Deja Vu - Rams, Raiders maybe heading back to LA



http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/994905-s...done-deal/
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/22248...g-national

And like the first time around, nobody will care.

Whats ridiculous is they are talking about the NFL temporarily playing in Dodger Stadium

One of top mysteries in North American professional sports is how the second largest metro area doesn't have one of 32 NFL franchises. As a native of NYC, I know New Yorkers would be in the streets with torches and pitchforks if the Giants or Jets were relocating. In LA, it's a non-issue.

(11-01-2014 05:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  One of top mysteries in North American professional sports is how the second largest metro area doesn't have one of 32 NFL franchises. As a native of NYC, I know New Yorkers would be in the streets with torches and pitchforks if the Giants or Jets were relocating. In LA, it's a non-issue.

Well its not that difficult to understand when you realize that the So Cal region is 100% against public financially for new stadiums, combined with the arduous environmental policies that exist in the area. Neither Davis or Fonteire were liquid enough to build stadiums on their own in LA. Combined with lucrative deals being offered by Oakland and St. Louis, moving was a obviously sound, albeit short-termed business decision.

The NFL and the owners have benefitted immensely from leaving LA vacant.

The ever-present (possibly empty) threat of an owner relocating a team to LA has led a number of municipalities to donate millions of dollars to extremely wealthy people/organizations.

(11-03-2014 05:12 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  The NFL and the owners have benefitted immensely from leaving LA vacant.

The ever-present (possibly empty) threat of an owner relocating a team to LA has led a number of municipalities to donate millions of dollars to extremely wealthy people/organizations.

adcorbett and I go back and forth on this and since he worked in the industry I do believe him when he said the LA was leverage to get new stadiums for many teams. But IMO there are too many inconsistencies where such leverage should have been applied but wasn't or vice versa. For instance, how is Miami still playing in a near 50 year old Sun Life Stadium? Or KC in the venerable Arrowhead?

On the opposite side, Jerry Jones didn't need LA to build his new barn. And in Atlanta, Arthur Blank is getting a new stadium not because of LA but because if he built his own facility in the suburbs, it would still have to compete and would eventually lose out to the Ga Dome for events like the SEC Championship, Peach and Final Fours.

(11-04-2014 03:16 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  But IMO there are too many inconsistencies where such leverage should have been applied but wasn't or vice versa.

I don't believe it is some kind of intentional conspiracy to get better facilities, but you can't deny that the threat of moving to LA (as empty as it might be) has helped teams increase their revenue through govt. funded coliseums.

An empty Los Angeles does not hurt these owners when it comes time to squeeze some more money from taxpayers.