Rubes Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 From CBSSports.com: "This entire process -- as rambling and meandering as the league's eventual return to Los Angeles has been -- has suddenly taken on more of a sense of urgency than we've seen in quite some time. The Raiders and Rams are de facto franchise free agents following the 2014 season, as they'll be able to pick up and move more or less as they see fit. The Chargers are operating on a lease that has become decreasingly cumbersome to get out of." I wish somebody would just move there so we don't have to deal with the issue anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 From CBSSports.com: I wish somebody would just move there so we don't have to deal with the issue anymore. well, relegate it to the back burner again, for a while.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsBytheBay Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Well, the Raiders and Chargers (AFC West teams) would probably have no home field advantage against each other. They'd be an hour from each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yungmack Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 From CBSSports.com:r I wish somebody would just move there so we don't have to deal with the issue anymore. If the Rams move back to LA, St. Louis will be on the prowl for a replacement. If it coincides with the death of Ralph, look out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 If the Rams move back to LA, St. Louis will be on the prowl for a replacement. If it coincides with the death of Ralph, look out. They already took a good chunk of our hockey team, why not take our football team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 The Rams will be in LA after 2014. The Raiders will not get their new stadium in the Bay Area and will follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 If the Rams move back to LA, St. Louis will be on the prowl for a replacement. If it coincides with the death of Ralph, look out. Doubtful. There isn't any money there. To say nothing of the fact that they've lost 2 NFL teams already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 The Raiders are the obvious choice to me mainly due to the awful stadium in Oakland...seriously, sharing a stadium with a baseball team and dealing with the infield is ridiculous The Rams should not go anywhere the Chargers stadium is also bad but at least they dont share it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 If the Rams move back to LA, St. Louis will be on the prowl for a replacement. If it coincides with the death of Ralph, look out. that is the one thing that will not go away. on the surface having the L A situation settled has always been looked upon as a positive by myself, and the rest of us. however, there is always the danger of which ever team(S) go to L A, those cities will now be a player for the bills.. shame wilson will not settle the ownership situation.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDIGGZ Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 From CBSSports.com: I wish somebody would just move there so we don't have to deal with the issue anymore. Still have to deal with Bon Jovi and Toronto though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 From CBSSports.com: I wish somebody would just move there so we don't have to deal with the issue anymore. Jason La Canfora says the NFL is looking for two teams for LA, and a team for London, and one for Toronto. Still have to deal with Bon Jovi and Toronto though exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) Doubtful. There isn't any money there. To say nothing of the fact that they've lost 2 NFL teams already. Not true..they have numerous large corporations headquartered there...Anheiser Busch, Emerson Electric, Express Scripts, Edward Jones, Monsanto, O'Reilly Automotive, etc... I know because I went to college in St. Louis(Go Billikens!!) and was very surprised at how many are headquartered there...pretty close to middle of the US and on a major waterway the connects a lot of the US so it makes sense Here is a list of major fortune 500 companies in St Louis: http://www.missourieconomy.org/industry/fortune_500/index.stm Edited March 22, 2014 by matter2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Not true..they have numerous large corporations headquartered there...Anheiser Busch, Emerson Electric, Express Scripts, Edward Jones, Monsanto, O'Reilly Automotive, etc... I know because I went to college in St. Louis(Go Billikens!!) and was very surprised at how many are headquartered there...pretty close to middle of the US and on a major waterway the connects a lot of the US so it makes sense Here is a list of major fortune 500 companies in St Louis: http://www.missourie...e_500/index.stm Alright, then why do they have so much trouble keeping their NFL team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) Alright, then why do they have so much trouble keeping their NFL team? They are a diehard baseball town and bandwagon football town...Cardinals rule everything Edited March 22, 2014 by matter2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) They are a diehard baseball town and bandwagon football town...Cardinals rule everything So would it be safe to say that Saint Louis would not be a city in the NFL's best interests? Edited March 22, 2014 by Mark Vader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Not true..they have numerous large corporations headquartered there...Anheiser Busch, Emerson Electric, Express Scripts, Edward Jones, Monsanto, O'Reilly Automotive, etc... I know because I went to college in St. Louis(Go Billikens!!) and was very surprised at how many are headquartered there...pretty close to middle of the US and on a major waterway the connects a lot of the US so it makes sense Here is a list of major fortune 500 companies in St Louis: http://www.missourie...e_500/index.stm Which is why an out of state businessman had to buy the Rams the last time, right? It doesn't matter how many HQs are located there, NFL rules require that owners be individuals. If the Rams leave town that means St Louis will have lost an NFL franchise for the 2nd time, there won't be another team there because the city is broke as hell and they aren't going to get voters to build ANOTHER football stadium. The Edward Jones Dome isn't even 20 years old and the Rams are demanding nearly $700,000,000.00 in renovations, which the city is refusing. If the stadium isn't good enough for the Rams, it isn't going to be good enough for another franchise and there's no way St Louis is going to be held hostage by an NFL team for upwards of a billion dollars. That shipped has sailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 that is the one thing that will not go away. on the surface having the L A situation settled has always been looked upon as a positive by myself, and the rest of us. however, there is always the danger of which ever team(S) go to L A, those cities will now be a player for the bills.. shame wilson will not s ettle the ownership situation.. How can Wilson settle the ownership situation? It is settled now, he is the owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 The Rams will be in LA after 2014. The Raiders will not get their new stadium in the Bay Area and will follow. To....what? There is no stadium in LA. There will not be a stadium in 2015 either. The main reason there is no team in LA is there is no where for a relocating team to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 If the Rams move back to LA, St. Louis will be on the prowl for a replacement. If it coincides with the death of Ralph, look out. No way- if the Rams go, the NFL will be dead to St. Louis. That is one town where the NFL takes a seat to baseball. The fans there will quickly move on. This is no Cleveland or Houston- the NFL will never rush to fill the void. They are reluctant to build a new stadium for the Rams and that is what will ultimaty drive them away and no team will relocate to a dome that is considered outdated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 How can Wilson settle the ownership situation? It is settled now, he is the owner. please.. enough of the sarcasm, if you missed the point, so be it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts