NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell yesterday said there is "still a lot of work to be done" before the league considers Las Vegas as a possible destination for a franchise, according to Jon Krawczynski of the AP. Goodell said that the "decision ultimately would come down to getting the approval of 24 owners, but he stressed that they are a long way from getting to that point and also expressed hope that the Raiders could find a stadium solution to remain in Oakland." Goodell said that he is still "evaluating whether having a team play in a casino-filled city is a good idea." Goodell: "You never want to see a community lose their franchise once, much less twice. That's why we work so hard with our communities to say, 'This is what you have to try to get to,' because you need to try to make sure this franchise continues to be successful. The Minnesota community did that in a great way. I think we can do it in Oakland. I think there's a solution there, but it takes the community to help identify it" (AP, 9/18). In Las Vegas, Matt Youmans notes Goodell's comments come "three days after the 11-member Southern Nevada Tourism Infrastructure Committee voted unanimously to recommend a financing proposal" for a $1.9B, 65,000-seat stadium. The SNTIC's recommendation will be "forwarded to Carson City and Gov. Brian Sandoval, who could elect to call a special session of the Nevada Legislature to vote on the stadium financing plan" (LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 9/19).
HANGING BY A THREAD: In S.F., Matier & Ross wrote under the header, "East Bay Thinks It Can Keep Raiders, But Deck Looks Stacked." The possible move got "scant mention at Friday's meeting of the Joint Powers Authority, the Oakland-Alameda County agency that runs the Coliseum." One attendee of the meeting said, "The feeling was that neither the Nevada governor nor their Legislature would go for the deal." However, with tourists "bearing the brunt of the added taxes under the proposed deal, there's little reason to believe the state politicians will turn it down -- especially because it is backed" by Las Vegas Sands Chair & CEO Sheldon Adelson. It also is "unlikely the NFL would stand in the way." Matier & Ross: "One thing's for sure: For all the years of effort and talk of possibilities, Oakland and Alameda County still don't have a developer, a plan or the money for a new stadium" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 9/18). ESPN.com's Paul Gutierrez wrote, "Oakland is neither rolling over, nor giving up." The Raiders still have a "card to play in Los Angeles, because should the Chargers get a new stadium in San Diego, the Raiders then would have the option of joining the Rams in Inglewood" (ESPN.com, 9/16).
HOOK, LINE & SINKER? A S.F. CHRONICLE editorial stated it "looks like Las Vegas is about to fall for the ultimate sucker bet." Cities desperate to "obtain or retain the cachet of a major sports team too often neglect these economic realities in their zeal to be 'big-league.'" Even against those standards, the "proposed deal to lure the Raiders to Las Vegas" with a $1.9B domed stadium "is a doozy" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 9/17).
