Chargers relocating to LA makes sense

[Koufax]

Here is the answer to all of everyones problems.....the Chargers should be the only team considered by the NFL (with the exception of maybe Jacksonville) to relocate to Los Angeles. First of all, California does not need 4 NFL teams because 3 is enough and if they could somehow steal the Vikings from Minnesota like they did the Lakers(by the way they should haved changed the name because there is no lake near LA what so ever that)that would just be horrible for that dedicated fanbase. But seriously the Chargers would only be moving a little over 100 miles north where their dedicated fans could still see the games in a brand new stadium. Also by the way, chargers stadium has problems filling up at times even with a playoff caliber team year in and out and PLUS, their stadium was built in the 1960s with no new one thought of being built in sight. But this would be best for everyone in this LA situation especially for keeping our BILLS in Buffalo, except for maybe San Diego.....but screw them anyways because they stole the BRAVES from us!!!

 

But also maybe Jacksonville because Florida doesnt need 3 teams

 

<title edited>

 

Why does New York need three teams but Florida not? And California doesn't need four? I don't follow that logic at all...that would like a Vikings fan telling you to just root for the Jets or drive to Cleveland.

 

I am a huge native Bills fan despite living in San Diego, but I don't get why the Chargers should leave San Diego and how that somehow solidifies the Bills situation.

 

And despite the current stadium situation (which is all local politics and timing), San Diego is the eighth largest city in the USA and has a 3 million person metro area. Cities in the NFL that are not a 3 million metro area:

 

St Louis, Tampa, Baltimore, Denver, pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Nashville, Green Bay, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Buffalo.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

 

The real issue here from a logical standpoint is Oakland should not have gotten the Raiders, but we know that is an owner and economics and local politics things, and never defined by what actually makes sense.

 

So while I hope the Bills stay in Buffalo, your post is pretty silly.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

It was never said. I believe it was Jerry Sullivan who alleged that Ralph told him this.

Thanks, Doc.

 

1. My recent Google search turned up the 6/17/07 "newsletter" link below that cites an interview of Ralph Wilson by Mark Gaughan of the Buffalo News for Wilson's statements that (i) the team will be sold after his death, rather than left to his wife or daughters. and (ii) selling a part interest in the team to a Western New Yorker while Ralph lives is "absolutely out."

 

http://www.nflgridirongab.com/2007/06/17/ralph-wilson-says-he-wont-sell-the-bills/

 

2. The Toronto series plans were announced about 4 months later, in 10/07, per this USA Today article:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/bills/2007-10-18-toronto-games_N.htm

 

3. I cannot find any quotes attributed to Wilson after 6/17/07 about what will happen to the team after his death. Based on the Mark Gaughan interview (assuming the 6/17/07 "newsletter" got the quotes right), I have seen no quotes attributed to Wilson about the team being "sold to the highest bidder." Maybe Ralph said that, but if so, I haven't found it. As far as I can tell from Google searching, Ralph merely said that the team would be sold after his death, and everybody just assumes that the sale would be to the highest bidder in an estate sale, because that's how estate sales work.

 

4. It seems to me like there's another possibility. The Toronto series deal could contain an option for the Toronto people to buy the team upon Ralph's death, at least if he dies while the original or any extension of the Toronto series deal is in force. I am not aware of anything that would prohibit Ralph from conditioning the granting of such an option on the buyers' agreement to always play some specified number or percentage of the team's games in Buffalo (assuming Ralph cares about whether the team stays in Buffalo after his death - - maybe he does, maybe he doesn't). Seems to me like the sales price could be determined by some sort of agreed-upon appraisal mechanism if it wasn't specified in advance.

 

5. Because the Toronto people could always choose not to exercise such an option (I think I read that Rogers died, and there hasn't been great demand for Toronto game tickets from what I've read), other potential buyers could still be trying to line up for any future estate sale - - NFL franchises don't often become available for purchase.

 

6. I am NOT saying that such a purchase option exists - - I'm just saying that as far as I can tell, Ralph has never been publicly quoted as saying anything that would be inconsistent with the existence of such a purchase option.

 

7. If anybody here has a link to any article quoting Wilson as saying anything after 10/07 that would be inconsistent with the existence of an option for the Toronto people to buy the team upon Ralph's death, I'd love to see it.

[C.Biscuit97]

i dont mean to rain on any parades, but as soon as that LA slot is filled Toronto is my bet for the next "hot city" to put a team. Switch out Buffalo and Toronto for San Diego and LA and the differences in your paragraph are marginal at best. Be careful what you argue today, it might come back to haunt you tomorrow.

 

Because the Toronto football series has gone so well, right? I get your point & I'd never root for another team to move (except maybe Jac). But SD has been really good for a decade & struggle to sell out. Buf has sucked donkey balls yet gets better crowds.

 

The Bills aren't going anywhere.