Raiders Update Thread

[Sam-I-am]

I know this is a bit superficial.

But us playing on a surface (on TV) with no indication of UNLV on our home field looks really, really bad. ...

There will be our logos on the field. They just have to be approved by the Raiders. JMHO but I think that you are over reacting.

....

Like I said, fields are shared all of the time. Many NFL stadiums host college games for preseason or post season games and have no trouble changing the field design.....

And the NFL teams at those stadiums have the same amount of control as the Raiders are asking for.

As for a change to our mascot appearing submissive, Hey Reb already appears as submissive as it gets. Use your imagination. Take the initiative and make this opportunity work for us.

 

[mvvsmith]

We shall see how it "comes out in the wash" so to speak. The people on the Authority Board I know personally don't need money and aren't politicians. Just hope it works out. Sam does point out at lot of teams play on branded fields, doesn't take much to change, just more details to be worked out. I rather sit in an AC dome at my age. First game of the season was hot for me.

 

[mvvsmith]

Being a long time UNLV I can see all the cons. Being a AZ resident I don't have any say unfortunately. I just have some trust in a few folks is all.

 

[Rebelbacker]

It doesn't seem to concern Georgia Tech or the SEC when they play in the permanently branded Atlanta Falcons Georgia Dome. If you've been there for a GT game or the SEC championship, you know full well that it's the home of the Atlanta Falcons but it doesn't seem to hurt attendance. It doesn't take a lot to covert the stadium into your own appearance wise and the Raiders are only requiring that those temporary changes be pre-approved by them. Same thing happens around the country at other NFL stadiums like the Indianapolis Colts Dome when the Big Ten Championship Game is played there every year.

Georgia Tech plays in Bobby Dodd Stadium which is on their campus. Georgia State plays in the Georgia Dome now. They are buying Turner Field and converting it into a football stadium.

 

[Rebelbacker]

I hope you are right. People here seem to think UNLV should be grateful to the Raiders for including them in THEIR deal. What some seem to forget is that this was UNLV's deal and Addy brought in the Raiders to partner with them to build a stadium on the Trop 42 property. Then, all of a sudden, the Raiders were looking at different sites & partners & UNLV got squeezed out. I have never liked this deal since I don't see Las Vegas getting a ROI on their money, but I was ok with it as long as UNLV got a fair deal & a new stadium to call home. I am still kinda hoping the Raiders stay in CA and UNLV claims the $550 mil and builds their own on campus stadium like was the original plan before Davis & Addy hijacked it.

I think the Raiders will be good for the city of Las Vegas, UNLV I have my doubts. Like you I was kind of hoping the Raiders would fall through allowing us to build our own on campus stadium but I am convinced more than ever the Raiders will be moving here.

From what I hear there is no desire for the committee to roll over and give the Raiders everything they want at the expense of UNLV. We have a voice and a lot of people on our side. I'm not guaranteeing anything because I have no say and there is a long way to go. But the fears of us not playing on a field with our logo and colors is unfounded IMO.

 

[Rebel1986]

They can change a logo from one team to another in a few hours.

 

[Sam-I-am]

Georgia Tech plays in Bobby Dodd Stadium which is on their campus. Georgia State plays in the Georgia Dome now. They are buying Turner Field and converting it into a football stadium.

I didn't realize that and I was just there recently. In fact, I should have called the new stadium in Atlanta that replaced the Georgia Dome, the Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Goes to show that it doesn't really matter that much to me when in attendance and I bet I'm not too far out of the norm.

 

[Sam-I-am]

They can change a logo from one team to another in a few hours.

Yup. Seen it done with grass and with field turf.

 

[bcvegaspt]

The talk that The Raiders want their field down and played on at all times isn't true. In the negotiation they're asking for everything and anything so that they can be seen as compromising when it comes to issues like this. Don't worry about UNLV Football games advertising The Raiders.

 

[mvvsmith]

Here's great RJ article explaining why the Stadium Authority can't receive revenue from the operation of the Stadium( tax exempt bonds). Polititical support for UNLV is also discussed.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports...-question-demands-laid-raiders-proposed-lease

 

[mvvsmith]

Here's great RJ article explaining why the Stadium Authority can't receive revenue from the operation of the Stadium( tax exempt bonds). Polititical support for UNLV is also discussed.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports...-question-demands-laid-raiders-proposed-lease

 

[Rebel1986]

I know that isn't true since the T&M was also built on tax exempt bonds when first constructed.

 

[Sam-I-am]

Here's great RJ article explaining why the Stadium Authority can't receive revenue from the operation of the Stadium( tax exempt bonds). Polititical support for UNLV is also discussed.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports...-question-demands-laid-raiders-proposed-lease

Thanks for the link. There are a couple of legal flaws in, or omissions from, the article which evolve primarily because news articles have to be so short.

First, please keep in mind that the tax exempt bonds for the construction of the project are much akin to a construction loan/mortgage. Once those are paid off, then the authority "can" receive "revenues" but it may not want to depending upon the bonding regulations and the tax code a couple of years from now which I expect to change drastically. Also keep in mind that the Raiders are actually putting a ton of cash into the project which other NFL teams have and haven't been doing for new stadiums. Spanos, for just one example, has consistently refused for over a decade to put any money into a new stadium for the Chargers in San Diego.

Second, the article doesn't really look at the difference between costs and revenue. The authority can receive a lot of money to cover costs while the bonds are being paid but no revenue. Of course, revenue under a bonding situation is the amount of money coming in that exceeds costs or the same as profit under simple business accounting. One local example comes from our own T&M that received costs from the beginning but never received amounts that exceeded costs until the bonds were paid in full.

Third, the article doesn't cover the type of lease. A $1 lease doesn't mean that's all the Raiders will have to pay to operate in the stadium if it's a triple net gross lease which is better known in Las Vegas from an entertainment standpoint as a "4 Wall" production. In very general and over-broad legal terms, that means that the Raiders & NFL will still pay for certain operational costs/fees, e.g., insurance, utilities, maintenance, security, etc, during use if it as the conditions of that type of lease. I expect that a hybrid version will be the end result.

In sum, all of the parties have far too much to lose to let this fall through. The "Devil is in the details" and we haven't even stepped towards Hades in this regard. As long as we don't have some idiots in our government who don't know what they are doing, this should work out just fine.

 

[LasVegasReb]

Thanks for the link. There are a couple of legal flaws in, or omissions from, the article which evolve primarily because news articles have to be so short.

First, please keep in mind that the tax exempt bonds for the construction of the project are much akin to a construction loan/mortgage. Once those are paid off, then the authority "can" receive "revenues" but it may not want to depending upon the bonding regulations and the tax code a couple of years from now which I expect to change drastically. Also keep in mind that the Raiders are actually putting a ton of cash into the project which other NFL teams have and haven't been doing for new stadiums. Spanos, for just one example, has consistently refused for over a decade to put any money into a new stadium for the Chargers in San Diego.

Second, the article doesn't really look at the difference between costs and revenue. The authority can receive a lot of money to cover costs while the bonds are being paid but no revenue. Of course, revenue under a bonding situation is the amount of money coming in that exceeds costs or the same as profit under simple business accounting. One local example comes from our own T&M that received costs from the beginning but never received amounts that exceeded costs until the bonds were paid in full.

Third, the article doesn't cover the type of lease. A $1 lease doesn't mean that's all the Raiders will have to pay to operate in the stadium if it's a triple net gross lease which is better known in Las Vegas from an entertainment standpoint as a "4 Wall" production. In very general and over-broad legal terms, that means that the Raiders & NFL will still pay for certain operational costs/fees, e.g., insurance, utilities, maintenance, security, etc, during use if it as the conditions of that type of lease. I expect that a hybrid version will be the end result.

In sum, all of the parties have far too much to lose to let this fall through. The "Devil is in the details" and we haven't even stepped towards Hades in this regard. As long as we don't have some idiots in our government who don't know what they are doing, this should work out just fine.

Thanks Sam. Some great explanations in your post.

 

[bcvegaspt]

Thanks Sam. Some great explanations in your post.

Right. I feel like I just took a little class in lease agreements. I'm not being sarcastic. I appreciate the knowledge.

 

[Sam-I-am]

Thanks Sam. Some great explanations in your post.

My pleasure. Obviously it's something I care about. Sorry if it was too wordy.

 

[Sam-I-am]

Right. I feel like I just took a little class in lease agreements. I'm not being sarcastic. I appreciate the knowledge.

 

[Rebel1986]

Great explanation. Agree that the articles have ignored the $600 million they will put into the stadium which equates to over $1 million per game over 30 years.

 

[karaoke_jesus]

So the addelsons walked. Still funding from Goldman on the table?

 

[mvvsmith]

Adelson family will no longer be involved in the stadium project. Read my second post in the beginning of this thread, all those reasons apply. Once Davis got Goldman Sachs involved, SA didn't have any leaverage left, you know SA wanted the moon for his investment. The owners will be happy because SA's involvment was making more than a few owner's nervous, the Stadium Board is happy( they don't have to deal with SA and his meddlesome staff in construction and operation issues) , regardless of what you may read in the coming media stories and Davis is happy, as he retains all ownership and the owners share without SA being involved is more straightforward. Better chance of being approved now. Everybody sighs and takes a deep breath. Lets get on with the show.

 

[Sam-I-am]

Adelson family will no longer be involved in the stadium project. Read my second post in the beginning of this thread, all those reasons apply. Once Davis got Goldman Sachs involved, SA didn't have any leaverage left, you know SA wanted the moon for his investment. The owners will be happy because SA's involvment was making more than a few owner's nervous, the Stadium Board is happy( they don't have to deal with SA and his meddlesome staff in construction and operation issues) , regardless of what you may read in the coming media stories and Davis is happy, as he retains all ownership and the owners share without SA being involved is more straightforward. Better chance of being approved now. Everybody sighs and takes a deep breath. Lets get on with the show.

Indeed. It will also help with the bidding by the contractors. There are some companies who wouldn't bid because of how they were screwed over so much by SA and Bovis in the construction of the Venetian. Now the competitive bidding will be much more competitive.

 

[Vegas Native]

Indeed. It will also help with the bidding by the contractors. There are some companies who wouldn't bid because of how they were screwed over so much by SA and Bovis in the construction of the Venetian. Now the competitive bidding will be much more competitive.

Nail on the head!

 

[mvvsmith]

Give SA credit he got the ball rolling, he used his own money and influence to get the 750 million from Nevada and we were off and running. So when he demands too mich from Davis and the owner's, Mark uses the 750 million pledge to get a more accepting (too everyone involved, Davis , the Stadium Board and especially the owners) financing partner in Goldman Sachs, (probably with a littele help from influential and more wealthy owners like Kraft and Jones) and turns the tables on SA. I wonder how much money SA spent getting this far. The vote is a done deal now for sure. IMHO of course. Not a position SA is used to being in, I know that from personal experience.

 

[Rebel1986]

I think Adelson wold have been crazy to stay involved in this deal. No money from UNLV football, no money from the Raiders, how would he get any decent return off a $600 million investment? He would need to pull in at least $40 million a year to be worth the deal.

 

[bcvegaspt]

I think Adelson wold have been crazy to stay involved in this deal. No money from UNLV football, no money from the Raiders, how would he get any decent return off a $600 million investment? He would need to pull in at least $40 million a year to be worth the deal.

He said he was doing it out of the goodness of his heart to cement his legacy.


I didn't buy it, either.

 

[Sam-I-am]

He said he was doing it out of the goodness of his heart to cement his legacy.


I didn't buy it, either.

 

[XFactorRebel]

Appears Goldman Sachs too is contemplating pulling out. That 1$ rent while receiving most of the revenue proposal is turning off a lot of investors. Good 'ol Mark trying to line his pockets.

 

[Moscurry91]

This may work out to UNLVs benefit- Gov. Sandoval threw out the idea of re-purposing the county funds to a UNLV only stadium, which is what we wanted all along anyway. IMO, the Raiders and Uncle Shelly can all go pound sand.

 

[Sam-I-am]

Appears Goldman Sachs too is contemplating pulling out. That 1$ rent while receiving most of the revenue proposal is turning off a lot of investors. Good 'ol Mark trying to line his pockets.

Where are you getting that from? The $1 lease isn't going to make G-S walk. It's the same thing that they agreed to with the 49er's stadium. If G-S pulls out, it would be for a different reason.

 

[mvvsmith]

Where are you getting that from? The $1 lease isn't going to make G-S walk. It's the same thing that they agreed to with the 49er's stadium. If G-S pulls out, it would be for a different reason.

Like pressure from SA. I don't think Mark Davis has come this close to moving the team, without planning for any backlash resulting from Shelly being pissed off and that includes Goldman Sachs getting cold feet. The owners didn't want SA involved, Davis didn't either, eventually. The Board certainly wasn't looking forward to fighting with him during the construction process. So it's either GS or another investor, who shall not be named (yet). There is a Plan "C" or it's staying in Oakland with no plan at all.

 

[rebneck]

Since most of the heavy lifting has been done, I don't think there will be any shortage of rich guys who want into Club NFL burning up their phones trying to get a partnership next to Davis.

1. Vince Sapienza ‏@VinceSapienza 2h2 hours ago
   
   
   Just got off the phone with Goldman Sachs reps, who say GS had deal to finance LV stadium with Adelson AND Raiders. With no Adelson, no deal
   
   17 replies202 retweets126 likes
   
2. 
   Vince Sapienza ‏@VinceSapienza 27m27 minutes ago
   Sisolak says he spoke to Raiders Mark Davis this morn, Davis tells him he has not been told by anyone at GS they will not finance LV stadium

 

[Rebel_Luv]

Davis must have something up his sleeve? If not LOTT group will fleece him good!

 

[Moscurry91]

http://www.sfgate.com/raiders/article/Raiders-may-have-lost-another-Las-Vegas-investor-10897719.php
Not sure this source is reliable, but food for thought....

 

[jeff6382]

I don't understand. Why don't they just take the 750 from the taxes and the 500 from the Raiders and build a 1.2 billion stadium instead of a 1.9 billion one?

 

[Rebel1986]

Simple! The stadium would not have a roof. You will not get an NFL team to play in the LV heat at the start of the season. But, I do agree that could reduce the cost at least partially.

 

[dcut03]

I posted this on the confi board too?

That's the one thing I never quite understood. Why the 1.9 bill price tag? The Vikes new stadium is completely badass with a glass roof and is brand new. Why would the Vegas stadium be 63% more expensive? It will be smaller than Jerryworld. Cost of materials doesn't rise that much. The Vikings are in downtown Minneapolis I believe, I can't think the land would be so much more expensive than an off strip location. Plus Minnesota has awful weather that makes it difficult to build in.
The only reason I can think of for the price is to grease palms and hide funds

 

[LVRebel2000]

The Arizona Cardinals played for years at ASU's stadium in Phoenix which was an open bowl, so it can be done. The new Ram's/Chargers stadium has an independent roof and bowl system, so technically, you could do the bowl now and then add the roof at a later date if you wanted. I'm not sure if that is as feasible here with the hot weather, but I'm sure they could figure out a way to do it.

 

[dcut03]

And as for the logo change...

I get the initial offer being a bargaining chip. I'm OK with that. I'm not OK with UNLV/Stadium authority not changing the field at all since it is relatively easy to do and is done all the time.

Tell me how the Rebel logo is submissive? What because he used to have a firearm and now he doesn't? Sure it's being PC and trying to be cognizant of gun violence in this country, but it is not quite the same of changing your University's identity because some rich guys wants to make your football games an advert for their franchise.

And no matter what, UNLV will NOT be able to change their mascot logo to the exact same thing as the Raiders. Please see Golden Knights fiasco. The Raiders would not want to share their IP with our outstanding football program. So that Raders badge at midfleld would be a constant reminder that UNLV is second-rate.

... which we are. I realize that, but we need the perception that we aren't if we ever want to get into P5.

 

[Moscurry91]

I believe that Davis really wanted to move to Vegas. He did file relocation papers, after all. He just got too greedy and Uncle Shelly's involvement was tenuous at best. That initial demand was just enough to scare SA away with a decent enough excuse. We weren't used by Davis as a bargaining chip. We were used by Adelson for a pissing contest. Davis and his people are probably sitting there holding the bag saying "WTF just happened?" and they have to go crawling back to Oakland with hats in hand.
As a side note: if Uncle Shelly REALLY wanted to develop a legacy here, he would gladly fund the UNLV Stadium project for 1/4 the cost to him.
Edit: Davis also owns that property they wanted to build on as well as the LV Raiders trademark. He was balls deep committed. I wonder why there has been no statement from him other than the pat "we are still committed to LV". He has to be cobbling together investors to save this deal because he knows he won't get a better one elsewhere ever.

 

[87Tiger14]

It has to have a roof to make sense IMO.