Skip to content

Raiders owner thinking of moving to San Antonio

The Browns Board
40 11 1.7k
  • ComeonmanC Comeonman wrote on last edited by
    #3

    If you give SA a team then Dallas will want one

  • If you give SA a team then Dallas will want one

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #4

    @comeonman said:

    If you give SA a team then Dallas will want one

    Badumbump.

    If Mark Davis were serious you can bet that Jerry Jones will fight him tooth and nail as he believes Austin/SA are HIS territory.

    But here is an analysis on Davis's thought process:

    Right now, you have 2 teams, the Raiders/49ers that to some degree split the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose/Sacremento market areas. Those combined areas have a total population of about 8.6 million people....but, honestly, probably a much larger percent of that base supports the 49ers over the Raiders. ....so I would say that clearly the Raiders have less than a 4 million local support base.

    Now, note: Dallas has about a 6.8 million population base, Houston has about a 6.3 million population base.

    Combined, San Antonio and Austin have about a 4.1 million population base.

    That makes its combined rank the 15th largest market in the nation.....just behind Detroit, but ahead of the likes of Seattle, Minneapolis, San Diego, Tampa Bay....and a number of other NFL markets.

    Of course, the real issue may not be the choice between Oakland and San Antonio...but the choice between LA and San Antonio....though personally I don't want to see the Raiders move at all, but I do understand that they have a terrible stadium to play in.

  • If you give SA a team then Dallas will want one

    Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by
    #5

    @comeonman said:

    If you give SA a team then Dallas will want one

    lol...

    SA was one of the top USFL cities... loved their Gunslingers led by Jim Kelly. They have an outdated, yet ready for move-in, domed stadium that'd do until a new one was built. Still a geographic fit for the AFCW.

    It'd be a great choice... but I'd hate for Oakland to lose the Raiders... again.

  • @comeonman said:

    If you give SA a team then Dallas will want one

    Badumbump.

    If Mark Davis were serious you can bet that Jerry Jones will fight him tooth and nail as he believes Austin/SA are HIS territory.

    But here is an analysis on Davis's thought process:

    Right now, you have 2 teams, the Raiders/49ers that to some degree split the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose/Sacremento market areas. Those combined areas have a total population of about 8.6 million people....but, honestly, probably a much larger percent of that base supports the 49ers over the Raiders. ....so I would say that clearly the Raiders have less than a 4 million local support base.

    Now, note: Dallas has about a 6.8 million population base, Houston has about a 6.3 million population base.

    Combined, San Antonio and Austin have about a 4.1 million population base.

    That makes its combined rank the 15th largest market in the nation.....just behind Detroit, but ahead of the likes of Seattle, Minneapolis, San Diego, Tampa Bay....and a number of other NFL markets.

    Of course, the real issue may not be the choice between Oakland and San Antonio...but the choice between LA and San Antonio....though personally I don't want to see the Raiders move at all, but I do understand that they have a terrible stadium to play in.

    ballpeenB ballpeen wrote on last edited by
    #6

    @the-gipper said:

    ..though personally I don't want to see the Raiders move at all, but I do understand that they have a terrible stadium to play in.

    Not to mention a crappy state from a tax standpoint and a crappy city. Oakland may have been a nice, blue collar town back in the day, but now it is crime infested shit hole.

  • @comeonman said:

    If you give SA a team then Dallas will want one

    lol...

    SA was one of the top USFL cities... loved their Gunslingers led by Jim Kelly. They have an outdated, yet ready for move-in, domed stadium that'd do until a new one was built. Still a geographic fit for the AFCW.

    It'd be a great choice... but I'd hate for Oakland to lose the Raiders... again.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #7

    @tour2ma said:

    lol...

    SA was one of the top USFL cities... loved their Gunslingers led by Jim Kelly. They have an outdated, yet ready for move-in, domed stadium that'd do until a new one was built. Still a geographic fit for the AFCW.

    It'd be a great choice... but I'd hate for Oakland to lose the Raiders... again.

    Jim Kelly played for the Houston Gamblers, not the Gunslingers . (and fyi, the NFL would probably not now allow that name to be used....hell the "Bullets" had the change their name)

    But....good point.....would they still stay the Raiders? Or change name.

    The point about the color scheme is right though...it would match the Spurs.

  • @the-gipper said:

    ..though personally I don't want to see the Raiders move at all, but I do understand that they have a terrible stadium to play in.

    Not to mention a crappy state from a tax standpoint and a crappy city. Oakland may have been a nice, blue collar town back in the day, but now it is crime infested shit hole.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by The Gipper
    #8

    @ballpeen said:

    Not to mention a crappy state from a tax standpoint and a crappy city. Oakland may have been a nice, blue collar town back in the day, but now it is crime infested shit hole.

    Not sure why the big outcry about the tax status of various states. The big chunk of taxes on these guys comes from the Feds, not the state, which is miniscule in comparison.

    And any state that doesn't charge an income tax? Where do you think they get their revenue from? Tax on liguor? Hardly.

    I know that is some of these states the real estate taxes are triple what a non income tax state pays. And licensing fees? Example, in Ohio, you have to pay like $54.00 to renew your vehicle license plate each year. In some states that would be 10 times as much. (I know that is the case in South Carolina where my father in law owned a car).

    Besides, while Oakland proper may not be very good, the rest of the East Bay area is still some pretty prime real estate....with a lot of people with a lot of nice homes etc.

  • miktoxicM miktoxic wrote on last edited by
    #9

  • @ballpeen said:

    Not to mention a crappy state from a tax standpoint and a crappy city. Oakland may have been a nice, blue collar town back in the day, but now it is crime infested shit hole.

    Not sure why the big outcry about the tax status of various states. The big chunk of taxes on these guys comes from the Feds, not the state, which is miniscule in comparison.

    And any state that doesn't charge an income tax? Where do you think they get their revenue from? Tax on liguor? Hardly.

    I know that is some of these states the real estate taxes are triple what a non income tax state pays. And licensing fees? Example, in Ohio, you have to pay like $54.00 to renew your vehicle license plate each year. In some states that would be 10 times as much. (I know that is the case in South Carolina where my father in law owned a car).

    Besides, while Oakland proper may not be very good, the rest of the East Bay area is still some pretty prime real estate....with a lot of people with a lot of nice homes etc.

    DieHardBrownsFanD DieHardBrownsFan wrote on last edited by
    #10

    @the-gipper said:

    Not sure why the big outcry about the tax status of various states. The big chunk of taxes on these guys comes from the Feds, not the state, which is miniscule in comparison.

    And any state that doesn't charge an income tax? Where do you think they get their revenue from? Tax on liguor? Hardly.

    I know that is some of these states the real estate taxes are triple what a non income tax state pays. And licensing fees? Example, in Ohio, you have to pay like $54.00 to renew your vehicle license plate each year. In some states that would be 10 times as much. (I know that is the case in South Carolina where my father in law owned a car).

    Besides, while Oakland proper may not be very good, the rest of the East Bay area is still some pretty prime real estate....with a lot of people with a lot of nice homes etc.

    Talking about state tax, not fed. Nissan just left for Texas. Read up magistrate. Fuck Californication.

  • miktoxicM miktoxic wrote on last edited by
    #11

    HA!

    yeah a state that gave us silicon valley and hollywood, hippies and free thinking..........yeah i'd move to bum fuck texas too.

    not.

  • HA!

    yeah a state that gave us silicon valley and hollywood, hippies and free thinking..........yeah i'd move to bum fuck texas too.

    not.

    WalterWhiteW WalterWhite wrote on last edited by WalterWhite
    #12

    @miktoxic said:

    yeah a state that gave us silicon valley and hollywood, hippies and free thinking..........

    Yea, and all that shit is packing up and leaving or already left.. I worked in Hollywood for years and everything shoots out of state. The Vietnam Era hippies who were cool are replaced by entitled millenial hipsters or bums.

    Free thinking in Hollywood? Ask Daniel Tosh, Jon Stewart, Tracy Morgan, Dave Chappelle, Stephen A. Smith, Adam Richman, Alec Baldwin, or a million others about their politically correct horseshit.

  • HA!

    yeah a state that gave us silicon valley and hollywood, hippies and free thinking..........yeah i'd move to bum fuck texas too.

    not.

    DieHardBrownsFanD DieHardBrownsFan wrote on last edited by
    #13

    @miktoxic said:

    HA!

    yeah a state that gave us silicon valley and hollywood, hippies and free thinking..........yeah i'd move to bum fuck texas too.

    not.

    Hippies and freethinking. LMAO.

  • miktoxicM miktoxic wrote on last edited by
    #14

    ***WARNING***

    POLITICAL THREAD

    ***WARNING***

  • @miktoxic said:

    HA!

    yeah a state that gave us silicon valley and hollywood, hippies and free thinking..........yeah i'd move to bum fuck texas too.

    not.

    Hippies and freethinking. LMAO.

    miktoxicM miktoxic wrote on last edited by
    #15

    @diehardbrownsfan said:

    Hippies and freethinking. LMAO.

    yeah but when you were there it was great.

    hmmm.

  • DieHardBrownsFanD DieHardBrownsFan wrote on last edited by
    #16

    As usual, no one knows what the fuck you are even talking about, except you.

  • miktoxicM miktoxic wrote on last edited by
    #17

    you said you were stationed aboard a ship off the coast of cal (san diego?) when you were in the military and talked about going out and it sounded like you had a good time, so i was wondering what the F is so bad about it now? just the tax situation or the fact that you hate liberal cal living?

  • DieHardBrownsFanD DieHardBrownsFan wrote on last edited by
    #18

    No man, I said I was home ported in San Diego. I did like going to Chargers games, and Padres. But San Diego is not indicative of CA liberal homo's like Piglosi, etc. Was a grunt in the Army and a Squid in the Navy. Got it? Okay.

  • miktoxicM miktoxic wrote on last edited by
    #19

    and san diego is in the state of california, so i guess it's not all bad, huh?

    got it? good.

  • DieHardBrownsFanD DieHardBrownsFan wrote on last edited by
    #20

    Nah.

  • miktoxicM miktoxic wrote on last edited by
    #21

    like saying ohio sucks because cincinnati blows.

  • letsgojacketsL letsgojackets wrote on last edited by
    #22

    Round 1.........FIGHT!