Lord_MacDonald Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 20+ years here as well and this is spot on. A team doesn't survive here if it isn't the Raiders. I live in LA and have for 20 years and still think like a lot of people do that the NFL benefits way more by not having a team here than by one or two here. People sporadically talk about it here but it's mostly politicians no one believes or developers looking for a great deal. I never thought for one second that the AEG Anschutz deal would go through. It was stupid and impossible from the start. Kroenke, however, is a guy who could get it done. He's a different breed of cat. Not sure what he really wants. He's more of a Missouri guy than an LA guy. I have lived in LA the majority of my life and I agree as well. LA has so many transplants that will continue to root for their team. Hell, I wouldn't change teams or even really care about the LA team. If a team is going to make it here they will need be the raiders or immediately come in and compete for championships. This is after all a Lakers town, and despite the teams current sucktitude, the fans expect to win championships. That said, if an AFC team moved that would increase my odds of going to a Bills game and that is not a bad thing, so I am in favor of an LA team for my own selfish reasons. (disclaimer I was ALWAYS very against the Bills coming here permanently) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 its going to happen IMO. St Louis and Oakland. Then the NFL will leverage an expansion stadium derby between St Louis, Toronto, Oakland/San Jose, San Antonio, and maybe London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSOL Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Bet theyre gonna have some pretty sweet uni's. Why do i feel like purple is gonna be involved somehow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Roger Goodell nixes L.A. team in 2015 As if there were any questions, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell put an end to them this week when he told the San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams that there will not be a team that moves to Los Angeles for next season, according to league sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Great post. The whole NFL has had the opportunity to grab LA forever, if its such a great market why no takers. LA is a very competitive town for disposable income, especially the entertainment dollar. I attended a Rams game in 1985 with Eric Dickerson at his peak, lots of empty seats and a boring "who cares" atmosphere. The game has changed though. It's no longer about the average fan and all about the luxury boxes. Sell those and that's what they care about. LA has plenty of companies who would buy those boxes for ludicrous sums of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vorpma Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 The game has changed though. It's no longer about the average fan and all about the luxury boxes. Sell those and that's what they care about. LA has plenty of companies who would buy those boxes for ludicrous sums of money. The concept of luxury boxes sounds good on paper, you still need a loyal fan base. As stated, if LA is so great why no team for over twenty years. These wealthy LA Corporations could have easily influenced the NFL Corp HQ to put a team there, again, LA sucks as a sports town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Is it just me or does the whole "NFL to LA" thing kind of feel like 1 of those "I'll do it tomorrow" chores? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8-8 Forever? Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) The concept of luxury boxes sounds good on paper, you still need a loyal fan base. As stated, if LA is so great why no team for over twenty years. These wealthy LA Corporations could have easily influenced the NFL Corp HQ to put a team there, again, LA sucks as a sports town. Agree. But you guys are thinking perhaps a bit too much about game day revenue. Probably fine if the Raiders go back. Some fan base there. Any other team will have a challenge. Maybe St L. b/c of the Seattle, SFran, Phoenix "rivalry" in the NFC. Nah, probably not. L.A. is the Lakers and showtime and all that garbage. NFL is beer and cigarettes and sausage. I don't see it, but the a even with a crappy fan base L.A. TV ratings will be better than Oakland, StL and SAnD combined. TV revenue is what makes the NFL go, and ratings are what matter, so rivalries matter, so Oakland or St Louis make the most sense to me.... gonna happen. TV market there is too big for NFL to ignore. LA Rams vs SanFran 49ers from the Rose Bowl I can sell. St Louis rams vs San Fran 49ers from some dome in Missouri I cannot. Edited December 20, 2014 by 8and8Forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Gun Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Khan's biding his time to take that team to London. If the league puts anyone else there it would then force the league to change ownership rules or Khan would have to sell Fulham FC to keep the Jags. That's not going to happen. Fulham was worth almost $400M when he bought them a couple years ago. That value hasn't decreased as BPL revenues have risen and Fulham expanded their stadium. What will be interesting to see is if the NFL tries to get the Jags into Wembley right off the bat risking lots of emptyness or if they play at the now expanded/remodeled Craven Cottage. It now seats 30k and that's obviously below NFL standard but to be the first international team I could see the league bending that rule for awhile to have a full bldg and build some local loyalty/buzz.. The next logical step would be to build a new stadium for both Fulham AND the NFL team a few years down the line. Never going to be a team in London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) I've been living in Los Angeles since 1991 (suck an egg, Buffalo Barbarian!), and my feeling is that there is quite a lot of interest from LA NFL fans for there to be a team here. There is an ENORMOUS contingent of the Raider Nation here. And, quite a few fans are still stinging from the exit of the Rams, which felt like a betrayal to many. Be that as it may, to compare the economic, or social, or sports landscape in Los Angeles to that of 20 years ago is inaccurate. There are certainly no shortage of football fans, and I believe any team that arrived in LA would be embraced. Look at the turnout for USC, and UCLA games. I do agree that LA has been used as a pressure tactic to push for public funding in other cities in the past. But, I certainly don't believe that the NFL has been merely stringing along AEG for such purposes. And AEG did receive a six month contract extension for a stadium deal from the LA City council in October. San Diego has certainly made it clear that they have no intention of moving. In fact, I think they may represent a major stumbling block to a team arriving in Los Angeles. According to Chargers executive Mark Fabiani, 30% of the teams local revenue originates in the LA market. Any team that submits a proposal to move needs a super majority for approval, and I suspect that the Chargers might work behind the scenes to undermine that vote. I haven't read that anywhere-- just my conjecture. Edited December 20, 2014 by Rocky Landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) I've been living in Los Angeles since 1991 (suck an egg, Buffalo Barbarian!), and my feeling is that there is quite a lot of interest from LA NFL fans for there to be a team here. There is an ENORMOUS contingent of the Raider Nation here. And, quite a few fans are still stinging from the exit of the Rams, which felt like a betrayal to many. Be that as it may, to compare the economic, or social, or sports landscape in Los Angeles to that of 20 years ago is inaccurate. There are certainly no shortage of football fans, and I believe any team that arrived in LA would be embraced. Look at the turnout for USC, and UCLA games. I've lived in LA for 20 years, too. Yes, there are still a lot of Raider fans. And yes, USC and UCLA get great turnouts. LA is actually a great sports town. I hate Laker fans but there are a lot of them. Dodger fans are great. Even Kings fans are decent. But I don't see how UCLA or USC fans translate. I'm as big a football fan as anyone, but I don't have much interest at all at paying $150 to go see The Bengals play the Raiders, and I don't think many fans do who are not fans of those teams. Even if they moved here. I would go once to see the stadium and that's about it. Maybe go with free tickets. But I don't see fans here getting an emotional attachment outside of the Raiders, and that's a limited, strange, isolated clan. Edited December 20, 2014 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted William's frozen head Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 I hope they move the Patriots. I wish that the proposed Patriots move to Hartford actually happened...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vorpma Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Again, if it's such a winner and the fans so great why could they not hold the Rams or Raiders, or put a team there over the last twenty years. Some cities have other entertainment, cultural, and sports interests other than the NFL, TV and corporate boxes are great and costly but you still need a fan base. During my visits to SD and LA you see people actually enjoying the outdoors, boating, biking, surfing, hang gliding, and other entertainment value. This is competition to the NFL for the discretionary spending dollar and while I am sure a team would provide a passing fancy, I see a stadium on a fall afternoon three-quarters full yawning at the action AKA 1985 and Eric Dickerson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) I've lived in LA for 20 years, too. Yes, there are still a lot of Raider fans. And yes, USC and UCLA get great turnouts. LA is actually a great sports town. I hate Laker fans but there are a lot of them. Dodger fans are great. Even Kings fans are decent. But I don't see how UCLA or USC fans translate. I'm as big a football fan as anyone, but I don't have much interest at all at paying $150 to go see The Bengals play the Raiders, and I don't think many fans do who are not fans of those teams. Even if they moved here. I would go once to see the stadium and that's about it. Maybe go with free tickets. But I don't see fans here getting an emotional attachment outside of the Raiders, and that's a limited, strange, isolated clan. "...the Raiders, and that's a limited, strange, isolated clan." No argument there! My point regarding the UCLA, and USC games is that there are football fans in LA. I know more than a few people who go to those games who are not alumni. But, more to your point, LA is a great sports town. And, there would be some deep pockets marketing an LA franchise. I remember reading somewhere, quite a while ago, that it is now a league rule that when a team relocates, they are required to change their name. But, I don't remember where I read that, and I'm not sure if it's true. But, if a team did move to LA, I suspect they would change their name, and be heavily marketed. And, even a die-hard Bills fan like yourself, with over 28,000 posts, would start to pay attention to them. You'd (maybe secretly, at first) start to root for them when they were playing anyone but the Bills. Fan bases aren't created overnight. Again, if it's such a winner and the fans so great why could they not hold the Rams or Raiders, or put a team there over the last twenty years. Some cities have other entertainment, cultural, and sports interests other than the NFL, TV and corporate boxes are great and costly but you still need a fan base. During my visits to SD and LA you see people actually enjoying the outdoors, boating, biking, surfing, hang gliding, and other entertainment value. This is competition to the NFL for the discretionary spending dollar and while I am sure a team would provide a passing fancy, I see a stadium on a fall afternoon three-quarters full yawning at the action AKA 1985 and Eric Dickerson. The next time you are in Los Angeles, go to a Dodgers game, or a USC, or UCLA game, or the Clippers, or Lakers, or Kings, and your questions will be answered. Edit: For that matter, go to the NHRA Winter Nationals in Pomona, and see how many people are willing to spend their hard earned dollars to be utterly assaulted by the top-fuel dragsters! Edited December 20, 2014 by Rocky Landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vorpma Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 "...the Raiders, and that's a limited, strange, isolated clan." No argument there! My point regarding the UCLA, and USC games is that there are football fans in LA. I know more than a few people who go to those games who are not alumni. But, more to your point, LA is a great sports town. And, there would be some deep pockets marketing an LA franchise. I remember reading somewhere, quite a while ago, that it is now a league rule that when a team relocates, they are required to change their name. But, I don't remember where I read that, and I'm not sure if it's true. But, if a team did move to LA, I suspect they would change their name, and be heavily marketed. And, even a die-hard Bills fan like yourself, with over 28,000 posts, would start to pay attention to them. You'd (maybe secretly, at first) start to root for them when they were playing anyone but the Bills. Fan bases aren't created overnight.The next time you are in Los Angeles, go to a Dodgers game, or a USC, or UCLA game, or the Clippers, or Lakers, or Kings, and your questions will be answered. Edit: For that matter, go to the NHRA Winter Nationals in Pomona, and see how many people are willing to spend their hard earned dollars to be utterly assaulted by the top-fuel dragsters! OK, great I stand corrected, but still no answer to "Why did LA lose two teams an the city remain void of an NFL franchise for over twenty-years?" I got it regarding the Dodgers, Lakers, UCLA and USC - however they do not compete in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 "...the Raiders, and that's a limited, strange, isolated clan." No argument there! My point regarding the UCLA, and USC games is that there are football fans in LA. I know more than a few people who go to those games who are not alumni. But, more to your point, LA is a great sports town. And, there would be some deep pockets marketing an LA franchise. I remember reading somewhere, quite a while ago, that it is now a league rule that when a team relocates, they are required to change their name. But, I don't remember where I read that, and I'm not sure if it's true. But, if a team did move to LA, I suspect they would change their name, and be heavily marketed. And, even a die-hard Bills fan like yourself, with over 28,000 posts, would start to pay attention to them. You'd (maybe secretly, at first) start to root for them when they were playing anyone but the Bills. Fan bases aren't created overnight.The next time you are in Los Angeles, go to a Dodgers game, or a USC, or UCLA game, or the Clippers, or Lakers, or Kings, and your questions will be answered. Edit: For that matter, go to the NHRA Winter Nationals in Pomona, and see how many people are willing to spend their hard earned dollars to be utterly assaulted by the top-fuel dragsters! Oh, I think they would sell out every game for years just with companies buying up tickets. That I have no doubt about. I also lived in Phoenix for 11 years and was there when the Cardinals moved there. I followed them peripherally and wanted them to win, but I went to very few games. Because I was a Bills fan. I became a huge Phoenix Suns fan there and still am to this day. But that is because Buffalo didn't have an NBA team and I didn't have an NBA team. But I think that is how most fans are. LA is a huge sports bar town because so many fans stick with their NFL teams. I dont think other sports are as much of an emotional attachment as NFL teams. Phoenix has developed a pretty decent fan base for the cardinals over 30 years but that is partly because when they came it was only the Suns. And it took them a long, long time to develop that deep liking for the Cardinals. I think LA would support a team. And there will be a decent fan base. But nothing like any of the good fan bases around the league. And the NFL does not "need" LA one bit. Unless Kroenkee or whatever his name is builds a stadium at Hollywood Park, I don't see a team here for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple haze Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) I have lived in LA the majority of my life and I agree as well. LA has so many transplants that will continue to root for their team. Hell, I wouldn't change teams or even really care about the LA team. If a team is going to make it here they will need be the raiders or immediately come in and compete for championships. This is after all a Lakers town, and despite the teams current sucktitude, the fans expect to win championships. That said, if an AFC team moved that would increase my odds of going to a Bills game and that is not a bad thing, so I am in favor of an LA team for my own selfish reasons. (disclaimer I was ALWAYS very against the Bills coming here permanently) Yep. I'm in SoCal too. There are many football fans here, but most are transplants form other places. If they are native Angeleno's it seems, anecdotally, the Raiders are the team of choice. If a team was put in L.A. and it is starts losing though? Stadium will be empty. Hollywood will make a joke out of them amongst non-football fans across the country. And the state will not foot the bill for a new stadium. There would have to be a massive amount of private money involved, like 80% of it. A team in L.A.? I'll believe it when I see it. How many years have we heard L.A. is going to build a new stadium and get a team..? Edited December 20, 2014 by purple haze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 OK, great I stand corrected, but still no answer to "Why did LA lose two teams an the city remain void of an NFL franchise for over twenty-years?" I got it regarding the Dodgers, Lakers, UCLA and USC - however they do not compete in the NFL. There are certainly a myriad of theories to answer that question. I find the notion that LA is populated by a rare breed of uninterested fan to be intellectually lazy. Certainly, I would agree that "big city" fans tend to be a little more bandwagonish (didn't Fireman Ed quit the Jets last year?). But, I still maintain that LA would embrace a team, and that the reasons are far more political, and economic. Here is a pretty good link that illustrates the political aspect: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/09/the-politics-behind-why-los-angeles-doesnt-have-an-nfl-team/ I think LA would support a team. And there will be a decent fan base. But nothing like any of the good fan bases around the league. And the NFL does not "need" LA one bit. Unless Kroenkee or whatever his name is builds a stadium at Hollywood Park, I don't see a team here for years. I agree with the assessments of many pundits that there is a greater financial push now for a team to move to LA than there has been in the last 20 years. It does seem to be a slow process, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bladiebla Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 It is nice that the Bills name is out of the mix. However, no fan should suffer the pain of having their team moved. My thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vorpma Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 My thoughts exactly. Totally agree, I'm not opposed to LA getting a team and do not dispute the cities economic ability to support it, I would hate to see a true NFL city lose its team to a lukewarm fan base for corporate boxes and TV revenue. When and if that happens, it is a sad day for the fans who have supported this league since it came of age in 1957. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 21, 2014 Author Share Posted December 21, 2014 Is it just me or does the whole "NFL to LA" thing kind of feel like 1 of those "I'll do it tomorrow" chores? Completely agree. Actually the threat of a move to LA is probably more valuable to the NFL than actually having a team in LA at this point. Now I see many have come to the conclusion there won't be a team in LA in 2015 (duh). But if if a team were to move to LA for 2015 where would they play? I have seen no discussion of where the NFL team (Rams, Raiders, Chargers) would play had they moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 Completely agree. Actually the threat of a move to LA is probably more valuable to the NFL than actually having a team in LA at this point. Now I see many have come to the conclusion there won't be a team in LA in 2015 (duh). But if if a team were to move to LA for 2015 where would they play? I have seen no discussion of where the NFL team (Rams, Raiders, Chargers) would play had they moved. The two locations that have been proposed as interim facilities should a team move to LA are the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, and the Pasadena Rose Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) I lived in California in the mid 80s. They were talking about a new stadium in LA back then. The politics are a nightmare, getting a plot of land to build near highways and infrastructure is astronomical in cost plus the green crowd will throw obstacles along the way. Nothing that big will be built anytime soon in LA area and the NFL will not move there with out a stadium or one that is past the planning stage and into the construction phase. SoCal already has a team in the Chargers. I see them leveraging a move to get a new stadium. The Dean is correct. LA is move valuable to the NFL as a "build us a new stadium or we move" gambit. Edited December 21, 2014 by Nitro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 21, 2014 Author Share Posted December 21, 2014 The two locations that have been proposed as interim facilities should a team move to LA are the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, and the Pasadena Rose Bowl. I find it amusing that there is speculation any team would move to play in a dump like the Coliseum without an iron-clad new stadium agreement---and maybe with construction underway, just for good measure. I don't recall having been to the Rose Bowl, so I can't comment on it. I also find it interesting the articles discussing a particular team's potential imminent move (which I have read several of the past month or two) a specific site wasn't mentioned as the one that team would utilize for 2015. If a team was going to move in 2015, wouldn't a site have to be identified further in advance? I'm told Super Bowls need to have a site named years in advance, yet the NFL wants us to believe an entire season of football can happen in another city with less than on-year in which to plan? Do they believe we are that stupid? Clearly some sports journalists are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 I find it amusing that there is speculation any team would move to play in a dump like the Coliseum without an iron-clad new stadium agreement---and maybe with construction underway, just for good measure. I don't recall having been to the Rose Bowl, so I can't comment on it. I also find it interesting the articles discussing a particular team's potential imminent move (which I have read several of the past month or two) a specific site wasn't mentioned as the one that team would utilize for 2015. If a team was going to move in 2015, wouldn't a site have to be identified further in advance? I'm told Super Bowls need to have a site named years in advance, yet the NFL wants us to believe an entire season of football can happen in another city with less than on-year in which to plan? Do they believe we are that stupid? Clearly some sports journalists are. No team would move to LA without a certain stadium deal already done. Then and only then would they play in the Coliseum or Rose Bowl. They have recently discussed using Dodger Stadium as a temporary site. But again, only if there is a certain stadium deal done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 I find it amusing that there is speculation any team would move to play in a dump like the Coliseum without an iron-clad new stadium agreement---and maybe with construction underway, just for good measure. I don't recall having been to the Rose Bowl, so I can't comment on it. I also find it interesting the articles discussing a particular team's potential imminent move (which I have read several of the past month or two) a specific site wasn't mentioned as the one that team would utilize for 2015. If a team was going to move in 2015, wouldn't a site have to be identified further in advance? I'm told Super Bowls need to have a site named years in advance, yet the NFL wants us to believe an entire season of football can happen in another city with less than on-year in which to plan? Do they believe we are that stupid? Clearly some sports journalists are. I believe that 2015 has been taken off the table entirely. It has also been widely reported that no team will be approved without a stadium deal. Here is a link to one of the best articles I have read on the subject: http://www.ibtimes.com/nfl-los-angeles-team-2015-stadium-deal-team-owners-are-relocation-hurdles-1763060 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 No team would move to LA without a certain stadium deal already done. Then and only then would they play in the Coliseum or Rose Bowl. They have recently discussed using Dodger Stadium as a temporary site. But again, only if there is a certain stadium deal done. This is why the NFL "announcing" there will be no team in LA next year is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure the teams he was directing that bit of info to already knew they weren't moving next year.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 21, 2014 Author Share Posted December 21, 2014 I believe that 2015 has been taken off the table entirely. It has also been widely reported that no team will be approved without a stadium deal. Here is a link to one of the best articles I have read on the subject: http://www.ibtimes.c...hurdles-1763060 My guess is the deadline for 2016, and maybe 2017, is approaching quickly, if we are to be realistic. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Horseheads Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 No team would move to LA without a certain stadium deal already done. Then and only then would they play in the Coliseum or Rose Bowl. They have recently discussed using Dodger Stadium as a temporary site. But again, only if there is a certain stadium deal done. I heard Dodger Stadium also, how ironic if the Raiders move there and still have the dirt infield to contend with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 I heard Dodger Stadium also, how ironic if the Raiders move there and still have the dirt infield to contend with! I'm not a big fan of the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl, although they are both iconic venues of some sort. But Dodger Stadium is a really cool place. I love that stadium and I am not a baseball fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 My guess is the deadline for 2016, and maybe 2017, is approaching quickly, if we are to be realistic. No? I can't remember where I read it, but I did read something (conjecture?) about an announcement about a team moving coming after the Super Bowl. The timing of the thing is the biggest hurdle, I think. Either, a team has to announce that they are moving, and play out the next season or two in a city that hates them, or move and play in one of the interim facilities, neither of which are too attractive, although the Rose Bowl is a MUCH nicer facility than the Coliseum. Neither are up to par with an NFL franchise. I would think the latter plan would be the most economically attractive. But, it will be a hardship for whichever team shows up. Of course, that's not the only hurdle, political, or otherwise. With the speed that these issues are resolving, I would say 2017 at the earliest. But, who knows? There may be a "strike while the iron is hot" thing going on, and at some point, the City of LA, or AEG, or Kroenke, or the Raiders, or whoever is going to have to crap or get off the pot. It most certainly is not a dead issue-- AEG did get a contract extension in October-- but, maybe it doesn't happen in the foreseeable future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 I'm not a big fan of the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl, although they are both iconic venues of some sort. But Dodger Stadium is a really cool place. I love that stadium and I am not a baseball fan. It's a fantastic stadium. No idea how it'd be for football but watching a Dodgers game with Scully in your ear is as close to baseball nirvana you can get. And I'm not even a Dodger fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 21, 2014 Author Share Posted December 21, 2014 It's a fantastic stadium. No idea how it'd be for football but watching a Dodgers game with Scully in your ear is as close to baseball nirvana you can get. And I'm not even a Dodger fan. I know I'm supposed to like Scully. But as a research guy, I just can't get past his babbling something like "Billy Jo is batting .258 against left handers over 6'3" on Thursdays when the temperature is over 80 degrees" as if it is something insightful. Sometime the best think to say is NOTHING. (Yes, I've become an old cranky man.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 I know I'm supposed to like Scully. But as a research guy, I just can't get past his babbling something like "Billy Jo is batting .258 against left handers over 6'3" on Thursdays when the temperature is over 80 degrees" as if it is something insightful. Sometime the best think to say is NOTHING. (Yes, I've become an old cranky man.) you have but its part of your charm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 I know I'm supposed to like Scully. But as a research guy, I just can't get past his babbling something like "Billy Jo is batting .258 against left handers over 6'3" on Thursdays when the temperature is over 80 degrees" as if it is something insightful. Sometime the best think to say is NOTHING. (Yes, I've become an old cranky man.) Yes, you have become a cranky old man. Vin Scully (outside of RJ of course) may be the best announcer of any sport of all time. A lot of people think so. He's incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 21, 2014 Author Share Posted December 21, 2014 Yes, you have become a cranky old man. Vin Scully (outside of RJ of course) may be the best announcer of any sport of all time. A lot of people think so. He's incredible. Yes, I know a lot of people think so. I just can't take the fake stats. I'll take John Miller any day of the week. (And yes, he should shut the hell up once in a while, too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 @RapSheet #Raiders will announce a 1-year extension of their lease in Oakland, source tells me. Not a surprise, their lease runs out after the season #Raiders owner Mark Davis worked hard to rebuild relationships with other owners after his father’s passing. Now closely aligned with league When #Raiders owner Mark Davis took over, he handled his father’s financial obligation from his legal battles — in the tens of millions 1 reason the league not opposed to having the #Raiders in Los Angeles? Because of how Mark Davis has rebuilt those relationships with owners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts