Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Chargers, Raiders, and Rams all file paper work to move to L.A.

Even if teams move, will they wait for a stadium or just play in the Rose Bowl until one is built?
 
Why this year and not previous years? Will LA immediately be able to support 2 NFL teams after not having one for several decades? I understand that LA is the 2nd largest city in the US but I wonder how much fan support the NFL teams would get initially in LA if 2 teams relocate there.

Just a couple questions I thought about after reading your title.
 
I thought the Raiders would be LA's team but the more I read about it, the more I wonder if the Chargers end up there.
 
The State of Missouri is willing to build a $1.2 Billion stadium on the riverfront in St Louis. Somebody is going to end up there. I think we may see the St Louis Raiders in the not too distant future.
 
I also thought at one point wasn't there rumors that Mark Davis liked the idea of playing at the Alamodome?
 
JP4CY said:
I also thought at one point wasn't there rumors that Mark Davis liked the idea of playing at the Alamodome?
Click to expand...

That was dismissed as bluster, I believe, an attempt to get Oakland to pony up. He went through the motions, but I don't think it was ever serious.

As far as LA goes, the NFL is a different business than it was 20 years ago, and the circumstances are not the same as they were. The NFL has become much, much better at making money (and they weren't bad at it in 1995, either) It's hard to imagine a scenario where this will not make money.
 
Mr Janny said:
That was dismissed as bluster, I believe, an attempt to get Oakland to pony up. He went through the motions, but I don't think it was ever serious.

As far as LA goes, the NFL is a different business than it was 20 years ago, and the circumstances are not the same as they were. The NFL has become much, much better at making money (and they weren't bad at it in 1995, either) It's hard to imagine a scenario where this will not make money.
Click to expand...


And that hat is all the owners really care about and why they want someone in LA. Second biggest city. That's why I see the Chargers go to LA. Gaining more than losing. The diehards could still make the game from SD to LA.
 
BCClone said:
And that hat is all the owners really care about and why they want someone in LA. Second biggest city. That's why I see the Chargers go to LA. Gaining more than losing. The diehards could still make the game from SD to LA.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm actually looking forward to this move because it will remove the LA threat that the league likes to use to get cities to finance stadiums. Certainly they'll continue to try to use a similar threat with other cities like London, but none of those other places are the 2nd largest city in America. Who knows if it will have a huge effect, but still.
 
How many times has LA had and lost NFL teams, why will this time be different?
 
3TrueFans said:
How many times has LA had and lost NFL teams, why will this time be different?
Click to expand...

Look at why the Raiders and Rams left. The NFL was rapidly expanding in the early 90s. Cities like Jacksonville and Charlotte were offering brand new stadiums to attract teams, and the big "stadium update" wars were just getting off the ground. Both the Rams and Raiders were playing in old stadiums in LA. They asked the city for new ones. LA said no. St. Louis and Oakland both offered up brand new, publicly funded stadiums. So, they moved.
Now the tables have turned. LA now has the ability to offer the big new stadium (although I don't believe they're publicly funded) and with all things being equal, it's a better place to be, financially, than Oakland or St. Louis
 
Last edited:
Mr Janny said:
Look at why the Raiders and Rams left. The NFL was rapidly expanding in the early 90s. Cities like Jacksonville and Charlotte were offering brand new stadiums to attract teams, and the big "stadium update" wars were just getting off the ground. Both the Rams and Raiders were playing in old stadiums in LA. They asked the city for new ones. LA said no. St. Louis and Oakland both offered up brand new, publicly funded stadiums. So, they moved.
Now the tables have turned. LA now has the ability to offer the big new stadium (although I don't believe they're publicly funded) and with all things being equal, it's a better place to be, financially, than Oakland or St. Louis
Click to expand...

The Rams also moved out of LA and to Anaheim. That didn't seem to help attendance. The Raiders were repeatedly promised stadium suites and upgrades that never happened. Then they were stonewalled when trying to find a location for a new stadium.

I hear the Carson site has environmental issues as it was once a landfill. The Rams have the $$ and the LA legacy, but probably the weakest case to move. Although STL blew it when they didn't live up to the lease.

SD has little support in LA. They should stay in SD.
The Raiders should rebrand and move to STL as the Stallions or something sponsor friendly
 
3TrueFans said:
How many times has LA had and lost NFL teams, why will this time be different?
Click to expand...

The NFL is a lot better at making money now then they were back then. If teams have top flight stadiums they can clean up. If they have outdated crap, they don't make near as much.

I think they'll be more successful being outside of downtown. A lot more people live in the suburbs than they used to. Now they don't have to deal with downtown LA traffic to see a game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back