Stadium News

[LouisianaHusker]

False.
Thanks

FYI, @Lawn Boy is some loser who with a few others from the Husker board of which I am a member as well as NU alum are jealous &/or butt hurt of SAM. I'm one of the business partners SAM was representing in some of our dealings when we made an offer to purchase the site prior to the decision on the Raiders. Heckuva site and a steal even at a far greater price. Heartbreaker for me but great for LV, UNLV, Tony Sanchez & staff.

 

[bcvegaspt]

FYI, @Lawn Boy is some loser who with a few others from the Husker board of which I am a member as well as NU alum are jealous &/or butt hurt of SAM. I'm one of the business partners SAM was representing in some of our dealings when we made an offer to purchase the site prior to the decision on the Raiders. Heckuva site and a steal even at a far greater price. Heartbreaker for me but great for LV, UNLV, Tony Sanchez & staff.

Thank you for that clarification and welcome to our website.

Sam is a made man over here. If anyone messes with him they have to deal with me.. and the tough guys I surround myself with.

That person has been banned (not by me) so he won't be harassing anyone on this board.

Feel free to stay and add any info you have regarding our team, coaches, etc.

 

[LouisianaHusker]

Thank you for that clarification and welcome to our website.
Sam is a made man over here. If anyone messes with him they have to deal with me.. and the tough guys I surround myself with.
That person has been banned (not by me) so he won't be harassing anyone on this board.
Feel free to stay and add any info you have regarding our team, coaches, etc.

Thanks for your response..
I've known SAM (fellow NU alum) for over 30 years. As an attorney & friend he's been involved with helping me with gaming & business related matters.
I live in LV and have also had the pleasure of knowing Tony Sanchez (real deal coach) as well as some other great UNLV coaching staff.
Chat boards are wonderful but also draw out a few losers who try to feel more manly by hiding behind anonymous names spewing crap, hate, etc. on a key board.
Although 99% plus of Husker fans are the best fans & people in the world we still have a few who get their jollies doing stupid stuff.
Again, although sick about not getting the property, I'm excited for UNLV and look forward to seeing Tony & his staff building a powerhouse Rebel football team.

 

[Rebel1986]

I look forward to scheduling a home and home with Nebraska in the new stadium.

 

[mvvsmith]

https://www.mmcjvlv.com/

 

[mvvsmith]

Bid package.

 

[Fuego*]

Raiders want to park at UNLV. Thomas & Mack + the 42 acre lot near MGM. Not exactly sure how that conflicts w/ existing plans for that parcel of land.

Seems like a fine idea if the Rebels get appropriately discounted rental rates. Right now the Raiders are asking for that for free.

Seems like a pretty obvious, and legit, counter to me for Jessup. Especially considering that parking is the Raider's weak spot right now.

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/jul/07/stadium-talks-raiders-unlv-campus-parking-solution/

 

[RebelinWA]

Wow, as written, this contract is a kick in the nuts for UNLV.

 

[Rebel Chi-girl]

Wow, as written, this contract is a kick in the nuts for UNLV.

I'm trying to see the good in this deal for UNLV but all I see is it just getting worse and worse for us. Not only do they now get total control of scheduling, putting UNLV behind other events in terms of importance, they also get complete control of all the suites including during UNLV football games, all the revenue from the permanent advertising, also demanding that we close SBS so they can steal our events without fair compensation, and now this.They expect us to not build on the land that we had originally intended to be used as an on-campus stadium so that they can park cars on it for years to come and not pay UNLV anything? How is that even reasonable? We are a growing University that could use that hundred acres for housing or academic buildings, any number of other uses and we're supposed to do nothing with it for years so that they can make money off our land by charging for parking. My other question still remains, how are they allowed to even pull permits and begin construction when most restaurants and other businesses can't even do that unless they show that they have sufficient on site parking for their occupancy? What does that do to all the traffic modifications needed?

 

[Rebel1986]

From what I have read, they are allowed to charge for the parking, what is wrong with that? If they don't like the deal, they just say no. As for Rebel Girl, you have been against the stadium from day 1 and have always commented about how UNLV was being robbed, so nothing new.

 

[Rebel Chi-girl]

From what I have read, they are allowed to charge for the parking, what is wrong with that? If they don't like the deal, they just say no. As for Rebel Girl, you have been against the stadium from day 1 and have always commented about how UNLV was being robbed, so nothing new.

Absolutely I've been against the stadium because I have a problem with giving an NFL team almost a billion dollars and getting no ROI. I've been trying to see the good in it since it is a done deal but it just keeps getting worse and worse. Will using that lands as a parking lot be the best highest use for it? Even if they charge for parking, what about the liability and the traffic? Can they really say no? We have no leverage in negotiations since the Raiders already have their deal in place.

 

[RebelinWA]

I'm trying to see the good in this deal for UNLV but all I see is it just getting worse and worse for us. Not only do they now get total control of scheduling, putting UNLV behind other events in terms of importance, they also get complete control of all the suites including during UNLV football games, all the revenue from the permanent advertising, also demanding that we close SBS so they can steal our events without fair compensation, and now this.They expect us to not build on the land that we had originally intended to be used as an on-campus stadium so that they can park cars on it for years to come and not pay UNLV anything? How is that even reasonable? We are a growing University that could use that hundred acres for housing or academic buildings, any number of other uses and we're supposed to do nothing with it for years so that they can make money off our land by charging for parking. My other question still remains, how are they allowed to even pull permits and begin construction when most restaurants and other businesses can't even do that unless they show that they have sufficient on site parking for their occupancy? What does that do to all the traffic modifications needed?

UNLV and the Raiders are supposed to be close "partners" in this relationship. I m not seeing it. I know it is still negotiations. I just thought we would be past the typical opening round "hey, lets feed them a shit contract so we can spend months getting what we really want" phase. Its a waste of time and unbecoming for a brand new cherry fresh to the city.

Honestly, I think it should be us that has them by the stones. Where will the raiders go besides here? San Diego? Its not like Oakland wants them anymore.

Hoping these negotiations work out for the best for UNLV.

 

[Rebel1986]

In regards to the parking, all UNLV needs to do is say no if it isn't to our advantage.

 

[Rebel Chi-girl]

In regards to the parking, all UNLV needs to do is say no if it isn't to our advantage.

It is hard to say no when you are still trying to get certain concessions from the Raiders

 

[RebelScrub]

So UNLV will still have dirt parking lots?

 

[Rebel1986]

It is very easy to say no. UNLV is being very well protected by the board, and anything to do with the parking would be completely separate from the deal regarding UNLV playing at the new stadium. The Raiders have no choice in regards to UNLV playing in the new stadium, and the more money that they sink in to the new stadium, which has already been a lot, the less they have to bargain with regarding the UNLV lease deal. Outside of issues like the type of field, field set up, signage, etc most of the items regarding the cost for UNLV to use the field have already been determined and are being finalized.

Using the UNLV T&M or 40+ acre parcel for parking is not tied to the lease deal for UNLV and is part of the short term and long term determination for where they will park while new parking lots or property is acquired. This does not tie down the future development of the land which as sold to UNLV based on either the development of an on campus stadium (out) or for a mixed use that doesn't include being used just as a parking lot. It would likely take a decade before UNLV would need all of the property for full build out of a new project. Even the single building apartment on campus took almost 3 years from start to when it should be completed.

As for the property near UNLV being used for parking, it also wouldn't be a gravel parking lot like out at Sam Boyd due to the proximity to the McCarran flight path which would required the lot to be paved due to dust interference with the planes landing. McCarran would still be required to approve the use of land adjacent to the Airport.

 

[JTthe2nd]

I hope the deal falls through and sends the Raiders packing, but I KNOW that our 'leaders' will cave in and bend over for the Raiders because that's basically what they've been doing up to now anyway. We fork over $750 million and for what? Zero control and zero share of the profits. Great deal for the guy with the $2 hair cut.

 

[Rebel1986]

why don't we get rid of the convention center also while we are at it, since it doesn't make money either. Of course, nobody ever includes the income that flows into the entertainment industry. Do you think the LVVCA and the hotels casinos would have been pro-stadium if they didn't believe they would make money off the deal? The tax money that is paying for the stadium comes 100% from a source that has always been earmarked only for projects that help the entertainment industry, and 0% comes from a tax base that is used for anything outside of the entertainment industry.

If we went out and spent a minimum of $500 million for a UNLV on campus stadium, we would end up with a stadium that would lose money, would be noisy, and would be hot for half of the season. Due to the fact that we would not have a roof over top and the level of noise being under the McCarran flight path, we would have a difficult time leasing the place out to other events. We would also have a regular cash flow required for upkeep which would most likely be signficantly more than what would be paid for the daily operation cost during games at the Raider stadium. The difference in cost is $200-250 million or less. Now UNLV pays $0 dollars for construction, but gets a state of the art stadium paid for completely by the Raiders and the casinos.

You also need to factor in the millions from people going to the hotel restaurants, staying in hotels gambling, going shopping, using taxis, etc. Most of this would not happen if we had a small on campus stadium that would be used mostly just for UNLV games.

UNLV would be able to give up any chance of EVER getting into a major conference which would not happen with a noisy, hot, and small on campus football stadium which would not attract any major program for home and home games. Bye bye Pac12, bye bye Big 12, hello MWC for ever.

 

[Rebel Chi-girl]

I have read the same propaganda you're spewing here and it's all half truths. Most hotels casinos were not pro stadium, they were pro convention center. They knew they had to accept the stadium to get the Convention Center upgrade. The difference is the Convention Center belongs to the people and benefits everybody where as the stadium funding they put almost a billion dollars in the pocket of a private business with zero ROI. While it is true that the initial money for the stadium comes from the room tax, the additional sales tax that was implemented for additional police coverage for the stadium as well as the infrastructure upgrade needed will come directly from the taxpayers. I don't Care about the Raiders at all. I just want to see UNLV get a fair deal. UNLV could have built a dome stadium for the 550 million. It would not be as state-of-the-art as what the Raiders are building but it would have been a better fit for UNLV football as well as many other events which UNLV could have then marketed and profited off of instead of letting the Raiders come in and steal all the events from Sam Boyd stadium and probably the NFR from UNLV. We would still be attractive to the PAC 12 as well have saving taxpayers millions in infrastructure upgrades because the property could have been much more easily connected to the monorail and UNLV would have a new source of revenue instead of having to pay to use a facility that the state has already paid for.

 

[LasVegasReb]

I have read the same propaganda BS you're spewing here and it's all half truths. Most hotels casinos were not pro stadium, they were pro convention center. They knew they had to accept the stadium to get the Convention Center upgrade. The difference is the Convention Center belongs to the people and benefits everybody where as the stadium put almost a billion dollars in the pocket of a private business with zero ROI. While it is true that the initial money for the stadium comes from the room tax, the additional sales tax that was implemented for additional police coverage for the stadium as well as the infrastructure upgrade needed will come directly from the taxpayers. UNLV could have built a dome stadium for the 550 million. It would not be as state-of-the-art as what the Raiders are building but it would have been a better fit for UNLV football as well as many other events which UNLV could have then marketed and profited off of instead of letting the Raiders come in and steal all the events from Sam Boyd stadium and probably the NFR from UNLV. We would still be attractive to the PAC 12 as well have saving taxpayers millions in infrastructure upgrades because the property could have been much more easily connected to the monorail and UNLV would have a new source of revenue instead of having to pay to use a facility that the state has already paid for.

1. Las Vegas does own the stadium and land after 30 years. So you are wrong that this is not a transaction.
2. Studies as well as general logic show that hotel companies and hence Las Vegas will benefit from boast in hotel ADR and REVPAR from the Stadium that hosts NOT ONLY Raider games but mega events.
3. Las Vegas can compete with other cities for mega-events. How can Las Vegas claim to be entertainment capital of the world WITHOUT this stadium?
4. UNLV will benefit with a new venue and ability to handle P5 crowds if and when ever invited to power conference.
5. This is the price for an NFL team. A 30-year bump of 0.88 point bump in room tax is NOTHING to residents.

You are pissed because choose to see it from a very narrow perspective (giving $750M to NFL owner).

Get over it.

 

[bcvegaspt]

I like to see it as The Raiders are giving Las Vegas a lot of money to build our stadium. We aren't on the hook for all of it and, like @LasVegasReb pointed out, after 30 years they'll gift it to us. I know they'll profit in those first 30 years but so will Las Vegas.

 

[Rebel Chi-girl]

1. So yes we own the stadium, but get no actual return-on-investment from it. 2 Show me just one study that has shown that a publicly-funded stadium has actually been profitable for the city. Please don't give me that Vegas is a different market. 3. While this stadium may make us more competetive for mega events, why does it need to be publicly funded? 4. I think a 550 million dollar on campus stadium would have made us equally if not more attractive to the PAC 10 as we would have scheduling control. 5. Just because the stadium is paid for buy a room tax and doesn't come out of taxpayers pockets, is a short sighted way of looking at it. Again there are a lot of additional costs such as Road improvements and additional police that will come out of our pockets. I'm not pissed as much as I'm concerned because this deal keeps getting worse and worse for Nevada and UNLV. You are probably just a Raider fan who Doesn't care what it cost to get a financially failing franchise to Vegas. I hope the Raiders prove me wrong but I don't see it. All the events the Raiders are taking from SBS plus the NFR will hurt UNLV.

 

[Rebel1986]

Rebel girl, just like on twitter you are clueless. I know many people that work at the LVCVA at the higher levels, I know many casino owners, and a large percentage of them are now in favor of the stadium. As for the upgrades for the convention center, that was already budgeted for, and money already collected, prior to anything to do with the stadium. If the stadium did not go through, the convention center expansion would have still been built. The additional funding was to allow for both the convention center expansion and the stadium to be funded at the same time. If the LVCVA and the casinos had continued to go against the stadium, it would have never been funded.

As for the convention center, it has zero return on investment due to the fact that it is owned by the LVCVA under the county commission, and thus is not in business to make a profit. Just like the stadium, the convention center is used to put people into the hotel rooms, restaurants, and casinos. Also, since you do not appear to grasp the fact that the stadium is owned by Clark County, I will repeat the fact that THE STADIUM IS OWNED BY CLARK COUNTY AND UNDER THE CONTROL of the LAS VEGAS STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD!

You have already embarrassed yourself to numerous people on twitter, will you continue to do the same here? .

 

[bcvegaspt]

I'll add that a P5 doesn't sniff us without this stadium. That's the reality of it. I'm not guessing about that.

 

[j. spilotro]

I'll add that a P5 doesn't sniff us without this stadium. That's the reality of it. I'm not guessing about that.

I just find it kind of funny how some of our fans act like we are owed something. What did we bring to the table? We are riding coattails here.

 

[Rebel Chi-girl]

Rebel 1986, How have I embarrassed myself? Because I don't agree with publicly funding a stadium for the Raiders? Show me one publicly funded stadium that has paid off for the city or state that funded it? You can't because none have paid off and there is plenty of data to prove me right. As for who you know, I guarantee I know more people in the gaming industry because I own a slot machine manufacturing company and have machines in just about every casino in Vegas (& all over the US) and 85% of my contacts do not support the stadium. The convention center expansion was planned but not FUNDED until the passage of the stadium deal. The difference between funding for the convention center expansion which benefits all the hotels directly as opposed to putting money directly in the pocket of a single private business. I don't care what you or any pro stadium strangers think of me here or on twitter. Those who know me, know my credentials. I know the state OWNS the stadium but the Raiders control the scheduling and every aspect of the revenue stream so the ownership is meaningless. As I have said, I hope I'm wrong but there is no evidence to the contrary.

 

[Rebel1986]

You are so full of crap. By the way, you are the only UNLV person that openly attacks UNLV players on twitter to the point that almost everyone either ignores you or has blocked you.

As for the funding of the LVCVA convention center, you obviously have no clue how the convention center has been funded for the last 30+ years or you wouldn't have made comments that show you do not know what you are talking about.

Funny how the LVCVA thinks this is a good deal, the majority of the casinos think it is a good deal, etc.. But somehow you are the expert and everyone else is wrong because you know better.

 

[Rebel Chi-girl]

Rebel1986, Why don't you stay on topic and stop with childish baseless personal attacks.You have yet to cite one example of where a publicly-funded stadium paid off for the city or state. I will cite US News and World report's February 27, 2017 "Raiding Taxpayers' Pockets" and the Mercury News April 03, 2017 "Business Insider: Vegas stadium deal for Raiders, worst in the world" just to name a few experts that agree with my opinion.

 

[bcvegaspt]

I just find it kind of funny how some of our fans act like we are owed something. What did we bring to the table? We are riding coattails here.

Some might powerful coattails to boot but they are only interested in us because of our hot friend (the stadium).

 

[LasVegasReb]

Rebel1986, Why don't you stay on topic and stop with childish baseless personal attacks.You have yet to cite one example of where a publicly-funded stadium paid off for the city or state. I will cite US News and World report's February 27, 2017 "Raiding Taxpayers' Pockets" and the Mercury News April 03, 2017 "Business Insider: Vegas stadium deal for Raiders, worst in the world" just to name a few experts that agree with my opinion.

That's for naming this article. Michael Farren is a hack against all public tax spending. He has likely never visited Las Vegas nor gives a crap about the Las Vegas Stadium will mean to the city. Just like you, he has a problem with subsidizing other peoples profit. I get it but it's narrow minded in this case.

Beyond the ones that have published specifically on the Las Vegas Stadium, you need to stop referring to the generic studies on stadium funding benefits. Las Vegas is dependant on tourism more than any other city which changes the paradigm in economic projections and overall impact. To help understand this critical difference, just do research. Hell, just plain logic would help prove this point.

Here are some articles to help you.

https://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jan/22/las-vegas-may-be-most-tourism-dependent-city-us/
https://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2017/mar/14/las-vegas-sees-record-tourism-visitor-spending-in/
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/tourism/las-vegas-tourism-spending-nearing-60-billion/
https://www.forbes.com/2010/04/28/tourism-new-york-lifestyle-travel-las-vegas-cities.html
https://www.forbes.com/2010/04/28/tourism-new-york-lifestyle-travel-las-vegas-cities_slide.html

Las Vegas is a celluloid city. It has no liberty bell, no Millennium Park, no Statue of Liberty to draw tourists yet it's economy is ABSOLUTELY dependent upon it. In terms of other cities and offerings, I can go on and on. With no historic monuments or significant culture to draw, Las Vegas is nothing more than what is today and what it can create to attract visitors in the future. Las Vegas cannot claim the title "Entertainment Capital of the World" when it can't bring Beyoncé on tour or host a UFC fight in front if more than 20K people.

So cite every article that fits your narrow argument but they don't take into account the Las Vegas factor.

1. Yes. There is an ROI. Increased ADR, REVPAR, and gaming revenue impact, incremental revenue, businesses and employment from stadium, Raiders and event complimentary businesses are major ones. Additionally, Las Vegas owns the stadium and land which even after 30 years a $1.9B dollar stadium would still be worth at least $750M. Also, $750M is only 39.4% of the cost, who's coming up with the rest. Just because Las Vegas doesn't get direct revenue from stadium operation doesn't mean there isn't an ROI, no matter how much you try and wish it away.
2 and 3. Like the convention authority all casinos will profit for the stadium so why shouldn't it be PARTIALLY publicly funded? Also see my response to the start of this post to get my full comment.
4. Sorry but a $1.9B stadium PLUS an NFL TEAM LAS VEGAS RAIDERS trumps a UNLV LIMITED USE outdoor stadium.
5. I always love this part of the tax argument. Whatever. You are anti-tax and against giving public money to private enterprise. I would normally agree with you on this 90 percent of the time. But not this time. It's a week argument against the growing Las Vegas into future.

 

[LasVegasReb]

I like to see it as The Raiders are giving Las Vegas a lot of money to build our stadium. We aren't on the hook for all of it and, like @LasVegasReb pointed out, after 30 years they'll gift it to us. I know they'll profit in those first 30 years but so will Las Vegas.

Never thought of it that way but you are absolutely right.

Not to mention, some people are making out that Las Vegas is paying for the whole stadium. Las Vegas contribution is approximately 39 percent of cost.

So Las Vegas TOURISTS are shelling out $40M-$50M per year for 15-18 years so Las Vegas can evolve and compete not to mention mature as a city by gaining an NFL team? Bad deal? I think not.

 

[Rebel Chi-girl]

That's for naming this article. Michael Farren is a hack against all public tax spending. He has likely never visited Las Vegas nor gives a crap about the Las Vegas Stadium will mean to the city. Just like you, he has a problem with subsidizing other peoples profit. I get it but it's narrow minded in this case.

Beyond the ones that have published specifically on the Las Vegas Stadium, you need to stop referring to the generic studies on stadium funding benefits. Las Vegas is dependant on tourism more than any other city which changes the paradigm in economic projections and overall impact. To help understand this critical difference, just do research. Hell, just plain logic would help prove this point.

Here are some articles to help you.

https://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jan/22/las-vegas-may-be-most-tourism-dependent-city-us/
https://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2017/mar/14/las-vegas-sees-record-tourism-visitor-spending-in/
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/tourism/las-vegas-tourism-spending-nearing-60-billion/
https://www.forbes.com/2010/04/28/tourism-new-york-lifestyle-travel-las-vegas-cities.html
https://www.forbes.com/2010/04/28/tourism-new-york-lifestyle-travel-las-vegas-cities_slide.html

Las Vegas is a celluloid city. It has no liberty bell, no Millennium Park, no Statue of Liberty to draw tourists yet it's economy is ABSOLUTELY dependent upon it. In terms of other cities and offerings, I can go on and on. With no historic monuments or significant culture to draw, Las Vegas is nothing more than what is today and what it can create to attract visitors in the future. Las Vegas cannot claim the title "Entertainment Capital of the World" when it can't bring Beyoncé on tour or host a UFC fight in front if more than 20K people.

So cite every article that fits your narrow argument but they don't take into account the Las Vegas factor.

1. Yes. There is an ROI. Increased ADR, REVPAR, and gaming revenue impact, incremental revenue, businesses and employment from stadium, Raiders and event complimentary businesses are major ones. Additionally, Las Vegas owns the stadium and land which even after 30 years a $1.9B dollar stadium would still be worth at least $750M. Also, $750M is only 39.4% of the cost, who's coming up with the rest. Just because Las Vegas doesn't get direct revenue from stadium operation doesn't mean there isn't an ROI, no matter how much you try and wish it away.
2 and 3. Like the convention authority all casinos will profit for the stadium so why shouldn't it be PARTIALLY publicly funded? Also see my response to the start of this post to get my full comment.
4. Sorry but a $1.9B stadium PLUS an NFL TEAM LAS VEGAS RAIDERS trumps a UNLV LIMITED USE outdoor stadium.
5. I always love this part of the tax argument. Whatever. You are anti-tax and against giving public money to private enterprise. I would normally agree with you on this 90 percent of the time. But not this time. It's a week argument against the growing Las Vegas into future.

I appreciate you citing sources that say Vegas economy is tourist driven. I get that. My business is tourist driven, however you still haven't addressed that no publicly funded stadium has EVER paid back. Even if you factor in the Vegas aspect, I still don't see it paying. There will be some nominal increase but I don't see it worth the investment for the Vegas economy as a whole. However as I've said, I don't care about the Raiders. I just want to see UNLV benefit from this bad deal. I just see the Raiders stealing our events, closing SBS, and taking away other revenue sources. I believe WHEN we make the PAC 12 it should pay off for UNLV which at this point is all I care about since the deal is done.

 

[Rebel1986]

Did you or did you not write this first Rebel girl? "I have read the same propaganda you're spewing here and it's all half truths." You called me a liar even while it is very obvious you do not have a clue what you are talking about period.

 

[willlevi]

A thirty year projection on the health of our valley's infrastructure, tourism level, natural resources, etc are the things that make me nervous with our tax dollar usage.
We need the Raiders to stay the entire life of stadium for it to remain viable and not become the Aztec/Chargers situation.

http://vintagelasvegas.com/post/38574568278/las-vegas-1987-illustrated-pocket-map-with-a

I appreciate you citing sources that say Vegas economy is tourist driven. I get that. My business is tourist driven, however you still haven't addressed that no publicly funded stadium has EVER paid back. Even if you factor in the Vegas aspect, I still don't see it paying. There will be some nominal increase but I don't see it worth the investment for the Vegas economy as a whole. However as I've said, I don't care about the Raiders. I just want to see UNLV benefit from this bad deal. I just see the Raiders stealing our events, closing SBS, and taking away other revenue sources. I believe WHEN we make the PAC 12 it should pay off for UNLV which at this point is all I care about since the deal is done.

 

[bcvegaspt]

I'm pretty sure the contract states a specified time period or there will be a financial consequence.

 

[Rebel Chi-girl]

Did you or did you not write this first Rebel girl? "I have read the same propaganda you're spewing here and it's all half truths." You called me a liar even while it is very obvious you do not have a clue what you are talking about period.

You misunderstood. It was never my intent nor did I call you a liar. I said the Raiders' propaganda was full of half truths, which it is. I apologize if I offended you. You don't know me. We've never met. You don't know who or what I know. Stick to the topic and please stop with the personal attacks.

 

[unlv91]

I just find it kind of funny how some of our fans act like we are owed something. What did we bring to the table? We are riding coattails here.

Beating a thousand dead horses but the Raiders are getting a whole lot for nothing

 

[dcut03]

I don't think anyone is arguing that this isn't a sweet ass deal for the Raiders.

It's the only reason they are coming (like it or not). Vegas is a gamble (no pun intended) and a shaky football market. We had to come with the sweetest deal in history for this to happen.

Its good for UNLV because it solves the stadium problem. The same problem that they have tried and failed many times over to solve. It given UNLV a place to play that will be unprecedented in college football. No team plays full time in a mega stadium like this.

Just look at this forum and see how it has paid off for recruiting already.

I don't like many of the details either. Some things will most definitely change, some things may not with the current deal.

As for the parking lot, the Raiders can go eff themselves if they want to use it for free. Like I said, there will be concessions, maybe even with concessions!

UNLV has little leverage, but the stadium authority seems to have our backs. I have trust in that.

Also how many non UNLV events actually happen at SBS these days. I haven't lived there for 15 years. When I was there they were hardly even getting Monster Truck rallies back then. It is not the most desirable of venues given the parking and its location. It is actually a pretty nice stadium compared to the many college venues I have been to.

 

[Rebel1986]

It is possible that UNLV may let them use it on a temp. basis while they look to find our build other options, but I don't see it being anything more then temp. Also, UNLV will be able to charge a pretty penny for parking as a short term cash flow. I would expect a parking fee could be $10-$20 or more per car.

 

[Rebelious1]

It is possible that UNLV may let them use it on a temp. basis while they look to find our build other options, but I don't see it being anything more then temp. Also, UNLV will be able to charge a pretty penny for parking as a short term cash flow. I would expect a parking fee could be $10-$20 or more per car.

$10? When is the last time you went to an NFL game? 1993?