PromoTheRobot Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Looks like vultures are circling the Rams. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garranimal Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Looks like vultures are circling the Rams. Those vultures have been circling Sam Bradford since he entered the league. Smart birds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Move where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS 56 Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Move where? Los Angeles!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 I just heard a story on the radio during my hour-long morning commute that the talks between the NFL and Anschutz Entertainment Group have stalled out and are at an impasse. I live in the crap-hole that is Los Angeles (born and raised in Rochester). It would feel very weird to have the Rams return to L.A., but someone confirm or correct me if I'm wrong: is it not league rules now that when teams change locations, they are no longer allowed to keep their names? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kellyto83TD Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 the LA Rams? I don't know why but I can picture it.... And lay off Bradford, lets see what he does with a half way decent OL and at least a couple healthy WR's to throw to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I'm sorry, but I quickly read that as the Auschwitz Entertainment Group. Luckily that registered as wrong and I re- read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I don't wish on any city to lose it's team as it would be heartbreaking to St. Louis fans. The solution though is in Missouri and St. Louis finding the money in stadium improvements to lock the team up for awhile like Buffalo. Selfishly, I don't want to be the one who loses in musical chairs so if a team has to go to LA, as long as it's not the Bills. My take though is CA is so broke from over taxation and govt spending, it may not be likely to get a team in LA. In addition, we have a decent agreement for 7 years or so, but afterwards is what makes me nervous. Outside ownership will most likely spend more on the Bills than a local group. Ralph will definitely pass in the next 7 years, and Buffalo does not have the money for a new stadium. The economy will go up after this administration ends, and we could be a casualty for a move in 7 years to LA. No one likes it, but the one positive sign is regionalization by playing that Toronto game is a positive sign to keep this franchise in Buffalo. The NFL wants more games in Toronto, London, Germany, and Mexico. That is part of their 25 year plan to take the league from 10 Billion to 25 Billion. So next time someone complains about Buffalo in Toronto for one game, remember it may be the very thing that keeps us as the Buffalo Bills, not the LA Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 the LA Rams? I don't know why but I can picture it.... Does the picture look like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Does the picture look like this? I was thinking the Cleveland Rams. That's where they originated with Waterfield and Crazy Legs Hirsch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroni Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 I live in the crap-hole that is Los Angeles (born and raised in Rochester). It would feel very weird to have the Rams return to L.A., but someone confirm or correct me if I'm wrong: is it not league rules now that when teams change locations, they are no longer allowed to keep their names? If they moved from St. Louis to Los Angeles I don't think the league will let the team call themselves the St. Louis Rams anymore ... but I think they'd be OK with the Los Angeles Rams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kellyto83TD Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 I know the NFL likes ratings but no team survives in LA, why go through this again? It isn't going to be supported well and will fold in maybe 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 I don't wish on any city to lose it's team as it would be heartbreaking to St. Louis fans. The solution though is in Missouri and St. Louis finding the money in stadium improvements to lock the team up for awhile like Buffalo. Selfishly, I don't want to be the one who loses in musical chairs so if a team has to go to LA, as long as it's not the Bills. My take though is CA is so broke from over taxation and govt spending, it may not be likely to get a team in LA. In addition, we have a decent agreement for 7 years or so, but afterwards is what makes me nervous. Outside ownership will most likely spend more on the Bills than a local group. Ralph will definitely pass in the next 7 years, and Buffalo does not have the money for a new stadium. The economy will go up after this administration ends, and we could be a casualty for a move in 7 years to LA. No one likes it, but the one positive sign is regionalization by playing that Toronto game is a positive sign to keep this franchise in Buffalo. The NFL wants more games in Toronto, London, Germany, and Mexico. That is part of their 25 year plan to take the league from 10 Billion to 25 Billion. So next time someone complains about Buffalo in Toronto for one game, remember it may be the very thing that keeps us as the Buffalo Bills, not the LA Bills. I've been saying this from day 1 of the Toronto series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhg Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 (edited) Los Angeles!!!! In what stadium would they play? Edited June 24, 2013 by dhg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 So next time someone complains about Buffalo in Toronto for one game, remember it may be the very thing that keeps us as the Buffalo Bills, not the LA Bills. I've been saying this from day 1 of the Toronto series. It's hard to believe that people are still talking about the possibilty of the "LA Bills". Crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Fontes Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 I was thinking the Cleveland Rams. That's where they originated with Waterfield and Crazy Legs Hirsch. Crazy Legs never played for Cleveland - he played for the Chicago franchise of the AAFC before LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tu-Toned Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 I just heard a story on the radio during my hour-long morning commute that the talks between the NFL and Anschutz Entertainment Group have stalled out and are at an impasse. I live in the crap-hole that is Los Angeles (born and raised in Rochester). It would feel very weird to have the Rams return to L.A., but someone confirm or correct me if I'm wrong: is it not league rules now that when teams change locations, they are no longer allowed to keep their names? If true, that explains for me why the Houston Texans are the Texans and not the Oilers, why the Baltimore is no longer the Colts, etc..So f'ing dumb, if I was an Oiler fan, I would be pissed. I can't think of any other modern day NFL team that just died like the Oilers did. Then they trot them back out as the Oiler/Titans in Tennessee, give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
first_and_ten Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 I know the NFL likes ratings but no team survives in LA, why go through this again? It isn't going to be supported well and will fold in maybe 10 years. Why can't a team survive in LA? With a state of the art complex and good ownership, the team will thrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 (edited) Why can't a team survive in LA? With a state of the art complex and good ownership, the team will thrive. Debatable, but moot. Neither exists in LA. Edited June 24, 2013 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimace Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 If true, that explains for me why the Houston Texans are the Texans and not the Oilers, why the Baltimore is no longer the Colts, etc..So f'ing dumb, if I was an Oiler fan, I would be pissed. I can't think of any other modern day NFL team that just died like the Oilers did. Then they trot them back out as the Oiler/Titans in Tennessee, give me a break. I think its safe to say Baltimore didn't go with the Baltimore Colts again because of the Indianapolis Colts, but if the rule exists, it does seem pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts