lancerman Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Oakland caused this if we are being fair. They thought they had leverage and tried to lowball Davis. The opportunity for Vegas presented itself after years and after the Raiders did the league a solid by bowing out of the 3 way race to LA. This was his reward. Then Oakland came in at the last hour with a very vague plan like a day before the vote. They knew damn well the vote was a formality at that point and it was too little to late. It's like that cliche of rushing to a wedding to change the brides mind right before she says I do. It was unrealistic and too wishy washy. That said, it's probably best for all involved that the Raiders find somewhere else to play. Cut a deal with UNLV or something. But get out of Oakland. You are good team, you don't need to be a lame duck somewhere, it's toxic at this critical juncture in the team's development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbunting Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Oakland caused this? What world are you living in where the people not wanting to pay for a billionaire to get a new stadium is wrong? All of the studies show the owner is the only one who wins with a new stadium because the taxpayers pay for it!!!!! The people paying for it never get back the money that is put into it. How appropriate a name for a team that is constantly moving in to a new area and pillaging it for all it's worth btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westerosi Coast Gangster Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 oakland will atleast have a couple more years before the stadiun in vegas is ready. they should be a very good team too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 13 hours ago, lancerman said: If this happened in another sport and rules were being constantly changed in response to what one team was having success with, it would put into question the legitimacy of the league. You do realize this happens all the time, right? 1 hour ago, dbunting said: Oakland caused this? What world are you living in where the people not wanting to pay for a billionaire to get a new stadium is wrong? All of the studies show the owner is the only one who wins with a new stadium because the taxpayers pay for it!!!!! The people paying for it never get back the money that is put into it. How appropriate a name for a team that is constantly moving in to a new area and pillaging it for all it's worth btw Davis isn't a billionaire, but otherwise you're correct. It's also worth noting that the city of Oakland still owes close to a hundred million dollars on the old stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 14 hours ago, lancerman said: 2014 Patriots exploit and eligible receiver designation rule in a playoff game against the Ravens. Harbaugh lobby's to have rule changed. It is. It should have been changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: You do realize this happens all the time, right? Davis isn't a billionaire, but otherwise you're correct. It's also worth noting that the city of Oakland still owes close to a hundred million dollars on the old stadium. Davis owns 47% of an NFL franchise. He is a billionaire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 29, 2017 Author Share Posted March 29, 2017 16 minutes ago, sperry said: Davis owns 47% of an NFL franchise. He is a billionaire. True, but probably the least liquid billionaire in the NFL. And he doesn't seem to be at all willing to leverage much or any of that "on paper" wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonSnow4President Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 1 hour ago, sperry said: Davis owns 47% of an NFL franchise. He is a billionaire. The Packers made 50 mil profit last year per CBS (really wish I could find the financial statements), and it was only 30 mil the year before. I don't know what Davis has personally, but it is certainly conceivable he's not a billionaire based on his NFL ownership alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 29, 2017 Author Share Posted March 29, 2017 11 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said: The Packers made 50 mil profit last year per CBS (really wish I could find the financial statements), and it was only 30 mil the year before. I don't know what Davis has personally, but it is certainly conceivable he's not a billionaire based on his NFL ownership alone. Hmm, looks like you might be right. Forbes valued the team at 2.1 billion last year. If Davis owns 47%, I suppose he's technically not a billionaire. I wonder how much this move will change the estimated worth of the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 1 hour ago, sperry said: Davis owns 47% of an NFL franchise. He is a billionaire. His listed net work is 500 million. Also, it appears that Jed York is the poorest owner, though he masks this by claiming his mommy's money as his own. Also, also, do the Titans have a living owner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonSnow4President Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 43 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Hmm, looks like you might be right. Forbes valued the team at 2.1 billion last year. If Davis owns 47%, I suppose he's technically not a billionaire. I wonder how much this move will change the estimated worth of the team. For what it's worth, the net worth estimates I've seen have been in the 250 (one) to 500 million (all but one) range. I think his mother owns some part of that 47%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 51 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said: The Packers made 50 mil profit last year per CBS (really wish I could find the financial statements), and it was only 30 mil the year before. I don't know what Davis has personally, but it is certainly conceivable he's not a billionaire based on his NFL ownership alone. The value of a professional sports franchise isn't purely tied up in the value of the future cash flows. It's the ultimate luxury product for high net worth individuals, and they aren't making any more of them. No NFL team would sell for under $2 billion today, and Raiders would not be at the bottom of the barrel. I also wanted to commend the Patriots on their moral fortitude: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19029105/new-england-patriots-remove-joe-mixon-draft-board The Patriots, whose first pick in the draft is #72, are standing firm and will not draft a guy who will be gone 40 picks before they select. And they've told the world about this strong stand, despite the fact that Bill Belichick would never actually publicly outline his draft plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: It should have been changed. No it really shouldn't have. Changing the rule was rewarding stupidity. I knew people who were in the stadium that day. I had family who were at the stadium that day. It was announced to the entire stadium that those players were inelgible. The fact that the Raven's staff kept players covering ineligible receivers is on them. Anybody with half a brain should have figured that out. Ironically it's play you could probably only run once a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 29, 2017 Author Share Posted March 29, 2017 13 minutes ago, lancerman said: No it really shouldn't have. Changing the rule was rewarding stupidity. I knew people who were in the stadium that day. I had family who were at the stadium that day. It was announced to the entire stadium that those players were inelgible. The fact that the Raven's staff kept players covering ineligible receivers is on them. Anybody with half a brain should have figured that out. Ironically it's play you could probably only run once a year. You're right that the Ravens were incredible stupid to fall for it, but Tywin is right in that it should've been changed. There is nothing in the rulebook stating that you can declare receivers as being ineligible. The rule has always been about declaring a position player who would not normally be considered eligible, not the other way around. Kudos for Belichick for finding a loophole that he could exploit in a key situation, but the league was right to close that loophole. That play shouldn't have worked once, let alone once a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbunting Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Man, I looked up purchase prices for NFL teams vs current values and it's staggering. Chicago purchased for $100, no that isn't missing a comma, or three! Hell Dallas purchased for 90 mil and now worth 1.8b. I was surprised to see some teams valued lower than purchase price and lower than 600m. For some reason I never would have thought that possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 16 minutes ago, dbunting said: Man, I looked up purchase prices for NFL teams vs current values and it's staggering. Chicago purchased for $100, no that isn't missing a comma, or three! Hell Dallas purchased for 90 mil and now worth 1.8b. I was surprised to see some teams valued lower than purchase price and lower than 600m. For some reason I never would have thought that possible. To make it more staggering, your valuations are way too low. Minimum franchise values are >$2billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockroi Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Saints not likely to sign Butler to an offer sheet Basically, the Saints said that they will not give up the #11 for Butler so they can't sign him to an offer sheet and ship their 1st pick to the Pats. They could still trade for Butler but that would require Butler to sign the tender (which he still has not done). If Butler does not sign the tender b April 21, he can only play for the Pats UNLESS the Pats sign him to a tender and then trade him. Given the time they have had, this is not a surprise. You have to figure if they were going to do this deal they would have done it by now. The only other way would be to concoct a trade and that may or may not be happening. As Peyton said, the situation is "ongoing" but it seems like if a trade was going to happen it would have by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 2 hours ago, sperry said: The value of a professional sports franchise isn't purely tied up in the value of the future cash flows. It's the ultimate luxury product for high net worth individuals, and they aren't making any more of them. No NFL team would sell for under $2 billion today, and Raiders would not be at the bottom of the barrel. I also wanted to commend the Patriots on their moral fortitude: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19029105/new-england-patriots-remove-joe-mixon-draft-board The Patriots, whose first pick in the draft is #72, are standing firm and will not draft a guy who will be gone 40 picks before they select. And they've told the world about this strong stand, despite the fact that Bill Belichick would never actually publicly outline his draft plans. Jesus Christ. Did they issue a press release about it or did someone just answer a question about whether Mixon was on their board? Your compulsive need to eat the peanuts out of Belichick's poop is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 4 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Jesus Christ. Did they issue a press release about it or did someone just answer a question about whether Mixon was on their board? Your compulsive need to eat the peanuts out of Belichick's poop is amazing. They leaked it anonymously. I'm sure you're super stoked that your franchise has some serious moral high ground to stand on now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Per the Herald Jeff Howe - " That’s why the Patriots absolutely will not even consider drafting Oklahoma running back Joe Mixon next month, according to a source. " Reported on by the Herald and blasted out by ESPN reporting on it as gospel and putting a bee in sperry's bonnet. http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots/2017/03/patriots_will_steer_clear_of_controversial_oklahoma_running_back_joe_mixon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.