Why is there reason to beleive LA is still a viable NFL market?

[dvferyance]

LA has lost 3 teams the Chargers in the 60's the Rams and Raiders in the 90's yet the commissioner still thinks LA is a viable NFL market. I am just wondering why. The NFL flopped 3 times there already why should I believe the 4th time will be any different? While LA has a team yet again they were without one for 21 years far longer than any other city that lost a team and got one back. Also as I recall back in 1999 the NFL wanted to give LA an expansion team but there wasn't any interest from them so they gave it to Houston instead. If the Rams flop here gain shouldn't that just be a message that LA is not an NFL city?

[Avalanchez71]

Why is the LA market not interested in NFL?

[jakeroot]

Have the previous teams flopped because of poor attendance, or poor management?

If the former, your concern may be justified, though with an ever-growing population, I don't think they'll have trouble filling up the Inglewood stadium.

But, if the latter, there's no reason to believe things will be the same as before. The current owner of the team kept the Rams alive in a baseball town for 20 years. And they only moved because of a lack of interest in stadium upgrades (right?)

[lordsutch]

The standard explanation is LA is full of transplants from other cities who have loyalties to their "home" teams. I'm not sure I buy that, and in any case if it were true then LA is probably the one urban area in the country you could fill a stadium for eight home games with road team fans alone.

In any case I think it was more bad teams and bad management than lack of fans that hurt the NFL teams in LA in the past. They're certainly not going to see the issues that Jacksonville has had filling Everbank in the years the Jags have sucked (which is most of them).

[DTComposer]

I think, if you do any research, you'll find that the reasons the teams left had very little to do with fan support and everything to do with owners' greed. The Chargers left (after one season, hardly enough time to establish a fan base) because Barron Hilton didn't want to compete in the Coliseum with the Rams and could make more money having the San Diego market to himself. The Raiders left because Al Davis didn't get the sweetheart deals he wanted (pay-per-view, luxury boxes in the Coliseum), and the Rams left Anaheim because the city wouldn't pass a tax to push the cost of stadium renovations off on the citizens.

It should be noted that all three of these teams were dissatisfied with the Coliseum (too many seats meaning fewer sellouts, leading to TV blackouts; aging facility; no luxury boxes; bad location; etc.).

L.A. County by itself is a larger market than anywhere except New York, and then you add Orange County, the Inland Empire, etc., and the new stadium will be within an hour's drive of over 13 million people. There's no lacking for fans.

[dvferyance]

Have the previous teams flopped because of poor attendance, or poor management?

If the former, your concern may be justified, though with an ever-growing population, I don't think they'll have trouble filling up the Inglewood stadium.

But, if the latter, there's no reason to believe things will be the same as before. The current owner of the team kept the Rams alive in a baseball town for 20 years. And they only moved because of a lack of interest in stadium upgrades (right?)

I don't think so St Louis tried hard to keep the time I believe Kroenke really wanted to go to LA and didn't care what St Louis had to offer him. No matter what they offered him he was going to say it was never good enough While St Louis is a baseball town LA really isn't a football town either it's way more of a basketball town. Time will tell but if the Rams don't improve soon I could see this being another flop like before.

[SP Cook]

Neither the Rams nor the Raiders "failed" in LA.  Bad owners practiced "stadium extortion", and the local governments back in the early 90s called their bluffs.    The Chargers, unable to compete with the established NFL Rams left for competition free San Diego 60 years ago and are not germaine to the discussion.

The NFL then practiced 20 years of "stadium extortion" by every team thretening to move to LA and politicians spent money that could be spent on roads, schools, health, or police; or kept by those who earned it, on new stadiums for the entire league.  With that finished, it now moves a team to LA.

The LA market is 5.7M people.  The idea that women's lacrosse, let alone the NFL, could not find a 80K people willing to go a game a few time per year, is laughable.

[sdmichael]

Neither the Rams nor the Raiders "failed" in LA.  Bad owners practiced "stadium extortion", and the local governments back in the early 90s called their bluffs.    The Chargers, unable to compete with the established NFL Rams left for competition free San Diego 60 years ago and are not germane to the discussion.

The NFL then practiced 20 years of "stadium extortion" by every team threatening to move to LA and politicians spent money that could be spent on roads, schools, health, or police; or kept by those who earned it, on new stadiums for the entire league.  With that finished, it now moves a team to LA.

The LA market is 5.7M people.  The idea that women's lacrosse, let alone the NFL, could not find a 80K people willing to go a game a few time per year, is laughable.

They still are - look at the San Diego Chargers and their BS about a new stadium. The way they portray it down here, you'd think they didn't have a stadium in the first place. They also want taxpayer money for a private company. My thought is that if it were such a "money making" venture, they'd be willing to pay for it. Yet, somehow, they don't want to. However, they are indeed germane to the discussion as they also have "threatened" to move to Los Angeles if they don't get a "shiny new" stadium here in San Diego.

[The Nature Boy]

The standard explanation is LA is full of transplants from other cities who have loyalties to their "home" teams. I'm not sure I buy that, and in any case if it were true then LA is probably the one urban area in the country you could fill a stadium for eight home games with road team fans alone.

How is this different than any other Sun Belt city? I don't see LA having a bigger proportion of transplants than, for example, Phoenix. I remember reading a statistic about Charlotte that said that the majority of its population is from outside of NC.

If you look at the most populous cities 30-40 years ago, you'll see that our population used to be clustered in the Northeast and Upper Midwest.

[bing101]

http://news3lv.com/news/local/governor-sandoval-announces-special-session-start-date-to-tackle-nfl-stadium-proposal


Now Las Vegas is named as a bargaining chip city for the Raiders.

[bing101]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/st-louis-suing-nfl-over-rams-relocation/article_501e2349-c9c9-5a70-9743-2583f89948d9.html

Saint Louis is Suing the Rams over the move to Inglewood.

[SP Cook]

Anybody with $75 and a crayon can sue anybody else. 

[Henry]

People might've said the same thing about the NHL when the Kings first got started four decades ago, but the team is still here, and doing very well for itself, winning two Stanley Cups. Also, let's not forget that the Ducks are playing in the Kings' shadow, like the Clippers are in the Lakers' and the Angels in the Dodgers', regardless of who is the better team at the time.

[dvferyance]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/st-louis-suing-nfl-over-rams-relocation/article_501e2349-c9c9-5a70-9743-2583f89948d9.html

Saint Louis is Suing the Rams over the move to Inglewood.

I don't blame them. Think about all the lost revenue that the city has suffered since they left. I hope they win big.