Jump to content

RedRamage

The Los Angeles ....??

Recommended Posts

So Chargers, Raiders, and Rams all applied to move to LA.

Some History:

The Rams actually started in Cleveland and played there for 9 years before moving to LA the first time in '46 season. In 1980 the Rams moved to near by Anaheim following the dollars (more affluent people in Anaheim vs. LA) and a smaller stadium that was easier to sell out. Finally in 1995 the Ram's owner, chasing a new stadium deal she couldn't get in LA, pressured the NFL (by threatening a lawsuit) into letter her relocate to her birth city of St. Louis.

The Raiders started out in Oakland in the AFL in 1960. They of course joined the NFL when the two leagues merged in 1970. In 1980, after attempted to get improvements made to the stadium in Oakland that failed, Al Davis planned to move his team to LA. This move was blocked 22-0 (5 abstaining) by other owners. Davis prepared to move anyway before being blocked by a court injunction. Davis then, with LA Memorial Coliseum, successfully sued the NFL for the right to move and in 1982 played in LA. The fact that the NFL was forced to do this would be important in 1995 when Davis decided to move back to Oakland. Because the NFL never official recognized and approved the move FROM Oakland, they could not say anything about the move back TO Oakland. The NFL couldn't block the move nor charge a 'relocation' fee that they did when the Rams moved from LA in '95.

The Chargers, like the Raiders, started in the NFL and even though they've stated in San Diego ever since 1961, the aren't without some ties to LA as well. For their first year, 1960, the Chargers played in Los Angeles.

So what do you think? I've heard possibly two teams moving to LA:

St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders file for Los Angeles relocation

Now that all three teams have officially declared their intents, it is up to the NFL's owners to decide which of the teams gets to follow through. It's a three-team, two-stadium race that could get some resolution as soon as the Jan. 12-13 owners meetings.
Rams owner Stan Kroenke has proposed a $1.86 billion stadium project in Inglewood, the project that essentially jump-started this whole affair. But Kroenke has received opposition from the city of St. Louis, which has put forth a $1.1 billion stadium proposal on the city's north riverfront. St. Louis' plan, which was finalized and submitted to the NFL on Dec. 29, includes $400 million in actionable public money.
Meanwhile in California, the Chargers and Raiders have forged an alliance to propose a $1.75 billion NFL stadium in Carson. The two teams currently play in the two oldest stadiums in the NFL and, after years without much progress toward new venues in their current markets, have set their sights on Carson.

I think the NFL would probably either do the Raiders/Chargers plan or the Ram plan, but not both. I can't see them locating three teams in LA. The Raiders/Chargers plan probably makes the most sense because: A.) The project is supposed to be all privately funded B.) The plan doesn't really leave any major media markets out. Oakland/SanFran still has the 49ers. And San Diego isn't terribly far (2 hour drive time) from San Diego meaning that probably Chargers fans in SD would remain Chargers fans if the team moved to LA.

St. Louis on the other hand would be without an NFL presence. The closest neighbor would actually be the Colts in Indy or the the Chiefs in Kansas City (both about 3.75 hrs, though KC is in the same state as St. Louis). I think the NFL would lose more fans with the Rams leaving than Chargers or Raiders leaving. The Rams could make the case that moving would reduce travel costs for teams as they are the eastern most 'West' team, but I don't know how that would play with NFL owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they get the public to foot the bills for the two stadiums, then all three of them are going to LA. Book it.

It's all about the Wilsons, baby.

o-BIGGEST-US-CURRENCY-DENOMINATIONS-facebook.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they get the public to foot the bills for the two stadiums, then all three of them are going to LA. Book it.

It's all about the Wilsons, baby.

I wonder if there's too much backlash from the public about tax dollars going to stadiums though. It seems like latetly there's a bit more of a push to spend private dollars, or at least more private dollars on these stadiums.

That said, St. Louis (the city) does have a plan in the works for a new stadium for the Rams trying to get them to stay in St. Louis. That plan (see quote in first post) was for $1.1 Billion, of which I'm sure a good chunk would be public money.

And on a purely side note, even using Wilsons, 1.1 billion still means you need Eleven Thousand bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply to OP:

I doubt the number of "lost fans" plays into the equation much if at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reply to OP:

I doubt the number of "lost fans" plays into the equation much if at all.

I'm gonna disagree with that. Yeah, it's certainly not the ONLY reason, but at the end of the day it's the fans that make the whole business work. Granted, it more the eyeballs of the fans these days rather than the wallets, but it's still the fans.

Obviously any move is going to revolve around money and part of that discussion is if the new location can bring more eyes to the product than leaving the old location will lose. I think moving the Rams from StL. will lose more eyes for the NFL than moving the Raiders and the Chargers combined.

Just my un-educated opinion of course, but that's my feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if the Rams move, St. Louis then serves as a viable location for Jacksonville to relocate to. I do not think that if Oakland or San Diego lose a team, that either would be back filled.

I do agree with the others that have mentioned local fans aren't really a part of the equation. Local economy, in the eyes of the NFL, is likely chump change to the league, trumped by other revenue sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard Colin Cowherd mention that each team made $183 million on tv money alone this year. NFL teams don't even need a single paying fan to show up at games and they still are very profitable. With all the potential viewers in LA and the surrounding area, they are likely to see that tv money increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard Colin Cowherd mention that each team made $183 million on tv money alone this year. NFL teams don't even need a single paying fan to show up at games and they still are very profitable. With all the potential viewers in LA and the surrounding area, they are likely to see that tv money increase.

I wonder how that LA TV money would work. Supposedly, LA is highly made up of transplants. So do those transplants switch alliances and follow one of the LA teams? Or do they (continue to) shell out for the NFL TV package to watch their previous team?

And as for TV, didn't that always give the Rams and edge over the other two? Doesn't basic TV coverage become a bit of a pain under the current TV mapping system with two teams in the same division in the same locale? The league has done better with switching Sunday games from one conference to the other network (ie, AFC matchups to FOX at 1pm), but that's still the exception rather than the rule. Having one LA in each of the conferences just relieves that potential issue rather than introduces it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two things in play here. The NFL has an interest in making the league overall as valuable as possible, with TV money being the primary driver of that. The second thing is that the individual team owners are interested in making as much money as possible for themselves.

For the NFL overall, having a team (or teams) located in Los Angeles is preferable to almost any other city. There is an entire generation of people out there that haven't had a local team to latch on to. That doesn't mean these people don't already support another team or don't follow the NFL, but that's different from having a local team to root for. The TV viewership numbers in los angeles are going to increase when the Rams are on now.

LA does have a lot of transplants, but that doesn't keep the Dodgers or Lakers or Kings from having a substantial fan base. The transplants breed natives, and the city is not lacking in Southern California natives.

Plus, a die hard sports fan that transplants will keep their hometown team, but that doesn't hold true for casual fans.

For kroenke, this is a huge win. Trading the St. Louis market for LA is a no brainier. Ticket sales and attendance will be better, and advertising revenue will accordingly be much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if there's too much backlash from the public about tax dollars going to stadiums though. It seems like latetly there's a bit more of a push to spend private dollars, or at least more private dollars on these stadiums.

If there is backlash, the backlash is diffuse and not organized, and therefore it's ineffective. It's true that whole of the public has more money taken together than the billionaires running the NFL, but money without concentration and organization is politically worthless. This truism points to what it really means when people say "it's all about the money", even if the people saying that don't really understand what it means. It's not only all about the money. It's about the concentration of the money.

The concentration of money allows the oligarchs who run large corporate interests, of which the NFL is one, to influence and even outright control the national, state and local governments who are supposed to acting on behalf of "the people". These corrupted governments, which make up the majority, are in fact acting only on behalf of the oligarchs, and if anyone else benefits, it's by accident and not design. Publicly funded stadium projects frequently become white elephants that accelerate the bankruptcy of communities, but the voters and other citizens who might otherwise bring pressure to bear don't see that. They see only NFL and NBA and major league teams coming to their cities. And the politicians who do know what's happening certainly don't care, because they are getting literally paid. World keeps turning.

That's the basic way in which the money corrupts, and as things stand, no one with any power to change this cares to do so, because those are the same people benefiting from all this. Is this another brick in some coming revolution? Maybe, because otherwise we are well on our way to entrenching global neo-feudalism, including here in America.

On a smaller note: I hope the Rams and the Chargers both go 1-15 next year, and that the Raiders play to a home stadium in Oakland that's only a third full. Unfortunately, none of that will happen, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a smaller note: I hope the Rams and the Chargers both go 1-15 next year, and that the Raiders play to a home stadium in Oakland that's only a third full. Unfortunately, none of that will happen, either.

That'd be lovely. I've really gone sour on the NFL. They've gotten too big for their britches. Got so damn sick and tired about hearing about football inflation during the summer. But the popularity is so high, I don't think that they (commish & owners) could find a way to mess things up for themselves right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder of the new LA fans will be like Dodger fans and come in during the second quarter and leave after the third

Sort of like Lions fans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder of the new LA fans will be like Dodger fans and come in during the second quarter and leave after the third

Sort of like Lions fans

It kind of amazes me that after years of nobody caring about football in LA when it was there, and now a couple of decades for which even fewer Angelinos had reason to think about the NFL, that the league is so convinced the market is going to be such a goldmine.

I don't care one way or the other, but for their sake I hope the teams going there know something the rest of us don't necessarily see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

St Louis originally offered the Rams a sweetheart deal to come to town and they had the best lease in the NFL. It's not like St Louis has been able to hold an NFL team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
St Louis really feels betrayed. They had a loyal fan base. From what I see on the NFL Network!

Its in the best interests of the NFL owners to keep St. Louis as a potential destination for any other teams that might want to scratch a free stadium (or renovation or just rewrite its current terms) out of its current municipality.

Franchise relocation and expansion intrigues me. The angle of the Rams being moved from LA to SL and back to LA is fun fodder. OAK to LA back to OAK back to LA would've been interesting.

Like I said, I have ill feelings towards to the NFL. I kind of hope that they do relocate or expand a franchise to London and it becomes an epic fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rams just traded the farm to move up and get the #1 overall pick. I didn't see this posted anywhere so I thought I would mention it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rams to Los Angeles.

Chargers to Los Angeles.

Raiders to Las Vegas soon.

Which is next, Buffalo to Toronto or Jacksonville to whichever locality ponies up the most cash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RedRamage said:

If Oakland moves they will regain tied status with most moved franchise.  Right now the Rams and Cards have the lead with 4 major moves (ie, moves outside of their home metropolitan area).  

It's kinda interesting looking at the history of franchises: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_National_Football_League

Franchise relocation / league expansion stories intrigue me.  There are some franchises that were berthed simply to keep the other league out of potentially prime territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a pure fan perspective, I think multiple teams from the same sport and league playing in the same stadium is about as dumb as it gets for team ownership. If you're looking for a good way to be sure you don't build deep fan allegiance, don't even provide a place which is your own teams 'house' to build an identity around. Re-imagine the Clay Matthews/Aaron Rodgers insurance commercials where the Vikings were sharing Lambeau with the Packers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gehringer_2 said:

From a pure fan perspective, I think multiple teams from the same sport and league playing in the same stadium is about as dumb as it gets for team ownership. If you're looking for a good way to be sure you don't build deep fan allegiance, don't even provide a place which is your own teams 'house' to build an identity around. Re-imagine the Clay Matthews/Aaron Rodgers insurance commercials where the Vikings were sharing Lambeau with the Packers.

I don't understand the logic behind this either.  It works for the New York teams, but I would say their fan bases are pretty well established to begin with.

I've really soured on this league.  I hope the LA experiment fails big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,669
    • Total Posts
      2,973,736
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...