(02-01-2015 04:10 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think chicago would be a great spot if they go back to a cold weather location. Yet, today's weather probably KO's the idea.

The NFL made one (1) exception to the rule (about domed stadium or mild weather) for MetLife Stadium, but I doubt that they will make another one.

Just because it was close to New York City and to answer the post below, no, they will not go to DC.

(02-01-2015 04:47 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 04:10 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think chicago would be a great spot if they go back to a cold weather location. Yet, today's weather probably KO's the idea.

The NFL made one (1) exception to the rule (about domed stadium or mild weather) for MetLife Stadium, but I doubt that they will make another one.

Dan Synder would like to have a word with you....

(02-01-2015 05:01 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 04:47 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The NFL made one (1) exception to the rule (about domed stadium or mild weather) for MetLife Stadium, but I doubt that they will make another one.

Dan Synder would like to have a word with you....

We'll see…

(02-02-2015 04:57 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 05:01 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 04:47 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The NFL made one (1) exception to the rule (about domed stadium or mild weather) for MetLife Stadium, but I doubt that they will make another one.

Dan Synder would like to have a word with you....

We'll see…

If anything Robert Kraft has more pull to get a Super Bowl in the Boston area then Synder does with DC....

(02-02-2015 05:25 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-02-2015 04:57 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 05:01 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 04:47 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The NFL made one (1) exception to the rule (about domed stadium or mild weather) for MetLife Stadium, but I doubt that they will make another one.

Dan Synder would like to have a word with you....

We'll see…

If anything Robert Kraft has more pull to get a Super Bowl in the Boston area then Synder does with DC....

True, but Synder has a thorn he can remove from the NFL's side (team name) in exchange for a Super Bowl.

If there was one truly cold-weather/open-air stadium you could make an argument for, it would be Green Bay... The anniversary of the storied Ice Bowl.

But that would be about it. New York, due to the proximity of the Gulf Stream, at least had even-chance odds of being tolerable. Chicago??? In February??? Not a freaking chance of having it be decent weather.

(02-02-2015 05:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-02-2015 05:25 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-02-2015 04:57 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 05:01 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 04:47 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The NFL made one (1) exception to the rule (about domed stadium or mild weather) for MetLife Stadium, but I doubt that they will make another one.

Dan Synder would like to have a word with you....

We'll see…

If anything Robert Kraft has more pull to get a Super Bowl in the Boston area then Synder does with DC....

True, but Synder has a torn he can remove from the NFL's side (team name) in exchange for a Super Bowl.

But it is not a thorn big enough to compensate for a Super Bowl. (Unless, you are a professor without anything else to fight for in your life)

(02-02-2015 05:25 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-02-2015 04:57 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 05:01 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 04:47 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The NFL made one (1) exception to the rule (about domed stadium or mild weather) for MetLife Stadium, but I doubt that they will make another one.

Dan Synder would like to have a word with you....

We'll see…

If anything Robert Kraft has more pull to get a Super Bowl in the Boston area then Synder does with DC....

The NFL is at war with the Patriots (and vice versa), and it's been going on for a long time.

The only worse franchise vs. NFL relationship was when Al Davis was feuding with the NFL.

(02-02-2015 06:32 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  If there was one truly cold-weather/open-air stadium you could make an argument for, it would be Green Bay... The anniversary of the storied Ice Bowl.

But that would be about it. New York, due to the proximity of the Gulf Stream, at least had even-chance odds of being tolerable. Chicago??? In February??? Not a freaking chance of having it be decent weather.

Green Bay simply doesn't have the infrastructure to host a Super Bowl despite the fact it is a heart and soul NFL city. Might as well play it in Duluth, MN/Superior, WI or Boise, ID.

(02-02-2015 06:32 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  If there was one truly cold-weather/open-air stadium you could make an argument for, it would be Green Bay... The anniversary of the storied Ice Bowl.

But that would be about it. New York, due to the proximity of the Gulf Stream, at least had even-chance odds of being tolerable. Chicago??? In February??? Not a freaking chance of having it be decent weather.

Just as much or more impact on a Super Bowl decision is based on the cities amenities (number of hotels, restaurants, entertainment options, etc...) than the stadium.

There is no way a tiny town like Green Bay would ever get a Super Bowl Game.

What many people don't understand is that TWICE the number of those that attend the game, show up during Super Bowl week for all the activities/parties, etc...hence why Super Bowl cities/areas need tens of thousands of hotel rooms.

Heck, Tampa wouldn't even qualify as a Super Bowl site if not for the agreement with Disney and use of their 30,000 plus hotel rooms some 75 miles away.

City of Jacksonville "fooled" the NFL when they got a Super Bowl saying how Cruise Ships, some docked far from the downtown area would work...but they didn't take in consideration like "lake of cabs, transportation, etc..." which made their Super Bowl week a disaster.

NFL won't get fooled again.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story...ning-panel

One step closer

(02-02-2015 06:32 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  If there was one truly cold-weather/open-air stadium you could make an argument for, it would be Green Bay... The anniversary of the storied Ice Bowl.

But that would be about it. New York, due to the proximity of the Gulf Stream, at least had even-chance odds of being tolerable. Chicago??? In February??? Not a freaking chance of having it be decent weather.

The near miss of a snow storm last year when the SB was in new York, combined with the massive snow storm that hit the NE this year during the Super Bowl would (spelled should) have the NFL rethinking any more cold weather cities, dome or no dome. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen, but they should count their lucky stars about how lucky they get and never attempt to repeat it.

(02-03-2015 09:00 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  What many people don't understand is that TWICE the number of those that attend the game, show up during Super Bowl week for all the activities/parties, etc...hence why Super Bowl cities/areas need tens of thousands of hotel rooms.

To a different degree the NBA All-Star game is the king of this. The games draw 20,000 or so, but the host city gets flooded with some 100k visitors. That is why it's hard for smaller cities that ate not tourist hubs to host that as well.

My guess is LA gets 2 teams and ST louis gets 1 from the pool of raiders, chargers and rams. I think the stadium in LA with Kroenke money is a go but St louis also has the political will to build a new stadium. I don't see san diego or oakland having the ability to get a stadium done. The funny thing is i have no idea who ends up where, could have the st louis raiders or chargers. The one thing that could kill st louis is if the raiders or even chargers were willing to share the stadium with the 49ers.

(02-10-2015 11:36 AM)bluesox Wrote:  My guess is LA gets 2 teams and ST louis gets 1 from the pool of raiders, chargers and rams. I think the stadium in LA with Kroenke money is a go but St louis also has the political will to build a new stadium. I don't see san diego or oakland having the ability to get a stadium done. The funny thing is i have no idea who ends up where, could have the st louis raiders or chargers. The one thing that could kill st louis is if the raiders or even chargers were willing to share the stadium with the 49ers.

Don't forget about San Antonio. They still want a team.

I think if St Louis loses the Rams, they should wait and try to get a new expansion team. Twice they have got a team from another city to re-locate. Twice they eventually move on again. St Louis needs a team that has no history anywhere else.

(01-24-2015 10:31 AM)brista21 Wrote:  I'd prefer to see both teams stay where they are. Why not move a failing franchise like Jacksonville to LA?

Jacksonville has a lease that is impossible to get out of.

$$$ makes nothing impossible.

Latest from Inglewood:

Inglewood NFL stadium plan advances as petition signatures verified

Quote:Plans to build an NFL-quality football stadium in Inglewood cleared another hurdle Thursday as election officials confirmed that enough petition signatures had been verified to put the initiative on the ballot.

The Inglewood City Council also has the option to approve the plan outright, possibly later this month.

(02-03-2015 09:00 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(02-02-2015 06:32 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  If there was one truly cold-weather/open-air stadium you could make an argument for, it would be Green Bay... The anniversary of the storied Ice Bowl.

But that would be about it. New York, due to the proximity of the Gulf Stream, at least had even-chance odds of being tolerable. Chicago??? In February??? Not a freaking chance of having it be decent weather.

Just as much or more impact on a Super Bowl decision is based on the cities amenities (number of hotels, restaurants, entertainment options, etc...) than the stadium.

There is no way a tiny town like Green Bay would ever get a Super Bowl Game.

What many people don't understand is that TWICE the number of those that attend the game, show up during Super Bowl week for all the activities/parties, etc...hence why Super Bowl cities/areas need tens of thousands of hotel rooms.

Heck, Tampa wouldn't even qualify as a Super Bowl site if not for the agreement with Disney and use of their 30,000 plus hotel rooms some 75 miles away.

City of Jacksonville "fooled" the NFL when they got a Super Bowl saying how Cruise Ships, some docked far from the downtown area would work...but they didn't take in consideration like "lake of cabs, transportation, etc..." which made their Super Bowl week a disaster.

NFL won't get fooled again.

I don't disagree, I'm just saying that Lambeau Field is the only cold-weather, non-dome stadium that I think would be contemplated.

FWIW, part and parcel of this particular discussion is the NFL's own declaration to San Diego that they will not send another Super Bowl to Jack Murphy/Qualcomm. If San Diego wants another SB, they will have to build a new stadium...which if they did, THIS particular conversation ("OT Rumor: Chargers to build different Stadium in LA") would not be happening.

But in any case, trying to convince 65k people not from Chicago to plunk big $$$ to sit in a frigid Soldier Field to watch a SB is a tough sell... At least you can play the "Frozen tundra of Lambeau Field" (RIP James Sobol) history card with GB...

Now both the Chargers and Raiders are teaming up for a LA Stafium while still talking to their current cities...

The Chargers and Raiders released a joint statement Thursday evening explaining their proposal:

» We have both been working in our home markets to find a stadium solution for many years, so far unsuccessfully.

» We remain committed to continuing to work in our home markets throughout 2015 to try to find publicly acceptable solutions to the long-term stadium issue.

» We also both understand and respect the NFL's relocation process, and we intend to adhere strictly to the relocation procedures that the League has set forth for Los Angeles.

» In particular, we respect the right of the NFL's owners to decide on all Los Angeles-related relocation issues and understand that any relocation application that is filed for Los Angeles must obtain the approval of three-fourths of the NFL's owners.

» Both teams have kept the NFL owners' committee on Los Angeles, and the Commissioner, fully informed about our joint efforts.

» We are pursuing this stadium option in Carson for one straightforward reason: If we cannot find a permanent solution in our home markets, we have no alternative but to preserve other options to guarantee the future economic viability of our franchises.

» In short, for the remainder of 2015, we intend to move down two tracks simultaneously:

-- On track one, we will continue to work in our home markets to find permanent stadium solutions that are publicly acceptable.

-- On track two, we will work in Carson to preserve our options, and the future economic viability of our franchises, in the event that our efforts in our local markets fail.

» Throughout this process we will respect the rules and procedures set forth by the League and defer completely to the ultimate decision of the NFL's owners.

The NFL responded with a two-sentence statement:

"We are in regular contact with all involved clubs. All clubs have been meeting their responsibilities to keep us informed," the league said.

Grubman said a team in Los Angeles in 2016 isn't a guarantee.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...ebook_news