|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 17, 2016 17:55:31 GMT -6
I don't think the relocation fee prevents the Raiders at all from going to LA because it will be spread out and Davis could use part of the extra LA $$$ for relocation fee. I don't know if he can afford equal partnership.
LA won't be a 1 team market. More and more rumors are that next week the Chargers are moving. One of the 2 teams for sure will move to LA.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 4, 2016 16:09:27 GMT -6
Ravens will switch to natural grass at M&T Bank Stadium in 2016After playing their home games on an artificial surface for the past 13 seasons, the Ravens will be going back to natural grass at M&T Bank Stadium. Ravens president Dick Cass said Friday in an interview with The Baltimore Sun that the organization has decided to make the change before the start of the 2016 season. The Ravens haven’t played their home games on natural grass since 2002, when issues with maintaining a quality field prompted a switch to turf. “We want to try and see if we can have a good grass field at M&T Bank Stadium,” Cass said. The decision was reached after consultation with Ravens players and coaches, along with other East Coast-based organizations around the league that have successfully managed a grass playing surface. The Ravens’ new surface, which will be installed not long after the 2015 season ends, will be Bermuda grass with some rye grass planted later in the season. It will be the same surface that the Ravens practice on at the Under Armour Performance Center. “To me, it’s Baltimore,” said Ravens coach John Harbaugh who acknowledged that he was one of the people who lobbied for the change. “It kind of epitomizes what Baltimore is all about, the history of football in Baltimore. To me, a Baltimore football team should be playing on a grass field in Baltimore.” The Ravens had long planned to replace their six-year-old Shaw Industries Momentum 51-style turf following this season. The initial assumption was that the Ravens would stay with an artificial surface similar to their current one, which Cass called “the best artificial surface on the market today.” However, Cass said that the players and coaches made it clear in a meeting about three months ago that it was their preference to play on grass. Cass acknowledged that several studies the organization consulted showed there are fewer lower-body injuries on grass than on turf. The Ravens have had a series of injuries this season at M&T Bank Stadium with quarterback Joe Flacco (knee), running back Justin Forsett (arm) and wide receiver Steve Smith Sr. (Achilles) all among those going down with season-ending injuries. However, Cass said the injuries weren’t the impetus for the change, and the plan was in motion long before Flacco, Forsett and Smith went down. “I don’t think the injuries we’ve experienced this year or in prior years are related to the type of [surface],” Cass said. “… The primary factor was our players really wanted to play on grass and we think that playing on grass is just more consistent with the way football should be played in Baltimore.” The decision was well received in the Ravens locker room. “Especially with me [having] two knee surgeries, I just walked off practice and I can tell the difference from practicing on the turf field and outside [on grass],” cornerback Lardarius Webb said. “We're looking at the numbers. They say injuries happen more on turf than on grass — simple as that.” Veteran outside linebacker Elvis Dumervil credited the Ravens with “trying to help take care of the players, which this organization is about.” “We appreciate it that they care enough to hear the players’ input,” Dumervil said. “It’s not like that everywhere.” Cass didn’t disclose financial details, but confirmed that switching to a grass field will be a bigger monetary commitment for the organization. There will be more maintenance required and the field will need to be resodded every season and possibly a couple of times each year. The Ravens will be under contract with a sod farm in North Carolina, which will grow the field. When the Ravens’ stadium opened in 1998, the grass surface wore down during seasons and the layout of the stadium made maintaining the grass difficult. Starting in November, the sun didn’t reach certain parts of the field. That prompted the team’s move to an artificial surface. However, Cass said that the Ravens are exploring bringing in artificial lighting to make sure the full field is exposed. Team officials also think regularly resodding the field will help maintain the quality. “If it doesn’t work out because of the climate, because of the way the sun hits, if it turns out not to be a good grass field, we will have to go back to artificial,” Cass said. “But we’re going to make a good try at this. … We’re expecting to have a good grass field for the full season.”Eighteen of the NFL’s 32 teams currently play their home games on grass, including the Green Bay Packers who have a hybrid surface at Lambeau Field. The San Francisco 49ers’ new grass field at Levi’s Stadium has come under scrutiny and Ravens kicker Justin Tucker sunk in a divot while kicking there earlier this season. However, plenty of teams have made grass field work, too. “If you look around our division right now, Pittsburgh has a grass field, Cleveland has a grass field. [FedEx Field in Landover] has grass and the Philadelphia Eagles have grass,” said Cass who added that the grass surface wouldn’t prevent the Ravens from hosting college and high school games, and international soccer contests. “We think the grass we’re going to have at our stadium this time will be better than what we had in 2002.” www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bal-ravens-switching-to-grass-field-20151204-story.html
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 4, 2016 18:07:46 GMT -6
I hope this it works and this catches on in other outdoor field turf stadiums. The game is brutal enough as it is. Why add to it with fake fields.
Here is a list of the fake turf fields in the NFL
1. Buffalo 2. Cincinnati(they like Baltimore had real grass at one point) 3. New England(they had grass too once) 4. Seattle 5. Indianapolis(they have a retractable roof) 6. Dallas(probably too many other events to have grass) 7-8. New YorkX2 9. Minnesota(They will have a fixed roof but it's see through like Inglewood, plus there is a glass wall on one endzone) 10. Atlanta(retractable roof) 11. Detroit(fixed roof, no hope for grass) 12. New Orleans(Fixed roof, no hope for grass.
Inglewood is a question mark yet. In theory IF everything went right you could have 30 of the 32 teams have a grass field.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Feb 4, 2016 21:31:08 GMT -6
I hope this it works and this catches on in other outdoor field turf stadiums. The game is brutal enough as it is. Why add to it with fake fields. Here is a list of the fake turf fields in the NFL 1. Buffalo 2. Cincinnati(they like Baltimore had real grass at one point) 3. New England(they had grass too once) 4. Seattle 5. Indianapolis(they have a retractable roof) 6. Dallas(probably too many other events to have grass) 7-8. New YorkX2 9. Minnesota(They will have a fixed roof but it's see through like Inglewood, plus there is a glass wall on one endzone) 10. Atlanta(retractable roof) 11. Detroit(fixed roof, no hope for grass) 12. New Orleans(Fixed roof, no hope for grass. Inglewood is a question mark yet. In theory IF everything went right you could have 30 of the 32 teams have a grass field. NEw England was grass FOREVER. I hate that they switched. They did it because there was a game where brady kept getting hit because the field slowed him down so much. I hope they go back some day.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Feb 4, 2016 21:32:06 GMT -6
Id like to see more teams go to the grass synthetic hybrid (deco turf). Best of both worlds
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 28, 2016 16:21:13 GMT -6
Bills exec: New stadium wouldn’t help us, because Buffalo fans can’t afford pricey seatsPosted on June 28, 2016 by Neil deMause Buffalo Bills president Russ Brandon gave a long interview to the Buffalo News yesterday in which he gave a good explanation of team owner Terry Pegula’s puzzling reticence to demand a new stadium like Roger Goodell and the rest of the league would like him to do. In short: A new stadium with luxury suites and all that wouldn’t help them much, because Buffalo.“We have not met and discussed anything relative to all the noise,” Bills managing partner and President Russ Brandon said of the New Stadium Working Group, formed two years ago, that includes state and local political leaders. “We have not met since April (2014), right after (previous team owner) Ralph (Wilson) passed away, on a new stadium. “We’re going to take a very slow, quantitative, objective view on what makes sense.”… “We have made the model work on the Bills side, based on how we have built the business from a volume standpoint,” Brandon said. “So you have a lot of tickets in the building, general-admission seats in the building, 6,800 club seats, a lot of suites and price points have been fairly manageable, amongst the lowest in the league. As we go through market-condition studies and different things that you do when you look at things, like we’ve done previously with renovations, and as you update that information, you have to look and see what makes sense. “The key is to realize that we are not LA. We are not Atlanta. We’re not Minneapolis. People say, ‘Oh, we’re very similar to Minneapolis.’ They have 28 Fortune 500 companies in that community. We have zero. We have to be a regional operation. We know that. That’s proven. “But with a new stadium comes new economics. And with new economics comes a public-private partnership, (personal seat licenses), a lot of infrastructure cost. So we have to look at it in a very macro view and make sure that, as a community and as an organization, that there’s a partnership that exists that makes sense.” There’s a lot to unpack there, but this is the first time I can recall a pro sports team owner arguing, Hey, our fans don’t have enough money to buy all the high-priced seats that a new stadium would give us, so what’s the point? Trying to make money on volume rather than by focusing on extracting as much money as possible from deep-pocketed fans goes against the sports tide in the post-Reagan economy, but it’s not hard to believe that Buffalo might still be a different world in this regard. (Though it’s also possible that Brandon and Pegula are just waiting for “a partnership that makes sense,” aka an appetite for more public money that would make a new stadium worth their while.) The real question now is why Goodell keeps beating the new-stadium drum when the Bills owners don’t want him to. Is it because he thinks the league would somehow make more money even if the Bills owners are convinced they wouldn’t? Because having Buffalo in an old stadium hurts the argument of other team owners that they can’t possibly survive in their 20-year-old place? Because it doesn’t look shiny enough on TV? Because he’s just so used to playing bad cop that he can’t get out of character? All of the above? Your guess is as good as mine. www.fieldofschemes.com/2016/06/28/11293/bills-exec-new-stadium-wouldnt-help-us-because-buffalo-fans-cant-afford-pricey-seats/#comments
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 28, 2016 16:24:33 GMT -6
The Bills should be LA team number 2 if the Chargers stay or they should move to San Antonio/Vegas/London. Leave the Bills name/history behind in case Buffalo turns it around someday because the Bills have a history since 1960.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 30, 2016 2:28:17 GMT -6
110,786 Signatures Filed to Qualify Chargers Citizens' Initiative for BallotFriday morning the Committee for Sports, Entertainment and Tourism delivered 83 boxes containing 110,786 signatures to be filed with San Diego City Clerk Elizabeth Maland. “On behalf of the entire San Diego Chargers organization, we want to thank every registered San Diego City voter who signed the petition,” said Chargers Chairman Dean Spanos. “We also want to thank representatives of organized labor – and particularly the unions of the Building Trades Council – for their significant help and support during this process. And we are grateful for the volunteer signature gathering work coordinated by the fan groups, including Save Our Bolts and the San Diego Stadium Coalition. The fan groups did a great job, as did the hundreds of other people who contacted us and volunteered to gather signatures.” “Most signature gathering efforts of this kind take six full months. We had just six weeks to complete our work,” Spanos continued. “The fact that we were able to collect more than 110,000 signatures in that short period of time demonstrates tremendous support in our community for a new, combined stadium-convention center expansion downtown.” The City Clerk and the County Registrar of Voters are now working to verify the signatures that we have submitted. While that verification process continues, the Chargers will continue working behind-the-scenes to win the support of community leaders and elected officials. www.chargers.com/news/2016/06/10/110786-signatures-filed-qualify-chargers-citizens-initiative-ballot
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 30, 2016 15:14:51 GMT -6
Chargers' stadium hopes take punch to gut California Supreme Court ruling affirms two-thirds requirement for nowThe Chargers’ stadium initiative wasn’t dashed against the rocks on Wednesday, but it was punched in the gut and is gasping for air. The California State Supreme Court decided to temporarily block a lower court ruling that said tax increases like the Chargers downtown stadium initiative require approval from a simple majority instead of two-thirds of voters. The court said it will review the ruling at a time to be determined. This changes nothing, really. The Chargers figured all along that their November ballot initiative they would need two-thirds. But it is the type of confirmation that erodes hope. California’s two-thirds requirement for tax hikes is a political Mount Everest. Here, given the current climate of some 60 percent of potential voters being opposed to public funds being used for a stadium, it might be more like climbing to the moon on a stairway of pixie dust. Opponents of the Chargers’ measure are confident that even 50 percent would be a challenge. They likely don’t need to worry now. To be clear, with Wednesday’s court action, the requirement is two-thirds. At best, too, the Supreme Court ruling is coming in 2017. These things can take more than a year for resolution, according to court watchers. So we are headed to an election that could yield an unknown result. The Chargers, who are awaiting the City Clerk’s ratification of the signatures they turned in earlier this month and then the City Council’s approval for the measure to go to the ballot, could get 59 percent of the vote and not know for sure whether they failed. Mayor Kevin Faulconer just got 59 percent and it was considered a mandate. By virtue of that lofty approval rate, His Honor is virtually untouchable. And now he doesn’t even have to worry about the Chargers downtown stadium plan. www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jun/30/chargers-stadium-court-two-thirds/
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jun 30, 2016 15:36:18 GMT -6
I just hope that if the bills ownership goes up in the air again that toronto dosent make another bid for the team.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 30, 2016 15:48:11 GMT -6
The problem is Pegula is the oddball owner who doesn't care about maximizing revenue(that's probably why he found the NHL so attractive). What I think is going to happen is the money guys(Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, Jeff Lurie, Kroenke, Steven Ross, Zigi Wilf) are going to say Buffalo is living off central revenues/national TV deal. Your market is tiny, not growing, has little corporate presence. If you feel you don't need a new stadium because your fans can't afford the prices of one, either move your team to a difference better/growing market or we will take the team away. I see a big battle brewing over this. The money guys like Jones/Snyder have wanted the Bills gone for a while now.
Toronto would be tough because you'd need to privately finance the stadium and they drew so poorly for the 1 Bills game a year. I'd never 100% rule it out though because of the huge demographics. Maybe some of the money guys think well the Buffalo Bills weren't the Toronto Bills so that's why people didn't show up.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jun 30, 2016 17:18:31 GMT -6
The problem is Pegula is the oddball owner who doesn't care about maximizing revenue(that's probably why he found the NHL so attractive). What I think is going to happen is the money guys(Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, Jeff Lurie, Kroenke, Steven Ross, Zigi Wilf) are going to say Buffalo is living off central revenues/national TV deal. Your market is tiny, not growing, has little corporate presence. If you feel you don't need a new stadium because your fans can't afford the prices of one, either move your team to a difference better/growing market or we will take the team away. I see a big battle brewing over this. The money guys like Jones/Snyder have wanted the Bills gone for a while now. Toronto would be tough because you'd need to privately finance the stadium and they drew so poorly for the 1 Bills game a year. I'd never 100% rule it out though because of the huge demographics. Maybe some of the money guys think well the Buffalo Bills weren't the Toronto Bills so that's why people didn't show up. They have no precedent for taking a team away for anything...donald sterling showed obvious misconduct and he lost his team due to his inability to be of sound mind running the team. And if we are going to say lviing off central revenues...then strip cincinatti, cleveland, jacksonville of their teams too..... also there is still zero evidence that a new stadium is a financial benefit to the team or the city other than upping their team value.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jun 30, 2016 17:19:59 GMT -6
The Bills should be LA team number 2 if the Chargers stay or they should move to San Antonio/Vegas/London. Leave the Bills name/history behind in case Buffalo turns it around someday because the Bills have a history since 1960. the bills are going nowhere....and there is no evidence they are.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jun 30, 2016 17:21:31 GMT -6
The real question now is why Goodell keeps beating the new-stadium drum when the Bills owners don’t want him to. Is it because he thinks the league would somehow make more money even if the Bills owners are convinced they wouldn’t? Because having Buffalo in an old stadium hurts the argument of other team owners that they can’t possibly survive in their 20-year-old place? Because it doesn’t look shiny enough on TV? Because he’s just so used to playing bad cop that he can’t get out of character? All of the above? Your guess is as good as mine.
Read more: jetshockeyforum.proboards.com/thread/5910/general-nfl-stadium-ownership-issues#ixzz4D6kbuNHvi bold this section because we all know deMause hates this false line that new stadiums bring revenue or are even worth investing in.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 30, 2016 21:53:44 GMT -6
The problem is Pegula is the oddball owner who doesn't care about maximizing revenue(that's probably why he found the NHL so attractive). What I think is going to happen is the money guys(Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, Jeff Lurie, Kroenke, Steven Ross, Zigi Wilf) are going to say Buffalo is living off central revenues/national TV deal. Your market is tiny, not growing, has little corporate presence. If you feel you don't need a new stadium because your fans can't afford the prices of one, either move your team to a difference better/growing market or we will take the team away. I see a big battle brewing over this. The money guys like Jones/Snyder have wanted the Bills gone for a while now. Toronto would be tough because you'd need to privately finance the stadium and they drew so poorly for the 1 Bills game a year. I'd never 100% rule it out though because of the huge demographics. Maybe some of the money guys think well the Buffalo Bills weren't the Toronto Bills so that's why people didn't show up. They have no precedent for taking a team away for anything...donald sterling showed obvious misconduct and he lost his team due to his inability to be of sound mind running the team. And if we are going to say lviing off central revenues...then strip cincinatti, cleveland, jacksonville of their teams too..... also there is still zero evidence that a new stadium is a financial benefit to the team or the city other than upping their team value. Listing Cleveland is VERY odd. It's NOT growing and going backwards a bit yes(they lost a lot of fortune 500 companies from the 90's) but they still have 3.5M people 19 fortune 1000 companies and 6 fortune 500 companies. Wooster should be counted as part of Cleveland CSA but is not so add 1 more fortune 1000 company. Buffalo and if you want to count Rochester have 7 fortune 1000 companies and 0 fortune 500 companies(4 for Buffalo, 3 for Rochester). Cincinnati has 14 fortune 1000 companies and 10 fortune 500 companies. Dayton SHOULD be considered part of Cincinnati CSA but is not. If you add that Cincinnati has 3M people and 1 more Fortune 1000 company. Jacksonville is living off central revenues too and London. They should be put down long term too! Cleveland and Cincinnati are NOT powerhouses but they aren't last in franchise value either and never said hey let's stay at the old stadium because of fans can afford all this fancy new stuff so who cares. A new stadium/arena is a financial benefit to the team but NOT the city. The whole idea is more boxes/club seats/fancy eating places. Edmonton's new arena for example will bring them an additional 20M per year. The only time it's not a benefit to the team is IF you don't have fans who will pay the extra high prices for all the fancy new features. Basically every team has build a new facility or done a heavy renovation in the 4 major sports and while the public has contributed a lot so have the teams in a lot of cases. For example even the Milwaukee Bucks went halfsies and spent $250M on a new arena. If it wasn't worth it they wouldn't have done it. I agree there is no precedent of taking a team away from an owner because of a market. But you have a lot of guys(just not Goodall and Jones) pushing for a new stadium. Even the "family ownerships" are pushing this. The Giants owner John Mara(Carson supporter) was saying how Buffalo needs a new stadium. If Pegula's answer is it won't make a difference $$$ because Buffalo people can't pay more for the fancy stuff the question of why should be keep this market then is going to come up.
|
|