.
By moving to LA the Chargers now have to pay $600 million or so in relocation fees.It seems to me the Chargers would have been much better off, financially and otherwise, by participating in a new San Diego Stadium deal.
My best guess is that Chargers owner Dean Spanos thinks the "LA Chargers" are going to sell a lot of tickets and rent a lot of high priced private suites. In San Diego that could happen but I don't think it will for the LA Chargers.

 

Haha, no. There will probably be a few thousand Eagles fans though. During Jets games about a 1/4 to a third of the stadium will be Jets fans. About the same for Pats, less so for Bills. Everyone moves to Florida, lol.

 

I think first off comparing Miami or SF to Vegas as tourist towns is a large stretch, Vegas was built strictly for tourism, it's one of top tourist cities, not just in America, but world wide, the vast majority of the citizens there work in the tourist industry.

What is the percentage of tourists in that city at any given time? 41 million visitors per year, 3.9 million a month and the entire state of Nevada only has 2.8 million people(about the same pop as Miami-Dade alone), Vegas and surrounding area has a population of about 700,000.

So on a per month basis, the tourists out number the residents by over 4-1.

SF record, set in '15 was 18.9 mil, or 1.5 per month

Miami-Dade record, set last year for tourists was 15.5 mil or 1.25 per month.

Vegas, completely unlike SF or Miami is isolated, the nearest large city is LA, and it's 260 miles away, over 4 hours averaging 60 mph, the Raiders fan base is 550 miles away in Oakland, for a reference, the Ga border is about 400 miles away from Miami.

Both Miami and SF have around 6-7 million people living within 100 miles of the stadiums, Vegas has about that same 700,000, because it's in the middle of the desert, lol, so to fill a 70,000 seat stadium, you need a full 10th of the population to buy tickets, which obviously will never happen, so they will rely heavily on tourists to fill the stands.

Also, there are a ton of other teams fans at Miami games, especially NY fans, there have been low attendance games where the Jets fans were equal to the Dolphin fans.

Another also, how in the wide world of sports can you tell who's a tourist and who isn't? And do you really expect anyone to believe that no other fans of any teams ever go to Raiders games?

 

Absolutely. No doubt about that.

 

Yes, while a 49ers season ticket holder, and more recently one for the Raiders, I did see opposing team's fans attending the games. But it was never what I would consider to be a large number. Maybe about 5% of total seats.
As for tourists, within SF most of us do think of the city as a "tourist city". Not once have I ever heard about tourists planning a trip toSF for the purpose of seeing a football game. I am sure it happens but I don't think it does in any kind of large numbers.
I just think NFL teams have traditionally depended on local residents to buy season tickets and attend the games. Considering the demographics of the Las Vegas market, I question if ticket sales will be successful enough to fill a 65,000 seat Las Vegas Stadium.
One point of reference I have is the University of Nevada Las Vegas, which I think has averaged about 6,000 or 7,000 attendance for its home football games.

 

It's kind of funny, I don't think of NY as a "tourist city", but they have 50+million tourists every year, or 4+ mil per month, which is the highest in the world, I mean I've always known they draw a **** ton of tourists, but I just never thought of it as a "tourist city", but I do think of SF and Miami as more "tourist cities".

I wasn't saying SF or Miami aren't cities that attract tourists, of course they are, but as the numbers show, LV attracts more tourists than both those cities combined.

That was more my point, volume of tourists, especially compared with population, LV doesn't have near the population needed to support an NFL franchise, and all the owners, as well as Goodell are aware of that, so all of them are counting on tourist dollars to help fill that stadium.

Tourism and tourists are not all equal, people don't go to SF for the same reasons they go to LV or Miami, and I'm betting dollars to donuts that SF has a tourist season, and it's not in the winter, unlike Miami and LV, so it wouldn't surprise me if they had less tourism in winter.

I think a SF trip is more cultural for most tourists, where LV is an any time destination, so you can plan a trip during football season and LV is just as much LV, and there will be hotels buying tickets as packages and comps, as well as all the business "conventions" in LV, lol, which are just play times for corporate big wigs.

There are a couple people in this thread alone that are already talking about a LV trip for when the Dolphins may play there, the same goes for every team and I'm sure there's a ton of Raiders fans thinking the same thing.

 

Cleveland and Pittsburgh, combined, have about the same amount of people as Las Vegas.

 

I do absolutely understand the enthusiasm behind a new Las Vegas Stadium, which would be the first ever venue of its kind for that city. I am sure football fans from around the country will be interested in visiting Las Vegas to check out the stadium. It may turn out to be a very successful stadium project, which draws capacity crowds for many years.
But part of me , at least from a football-home-team perspective, thinks the Las Vegas Stadium could be a bust. Never before has any sports stadium or arena been constructed with the business plan dependent on tourist clientele. Traditionally, NFL team's have needed a consistent 55,000 to 60,000 season ticket holder account base. My best guess is that Las Vegas metropolitan area, Southern Cal, and Utah residents combined will probably amount to about 25,000 to 30,000 season ticket subscribers. If my guess is correct, that would mean more than half the stadium's seats will need to be sold to tourists. Seems like a stretch, week after week, expecting tourists to buy 25,000 tickets.
Also, most west coast games conclude at about 4:00 p.m. west coast time. For people heading back home that is kind of a late start. They will check out of their hotel at 11:00 a.m., find a place to store their luggage, attend the game, retrieve their luggage, and try to make it to the airport by 6:00 p.m. for a 7:00 p.m. flight ? Again, seems like a long shot that 25,000 tourists will want to do that.

 

Interesting and I do remember reading an article a while back that in terms of population size and income both cities should in theory be nearer to a one pro team market than the three pro teams they currently support. However, both cities and states have a strong history with pro sports or collegiate sports. They are both states and cities with a strong body of sports fans. Does Vegas and Nevada have the same history or kind of population? Not really in regards to history, and for their population I have no idea whether they are rabid sports fans or not, but this is their chance to show whether they can support teams or not. That said, it will be a big challenge for the Raiders to build a consistent fan base, though having a winning team will certainly help them.

 

It seems to get worse as the season progresses into November/December due to a large amount of "snowbirds" that leave the north east and Great Lake states due to winter setting in. And because it's just for winter months their loyalties never change.

 

My wife just returned home from a business trip to Las Vegas. She remarked that the locals are very excited to have the Raiders.
The team is now soliciting $100 deposits (for eventual PSL-season ticket purchases). I believe the Rams have done the same thing for their upcoming LA-Inglewood stadium.
My question is whether the enthusiasm of fans will diminish once the PSL and ticket prices are revealed? Here in Nor Cal, five years ago for the new Santa Clara Levis Stadium, the 49ers sold PSL's ranging from $7,000 to $80,000 per seat. And season ticket prices were in the range of $150 to $500 per seat. The Santa Clara stadium has been a bust, nobody I know of likes attending games there, and now PSL holders are unable to sell their PSL's for even half of what they initially paid. And last season $300 face value tickets , offered on StubHub for $50, went unsold. So, the people who bought in to the whole "new stadium, great fan experience, buy a PSL" story have suffered at least a 50% financial loss. I don't know how the new Rams-Chargers Stadium or Raiders Stadium deals will play out (for fans), but Santa Clara's Levis Stadium is now a heavily criticized project.

 

If the Raiders keep getting better I can see the locals in Vegas supporting them. If they suck, then like most cities, Vegas may turn into a dud of a destination.