As a native Angeleno nothing would make me happy than having an NFL team in L.A. as long as it's not the Raiders. When the Rams left, I wished them nothing but the best because I understood why they left. The Raiders? They can burn in hell as far as I'm concerned.

If the Raiders don't end up in LA, turning down the 49ers, Santa Clara and the NFL when they offered the chance to be joint partners in the new stadium will go down as one of the all time dumb moves in NFL history.

(10-12-2014 01:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Stallions and Colts in the same division?

Not to mention that we already have a Broncos as well.

Which is also why the Texans didn't go with the name, they even had a logo ready and everything. I wish they had gone with Apollos but you can't get everything you want in life.

(10-12-2014 08:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 01:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Stallions and Colts in the same division?

Not to mention that we already have a Broncos as well.

Which is also why the Texans didn't go with the name, they even had a logo ready and everything. I wish they had gone with Apollos but you can't get everything you want in life.

Apollos...I know it would be due to the Space Program but with The Apollos I would also be thinking about "Apollo Creed"...

It's unique...Texans sound bland, uncreative and certainly unoriginal. I know Texas pride is huge but it still sounds mundane. Apollos would go right along with the other nicknames in the city and be something no one in sports ever had and likely wouldn't duplicate above a semi-amateur (college) level.

(10-12-2014 08:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  It's unique...Texans sound bland, uncreative and certainly unoriginal. I know Texas pride is huge but it still sounds mundane. Apollos would go right along with the other nicknames in the city and be something no one in sports ever had and likely wouldn't duplicate above a semi-amateur (college) level.

I'm waiting for them to fold or relocate
Dallas Texans 1952 NFL (folded)
Dallas Texans 1960-62 AFL (moved to Kansas City)
Houston Texans 1974 WFL (moved late in the season to Shreveport)
Dallas Texans 1990-93 Arena (folded)
San Antonio Texans 1993-95 CFL (folded)

(10-12-2014 05:31 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  As a native Angeleno nothing would make me happy than having an NFL team in L.A. as long as it's not the Raiders. When the Rams left, I wished them nothing but the best because I understood why they left. The Raiders? They can burn in hell as far as I'm concerned.

Any chance you care to elaborate? I was under the impression both excite serfs for the same reason?

(10-12-2014 08:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  It's unique...Texans sound bland, uncreative and certainly unoriginal. I know Texas pride is huge but it still sounds mundane. Apollos would go right along with the other nicknames in the city and be something no one in sports ever had and likely wouldn't duplicate above a semi-amateur (college) level.

They should have dug up the old negro league baseball name and gone with the Houston Colt 45's.

(10-12-2014 05:43 PM)prp Wrote:  If the Raiders don't end up in LA, turning down the 49ers, Santa Clara and the NFL when they offered the chance to be joint partners in the new stadium will go down as one of the all time dumb moves in NFL history.

Pfffft. No one offered the Raiders the opportunity to be "partners" in anything. It's a 49ers-controlled stadium. The half-azzed NFL idea was for the Raiders to be tenants and pay rent to the 49ers for the privilege of playing in a stadium 40 miles from Oakland that is decked out in 49ers colors and 49ers memorabilia and has a 49ers museum right in the stadium. You might as well tell the Redskins to become tenants at the Cowboys' stadium.

(10-12-2014 09:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  They should have dug up the old negro league baseball name and gone with the Houston Colt 45's.

I don't see anything on a Negro League team of that name in some brief research, do you mean the original name of the Houston Astros?

(10-12-2014 11:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 05:43 PM)prp Wrote:  If the Raiders don't end up in LA, turning down the 49ers, Santa Clara and the NFL when they offered the chance to be joint partners in the new stadium will go down as one of the all time dumb moves in NFL history.

Pfffft. No one offered the Raiders the opportunity to be "partners" in anything. It's a 49ers-controlled stadium. The half-azzed NFL idea was for the Raiders to be tenants and pay rent to the 49ers for the privilege of playing in a stadium 40 miles from Oakland that is decked out in 49ers colors and 49ers memorabilia and has a 49ers museum right in the stadium. You might as well tell the Redskins to become tenants at the Cowboys' stadium.

Or even for the Ravens.

Still, you have to admit, that would have been a better scenario than continuing to play at (insert current corporate name) Coliseum. Remember, the Jets were a tenant to the Giants for many years and in some ways still is and that worked out fine.

(10-12-2014 11:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 05:43 PM)prp Wrote:  If the Raiders don't end up in LA, turning down the 49ers, Santa Clara and the NFL when they offered the chance to be joint partners in the new stadium will go down as one of the all time dumb moves in NFL history.

Pfffft. No one offered the Raiders the opportunity to be "partners" in anything. It's a 49ers-controlled stadium. The half-azzed NFL idea was for the Raiders to be tenants and pay rent to the 49ers for the privilege of playing in a stadium 40 miles from Oakland that is decked out in 49ers colors and 49ers memorabilia and has a 49ers museum right in the stadium. You might as well tell the Redskins to become tenants at the Cowboys' stadium.

I always thought it was a feasibility study conducted around 2010 that didn't get past the initial inquiry phase. The Raiders felt they could get their own stadium and the 49ers went about building Levi's Stadium.

That being said, I've found that there is a great deal of resistance in LA to the idea of the Raiders making a return. Most of what I've been reading has been leaning more towards the Chargers, Rams and even the Jags. Why is that?

Also, the idea of playing games temporarily in Dodger Stadium while waiting on a football specific facility to be built is absurd. Just play in the Coliseum.

(10-13-2014 07:08 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Also, the idea of playing games temporarily in Dodger Stadium while waiting on a football specific facility to be built is absurd. Just play in the Coliseum.

The Coliseum is not happening They would have to get USC to agree with if first and even if they got through that, The NFL will not let them play there until said renovations are done.

Also if it did happen, the city would have Olympics on the mind again with a renovated Coliseum as bate and would have to be done to those specs.

(10-13-2014 05:36 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 09:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  They should have dug up the old negro league baseball name and gone with the Houston Colt 45's.

I don't see anything on a Negro League team of that name, do you mean the original name of the Houston Astros?

Maybe that's what it was. But I had thought it was the negro league team. Well, that would pretty much put it off limits then.

(10-12-2014 11:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 05:43 PM)prp Wrote:  Pfffft. No one offered the Raiders the opportunity to be "partners" in anything. It's a 49ers-controlled stadium. The half-azzed NFL idea was for the Raiders to be tenants and pay rent to the 49ers for the privilege of playing in a stadium 40 miles from Oakland that is decked out in 49ers colors and 49ers memorabilia and has a 49ers museum right in the stadium. You might as well tell the Redskins to become tenants at the Cowboys' stadium.

Or even for the Ravens.

Still, you have to admit, that would have been a better scenario than continuing to play at (insert current corporate name) Coliseum. Remember, the Jets were a tenant to the Giants for many years and in some ways still is and that worked out fine.

On top of that, had they joined together (and I seem to remember it initially being a joint venture like the Jets/Giants) the easily could have made it so that the signage would change per game like Metlife, and added their own hall of fame and museum. In all honesty, it was a half-assed idea for the Raiders to turn it down and think they would get their own, which in and of itself is a waste of money. And if they move to LA and the NFL puts up money for a stadium, then they will likely be sharing a stadium anyway. Only this time in an area where apparently half the residents hate them.

I get football and baseball not sharing stadiums, but football teams in the same metro area should. It is not that difficult to change signage. I mean damn, the Staples Center manages to do it with three full time teams in two leagues, often with multiple games in the same day.

(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.

Except Spanos has said time and time again, he's not moving the team back to LA. And I believe him on that one.

I still think the Jaguars are the top team likely to move, with the Rams as the #2 option. (it does put a kink in Goodell's desire for a London team though, but I think he'd give that up for now to have a team in LA).

The BIlls new owner won't be moving. And the Vikings have their new stadium. So there's no one else worth considering for a jump, so it's Jags, Rams, or no one (although I still think Tampa Bay is a team that's quietly under consideration for relocation.)

Signage isn't the issue for sharing between baseball and football, it's the sight lines. If you build for both, you build for neither. There's also the arrangements to work out with sharing revenue from premium seating, concessions, etc.

(10-13-2014 10:43 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(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.

Except Spanos has said time and time again, he's not moving the team back to LA. And I believe him on that one.

I still think the Jaguars are the top team likely to move, with the Rams as the #2 option. (it does put a kink in Goodell's desire for a London team though, but I think he'd give that up for now to have a team in LA).

The BIlls new owner won't be moving. And the Vikings have their new stadium. So there's no one else worth considering for a jump, so it's Jags, Rams, or no one (although I still think Tampa Bay is a team that's quietly under consideration for relocation.)

The Jags *should* be the team that would be most likely to move. Market-wise, it's a no-brainer. However, as I've said, they have some of the most onerous lease terms of any NFL team. So, they're stuck there for the time being no matter how much it doesn't make sense from a global perspective. In the meantime, the Rams aren't going to have that complication. They're basically free to go effective immediately without any penalty.

Of course, all of this discussion comes with a heavy caveat: the LA market needs to have a firm 100% ironclad "shovels in the ground today" stadium deal in place before anything happens. As much as TV markets are important (and the Clippers sale has made it clear that it's ludicrous for the NFL to not have even a poor-performing franchise in the LA market), the stadium deal comes first over everything else. The NFL would put a team in Anchorage instead of LA if Anchorage had the right stadium deal. (To be fair, the other pro leagues feel the exact same way. See all NHL expansion decisions, the NBA's move of the Sonics from Seattle to Oklahoma City, MLB's constant relocation threats to force new ballparks over the years, etc.)

I would guess the NFL might want 4 teams in CA so moving both the chargers and raiders to 1 stadium in LA might not work. OF course, both the raiders and charges have outdated stadiums so who knows. I'm sure the league will try to play san diego, oakland and st louis off each other to get some stadiums built. THe other thing is could a team with a new stadium still move to LA, like cincy? not sure about lease details but maybe they could give the stadium to u of cincy and move west.

(10-13-2014 07:46 AM)lance99 Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 07:08 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Also, the idea of playing games temporarily in Dodger Stadium while waiting on a football specific facility to be built is absurd. Just play in the Coliseum.

The Coliseum is not happening They would have to get USC to agree with if first

USC does control the LA Coliseum now, and USC is paying for the renovation work. USC might want the revenue they'd get from subleasing to an NFL franchise for a few years, but I question whether the NFL would agree to any deal that would be financially attractive to USC. The NFL is so f'in greedy that they'd want to pay almost no rent and keep all of the concession and parking revenue for themselves. On the other hand, the Coliseum and Rose Bowl are the only options for a short-term rental, and there are fewer restrictions on the use of the Coliseum, so maybe the NFL would grudgingly pay a fair amount of rent to USC.

The Rose Bowl renovations have already been completed, IIRC, which might make that a more attractive option despite the limitations associated with using the Rose Bowl.

(10-13-2014 12:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Jags *should* be the team that would be most likely to move. Market-wise, it's a no-brainer. However, as I've said, they have some of the most onerous lease terms of any NFL team. So, they're stuck there for the time being no matter how much it doesn't make sense from a global perspective. In the meantime, the Rams aren't going to have that complication. They're basically free to go effective immediately without any penalty.

Of course, all of this discussion comes with a heavy caveat: the LA market needs to have a firm 100% ironclad "shovels in the ground today" stadium deal in place before anything happens. As much as TV markets are important (and the Clippers sale has made it clear that it's ludicrous for the NFL to not have even a poor-performing franchise in the LA market), the stadium deal comes first over everything else. The NFL would put a team in Anchorage instead of LA if Anchorage had the right stadium deal. (To be fair, the other pro leagues feel the exact same way. See all NHL expansion decisions, the NBA's move of the Sonics from Seattle to Oklahoma City, MLB's constant relocation threats to force new ballparks over the years, etc.)

Linking two unrelated terms from the same post, I wonder if the NHL could work in Anchorage. There isn't really that much going on up there for entertainment.

(10-12-2014 09:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 05:31 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  As a native Angeleno nothing would make me happy than having an NFL team in L.A. as long as it's not the Raiders. When the Rams left, I wished them nothing but the best because I understood why they left. The Raiders? They can burn in hell as far as I'm concerned.

Any chance you care to elaborate? I was under the impression both excite serfs for the same reason?

(10-12-2014 08:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  It's unique...Texans sound bland, uncreative and certainly unoriginal. I know Texas pride is huge but it still sounds mundane. Apollos would go right along with the other nicknames in the city and be something no one in sports ever had and likely wouldn't duplicate above a semi-amateur (college) level.

They should have dug up the old negro league baseball name and gone with the Houston Colt 45's.

I was never a big fan of Al Davis (just like I'm not a big Jerry Jones fan even though I'm a convert Cowboys fan). I remember the year the Raiders and Rams left (1995) because it was the same year my family moved to Dallas. I was a teenager back then but I remember the L.A. media not giving two craps about the Raiders. They were mostly sorry the Rams left but the consensus was that the Rams and even the Raiders had no choice but to leave.

That doesn't means Al Davis was always wrong and the city of L.A. was not at fault. The L.A. Coliseum was not up to NFL standards even in the mid-90's. If I remember correctly, the NFL warned L.A. that the 1993 Super Bowl in the Rose Bowl was going to be the last one (and it was the last one since the rule is to have an NFL team in order to host the SB) because the stadium lacked the amenities other NFL stadiums offered. The irony is that L.A. being known as a liberal bastion has refused to finance taxpayer money for an NFL stadium. Other places that are known as conservative strongholds like Glendale, AZ and Arlington, TX have financed public money for the Cardinals and Cowboys. Houston got the expansion team when L.A. couldn't come to terms of the new stadium.

Would an NFL team have any effect on USC and UCLA? Not at all. Look at UCLA basketball being shadowed by the Lakers and to some extent the Clippers and still being relevant (especially during the 70's and 80's when the Lakers were the team to beat). What most people don't understand is that California sports culture as a whole is different than in other parts of the nation. You have to be either a native or live in California for a long time to understand what I'm talking about. Californians for some reason like to support multiple sports while here in Texas, it's football and nothing more. I remember my HS in L.A. was a football powerhouse and the fan support was from mediocre to average. But fan support was good for softball or swimming games. While here in Texas, the HS I graduated from had great fan support for a football program that didn't make the playoffs for more than 20 years and when they finally did make the playoffs in 1995, they even had a parade on Main St. The rest of the sports attracted just a few people on the stands.

The point I'm trying to make is that an NFL team in L.A. will not break any attendance records (maybe the first year because of the novelty but I still doubt it). USC and UCLA should be fine since L.A. is huge enough to have multiple sports fans (Lakers, Clippers, Dodgers, Angels, Galaxy, Chivas USA, Kings, Ducks, Pac-12).

UCLA basketball is actually a very bad example. They recently went to 3 straight Final Fours after already being a very historic program yet they almost instantly stopped selling out games. Part of it was the condition Pauley Pavilion was in but it mostly due to the fair weather nature of LA, how spoiled they are and the fact LA has so many other entertainment options (it is arguably the entertainment capital of the world), including 2 NBA teams.

Therefore, that portends bad things for USC and UCLA, except in the best of times.