Exactly. It's all about the market you are in and the people that actually live in that market. Not if you can hopefully get people to interrupt their plans to attend a football game. The Bay Area and the nearly 8 million people plus an extra 2 million with Sacramento with large amount of disposable incomes>>>Vegas and the 2 million with nothing around it for at least 200 miles.
I don't understand why this isn't more obvious in the whole argument.

You're trading away more long term dollars for a short term splash just as the team is beginning to hit its stride again. This shyt is running on a lot of what ifs and Mark is getting egged on by casino tyc00ns and greedy ass team owners, the team for that should've been the Chargers if Goodell wanted to test the market. Chargers could've been to Vegas was the Sonics were to OKC, they're a small market team. You don't take your best bet to win back the LA market as it's on the upswing and give it to a tiny market like Vegas. This is quite possibly some of the dumbest shyt I've seen the NFL do on some business shyt. Just makes you go
at all of it.Edit: Plus there was lowkey 'cism in why we couldn't go to LA when they brought up the gang culture. Not every fan of the Raiders in LA are gang members.

Last edited:
I never thought about it like that. Now that you say it, if we're depending on Cali fans to make that commute to fill the stadium instead of the locals, I wouldn't be shocked if we have a 50/50 turnout at most games and even some games being outnumbered by away fans. If we assume fans from the bay area and other parts of Cali are going to travel just to watch a game, we should also assume fans from other teams will do the same... And those away fans would only have to do it once a season. 
the reason Vegas doesn't have a team is because of gambling. raiders fans done traveled everywhere this year including outside the country, but now all of a sudden they ain't gonna travel to Vegas? 

