News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Rams and Raiders to Los Angeles?

Started by bing101, November 11, 2014, 09:19:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Pete from Boston


Quote from: Alps on November 20, 2014, 12:26:20 AM
Give them one team, see what happens. I'd like to see the Rams stay where they are.

I'm fine with whatever happens if the parties involved (cities/teams) work it out.  It annoys me when the leagues step in to advance an outcome at the expense of one of the players at the table.  I get that this is tricky because the league has an interest based on more or less revenue, but the cities have an interest based on some return on investment or none at all. 


Henry

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 19, 2014, 04:51:26 PM
Except global warming is pretty well established scientifically and "it's unusually hot this month" is not really specifically relevant.


Quote from: Brandon on November 19, 2014, 02:19:43 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on November 19, 2014, 01:37:06 PM
Why would a city that has no team all these years immediately get two?

No clue.  I was under the impression that the Rams were happy in St Louis.

LA is the second-biggest media market in the country and currently features five teams in the four majors that matter.  By comparison, New York, marginally bigger, has nine.  LA people have a lot of unspent pro sports dollars to go around.

The Rams are unhappy with their 19-year-old stadium  A modern stadium is considered obsolete after 20 years, but the Rams are impatient.
And by comparison, Chicago (the No. 3 market) has just five teams (Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls, Cubs, White Sox), though they also had the Cardinals playing in the Bears' shadow until that team left for St. Louis in 1960.

Quote from: Alps on November 20, 2014, 12:26:20 AM
Give them one team, see what happens. I'd like to see the Rams stay where they are.
Speaking of St. Louis, I hope the Rams can somehow work it out and get something out, like a renovation of their existing facility or a new stadium. However, as their owner already has land in L.A. ready for a new stadium, he may as well pull an Al Davis and move them back west, if he doesn't get his way.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

texaskdog

I don't know why y'all have to compare different teams in different sports.  It's not like each sports fan likes every sport. 

Desert Man

Update on this thread (now this is June 2015): NO NFL team at this time expressed interest in relocation to L.A. The Raiders are pressured to remain in Oakland, the Chargers decided not to play in a place they know they're facing a possible regional rival, and the Rams noticed the city of St. Louis has an offer for them to stay there. The NFL should expand to the Los Angeles area, the US' 2nd largest sports market, whether it's one or 2 teams. Other NFL possible expansion sites are Toronto in Canada (the Buffalo Bills held exhibition games there while the Bills want to stay in Buffalo), Mexico City (Mexico may have an economic boom, but the NFL doesn't believe it's suitable), Birmingham Ala. (they had 5 semi-pro American football teams in the last 40 years), San Antonio (briefly had the New Orleans Saints in 2005 and 2006 after hurricane Katrina gutted the city) and Oklahoma City (a more likely city than...sports gambling in Las Vegas).
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

texaskdog

They seem to love Toronto and London and only like LA as a bargaining chip.  San Antonio would be a top possible location. 

The Birmingham Stallions & Vulcans/Americans weren't semi-pro!

nexus73

Vancouver BC has BC Place, a domed stadium that is home to the BC Lions of the CFL.

Memphis TN was the first home of the Tennessee Titans.  That resulted in an upgrade to the stadium known as the Liberty Bowl.

Honolulu, Las Vegas and Sacramento all have had lesser pro teams at some point with Honolulu hosting the Pro Bowl for decades.  What is lacking in those cities is a great venue.

Orlando has also enjoyed pro football from a lesser league.  Their stadium seems to be decent enough from what I see on TV.

Syracuse has a domed stadium.

With so many locations having either an adequate stadium in place or the potential for one, and then add in the reluctance of the NFL's 31 owners and one city-owned team to want to split the pie any smaller in their revenue-sharing model, I would think a proposal for NFL Spring Football would work out.  Each AFC team pairs with an NFC team to stock up the roster and provide coaches for a total of 16 NFL Spring teams. 

Break them up as follows: Four divisions of four teams each with two conferences of two divisions, East and West.  Six games in division play, four against the other division in your conference and two games against each of the other two divisions for a total of 14 games in a regular season.  Division winners meet in the semis, followed by a title game.  Why only two rounds?  That is one less game to get injured in and these teams are filled up with people who will become part of the NFL regular season roster. 

Move the Pro Bowl to the week after the Super Bowl.  Have the NFL Draft the following week.  Start the season on the first Sunday of March.  It will end in mid-June, about the time the NBA Finals and NHL championship are decided.  That will allow the players a month at least to rest their bodies before NFL training camps begin.  Since most of the NFL Spring players who make it to the NFL will be backup players, they won't be as worn out by the NFL regular season and thus be able to offer quality backup play in a sport riddled with injuries. 

Expand the NFL roster to 60 players suited up with no practice squad/emergency QB setasides.

This proposal brings NFL football in some form to 48 cities, covers most of the year and builds up roster numbers as well as quality. 

Rick

US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

Stephane Dumas

Quote from: nexus73 on June 19, 2015, 01:27:21 PM

With so many locations having either an adequate stadium in place or the potential for one, and then add in the reluctance of the NFL's 31 owners and one city-owned team to want to split the pie any smaller in their revenue-sharing model, I would think a proposal for NFL Spring Football would work out.  Each AFC team pairs with an NFC team to stock up the roster and provide coaches for a total of 16 NFL Spring teams. 

The XFL and back to the 1980s the USFL tried spring football.  I'm surprised they didn't tried summer football going after baseball.  Then there still arena football/inner football.

Kacie Jane

Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 04:36:08 PM
Update on this thread (now this is June 2015): NO NFL team at this time expressed interest in relocation to L.A. The Raiders are pressured to remain in Oakland, the Chargers decided not to play in a place they know they're facing a possible regional rival, and the Rams noticed the city of St. Louis has an offer for them to stay there...

Kind of telling that you don't have a source on this, since it contradicts everything I've read on the issue....
NFL inquires about L.A. stadiums temporarily hosting a team in 2016 (dated June 26th)
Chargers and Raiders owners talk with L.A. officials (dated July 1st)

Yes, the teams are still trying to work things out in their current cities/stadiums (though that's not really an option in Oakland), but everything's also still moving forward in Los Angeles.  At this point, it's a foregone conclusion that there will be at least one, probably two (but almost definitely not three) teams in Los Angeles soon; the only questions are who, and exactly where and when.  (And also what happens to the odd man out... do the Rams stay in St. Louis, do the Raiders move to San Antonio, etc.)

jakeroot

Quote from: Kacie Jane on July 02, 2015, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 04:36:08 PM
<clipped>

Kind of telling that you don't have a source on this, since it contradicts everything I've read on the issue....
NFL inquires about L.A. stadiums temporarily hosting a team in 2016 (dated June 26th)

I've been talking with my uncle, who's been a Rams fan for as long as he can remember, and he tells me time and time again that there's no way the Rams will stick around in STL. The owner buying land in LA and the league searching for temporary facilities tells me that an announcement is coming in the next few months. Venue logistics can be worked out later, but that's hardly the bigger issue here...

...IMO, Saint Louis is more of a baseball town. I'm sure the city can muster up some deal for them, but it's pointless if you can't sell seats.

Henry

Quote from: jakeroot on July 02, 2015, 03:37:17 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on July 02, 2015, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 04:36:08 PM
<clipped>

Kind of telling that you don't have a source on this, since it contradicts everything I've read on the issue....
NFL inquires about L.A. stadiums temporarily hosting a team in 2016 (dated June 26th)

I've been talking with my uncle, who's been a Rams fan for as long as he can remember, and he tells me time and time again that there's no way the Rams will stick around in STL. The owner buying land in LA and the league searching for temporary facilities tells me that an announcement is coming in the next few months. Venue logistics can be worked out later, but that's hardly the bigger issue here...

...IMO, Saint Louis is more of a baseball town. I'm sure the city can muster up some deal for them, but it's pointless if you can't sell seats.
At least the Rams had a run of success in St. Louis as well, going to two Super Bowls in three years and winning one. However, it's undeniable that even in that brief winning period, they were overshadowed by the Cardinals, who remain the city's true heart and soul. And seeing that the Rams' owner has already reserved land for a new stadium in L.A., it's only a matter of time when they return west, a la Oakland Raiders. And speaking of the Raiders, there's no way (at least in my mind) that they would actually share a stadium with the division rival Chargers. If I were to keep one of the teams where they are now, it would be the Chargers, because San Diego has a better chance of building a new replacement stadium than Oakland does.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

DTComposer

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/29/oakland-may-have-to-choose-between-the-as-and-the-raiders/

Quote
"There is plenty of room for both a football- and a baseball-only stadium at the current Oakland Coliseum site, but neither owner wants to share the facility,"  said Oakland City Councilman Larry Reid.

Raiders owner Mark Davis and A's owners John Fisher and Lew Wolff "have basically said they want to be the only entity at the Coliseum,"  Reid said.

Although the articles I've read seem to lean towards the Raiders leaving, IMO if Oakland/Alameda County really has to choose they'd be smarter to focus on the Raiders and work with the Giants to resolve the issue of the A's moving to San Jose - at least all the teams remain in the same media market.


Henry

Quote from: DTComposer on July 04, 2015, 11:57:44 AM
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/29/oakland-may-have-to-choose-between-the-as-and-the-raiders/

Quote
“There is plenty of room for both a football- and a baseball-only stadium at the current Oakland Coliseum site, but neither owner wants to share the facility,” said Oakland City Councilman Larry Reid.

Raiders owner Mark Davis and A’s owners John Fisher and Lew Wolff “have basically said they want to be the only entity at the Coliseum,” Reid said.

Although the articles I've read seem to lean towards the Raiders leaving, IMO if Oakland/Alameda County really has to choose they'd be smarter to focus on the Raiders and work with the Giants to resolve the issue of the A's moving to San Jose - at least all the teams remain in the same media market.


And let's not forget that the current NBA champion Warriors will soon be moving across the bay to San Francisco, which would be another good reason to build two new stadiums on the Coliseum site.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

texaskdog

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 11, 2014, 06:00:23 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 11, 2014, 05:23:19 PM
What about the Jets moving to LA?

Sorry, I think they're pretty firm about wanting a professional football team.

Professional?

texaskdog

Quote from: Henry on July 03, 2015, 12:21:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 02, 2015, 03:37:17 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on July 02, 2015, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 04:36:08 PM
<clipped>

Kind of telling that you don't have a source on this, since it contradicts everything I've read on the issue....
NFL inquires about L.A. stadiums temporarily hosting a team in 2016 (dated June 26th)

I've been talking with my uncle, who's been a Rams fan for as long as he can remember, and he tells me time and time again that there's no way the Rams will stick around in STL. The owner buying land in LA and the league searching for temporary facilities tells me that an announcement is coming in the next few months. Venue logistics can be worked out later, but that's hardly the bigger issue here...

...IMO, Saint Louis is more of a baseball town. I'm sure the city can muster up some deal for them, but it's pointless if you can't sell seats.
At least the Rams had a run of success in St. Louis as well, going to two Super Bowls in three years and winning one. However, it's undeniable that even in that brief winning period, they were overshadowed by the Cardinals, who remain the city's true heart and soul. And seeing that the Rams' owner has already reserved land for a new stadium in L.A., it's only a matter of time when they return west, a la Oakland Raiders. And speaking of the Raiders, there's no way (at least in my mind) that they would actually share a stadium with the division rival Chargers. If I were to keep one of the teams where they are now, it would be the Chargers, because San Diego has a better chance of building a new replacement stadium than Oakland does.

I believe legally (for whatever reason) one team is forced to go the NFC, though an inter-stadium rivalry would be cool.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: texaskdog on July 06, 2015, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 11, 2014, 06:00:23 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 11, 2014, 05:23:19 PM
What about the Jets moving to LA?

Sorry, I think they're pretty firm about wanting a professional football team.

Professional?

As opposed to, say, the Jets. 

texaskdog

Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 06, 2015, 01:15:56 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on July 06, 2015, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 11, 2014, 06:00:23 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 11, 2014, 05:23:19 PM
What about the Jets moving to LA?

Sorry, I think they're pretty firm about wanting a professional football team.

Professional?

As opposed to, say, the Jets. 

That's what I meant, they wouldn't be losing a pro team

triplemultiplex

If both the Rams and the Raiders move back to LA, that would be totally stupid.  It's a waste to have two pro teams in the same media market.  I am also stridently against profession sports teams blackmailing new stadiums out of cities.  So I would only be happy if the Rams stayed put and the Raiders were the ones to go to Los Angeles.

If anyone else wants a team, move the Jets.  Then the league can reorganize the pathetic excuse for competition that is the AFC East the Patriots have coasted on for 15 years.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

texaskdog

It's too bad the leagues just don't have every local team's stock sold to local PEOPLE like Green Bay so that the teams will never move, but I'm sure that's not in their interests.

The Nature Boy

Quote from: texaskdog on July 21, 2015, 10:28:57 AM
It's too bad the leagues just don't have every local team's stock sold to local PEOPLE like Green Bay so that the teams will never move, but I'm sure that's not in their interests.

And it's an incredibly bad idea. Imagine baseball today if that had happened. You'd still have two teams in Philly, two teams in Boston, two teams in St. Louis and three teams in New York. Teams need to be able to relocate as the market changes.

Alps

Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 20, 2015, 11:56:17 PM
If both the Rams and the Raiders move back to LA, that would be totally stupid.  It's a waste to have two pro teams in the same media market.  I am also stridently against profession sports teams blackmailing new stadiums out of cities.  So I would only be happy if the Rams stayed put and the Raiders were the ones to go to Los Angeles.

If anyone else wants a team, move the Jets.  Then the league can reorganize the pathetic excuse for competition that is the AFC East the Patriots have coasted on for 15 years.
-coasted +cheated

swbrotha100

Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 20, 2015, 11:56:17 PM
If both the Rams and the Raiders move back to LA, that would be totally stupid.  It's a waste to have two pro teams in the same media market.  I am also stridently against profession sports teams blackmailing new stadiums out of cities.  So I would only be happy if the Rams stayed put and the Raiders were the ones to go to Los Angeles.

If anyone else wants a team, move the Jets.  Then the league can reorganize the pathetic excuse for competition that is the AFC East the Patriots have coasted on for 15 years.

The NFL doesn't feel that way. Having an AFC team and NFC team in a large market like NYC or LA helps the league. The other pro sports leagues (MLB, NBA, NHL) have multiple teams in the NYC and LA markets.

Quote from: texaskdog on July 21, 2015, 10:28:57 AM
It's too bad the leagues just don't have every local team's stock sold to local PEOPLE like Green Bay so that the teams will never move, but I'm sure that's not in their interests.

Green Bay's ownership situation was grandfathered in. If not, they would be playing in Milwaukee or some other city by now.

triplemultiplex

Quote from: swbrotha100 on October 17, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
The NFL doesn't feel that way. Having an AFC team and NFC team in a large market like NYC or LA helps the league. The other pro sports leagues (MLB, NBA, NHL) have multiple teams in the NYC and LA markets.

What helps pro sports leagues is having a good distribution of teams and parity among them.  America has enough population to put some space between pro teams, no need for any city or metro to have two.

Quote from: swbrotha100 on October 17, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
Green Bay's ownership situation was grandfathered in. If not, they would be playing in Milwaukee or some other city by now.

But given the more even geographic distribution of teams these days, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have city ownership of more pro sports teams.  It's the only way to fight back against this blackmail horseshit the assface owners keep pulling on cities.
Then the all the city-owned teams can end these nonsense blackout restrictions the pro sports cartels and corporate media outlets have collaborated on to artificially inflate ticket prices.  The idea that some teams cover up seats in their arenas so they are not subject to blackout of broadcast of the games is the height of stupidity.  What the hell?  Fucking lower the price for tickets, and people will show!

This kind of crap is driving away fans.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

74/171FAN

#47
Quote from: swbrotha100 on October 17, 2015, 12:15:50 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on July 21, 2015, 10:28:57 AM
It's too bad the leagues just don't have every local team's stock sold to local PEOPLE like Green Bay so that the teams will never move, but I'm sure that's not in their interests.

Green Bay's ownership situation was grandfathered in. If not, they would be playing in Milwaukee or some other city by now.
Until 1994, the Packers did play a few home games per year in Milwaukee at Milwaukee County Stadium.  It looks like that ended because the stadium itself was more fit for baseball than football.
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

Big John

Quote
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 17, 2015, 07:34:58 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 21, 2015, 10:28:57 AM
It's too bad the leagues just don't have every local team's stock sold to local PEOPLE like Green Bay so that the teams will never move, but I'm sure that's not in their interests.

Green Bay's ownership situation was grandfathered in. If not, they would be playing in Milwaukee or some other city by now.

Until 1994, the Packers did play a few home games per year in Milwaukee at Milwaukee County Stadium.  It looks like that ended because the stadium itself was more fit for baseball than football.

Old County Stadium barely held a football field and the sight lines were terrible for football.  The new baseball stadium was still in the development stage and they saw it would be less expensive to build a baseball-only stadium.  You can't fit a regulation football field in Miller Park.  So in order to do that, the Packers still reserve 1 preseason and 2 regular season games to Milwaukee season ticketholders, referred locally as the "Gold Package".

AlexandriaVA

Isn't team location pretty irrelevant, since the NFL lives and dies on TV revenue? As long as people in L.A. can watch NFL games, that's all the league really cares about. It's the team owners that would benefit from ticket and merchandise sales.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.