http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl.../17028583/

Quote:In the strongest terms yet about the prospect of luring the NFL back to Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti said a team is "highly likely" to come to the city in the next year.

While I absolutely believe this is coming, that didn't stop me from being surprised about the Mayor using such strong words. Next year? Really?

That begs the question, who?

My money is still on the Rams moving back to LA and then perhaps we see another expansion team start up in St. Louis. You can depend upon the city of St. Louis to support a new team, they have a very dependable population in terms of support.

The easy pick perhaps is to see the Raiders go South but that would be saying goodbye to so much history. We saw with the Browns that the NFL realized it's mistake. I don't think they do that again.

I would guess LA will get 2 teams to share 1 stadium like the giants and jets. The pool is Chargers, Raiders and Rams. I'm not sure the raiders would pass on the deal though + i can't see st louis getting an expansion team. They might get a relocated team in the bills, less likely or jaguars down the road. I do think the jaguars will move eventually but it might be London. The bills seem locked into buffalo with a owner but they need a new stadium. With the bills staying in buffalo, toronto probably is out as an NFL spot.

(10-11-2014 10:56 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I would guess LA will get 2 teams to share 1 stadium like the giants and jets. The pool is Chargers, Raiders and Rams. I'm not sure the raiders would pass on the deal though + i can't see st louis getting an expansion team. They might get a relocated team in the bills, less likely or jaguars down the road. I do think the jaguars will move eventually but it might be London. The bills seem locked into buffalo with a owner but they need a new stadium. With the bills staying in buffalo, toronto probably is out as an NFL spot.

The Bills just got their new owner and he is a huge Buffalo proponent. He owns the Sabres in the NHL and he is the biggest bankroller of all the improvements in their downtown. He beat out two other groups trying to buy the Bills that probably would have taken them out of that town in order to rebrand them elsewhere.

I didn't even think of the Jaguars, good call on that. They get terrible attendance. The League does need to move that team.

Only one problem with that though....Jacksonville is in the AFC and the Rams are in the NFC.

I would say that means Oakland or San Diego should get the top nod due to the Jaguars being the strong replacement team but....the best division for the LA team to be in is the NFC West due to the proximity of Phoenix and San Francisco.

That is where an LA team belongs, not in Denver and Kansas City.

Difficult situation to figure out.

My gripe here is that the NFL is fully prepared to foot 60% of the stadium funding for LA. Why the special treatment? If they would foot that much for a new stadium in St Louis we would not be talking about the Rams moving day after day... There is a reason why all the mentioned teams left LA in the first place. I remember the Rams complaining that playing in Anaheim was like playing another road game because there are so many transplanted fans there...

(10-11-2014 11:13 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  My gripe here is that the NFL is fully prepared to foot 60% of the stadium funding for LA. Why the special treatment? If they would foot that much for a new stadium in St Louis we would not be talking about the Rams moving day after day... There is a reason why all the mentioned teams left LA in the first place. I remember the Rams complaining that playing in Anaheim was like playing another road game because there are so many transplanted fans there...

As the article states, the surprise at just how much the Clippers sold for is a big part of this. That is the SECOND basketball program in a city that is Laker crazy. If a second basketball program can be worth that much in LA then how much would a football program be worth there?

For a brand to move from a small or medium market to the second biggest market in America, it would be an instant upgrade in the value of the Team. To a fan, that is a crappy thing to hear but it is the reality of the situation. An owner is most concerned with the value of what he owns. If the NFL is willing to foot the bill then it is a win/win situation for an owner.


Right now the NFC West is one of the most competitive, if not The most competitive, division in the NFL. LA get behind that if the Rams come back to town. They are a very picky market, that is true but that is also why it is all that much more important in terms of which team to move to town.

The St. Louis Rams are perfectly situated. Will LA get behind a team with division rivals over in Denver and Kansas City? Peyton isn't going to be around all that much longer.

(10-11-2014 11:23 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 11:13 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  My gripe here is that the NFL is fully prepared to foot 60% of the stadium funding for LA. Why the special treatment? If they would foot that much for a new stadium in St Louis we would not be talking about the Rams moving day after day... There is a reason why all the mentioned teams left LA in the first place. I remember the Rams complaining that playing in Anaheim was like playing another road game because there are so many transplanted fans there...

As the article states, the surprise at just how much the Clippers sold for is a big part of this. That is the SECOND basketball program in a city that is Laker crazy. If a second basketball program can be worth that much in LA then how much would a football program be worth there?

For a brand to move from a small or medium market to the second biggest market in America, it would be an instant upgrade in the value of the Team. To a fan, that is a crappy thing to hear but it is the reality of the situation. An owner is most concerned with the value of what he owns. If the NFL is willing to foot the bill then it is a win/win situation for an owner.


Right now the NFC West is one of the most competitive, if not The most competitive, division in the NFL. LA get behind that if the Rams come back to town. They are a very picky market, that is true but that is also why it is all that much more important in terms of which team to move to town.

The St. Louis Rams are perfectly situated. Will LA get behind a team with division rivals over in Denver and Kansas City? Peyton isn't going to be around all that much longer.

LA never gets behind any football team unless they are 10-0... that's why they don't have one now. The LA mayor stated that LA government would fund exactly zero costs of a new stadium this week. Poor LA...no money. I agree regarding the value being just north of two million in LA, but if it costs Kroenke one billion to move the team, which is the projected current relocation cost, is it worth it? After five or six years the other teams jerseys will start showing up and the always preoccupied LA fans will move on to something else to amuse themselves. They have a big history of losing franchises to other cities. The sad part of this for St Louis, is that the fans will tire quickly of having relocation hanging over their heads. I know they are hard headed in St Louis and will just tell the Rams to go to Hell. They lived three years of watching Bidwell make threats regarding the football Cardinals. St Louis has read this book already and I know how it ends. St Louis is all too used to crappy football and have supported it for over ten years now. What they will not tolerate are threats from an owner...

(10-11-2014 11:07 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 10:56 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I would guess LA will get 2 teams to share 1 stadium like the giants and jets. The pool is Chargers, Raiders and Rams. I'm not sure the raiders would pass on the deal though + i can't see st louis getting an expansion team. They might get a relocated team in the bills, less likely or jaguars down the road. I do think the jaguars will move eventually but it might be London. The bills seem locked into buffalo with a owner but they need a new stadium. With the bills staying in buffalo, toronto probably is out as an NFL spot.

The Bills just got their new owner and he is a huge Buffalo proponent. He owns the Sabres in the NHL and he is the biggest bankroller of all the improvements in their downtown. He beat out two other groups trying to buy the Bills that probably would have taken them out of that town in order to rebrand them elsewhere.

I didn't even think of the Jaguars, good call on that. They get terrible attendance. The League does need to move that team.

Only one problem with that though....Jacksonville is in the AFC and the Rams are in the NFC.

I would say that means Oakland or San Diego should get the top nod due to the Jaguars being the strong replacement team but....the best division for the LA team to be in is the NFC West due to the proximity of Phoenix and San Francisco.

That is where an LA team belongs, not in Denver and Kansas City.

Difficult situation to figure out.

The Jaguars have no market to begin with and are surrounded on all sides by many other fan bases, college and pro. Even San Antonio could support them better (long thread on that).

I wonder how USC and UCLA would make out if not one but two teams moved there.

(10-11-2014 11:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  I wonder how USC and UCLA would make out if not one but two teams moved there.

My guess is it will be two teams...JMO right now it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Rams will be one of the teams...with the Chargers making threats about relocation fees and with Charger owner Dean Spanos making claims to the LA Market along with San Diego own issues with their Stadium it either the Chargers or Raiders...all 3 teams use to call Los Angelos home...

(10-11-2014 11:55 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 11:07 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 10:56 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I would guess LA will get 2 teams to share 1 stadium like the giants and jets. The pool is Chargers, Raiders and Rams. I'm not sure the raiders would pass on the deal though + i can't see st louis getting an expansion team. They might get a relocated team in the bills, less likely or jaguars down the road. I do think the jaguars will move eventually but it might be London. The bills seem locked into buffalo with a owner but they need a new stadium. With the bills staying in buffalo, toronto probably is out as an NFL spot.

The Bills just got their new owner and he is a huge Buffalo proponent. He owns the Sabres in the NHL and he is the biggest bankroller of all the improvements in their downtown. He beat out two other groups trying to buy the Bills that probably would have taken them out of that town in order to rebrand them elsewhere.

I didn't even think of the Jaguars, good call on that. They get terrible attendance. The League does need to move that team.

Only one problem with that though....Jacksonville is in the AFC and the Rams are in the NFC.

I would say that means Oakland or San Diego should get the top nod due to the Jaguars being the strong replacement team but....the best division for the LA team to be in is the NFC West due to the proximity of Phoenix and San Francisco.

That is where an LA team belongs, not in Denver and Kansas City.

Difficult situation to figure out.

The Jaguars have no market to begin with and are surrounded on all sides by many other fan bases, college and pro. Even San Antonio could support them better (long thread on that).

If the situation doesn't improve in Jacksonville and with Goodell stated goal of placing a team in London if they move it will be to London before San Antonio.

IMHO, the NFL should adopt a rule of only one team per greater-metro area.

With that in place, the Jets and the Raiders should be encouraged to move. To LA and where else?

(10-11-2014 12:10 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 11:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  I wonder how USC and UCLA would make out if not one but two teams moved there.

My guess is it will be two teams...JMO right now it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Rams will be one of the teams...with the Chargers making threats about relocation fees and with Charger owner Dean Spanos making claims to the LA Market along with San Diego own issues with their Stadium it either the Chargers or Raiders...all 3 teams use to call Los Angelos home...

Might be the Raiders and Chargers even though both are in the AFC West. Mark Davis has supposedly told the NFL that he would let the league move the Raiders to the NFC West if both the Raiders and Chargers move to LA, so that LA would have one team in each conference.

I'm still very skeptical unless there are legitimate plans for funding a new stadium. The downtown LA site would be a nightmare of cost overruns and would be terrible for game day traffic. The parcel of land next to the Forum that the Rams owner bought (see below) is a much better location.

If I am not mistaken I believe that the current owner of the St. Louis Rams has been buying up property in L.A., A move from St. Louis to L.A. seems logical to me. The NFC West is arguably the Best division in the NFL right now so it would be best to strike while the iron is hot to get fans excited for the NFL in L.A. when you can bring in some of the best teams in the league. Divisions rise and fall fast in the NFL so if the rams don't get moved sooner rather than later a move may be doomed to fail.

(10-11-2014 01:40 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  If I am not mistaken I believe that the current owner of the St. Louis Rams has been buying up property in L.A., A move from St. Louis to L.A. seems logical to me. The NFC West is arguably the Best division in the NFL right now so it would be best to strike while the iron is hot to get fans excited for the NFL in L.A. when you can bring in some of the best teams in the league. Divisions rise and fall fast in the NFL so if the rams don't get moved sooner rather than later a move may be doomed to fail.

My thoughts exactly when I saw that the Mayor was saying next year.

(10-11-2014 01:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 12:10 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 11:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  I wonder how USC and UCLA would make out if not one but two teams moved there.

My guess is it will be two teams...JMO right now it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Rams will be one of the teams...with the Chargers making threats about relocation fees and with Charger owner Dean Spanos making claims to the LA Market along with San Diego own issues with their Stadium it either the Chargers or Raiders...all 3 teams use to call Los Angelos home...

Might be the Raiders and Chargers even though both are in the AFC West. Mark Davis has supposedly told the NFL that he would let the league move the Raiders to the NFC West if both the Raiders and Chargers move to LA, so that LA would have one team in each conference.

I'm still very skeptical unless there are legitimate plans for funding a new stadium. The downtown LA site would be a nightmare of cost overruns and would be terrible for game day traffic. The parcel of land next to the Forum that the Rams owner bought (see below) is a much better location.

If Mark Davis said that his father is rolling over in his grave...Al Davis was an AFL guy through and through...imteresting tidbit.

(10-11-2014 01:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 01:40 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  If I am not mistaken I believe that the current owner of the St. Louis Rams has been buying up property in L.A., A move from St. Louis to L.A. seems logical to me. The NFC West is arguably the Best division in the NFL right now so it would be best to strike while the iron is hot to get fans excited for the NFL in L.A. when you can bring in some of the best teams in the league. Divisions rise and fall fast in the NFL so if the rams don't get moved sooner rather than later a move may be doomed to fail.

My thoughts exactly when I saw that the Mayor was saying next year.

Yep agreed, plus I believe that some how some way Oakland and San Diego will be able to get something done to keep their teams. I have no concrete evidence of this, just a feeling.

Why should LA build a stadium. If you consider that the Clippers are worth no more than half the value of an NFL team someone wanting to own an asset that valuable can pay for the capital expenditure.

(10-11-2014 12:22 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  IMHO, the NFL should adopt a rule of only one team per greater-metro area.

With that in place, the Jets and the Raiders should be encouraged to move. To LA and where else?

Come on, I'd rather have three teams between NYC, New Jersey and Long Island than one team in a place like Albuquerque, NM. Why would you limit yourself if there is a more lucrative deal? And the Jets and Raiders are ingrained in their metro areas after playing there for decades (the Raiders with a short break, of course).

Looking at it another way, would you rather have an NHL team in Atlanta (where one team has failed twice) or Toronto, which very likely could support three if spread out enough over the region?

I don't think people are quite grasping how large the LA TV market is. It is almost 19 million people by itself, meaning that it's about the size of the entire states of Florida and New York. In fact, California (which includes LA), Texas, Florida and New York are the only *states* with more people than the LA TV market. Fairweather fans are irrelevant - a team only needs to capture a sliver of that market to become one of the 5 most valuable franchises in the NFL. The Clippers sale just showed how much the LA market in and of itself is worth. The other NFL owners saw that Clippers sale and it cemented that the LA market CANNOT be left open like it has been for the past two decades. The other NFL owners can pocket a massive relocation fee for whoever is able to escape. The Rams are definitely most likely because they can move with little resistance contractually. Even though the Jags make more sense to move on paper market-wise, they have one of the most stringent lease deals of any NFL team.

(10-11-2014 03:09 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 12:22 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  IMHO, the NFL should adopt a rule of only one team per greater-metro area.

With that in place, the Jets and the Raiders should be encouraged to move. To LA and where else?

Come on, I'd rather have three teams between NYC, New Jersey and Long Island than one team in a place like Albuquerque, NM. Why would you limit yourself if there is a more lucrative deal? And the Jets and Raiders are ingrained in their metro areas after playing there for decades (the Raiders with a short break, of course).

Looking at it another way, would you rather have an NHL team in Atlanta (where one team has failed twice) or Toronto, which very likely could support three if spread out enough over the region?

The Brooklyn Raiders sounds about right.

On another note, wouldn't it be more profitable for the NFL to expand in LA as opposed to allowing a current owner to move his team there?

I wonder if the 2024 olympics could come into play but that might be too long off. Yet, LA or SF/Oakland building a new stadium that could also host opening ceremonies might be a sell for public $. Of course, if i were oakland i would be more interested in building a stadium for the A's than Raiders. As for the Rams, they got an easy escape lease but their owner married a walmart heir and is a missouri native…moving to LA from missouri is the anti walmart move.