HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

OT: Oakland Raiders want a small new stadium...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-16-2013, 03:10 PM
  #26
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,794
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
A lot of NFL teams have downsized with their newer stadiums. Going for fewer higher quality seats over pure quantity on seats. But usually those new stadiums have been towards the mid 60k seating. Going down to 50k would be a huge shift.

Some recent examples with new and previous stadiums.

Arizona 2006 - UofP Stadium 63k - Sun Devil Stadium 72k
Cleveland 1999 - FirstEnergy Stadium 73k - Cleveland Stadium 81k
Detroit 2002 - Ford Field 65k - Silverdome 80k
San Francisco 2014 - Levi's Stadium 68.5k - Candlestick 70k
Seattle 2002 - Centurylink Field 67k - Husky Stadium 72.5k
Tampa 1998 - Raymond James 66k - Tampa Stadium 74k
I think it's a symptom of the larger shift that the NFL is making from a ticket league to a TV league combined with the realities of revenue sharing and luxury boxes.

Lower end or "regular" consumer seats just don't make up a significant portion of a team's income any more.

Why would a team put in 10k nosebleed seats and share that revenue with 31 other teams when they can just put in 1k box/luxury seats and keep all of that for themselves.

Lower supply also makes selling things like seat licenses easier and all that money stays in the pockets of the local franchise.

__________________
Come join us on the By The Numbers forum. Take a look at our introduction post if you're new. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
hatterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 03:20 PM
  #27
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 19,601
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Yeah, forgot to mention that one. Always thought it looked like a flying saucer landed in Soldier Field.
Gotcha. I just figured it wasn't in any listing since by 'historical' records it's considered the same stadium, like pre and post mid-70s Yankee Stadium.

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 03:26 PM
  #28
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,825
vCash: 500
I've read an NFL team could play in an empty stadium and still be profitable. So why bother with the added expense. 50,000 sounds ideal.
.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 03:42 PM
  #29
jiggsawpuzzle35
Registered User
 
jiggsawpuzzle35's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The 949
Posts: 1,348
vCash: 500
Keep them out of Southern California. I hope they get their stadium up there.

jiggsawpuzzle35 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 04:17 PM
  #30
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charon of Styx View Post
I've read an NFL team could play in an empty stadium and still be profitable. So why bother with the added expense. 50,000 sounds ideal.
.
looks better on TV

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 04:41 PM
  #31
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 34,228
vCash: 500
They can move to LA if they want but in 20 years they'll just move back. LA can't hold onto a team long term.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 04:44 PM
  #32
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
They can move to LA if they want but in 20 years they'll just move back. LA can't hold onto a team long term.
well neither can oakland I guess.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 05:12 PM
  #33
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 19,601
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
They can move to LA if they want but in 20 years they'll just move back. LA can't hold onto a team long term.
LA has never had a legitimate stadium in this new era of luxury boxes and obscene TV money to hold a team long term.

If a stadium gets built, whether it's the AEG downtown or the Industry plan, that team is gonna stay for a very long time.

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 05:20 PM
  #34
TealTownLeaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19
vCash: 500
Raiders problem isn't Oakland, its their location in Oakland. I'm worried that the team is looking at a location near by the current one, which will continue to deter the casual fans and corporate partners. I hope the city can offer the land they have set a slide for the A's recently instead after the A's are allowed to move to San Jose (maybe knock a few million off the price tag as well).

50,000 is small in NFL terms, but still plenty big. Plus, ticket revenue is not the driving force of team profits in the league. All it will do is create more demand and sell out games. Plus the team will be able to control revenues instead of simply being a renter at the proposed LA venue(s).

And the Raiders are not top 2 in the Bay? I think that sentiment needs to be reexamined. I'm sorry, but the Raiders are HUGE from the Bay Area to Sacramneto. Their business model was simply been mismanaged by an ego maniac.

TealTownLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 05:27 PM
  #35
Guardian452
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 707
vCash: 500
The smaller capacities aren't necessarily because of smaller stadiums. It has more to do with bigger seats and more amenities. I remember when benches and 16" to 18" wide seats were the norm. You literally sat shoulder to shoulder. Now stadiums are built with seats at least 20" wide and with cup-holders in the armrests.

Guardian452 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 05:30 PM
  #36
The Korean*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Country: South Korea
Posts: 7,635
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to The Korean* Send a message via Yahoo to The Korean*
Why cant Oakland give 400M and NFL 400M?

That sounds doable.

The Korean* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 05:31 PM
  #37
nabbyfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SJC
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
As far as the 2 teams sharing the new stadium in Santa Clara, that was an option on the table and the Raiders weren't interested, even though Goodell himself said having the 2 teams share Santa Clara was his ideal option.

I live in Santa Clara, and would say the majority of football fans down here are 49'ers fans...the Raiders draw is more from the East Bay into Sacramento and Stockton. Having them play in SC adds an hour or more in traffic to their drive to the game, which doesnt really work.

Goodell is on the record as saying the NFL would help pay for an Oakland stadium to the tune of $200M, but I wouldn't be shocked if they leave town again. However, I get the feel that the group trying to build the football stadium in LA is kind of more of a glam thing, and I dont know if that group is interested in the Raiders' image. I'm sure if they moved again they would do great with the general fans though.

One thing that is annoying is that O.Co was totally ruined for baseball to accommodate the Raiders moving back...if they do leave then would the A's be able to somehow get Mount Davis down and reconfigure the place for baseball only? Could be interesting.

nabbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 05:52 PM
  #38
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
They can move to LA if they want but in 20 years they'll just move back. LA can't hold onto a team long term.
LA "can't hold a team" for the same reasons all franchises move:

Building a new NFL stadium costs a ton of money, and it's really limited with what it can actually host in terms of annual events. An NBA/NHL rink like Staples can host 123 NBA/NHL games, plus playoffs, plus WNBA, plus concerts, plus events, etc, etc and be filled 250 days of the year.

... an NFL stadium will have some other events (big soccer games, high school football, occasional college football, maybe even a bowl game), but the number of outside events that can fill at 50-75k stadium is far lower, so it sits empty a lot more days.

There's far far far less "civic value" of an NFL stadium vs an NBA/NHL arena, and the NFL place costs twice the price.


The reason that LA doesn't have an NFL team isn't because "no one cares/supports it." It's because the "Buy In" on an NFL team in LA is way too steep for just any potential owner to take on.

You've got to post a large percentage of a $800 million stadium, AND an expansion fee OR purchase of existing team/relocation fee.

And while people think "oh the value of an LA franchise is insane" the truth is that the main benefit of owning a pro sports franchise in a top market like LA, NY, CHI, BOS simply doesn't exist in the NFL: TV Rights. While the Lakers and Dodgers have massive TV rights deals because they are LA teams in the LA market, the NFL TV deal is a national TV contract. Their market doesn't add a single dime to TV.

That's why the Rams & Raiders both left: They teams needed a new stadium, but the city/metro area really didn't need the stadium themselves and couldn't justify an expense THAT vast. The Rose Bowl/Colisum worked just fine for LA's civic needs. The conditions of the venues were only a problem for the Raiders/Rams to keep pace financially with the rest of the NFL.

Those two main factors are why Farmers Field has been the only thing to get done. It takes someone who has a multi-billion sports empire to make it happen, like AEG. Anyone who's not in that upper echelon of sports ownership is better off buying a team in the smaller market, collecting the exact same TV revenues in a market which will bend over backwards to keep their team happy (like Cincinnati or Minnesota).


Last edited by KevFu: 07-16-2013 at 05:57 PM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 06:01 PM
  #39
gordie
Registered User
 
gordie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hisgirlfriday View Post
Well that and the bay area money isn't in oakland or near it any more. A move to san jose with the a's could make sense for a new stadium that can actually get corporate suites sold.

But like others my preference would be the raiders landed back in la so that when la gets a team again it won't screw up the alignment too much like if the Jaguars somehow landed there.
So the Oakland NBA franchise is moving to San Francisco and the Oakland MLB franchise wants to move to San Jose and you want the Oakland NFL franchise to move back to Southern California where there is no stadium. Has any city lost 3 pro teams and thrived as a community? It says here Oakland builds this new football stadium and Oakland is able to keep at least one of its pro sports identities.

gordie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 06:15 PM
  #40
Gnashville
Never trade Weber
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 5,131
vCash: 500


Just call them the California Raiders play 4 games in LA and 4 in Oakland

Gnashville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 06:54 PM
  #41
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordie View Post
So the Oakland NBA franchise is moving to San Francisco and the Oakland MLB franchise wants to move to San Jose and you want the Oakland NFL franchise to move back to Southern California where there is no stadium. Has any city lost 3 pro teams and thrived as a community? It says here Oakland builds this new football stadium and Oakland is able to keep at least one of its pro sports identities.
All-time? Yeah. A couple dozen. New York's lost about 15 pro sports teams.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 06:55 PM
  #42
PSGJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 552
vCash: 500
It seems to me that an NFL arena is by far the worst arena for a city to build. It takes up a lot of space and it sits empty for huge chunks of the year. I would also imagine that the upkeep is very high.

PSGJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 06:59 PM
  #43
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,184
vCash: 500
Most recently, Kansas City. Though nothing quite tops LA losing 2 NFL teams simultaneously

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 07:14 PM
  #44
TealTownLeaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSGJ View Post
It seems to me that an NFL arena is by far the worst arena for a city to build. It takes up a lot of space and it sits empty for huge chunks of the year. I would also imagine that the upkeep is very high.
Actually, they are utilized quite a bit. Concerts, monster truck/motocross events, soccer, post season bowl games for the southern stadiums and domes, religious revivals, special events... many are used year round. They are quite expensive, but the return on investment is there and they serve their municipalities in many ways. Hockey/basketball arenas are simply better equipped to hold events 12 months a year, and can accommodate both large and small events.

TealTownLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 09:10 PM
  #45
Swarez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 809
vCash: 500
Is there a reason way back 49er/Raiders didn't just join up to build something like Giants/Jets out in NY?

This is for 8 home games a year. Drive to Santa clara once a week. I am sure its too late now, but with these economic times its getting harder and harder for anyone to add new debt, and increase taxes to pay for that debt.

Swarez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 09:35 PM
  #46
Crumblin Erb Brooks
Registered User
 
Crumblin Erb Brooks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Grenyarnia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charon of Styx View Post
I've read an NFL team could play in an empty stadium and still be profitable. So why bother with the added expense. 50,000 sounds ideal.
.
Doesnt the NFL have blackout rules if they stadium doesnt sell out as well?

Crumblin Erb Brooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 10:13 PM
  #47
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSGJ View Post
It seems to me that an NFL arena is by far the worst arena for a city to build. It takes up a lot of space and it sits empty for huge chunks of the year. I would also imagine that the upkeep is very high.
You're right. There aren't that many events for outdoor 70K seat venues. Its not the 80s anymore there are only a handful of bands that can draw enough fans to fill that many seats.

The problem with the LA proposal is that whichever team takes it will have to sell the team. Both proposals have a private investor putting up $1 billion. They aren't doing that if they don't own the team too.

aqib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 10:17 PM
  #48
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordie View Post
So the Oakland NBA franchise is moving to San Francisco and the Oakland MLB franchise wants to move to San Jose and you want the Oakland NFL franchise to move back to Southern California where there is no stadium. Has any city lost 3 pro teams and thrived as a community? It says here Oakland builds this new football stadium and Oakland is able to keep at least one of its pro sports identities.
There's more to life then sports. Besides if you go on yahoo news right now you can see oakland has bigger problems.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 10:42 PM
  #49
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swarez99 View Post
Is there a reason way back 49er/Raiders didn't just join up to build something like Giants/Jets out in NY?
Goodell pushed for this - and the League offered add'l financing (in addition to the $200M committed to the 49-ers). The 49-ers considered it early on when they were still working on the public/private financing - but Al Davis wasn't interested. By the time Al died, the 49-ers had all the financing lined up and didn't need the Raiders anymore.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:10 PM
  #50
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 34,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
LA "can't hold a team" for the same reasons all franchises move:

Building a new NFL stadium costs a ton of money, and it's really limited with what it can actually host in terms of annual events. An NBA/NHL rink like Staples can host 123 NBA/NHL games, plus playoffs, plus WNBA, plus concerts, plus events, etc, etc and be filled 250 days of the year.

... an NFL stadium will have some other events (big soccer games, high school football, occasional college football, maybe even a bowl game), but the number of outside events that can fill at 50-75k stadium is far lower, so it sits empty a lot more days.

There's far far far less "civic value" of an NFL stadium vs an NBA/NHL arena, and the NFL place costs twice the price.


The reason that LA doesn't have an NFL team isn't because "no one cares/supports it." It's because the "Buy In" on an NFL team in LA is way too steep for just any potential owner to take on.

You've got to post a large percentage of a $800 million stadium, AND an expansion fee OR purchase of existing team/relocation fee.

And while people think "oh the value of an LA franchise is insane" the truth is that the main benefit of owning a pro sports franchise in a top market like LA, NY, CHI, BOS simply doesn't exist in the NFL: TV Rights. While the Lakers and Dodgers have massive TV rights deals because they are LA teams in the LA market, the NFL TV deal is a national TV contract. Their market doesn't add a single dime to TV.

That's why the Rams & Raiders both left: They teams needed a new stadium, but the city/metro area really didn't need the stadium themselves and couldn't justify an expense THAT vast. The Rose Bowl/Colisum worked just fine for LA's civic needs. The conditions of the venues were only a problem for the Raiders/Rams to keep pace financially with the rest of the NFL.

Those two main factors are why Farmers Field has been the only thing to get done. It takes someone who has a multi-billion sports empire to make it happen, like AEG. Anyone who's not in that upper echelon of sports ownership is better off buying a team in the smaller market, collecting the exact same TV revenues in a market which will bend over backwards to keep their team happy (like Cincinnati or Minnesota).
The fans weren't exactly coming out in sellout numbers for the Rams and Raiders either during those times and that wasn't an issue of non-shared revenue and luxury boxes. That had to do with mostly crappy teams on the field. A team that goes into LA has to have deep pockets to get the stadium built and intelligent management to make the team consistently good. Fans will not show up in LA if the product is not at least playoff-worthy.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:32 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.