The LA situation

[boltfan72]

If San Diego had the ability to build a stadium, they already would have done it. It's over for SD and Oakland already IMO. They had their chances but they couldn't get anything done.

STL just a month or so ago presented the NFL with a new plan for a stadium. They'll probably have to tweak some of it under the threat of the Ram's moving out but they are getting closer.

This offseason the Chargers and the Raiders will pack up the moving trucks and head to Carson.

The Ram's moving to LA while San Diego and Oakland stayed in their current locations was never a real option. There is simply too much fan support given to Oakland and San Diego from the LA market that they would eventually lose to the Ram's to make all 3 teams in CA a real option.

You sound like Mark Fabiani. San Diego has had a lot of political turmoil between corrupt mayors and mayors that sexually harrassed their employees. We have a solid mayor now who is clearly committed. The NFL will get to see that today, and the arguments of ineptitude of past mayors will be mute.

As for LA fan support for the Chargers, it doesn't exist. It's already been exposed by local media that the 25% of the season ticket holders the Chargers point to in LA is actually a bunch of ticket brokers. If the Chargers aren't happy with fan support in San Diego, they're crazy to think it will improve 120 miles up the road. Two teams didn't leave LA because they had such great support.

Word is that none of the teams have enough votes to move, and all of the teams have enough votes to block. My money is on a one year delay, unless one of the owners goes rogue.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Who would LA want between the chargers and raiders? With the way the raiders are playing I wonder if this will put them ahead of SD. Rams are no doubt getting one of them. And LA is probably foaming at the mouth for Gurley and that rams defense.

We know it probably won't be SD & OAK unless they are considering some type of realignment...the Rams bring the NFC conference back to So Cal so as you said...no doubt.

I think OAK b/c they have the most recent fan base in LA...but I understand the situation in SD is getting toxic.

 

[Clayton]

We know it probably won't be SD & OAK unless they are considering some type of realignment...the Rams bring the NFC conference back to So Cal so as you said...no doubt.

I think OAK b/c they have the most recent fan base in LA...but I understand the situation in SD is getting toxic.

I think SD could be realigned easily just like Seattle was. I don't think Oakland can be realigned due to their history and rivalries. Oakland moving to STL to replace the Rams is also a hilariously bad idea. I think any situation where the NFL leaves San Diego and STL empty is just leaving lots of money on the table long term.

The whole thing is toxic and its quite possible that all 3 teams are moving

 

[tducey]

Raiders and the Rams.

 

[williewilliejuan]

You sound like Mark Fabiani. San Diego has had a lot of political turmoil between corrupt mayors and mayors that sexually harrassed their employees. We have a solid mayor now who is clearly committed. The NFL will get to see that today, and the arguments of ineptitude of past mayors will be mute.

As for LA fan support for the Chargers, it doesn't exist. It's already been exposed by local media that the 25% of the season ticket holders the Chargers point to in LA is actually a bunch of ticket brokers. If the Chargers aren't happy with fan support in San Diego, they're crazy to think it will improve 120 miles up the road. Two teams didn't leave LA because they had such great support.

Word is that none of the teams have enough votes to move, and all of the teams have enough votes to block. My money is on a one year delay, unless one of the owners goes rogue.

Those teams didn't leave Los Angeles because of a lack of fan support. They left for the same reason that teams want to move to Los Angeles now - desire for new stadiums.

 

[boltfan72]

I think SD could be realigned easily just like Seattle was. I don't think Oakland can be realigned due to their history and rivalries. Oakland moving to STL to replace the Rams is also a hilariously bad idea. I think any situation where the NFL leaves San Diego and STL empty is just leaving lots of money on the table long term.

The whole thing is toxic and its quite possible that all 3 teams are moving

All 3? Perhaps but no more than two to LA. Not sure where the 3rd would go.

Depending on who you listen two after the meetings yesterday a number of owners expressed concerns with timing, which leads me to believe even more that they'll delay this another year.

 

[boltfan72]

Interesting article from the LA times in 1994, before the Raiders and Rams last season there. Pretty much proves my point that LA is no different than San Diego. You win, you get tons of support. You lose, we'll be at the beach. Yeah, LA has more people, but you have to divide the football fans amongst two teams. This isn't Pittsburgh, or Cleveland, or Green Bay that will sell out games regardless of the roster and W/L record. This is Socal. If the entertainment isn't good, many won't pay for it. None of that has changed in LA in the last 20 years.

Time, Rams, Raiders Are Running Out

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I think SD could be realigned easily just like Seattle was. I don't think Oakland can be realigned due to their history and rivalries. Oakland moving to STL to replace the Rams is also a hilariously bad idea. I think any situation where the NFL leaves San Diego and STL empty is just leaving lots of money on the table long term.

The whole thing is toxic and its quite possible that all 3 teams are moving

The NFL is in a bit of quandry here...they badly want a team in the largest or 2nd largest TV market in the country, but they realize expansion is not really an option.

The one team that probably SHOULD move is JAX, yet they seem content to float between London and JAX. STL is a proven NFL market and so are OAK and SD...ATL got a sweetheart deal on funding for their stadium...idk about MIN, but it's too bad ownership in those cities don't want to fund their own stadiums or can't find stadium partners.

 

[ducky]

Interesting article from the LA times in 1994, before the Raiders and Rams last season there. Pretty much proves my point that LA is no different than San Diego. You win, you get tons of support. You lose, we'll be at the beach. Yeah, LA has more people, but you have to divide the football fans amongst two teams. This isn't Pittsburgh, or Cleveland, or Green Bay that will sell out games regardless of the roster and W/L record. This is Socal. If the entertainment isn't good, many won't pay for it. None of that has changed in LA in the last 20 years.

Time, Rams, Raiders Are Running Out

Back in the day it was about selling out stadiums. That doesn't mean as much as it used to anymore.

The expansion into LA is all about the TV market and what that means for the league and the teams that do it. If the new LA teams don't sell out their stadiums every week, the team(s) will still be raking in a ton of money from the move.

Like I said earlier, I still don't believe there is anyway a team moves to LA AND a team stays in SD. It's just too much of a shared market where they would be competing for the same dollars. It's why only SD going to LA with Oak makes any sense (Oakland makes sense because they keep some of their OAK fanbase and expand their LA fanbase....same with SD).

If the Ram's power their way into LA, it will trigger moves out of the state of CA for both Oakland and SD eventually IMO. Part of that though is why I don't think that the NFL let's STL into LA and pushes forward with the SD/OAK move.

As a Charger fan, would you still cheer for them if they moved up the road to LA?

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

Those teams didn't leave Los Angeles because of a lack of fan support. They left for the same reason that teams want to move to Los Angeles now - desire for new stadiums.

This been explained every single time this topic pops up, but a lot of people just don't get it.

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

If history serves, The Raiders and the Rams went to LA for a bit at different times and it did not work. Why is it the prevailing thought that they need two teams now?

1) The Rams weren't there for a bit, they were the Los Angeles Rams for almost 50 years.

2) They left because they wanted new stadiums. That's why they would come back.

 

[tabascojet]

Why two Los Angeles NFL teams now seems inevitable

 

[night]

My guess if I was an unbiased fan is Chargers and Raiders in LA and the Rams moving to London is a couple of years. Obviously that sounds awful but thats where the money seems to point.

Who wants to take a pay cut and have the worst road schedule though? A full time team in London might not ever happen.

 

[Battlelyon]

All 3? Perhaps but no more than two to LA. Not sure where the 3rd would go.

Depending on who you listen two after the meetings yesterday a number of owners expressed concerns with timing, which leads me to believe even more that they'll delay this another year.

You think Kroenke wants to wait another year to deal with sparse crowds at the stadium. A lot of the stadium employees contracts ends in March.