AARoads Forum

It's official: the Rams are moving back to LA. Chargers have one year to consider a deal to join them.

Source: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14558668/st-louis-rams-relocate-los-angeles

St. Louis is better off without bloodsuckers blackmailing it.  The city has enough people in need without having to take care of the very rich, too.  Same goes for Oakland.

http://www.forbes.com/teams/st-louis-rams/

See The Rams wanted Los Angeles to increase investor value.

It just goes to prove that St. Louis sucks as a football town. It lost the Cardinals back in 1988, and now the Rams are the second team to leave. At least there's still the Oakland Raiders, whose move is mirrored by that of the Rams. As for the Chargers, they will get one last chance to get a new stadium in San Diego, so we'll see what happens a year from now.

Quote from: Henry on January 13, 2016, 11:42:09 AM
It just goes to prove that St. Louis sucks as a football town. It lost the Cardinals back in 1988, and now the Rams are the second team to leave. At least there's still the Oakland Raiders, whose move is mirrored by that of the Rams. As for the Chargers, they will get one last chance to get a new stadium in San Diego, so we'll see what happens a year from now.

So you're telling us you have to be a pretty shitty football town to lose two teams?  What if you lose them both at once?

I can't help but wonder why another franchise (whether the Chargers, Raiders, or anyone else) would want to become the Rams' tenant at the new stadium. The Jets were the Giants' tenant for years and acknowledged many times it wasn't ideal. (The two franchises partnered in building the new stadium.) It's hard to envision most NFL owners allowing another franchise that level of control unless things are utterly impossible at the current venue.

I don't really understand why San Diego wants to move to LA.

Also London having a team is just stupid. If you're going to expand out of the US then Monterrey or Mexico City would be the best option (since Canada already has their own league).

I feel like Salt Lake City, Utah, might be a good place for an NFL team too.

Back to LA but at what price?
http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/13/football-is-coming-back-to-los-angeles-b

Meanwhile, St. Louis county is stuck paying for the damn stadium for another decade.

Quote from: US 41 on January 13, 2016, 12:20:30 PM
I don't really understand why San Diego wants to move to LA.

Also London having a team is just stupid. If you're going to expand out of the US then Monterrey or Mexico City would be the best option (since Canada already has their own league).

I feel like Salt Lake City, Utah, might be a good place for an NFL team too.

Might not be because the LDS church  encourages reserving Sunday for church and family stuff, at least more than standard protestant or Roman Catholic churches

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 13, 2016, 11:52:01 AM

Quote from: Henry on January 13, 2016, 11:42:09 AM
It just goes to prove that St. Louis sucks as a football town. It lost the Cardinals back in 1988, and now the Rams are the second team to leave. At least there's still the Oakland Raiders, whose move is mirrored by that of the Rams. As for the Chargers, they will get one last chance to get a new stadium in San Diego, so we'll see what happens a year from now.

So you're telling us you have to be a pretty shitty football town to lose two teams?  What if you lose them both at once?

Then you really suck as a football town :P

Quote from: jwolfer on January 13, 2016, 08:30:46 PM

Quote from: US 41 on January 13, 2016, 12:20:30 PM
I don't really understand why San Diego wants to move to LA.

Also London having a team is just stupid. If you're going to expand out of the US then Monterrey or Mexico City would be the best option (since Canada already has their own league).

I feel like Salt Lake City, Utah, might be a good place for an NFL team too.

Might not be because the LDS church  encourages reserving Sunday for church and family stuff, at least more than standard protestant or Roman Catholic churches

Salt Lake's become a more cosmopolitan city in the last decade or so, however.  BYU's football schedule is adjusted to avoid Sundays, but remember that BYU is down in Utah County, which is more like "traditional" Mormon Utah.

That all said, with all the support of BYU and U of U football, it does make you wonder if there's the demand for an NFL team in Salt Lake overall.  That's a much more important question than worrying about Mormon opposition to breaking the sabbath.

Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2016, 10:16:04 AM

Quote from: jwolfer on January 13, 2016, 08:30:46 PM

Quote from: US 41 on January 13, 2016, 12:20:30 PM
I don't really understand why San Diego wants to move to LA.

Also London having a team is just stupid. If you're going to expand out of the US then Monterrey or Mexico City would be the best option (since Canada already has their own league).

I feel like Salt Lake City, Utah, might be a good place for an NFL team too.

Might not be because the LDS church  encourages reserving Sunday for church and family stuff, at least more than standard protestant or Roman Catholic churches

Salt Lake's become a more cosmopolitan city in the last decade or so, however.  BYU's football schedule is adjusted to avoid Sundays, but remember that BYU is down in Utah County, which is more like "traditional" Mormon Utah.

That all said, with all the support of BYU and U of U football, it does make you wonder if there's the demand for an NFL team in Salt Lake overall.  That's a much more important question than worrying about Mormon opposition to breaking the sabbath.

One of my friends is LDS even played football for BYU, he told me about the modification of schedule  for BYU. He is a Green Bay packers fan and will watch the game on TV with family, but won't go to Tampa to see them play in person even though he was invited. Obviously he doesn't drink alcohol so tailgating would be non alcoholic . ( good for me because he would give me the gifts of bourbon he got from clients

Quote from: ET21 on January 14, 2016, 10:02:11 AM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 13, 2016, 11:52:01 AM

Quote from: Henry on January 13, 2016, 11:42:09 AM
It just goes to prove that St. Louis sucks as a football town. It lost the Cardinals back in 1988, and now the Rams are the second team to leave. At least there's still the Oakland Raiders, whose move is mirrored by that of the Rams. As for the Chargers, they will get one last chance to get a new stadium in San Diego, so we'll see what happens a year from now.

So you're telling us you have to be a pretty shitty football town to lose two teams?  What if you lose them both at once?

Then you really suck as a football town :P

I'd just say plain bad luck, but the above is also true.

I guess Cleveland goes on that list too, then, having lost the Rams and the Browns.

Also goes to show, don't count on the Rams sticking around in your town for long. 

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/irate-fans-sue-rams-for-leaving-town/article_3e744a5e-6a84-5b6f-9bf4-103ec4f3aa35.html?mobile_touch=true

Well the Rams have some Missouri politics to deal with before entering Inglewood.

Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2016, 10:44:42 AM

Quote from: ET21 on January 14, 2016, 10:02:11 AM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 13, 2016, 11:52:01 AM

Quote from: Henry on January 13, 2016, 11:42:09 AM
It just goes to prove that St. Louis sucks as a football town. It lost the Cardinals back in 1988, and now the Rams are the second team to leave. At least there's still the Oakland Raiders, whose move is mirrored by that of the Rams. As for the Chargers, they will get one last chance to get a new stadium in San Diego, so we'll see what happens a year from now.

So you're telling us you have to be a pretty shitty football town to lose two teams?  What if you lose them both at once?

Then you really suck as a football town :P

I'd just say plain bad luck, but the above is also true.

Not to get involved in something I don't know a lot about, but much of the reason that the Rams and Raiders left was because of politics, not necessarily because of a shrinking fan-base (although, perhaps politics got involved because of the shrinking fan base -- I'm not 100% certain).

Well, at least they're closer to their division rivals now.

And to think that we almost got the Los Angeles Seahawks 20 years ago! Thanks to a binding lease that required them to stay in Seattle up to 2015 (back when they were still playing in the Kingdome), that move never happened. Think of how devastating that would've been to the Pacific Northwest.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 14, 2016, 11:18:06 PM
Well, at least they're closer to their division rivals now.

True, it's an actual NFC West division now (STL was a border in my mind between NFC west and south)

Quote from: ET21 on January 16, 2016, 10:47:50 AM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 14, 2016, 11:18:06 PM
Well, at least they're closer to their division rivals now.

True, it's an actual NFC West division now (STL was a border in my mind between NFC west and south)

They probably would have been best in the NFC north. Natural rivalry with Chicago.

Quote from: cl94 on January 16, 2016, 04:39:31 PM

Quote from: ET21 on January 16, 2016, 10:47:50 AM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 14, 2016, 11:18:06 PM
Well, at least they're closer to their division rivals now.

True, it's an actual NFC West division now (STL was a border in my mind between NFC west and south)

They probably would have been best in the NFC north. Natural rivalry with Chicago.

Which team would you move though? All the north teams are hated but huge rivals between the four cities.

Quote from: ET21 on January 17, 2016, 12:56:25 PM

Quote from: cl94 on January 16, 2016, 04:39:31 PM

Quote from: ET21 on January 16, 2016, 10:47:50 AM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 14, 2016, 11:18:06 PM
Well, at least they're closer to their division rivals now.

True, it's an actual NFC West division now (STL was a border in my mind between NFC west and south)

They probably would have been best in the NFC north. Natural rivalry with Chicago.

Which team would you move though? All the north teams are hated but huge rivals between the four cities.

That's the problem. If there were 5 teams per division, it would be a no-brainer.

Don't know if I've missed this or not, but the Rams are supposed to play next season in LA, however no new stadium has been started so what venue are they going to play home games at next year?

^^ Not official yet but the LA Coliseum has offered to allow a team to play there until a new stadium is built.

I figured it would be either that or the Rose Bowl.

Yeah, it been widely reported since the announcement of the Rams move that they would almost certainly end up in the Coliseum. I don't think it's been 100% confirmed just yet, but I'd be shocked if it didn't happen.

As for the Rose Bowl, back in July they voted against the possibility of hosting any NFL teams in 2016 or beyond. Not sure if they could go back and change that if they wanted too.

It'll be interesting to see what happens regarding temporary stadiums if a second team moves to L.A. And on that note, the Chargers will begin formal negotiations with the Rams tomorrow regarding a possible partnership or lease.

Quote from: Buck87 on January 17, 2016, 09:38:10 PM
Yeah, it been widely reported since the announcement of the Rams move that they would almost certainly end up in the Coliseum. I don't think it's been 100% confirmed just yet, but I'd be shocked if it didn't happen.

As for the Rose Bowl, back in July they voted against the possibility of hosting any NFL teams in 2016 or beyond. Not sure if they could go back and change that if they wanted too.

It'll be interesting to see what happens regarding temporary stadiums if a second team moves to L.A. And on that note, the Chargers will begin formal negotiations with the Rams tomorrow regarding a possible partnership or lease.

It has not been confirmed. It is widely believed that they'll be in the Coliseum. While they spent their last 14 LA years in Angel Stadium, I don't picture them returning. I do wonder, though, if they'll try and do some quick renovations. Wouldn't be the first time a football stadium underwent a major offseason renovation.

Why would the Rams want the Chargers as a tenant? I imagine that you'd want the LA market to yourself for at least the first year so you can get fan support.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 12:15:09 AM
Why would the Rams want the Chargers as a tenant? I imagine that you'd want the LA market to yourself for at least the first year so you can get fan support.

Money. Also, the market is so large that it could theoretically support two teams. Look at the Jets and Giants.

Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2016, 11:50:16 PM
I do wonder, though, if they'll try and do some quick renovations. Wouldn't be the first time a football stadium underwent a major offseason renovation.

USC was already planning on doing $270 million in renovations, and are just looking for funding to do it. They're hoping having the Rams there will help them pay for it. It'll be interesting to see what gets done prior to this season kicking off...and it looks like the stadium lighting is the biggest thing they'll need to do for sure (due to the NFL having certain standards for lighting)

http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/uscnow/la-sp-sn-haden-usc-nfl-rams-coliseum-20160113-story.html

I'm curious how the new suspended camera wires would be strung in a stadium that is just a big bowl. 

Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2016, 11:50:16 PM

Quote from: Buck87 on January 17, 2016, 09:38:10 PM
Yeah, it been widely reported since the announcement of the Rams move that they would almost certainly end up in the Coliseum. I don't think it's been 100% confirmed just yet, but I'd be shocked if it didn't happen.

As for the Rose Bowl, back in July they voted against the possibility of hosting any NFL teams in 2016 or beyond. Not sure if they could go back and change that if they wanted too.

It'll be interesting to see what happens regarding temporary stadiums if a second team moves to L.A. And on that note, the Chargers will begin formal negotiations with the Rams tomorrow regarding a possible partnership or lease.

It has not been confirmed. It is widely believed that they'll be in the Coliseum. While they spent their last 14 LA years in Angel Stadium, I don't picture them returning. I do wonder, though, if they'll try and do some quick renovations. Wouldn't be the first time a football stadium underwent a major offseason renovation.

It has been confirmed. I can't directly link to it but go to the FAQ section on this site http://welcomehomerams.com/.

I was a big Rams fan when I was growing up and living in L.A., and so was my late father (to this day, I can still hear him yelling "STUPID RAMS!" at the TV every other play and I used to joke that if I ever got a parrot, the first thing I would teach it to say would be "Stupid Rams!"). When the team moved to St. Louis, I couldn't relate to them in a city 1500 miles away and lost interest.

Now that they're back in my home city, would I root for them again? Yes, under two conditions: A: they put a quality team on the field (and that might be on the way if they can get a decent quarterback), and B: get rid of that horrid shade of gold  :no: :no: :no: on the "rams' horns" design on the helmets and go back to the brighter shade of yellow they had in the '70s and '80s. Shoot, even white--I remember when the Rams had white horns on the helmets! :nod:

Appropriate for this board, from The Onion:

Traffic Already Lining Up To Be Late To L.A. Rams' Opening Game

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.onionstatic.com%2Fonion%2F5243%2F4%2Foriginal%2F600.jpg&hash=90cd6ac27bd4542158c12adc102bf966420c0459)

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 02:24:54 PM

Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2016, 11:50:16 PM

Quote from: Buck87 on January 17, 2016, 09:38:10 PM
Yeah, it been widely reported since the announcement of the Rams move that they would almost certainly end up in the Coliseum. I don't think it's been 100% confirmed just yet, but I'd be shocked if it didn't happen.

As for the Rose Bowl, back in July they voted against the possibility of hosting any NFL teams in 2016 or beyond. Not sure if they could go back and change that if they wanted too.

It'll be interesting to see what happens regarding temporary stadiums if a second team moves to L.A. And on that note, the Chargers will begin formal negotiations with the Rams tomorrow regarding a possible partnership or lease.

It has not been confirmed. It is widely believed that they'll be in the Coliseum. While they spent their last 14 LA years in Angel Stadium, I don't picture them returning. I do wonder, though, if they'll try and do some quick renovations. Wouldn't be the first time a football stadium underwent a major offseason renovation.

It has been confirmed. I can't directly link to it but go to the FAQ section on this site http://welcomehomerams.com/.

That is new. Everything I had seen up to this point had not confirmed.

Quote from: Buck87 on January 18, 2016, 01:49:19 PM

Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2016, 11:50:16 PM
I do wonder, though, if they'll try and do some quick renovations. Wouldn't be the first time a football stadium underwent a major offseason renovation.

USC was already planning on doing $270 million in renovations, and are just looking for funding to do it. They're hoping having the Rams there will help them pay for it. It'll be interesting to see what gets done prior to this season kicking off...and it looks like the stadium lighting is the biggest thing they'll need to do for sure (due to the NFL having certain standards for lighting)

http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/uscnow/la-sp-sn-haden-usc-nfl-rams-coliseum-20160113-story.html

The Bills did a large renovation during the 2014 offseason. Redid concourses, added press boxes, major electrical upgrades, new scoreboards, and more. Much of that was done after the snow went away. If they start within the next month or so, they'll have plenty of time.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2016, 03:29:49 PM
Appropriate for this board, from The Onion:

Traffic Already Lining Up To Be Late To L.A. Rams' Opening Game

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.onionstatic.com%2Fonion%2F5243%2F4%2Foriginal%2F600.jpg&hash=90cd6ac27bd4542158c12adc102bf966420c0459)

Ha! That's like the joke about the Dodgers. Everyone shows up in the 2nd or 3rd inning and is gone by the end of the 7th.

WB, Rams! You missed the huge (Nation's 2nd largest) fan market, year-round great climate and Hollywood celebrity stardom, huh? I'm keeping up on whether the Chargers will move to L.A. and local sports fans in San Diego remember losing major and minor league sports to L.A. before. I'm not sure the Raiders will have room between two other teams, did the NFL rejected the Raiders' plan to play in Carson's new stadium?

Quote from: Desert Man on February 07, 2016, 03:02:43 PMI'm keeping up on whether the Chargers will move to L.A. and local sports fans in San Diego remember losing major and minor league sports to L.A. before.

You mean like L.A. lost the Chargers to San Diego in 1961?

Rams still owe for their stadium (no wait: taxpayers will still pay for it, even though there's no one playing in it)

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/los-angeles-rams-billboard-st-louis-032816


Heres a billboard for the Rams.

Quote from: bing101 on March 28, 2016, 03:47:05 PM
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/los-angeles-rams-billboard-st-louis-032816

Heres a billboard for the Rams.

It's worth noting that it's not an official billboard. I don't think the NFL would permit billboards like that.

That'll show St. Louis for not building them a new stadium even though they are still paying for the existing stadium. :pan:

I find it amusing how few people in Oakland and San Diego seem to care about losing their teams, it's something that I could never figure out after all these years on the west coast.  There would have been a riot in the streets in Detroit, Boston, New York or Chicago if any of those teams even talked about moving.  I'm not sure what the appeal is to the L.A. market considering how they literally couldn't hang onto a team in the past.  I would really enjoy seeing a new market like Las Vegas, Salt Lake City or Portland be a destination for a team.

San Antonio is also in play, and the Raiders are a lame duck in Oakland. We'll see if the Chargers are able to secure a new stadium in San Diego.

The Rams acquired the #1 NFL Draft pick away from the Titans, which is a sure sign of a great season to come for the Rams if they have the best rookie money can buy.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 29, 2016, 10:41:26 PM
That'll show St. Louis for not building them a new stadium even though they are still paying for the existing stadium. :pan:

They didn't need a new stadium the one they have is only 21 years old. A stadium replacement should even be in discussion until a stadium is at least 30 years old.

Quote from: dvferyance on June 02, 2016, 09:53:33 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 29, 2016, 10:41:26 PM
That'll show St. Louis for not building them a new stadium even though they are still paying for the existing stadium. :pan:

They didn't need a new stadium the one they have is only 21 years old. A stadium replacement should even be in discussion until a stadium is at least 30 years old.

Exactly my point.

California: the state of champions, has the Rams back and tries to keep the Raiders. Recently, the state added new arena football, NBDL (NBA's development teams), World Team Tennis, Pro Rugby (San Francisco and Sacramento), Natl Lacrosse (only in L.A.) and MLS teams.

History of these leagues in CA:
Arena Football: LA Cobras (1980s), Anaheim Piranhas (1990s), LA Express (2000s) and LA Kiss in Anaheim (2010s), San Jose Sabercats (since 1995), and briefly AF2 teams in Bakersfield, Fresno, San Diego and Stockton.

NBDL: LA D-fenders (played in Ontario CA and now in the parent club Lakers training camp in El Segundo near LA), Anaheim Arsenal, Bakersfield Jam, Long Beach Clippers, Reno Bighorns (still around, owned by the Kings) and Santa Cruz Warriors (still around, owned by the parent club).

World Team Tennis: Anaheim Oranges, LA/Sacramento Lacers, Newport Beach Dukes, Orange County Breakers (still around), and current teams the Sacramento/California Dream and San Diego Aviators. I would like Palm Springs area get one in the Indian Wells Tennis Garden, but the summer is too hot, how about a winter league with teams in Las Vegas and Scottsdale Az?

And back on topic, the L.A. Rams is thought as the first major league sports team in CA when it arrived in L.A. in 1945, then departed for 2 decades in 1995 and returned to L.A. Actually, the earlier pro football L.A. Dons in the 1930s was the first "professional" sports team and the SF 49ers started in 1946 before they were in the NFL. In 1941 just a week before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the AL baseball St. Louis Browns decided to relocate to L.A., but the war made them stay for 12 seasons until they relocated to Baltimore to become the Orioles.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 12:15:09 AM
Why would the Rams want the Chargers as a tenant? I imagine that you'd want the LA market to yourself for at least the first year so you can get fan support.

I highly doubt the Chargers are moving to LA. Why would they want to?

Quote from: dvferyance on September 20, 2016, 11:36:58 AM
I highly doubt the Chargers are moving to LA. Why would they want to?

Because San Diego won't give the whiny little brats a brand new stadium; same as every other team.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 21, 2016, 02:42:49 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on September 20, 2016, 11:36:58 AM
I highly doubt the Chargers are moving to LA. Why would they want to?

Because San Diego won't give the whiny little brats a brand new stadium; same as every other team.

Except, unlike the Rams, Qualcomm is the 5th oldest stadium in the NFL. When the new LA stadium opens, it'll be the 4th. Soldier Field was heavily renovated 13 years ago and the Raiders will likely be moving as well, which would make Qualcomm the 2nd oldest behind Lambeau (which isn't going anywhere).

Quote from: cl94 on September 21, 2016, 02:47:19 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 21, 2016, 02:42:49 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on September 20, 2016, 11:36:58 AM
I highly doubt the Chargers are moving to LA. Why would they want to?

Because San Diego won't give the whiny little brats a brand new stadium; same as every other team.

Except, unlike the Rams, Qualcomm is the 5th oldest stadium in the NFL. When the new LA stadium opens, it'll be the 4th. Soldier Field was heavily renovated 13 years ago and the Raiders will likely be moving as well, which would make Qualcomm the 2nd oldest behind Lambeau (which isn't going anywhere).

Even Lambeau has been somewhat heavily renovated recently.

Quote from: tribar on September 21, 2016, 03:03:20 PM

Quote from: cl94 on September 21, 2016, 02:47:19 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 21, 2016, 02:42:49 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on September 20, 2016, 11:36:58 AM
I highly doubt the Chargers are moving to LA. Why would they want to?

Because San Diego won't give the whiny little brats a brand new stadium; same as every other team.

Except, unlike the Rams, Qualcomm is the 5th oldest stadium in the NFL. When the new LA stadium opens, it'll be the 4th. Soldier Field was heavily renovated 13 years ago and the Raiders will likely be moving as well, which would make Qualcomm the 2nd oldest behind Lambeau (which isn't going anywhere).

Even Lambeau has been somewhat heavily renovated recently.

That's right, forgot about that one. In any case, the Chargers have a point in wanting a new stadium. The other stadiums even remotely close in age are being replaced (or very likely to be vacated in the case of Oakland) or have been heavily renovated since the turn of the century. Actually, the only stadiums more than 20 years old that haven't been renovated or won't be renovated heavily/replaced within 5 years are Oakland and San Diego.

Quote from: cl94 on September 21, 2016, 03:09:25 PM

Quote from: tribar on September 21, 2016, 03:03:20 PM

Quote from: cl94 on September 21, 2016, 02:47:19 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 21, 2016, 02:42:49 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on September 20, 2016, 11:36:58 AM
I highly doubt the Chargers are moving to LA. Why would they want to?

Because San Diego won't give the whiny little brats a brand new stadium; same as every other team.

Except, unlike the Rams, Qualcomm is the 5th oldest stadium in the NFL. When the new LA stadium opens, it'll be the 4th. Soldier Field was heavily renovated 13 years ago and the Raiders will likely be moving as well, which would make Qualcomm the 2nd oldest behind Lambeau (which isn't going anywhere).

Even Lambeau has been somewhat heavily renovated recently.

That's right, forgot about that one. In any case, the Chargers have a point in wanting a new stadium. The other stadiums even remotely close in age are being replaced (or very likely to be vacated in the case of Oakland) or have been heavily renovated since the turn of the century. Actually, the only stadiums more than 20 years old that haven't been renovated or won't be renovated heavily/replaced within 5 years are Oakland and San Diego.

I want a new house. Should I complain to my landlord that I want a new one and threaten to leave if they don't build me one? The Chargers already HAVE a stadium. Last I checked, they are also a private company - worth millions in an overall organization worth billions. Seems that, if they want a new stadium, they can pay for it. Age has nothing to do with it.