more details:

I'm guessing the baseball stadium will have to be fully indoor and air conditioned.

(04-20-2023 09:37 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  I'm guessing the baseball stadium will have to be fully indoor and air conditioned.

Some articles reference a partially retractable roof being involved, whatever that means. But yeah, it's kind of a no brainer that the new stadium will be an indoor stadium with a roof.

But it’s a DRY heat!/s

I've said this before, but I will say it again: because the Raiders normally play once a week, they can try to pull fans from the Inland Empire or Los Angeles. I could be wrong, but very few in LA care about the Chargers. The Rams owner really just wanted his own stadium and no other tenents, but the rest of the NFL, still bitter over Al Davis' prior move to LA, forced the Chargers on the Rams owner who really wanted no one. So, the Raiders did some calculating, after determining that Oakland really didn't want them either, and figured that Las Vegas wouldn't be too bad of a drive for their LA & Inland Empire fans IMO.

Now, the question is can the A's pull off the same feat? I don't doubt that they may be able to make some of the same inroads that the Raiders did, but it's going to be tough to fight the Dodgers, the Angels, and the Padres for fans, and having to do it more than once a week without an established fanbase nearby to boot!!! That's why I hoped that the A's would either stay in Oakland (established fanbase) or move to Portland ( the city really does want its own baseball team, could support it more than once a week, Mariners fan support in Portland is tepid, at best, IMO.)

This link below goes into more detail, IMO:
https://community.fangraphs.com/the-impo...ttendance/

(04-21-2023 02:10 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I've said this before, but I will say it again: because the Raiders normally play once a week, they can try to pull fans from the Inland Empire or Los Angeles. I could be wrong, but very few in LA care about the Chargers. The Rams owner really just wanted his own stadium and no other tenents, but the rest of the NFL, still bitter over Al Davis' prior move to LA, forced the Chargers on the Rams owner who really wanted no one. So, the Raiders did some calculating, after determining that Oakland really didn't want them either, and figured that Las Vegas wouldn't be too bad of a drive for their LA & Inland Empire fans IMO.

Now, the question is can the A's pull off the same feat? I don't doubt that they may be able to make some of the same inroads that the Raiders did, but it's going to be tough to fight the Dodgers, the Angels, and the Padres for fans, and having to do it more than once a week without an established fanbase nearby to boot!!! That's why I hoped that the A's would either stay in Oakland (established fanbase) or move to Portland ( the city really does want its own baseball team, could support it more than once a week, Mariners fan support in Portland is tepid, at best, IMO.)

This link below goes into more detail, IMO:
https://community.fangraphs.com/the-impo...ttendance/

Within their letter, they claimed just 4,000 non-Vegas residents per game would see the team

John Fisher also has yet to apply to relocate and owners haven't voted on it.
More importantly, he needs to have an actual stadium deal signed by January 15, 2024 so the team still receives revenue sharing dollars.

(04-21-2023 02:10 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I've said this before, but I will say it again: because the Raiders normally play once a week, they can try to pull fans from the Inland Empire or Los Angeles. I could be wrong, but very few in LA care about the Chargers. The Rams owner really just wanted his own stadium and no other tenents, but the rest of the NFL, still bitter over Al Davis' prior move to LA, forced the Chargers on the Rams owner who really wanted no one. So, the Raiders did some calculating, after determining that Oakland really didn't want them either, and figured that Las Vegas wouldn't be too bad of a drive for their LA & Inland Empire fans IMO.

Now, the question is can the A's pull off the same feat? I don't doubt that they may be able to make some of the same inroads that the Raiders did, but it's going to be tough to fight the Dodgers, the Angels, and the Padres for fans, and having to do it more than once a week without an established fanbase nearby to boot!!! That's why I hoped that the A's would either stay in Oakland (established fanbase) or move to Portland ( the city really does want its own baseball team, could support it more than once a week, Mariners fan support in Portland is tepid, at best, IMO.)

This link below goes into more detail, IMO:
https://community.fangraphs.com/the-impo...ttendance/

The article linked to seemed to have a few typos and some poorly worded sentences that was throwing me off, maybe it was just me. But once you push past that, it had a lot of interesting information.

It clearly made a case why the Ray's are having a hard time drawing fans because only 0.67 million live within a 30 mile radius of the Ray's stadium, which is about 1/3 of the MLB average of 1.9M and about half of the next lowest team, the Brewers with 1.21M.

But it also was interesting because San Francisco 's and Oakland's population numbers were very similar, because they share the same market, but attendance numbers were dramatically different. The Giants were selling out every single game for an average of 43k a game. The A's were averaging just 25k a game. Why? You can blame the lack of a new stadium in Oakland but that does not seem to be the whole story. The White Sox had similar attendance problems despite having a newer stadium than both the Cubs and the A's, and having 3.86M living within a 30 mile radius. In theory the White Sox and A's should be drawing a lot more fans. So 2-team markets must be different. Is it the neighborhood the ballpark is in? Is just tradition?

Who'd have guessed NBA last for the 4 to go to Vegas. Most thought they'd be 1st or 2nd.

(04-21-2023 07:21 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Who'd have guessed NBA last for the 4 to go to Vegas. Most thought they'd be 1st or 2nd.

I always believed Las Vegas would have teams but I thought NHL would be last. I was wrong. I imagined: NFL > NBA > MLB > NHL. Even further, I believed Las Vegas to be a relocation destination more than an expansion city which seems to be more right than wrong.

I think basketball will end up in Las Vegas as an expansion team and share the arena with the Golden Knights.

It’s pretty extraordinary how many weird things have had to happen for the A’s to make it to Las Vegas after stops in their previous cities. A hundred things in Philly, Kansas City, or Oakland would’ve kept them in any of their former towns. Imo their fate in the East Bay was sealed when Wally Haas gave away the rights to San Jose for free, then the Raiders moved back to Oakland and built Mt. Davis.

It's weird that everybody is acting like this is a done deal when the A's still have this expectation that various g9venment agencies will chip in $0.5B of the total$1.5B stadium cost. The A's are doing this in the opposite order the Raiders did. First the Raiders got the legislation passed for $0.7B in their case. Then they went out and got the property for the Raiders stadium, which is ok from a leverage standpoint because they were looking at multiple properties.

But I don't know what the A's are doing buying the property before the legislation passed for the stadium funding. They gave up a lot of leverage there. Yes, the A's can still back out from buying the property, which still gives then some leverage. But let's not call this a done deal just yet.

They really need to change the name and the colors....

How about the Las Vegas Dealers....ha, ha! double-entedre and "marketing" opportunities galore!

(05-01-2023 11:34 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  They really need to change the name and the colors....

How about the Las Vegas Dealers....ha, ha! double-entedre and "marketing" opportunities galore!

If Pete Rose isn't the official mascot for this franchise then it's a crime.