The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I had some outreach today from a Raiders site, asking for us to band together in solidarity to ask that the Raiders not be moved.  Also, they have a goal to stop public funding of stadiums as a wedge or threaten to leave.

On its face, I'm in general agreement.

However, I really personally think having multiple teams in one location in kinda dumb and I'd love to have the Raiders move to Vegas, so I could go there for trips.

On the other hand, I don't want it to be a "when they came for the Raiders, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Raider" type of deal.

Thoughts?

I think someone in Orlando, Columbus, Sacramento, or Raleigh might have a different idea of what constitutes "multiple teams in one location" than someone in Miami.  Your house may be slightly more transparent than you think.

everyone should care. If it happens to another city it can happen to yours. No city is really safe.

Here's the thing, having the Raiders move is old news to me. I've seen them bounce around from Oakland to LA to Oakland and now going to Vegas. They are easily the most moved franchise in all of sports since I have been old enough to pay attention. If it was any other franchise and any other family running the operation I might have different feelings.

First off, I oppose all public money/tax breaks for teams and stadiums.  Remove that aspect and the owners can put their team where ever they want. 

If the public money was removed, you would not see teams that have support in their cities move that often, but teams without local support such as Jaguars would still be at risk.

The Raiders have only moved twice (so far).  The Rams, Nets, and Clippers have both moved twice in the same rough time period.

This is close enough to my opinion that I'll just piggyback on Hoodie here...

Roughly the same time period is relative, especially since I set the time period as being during the time I was old enough to pay attention. The Raiders first moved in 1982, I was 10 and of an age where I understood it. The Nets first moved in 1977, when I was 5 (strictly talking NBA Nets). Yea, it was definitely on my radar then. The Clippers first moved in 1978. I pretty much only knew Dr. J back then as the NBA as a sport was barely on my radar.

Was it really worth picking an argument over when I was old enough to pay attention to these moves?

You are invoking Martin Niemoller regarding a football team relocation?

Yes.

The Rams have moved twice since 1994.  The Raiders have moved twice since 1982, so if you were paying attention for the Raiders then you've also noticed the Rams.

You are citing the Raiders as an example of a team that moves far more than anyone else but moving twice is not uncommon, and even if Vegas goes through moving three times in 35 years isn't exactly a record.  That's the point I was making.

Until you cite another team with three announced moves in the time frame specified, it is a record.

I don't care if teams move.  However, if a team leaves a city they should have to leave the team name behind, in case a new franchise should start up in the old city and want to use that name (I would grandfather in an allowance if a team is moving back to a city it once had a franchise, for example the Rams returning to LA).  So if the Raiders leave Oakland for LV, then they are no longer the Raiders.

Granted if it actually goes through.  However, Ronnie Lott's group has made significant progress (http://www.ktvu.com/news/223403907-story) on keeping the Raiders in Oakland, so I don't think Vegas is as much of a done deal as you may believe.

The Sacramento Kings were further along in their move to Seattle than the Raiders are in their move to Vegas, and that move never happened; neither did their move to Anaheim to become the Anaheim Royals (a name the Kings' owners trademarked).  Don't count the chickens quite yet.

1000x yes: mascots should stay with cities.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you get any kind of public financing for a stadium deal, that should be written into the deal.  If the public is going to finance the team, let them have some ownership of it.

Particularly if the mascot/name is topical.  Minnesota Lakers makes sense, LA not so much.

I agree, but this just isn't in the cards.  Because if one city won't support a stadium, another will.  Unless it becomes law or something, this will always be the reality, because there can be a case made that the public funds stimulate the economy AND it's not even like the city is giving away money, since it comes in the form of tax breaks, so it's money they wouldn't have anyway if the team wasn't there.  They're not REALLY PAYING for the stadium.  They're letting the team go tax-free.

Still sucks, but it's a distinction to recognize.

Without legislation, how would you ever propose to stop this?

My position is we need federal legislation barring states from offering tax breaks to relocate from another state but encouraging said tax breaks when the relocation is from another country. Having a plant move from Miami to Atlanta does nothing to benefit the country.  Relocation from London to Atlanta helps the country. 

This could be done two ways.  Out and out ban under the commerce clause or by offering grants to the states for encouraging relocations from foreign countries that disappear if they have more domestic companies move into the state than foreign ones.  The latter is more feasible and less likely to have a constitutional challenge.

That's not nearly as bad as the worst mascot move of all time, the Utah Jazz.

I was thinking the same thing about the Jazz.  Also, the one year of Tennessee Oilers.

Well, at least Houston knows now that they don't have to worry about losing their mascot again... unless San Antonio gets a team.

From what I am reading how close you are to Oakland or other city greatly affects how much you oppose this.  Someone who lives 15 miles from the stadium and has season tickets is likely pissed.  A Raiders fan living in NYC doesn't really care, his game day experience is he is still watching from home or a sports bar.  And Raiders fan living in Vegas are thrilled.

Assuming the new stadium sells out, the net overall change is for every fan that is no longer able to attend a game on Sunday, there is another fan that now gets to enjoy the live game.  From a societal overall harm/benefit it is a complete wash.

^^^ I agree that the most people upset by the move are the locals that attend the games.  For non-locals I wonder how many would remain fans of the team if they changed from the "Raiders" to another mascot name.  I live in New York State and I know a couple people that were LA Rams fans, and remained Rams fans after the move to STLO, for them it didn't have an effect.  However, for me if the Dolphins moved to let's say Idaho and became the Potato Peelers, I would cease being a fan and probably adopt the Bills or Giants as my new team (no way I could ever be a Jets Fan).  But if the Dolphins moved to Key West and remained the "Dolphins" then I would probably remain a Dolphins fan.

The Vegas Raiders are going to have the same problem ALL teams in nice tourist cities have (Miami, SD(before they moved)..etc) is that its a destination/tourist city so fans of opposing teams will plan their yearly vacations or once a year trip to see their team play in Vegas.

They "Hey Honey we are Steelers fans lets go watch them on a road game this year and make it a nice vacation. Ok, who is on the schedule. Well Cleveland, Cincy, Baltimore, oh and they play in Vegas this year. Ok, lets do a week in Vegas and one of the days will be the game. Book it". And the Raiders home stadium gets overtaken with opposing fans every game because the road team travels to detestation cities. 

The stadium will always be sold out, just might not be with Raiders fans. Vegas in the NFL is here to stay and pencil in the Super Bowl in Vegas every 5 years as owners will want to spend a week in Vegas as often as possible.

I'm just going to pretend you never said this.

The Giants don't seem to have this problem.  Dolphins didn't when Marino was tossing the pig skin.  Saints had this problem before 2009, but not recently.  More at play than just being a city worth visiting.

Believe me I never would have thought this back in the Kelly vs Marino days, but since they have been bigger losers than the Dolphins the last decade my hatred for them has subsided.

Giants play in NJ but even if you count NY it isn't a tourist city like Vegas, Miami, SD...etc. Many people avoid NY cause its just so big and so many people.  And in the cold months nobody is running to NY unless its for a few days around christmas

NYC gets more visitors than any other city in the USA and is ranked #5 in the world.  NYC gets more than 50 million visitors per year, Browder County less than 15 million.

Statue of Liberty is a World Heritage Site.  Empire State Building, WTC memorial,

Quick name the city:

With the most prominent theater district?
Most famous parade?
Nye party?
Want to watch SNL, the today show, the daily show etc live....guess what city you visit?

It is Giants would get more foreign fans if tickets were obtainable...but the are sold out with decade long waiting list and scant few being available on the secondary market.  Jets otoh does get fans from other teams.

Not arguing NYC is big for tourists  obviously it is, but when planning a vacation to watch your team play fans are going to want to go to a warm destination to escape the cold. 

That is one factor.  But a bigger factor is tickets being available.