May Day 10 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Sal C was speculating that Pegula wouldnt stop the Bills from switching to the AFC North and he says it will happen... just a matter of when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Praise on the way in and ridicule on the way out. The cycle is now complete. St. Louis politicians blast NFL, Rams after Los Angeles relocation lol @ boomer esiason texting throughout his partner's rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Don't forget a team has now left LA 3x in the past. I'm not convinced that 2 teams in LA will be a smashing success long term Yes but hardly consider Chargers leaving after one year significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS 56 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 It still sucks for their fans even though the franchise originated in LA. Actually they initially were the Cleveland Rams.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) lol @ boomer esiason texting throughout his partner's rant. That was good. He didn't exactly look like he wanted to be there. Edited January 13, 2016 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Typical lazy hot takes at TBD. Pegula, as an NFl owner, wants what they all want...more money. It's the reason he bought the team, Kroenke used his hopeless demand for public money for upgrades in STL (and their subsequent denial) as an excuse to justify his move to LA, where he will build a 1.7 billion dollar stadium. Knocking him for asking for public money is idiotic. How does anyone not get this? To lure the Rams to St Louis they needed to guarentee stadium would be one of the top stadiums and this was before all of the recent high price stadiums made Rams stadium one of the low end stadiums. I thought it was an idiot agreement but it is something cities without NFL teams do to LURE other teams to their city - see how Baltimore LURED Browns from Cleveland. Once a wife breaks up a marriage to be new trophey wife she needs to expect some time in future same thing would happen to her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) Actually they initially were the Cleveland Rams.... Umm. That post was in reference to the Chargers as an original AFL franchise in LA. Edited January 13, 2016 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The NFL is delusional about LA! The Rams left, the Raiders left, and now 30 years later they somehow think there's a great demand for a team, despite the huge demographic changes that have occurred there. The Hollywood types mostly don't care, the shrinking middle class can't afford it, and the rest would rather watch bull fighting and soccer. Fact: 2015 - 1995 = 20 years and there biggest concern is sponsorships which LA has plenty of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 @JimTrotter_NFL Chargers believe the framework presented to them to join the Rams in LA has doable components & would allow them to move in 2016, per source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Chargers are going to LA this year. SD not really on the table. They just wanted to share a stadium with raiders in Carson, not be a "tenant" in Inglewood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Nails Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Not sure if covered in the 17 pages I didn't read. However, Rams move means three West Coast games for the Bills this year. Great for me as a Californian, not so much for the team having to travel. It would be nice for the schedule gods to put two back to back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Questions: 1 - How do owners make money by getting a new stadium? Owners have to pay something towards the cost of the stadium. I don't see how the cost of relocating a team equals a huge cash-in? 2 - Why are the Rams moving and not the chargers and Raiders? Why did the Rams get that Stadium instead of having 2 teams voted to go there? Did each team have their own separate stadium plans? I thought the idea was always two teams to go there and share a stadium. I'm sorry, I just don't get the logistics but find the whole thing interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 . "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Not sure if covered in the 17 pages I didn't read. However, Rams move means three West Coast games for the Bills this year. Great for me as a Californian, not so much for the team having to travel. It would be nice for the schedule gods to put two back to back. 5 hour flight on wide body chartered aircraft? Not a really tough way to travel. I think pro athletes in their 20s and great shape should be ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I have huge objection to there being two teams in LA. They couldn't do it 20 years ago, and I don't think it is doable or right either. Give them one team and roll with it. Keep it just the Lambs in Inglewood, and Whale's vagina can keep their Lightning bolts. The Raiders can move to St. Louis or San Antonio or Mordor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Questions: 1 - How do owners make money by getting a new stadium? Owners have to pay something towards the cost of the stadium. I don't see how the cost of relocating a team equals a huge cash-in? 2 - Why are the Rams moving and not the chargers and Raiders? Why did the Rams get that Stadium instead of having 2 teams voted to go there? Did each team have their own separate stadium plans? I thought the idea was always two teams to go there and share a stadium. I'm sorry, I just don't get the logistics but find the whole thing interesting. I don't really know, except as we've been hearing for years, luxury boxes, suites..., all the revenue generated from those go to the owner - 100%, no split with the visiting team like the regular seats sold. Suites in LA will go for a lot more than in St. Louis. Lot of $$$$$$. And I think the team's value increases tremendously. Imagine if the Bills, sold for 1.4B, moved to LA, probably worth $3B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I don't really know, except as we've been hearing for years, luxury boxes, suites..., all the revenue generated from those go to the owner - 100%, no split with the visiting team like the regular seats sold. Suites in LA will go for a lot more than in St. Louis. Lot of $$$$$$. And I think the team's value increases tremendously. Imagine if the Bills, sold for 1.4B, moved to LA, probably worth $3B. pretty soon there will be nothing but luxury suites I have huge objection to there being two teams in LA. They couldn't do it 20 years ago, and I don't think it is doable or right either. Give them one team and roll with it. Keep it just the Lambs in Inglewood, and Whale's vagina can keep their Lightning bolts. The Raiders can move to St. Louis or San Antonio or Mordor. agreed on one team to LA. could you imagine the ST Raiders Send them to Wyoming Sal C was speculating that Pegula wouldnt stop the Bills from switching to the AFC North and he says it will happen... just a matter of when. Who moves out if we move in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Wilson wanted to keep his current division teams. Buffalo already had Pittsburgh and Cleveland rivalry. Buffalo vs Pittsburgh is probably the most heated rivalry for non-division and non within state rivalries in the league. They've played 5 times in 15 years (all losses). There is really no Bills/Steelers rivalry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Its all circumstantial now and there is little "sticking" to any rivalry other than ancient history. If Buffalo was in the AFC North and were a 10-11 win team for a few years as was Pittsburgh, there would be a significant rivalry. I feel like the Cleveland/Pittsburgh/Cincy rivalries could be intensified due to what we have in common culturally with those cities as well as proximity for fans to travel. Honestly, Miami might as well be on Mars. The Jets and New England never really feels or felt like a rivalry... at least on their end. I would argue that New England cares more about Baltimore and considers the Colts and Broncos as much more of a rivalry than anyone in the division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 14, 2016 Author Share Posted January 14, 2016 @JoeBuscaglia Regarding L.A., #Bills fans know it could have been them. I took a video look back at why the team is here to stay http://www.wkbw.com/sports/bills/la-drama-bills-fans-know-it-couldve-been-them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts