dpberr Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 I think everyone will be in L.A. and no one will be happy. I agree with another poster that demographics and the times have changed. The league should contract by two teams at least. Free agency and the decision to expand the league are two mortal flaws of the NFL business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) I think everyone will be in L.A. and no one will be happy. I agree with another poster that demographics and the times have changed. The league should contract by two teams at least. Free agency and the decision to expand the league are two mortal flaws of the NFL business. The popularity of the NFL has grown exponentially since the era of free agency began. Edited December 26, 2015 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 They have never struggled to sell tickets to fans. They just can't get the corporate suites to help fund a new stadium. Not enough corporations headquartered there. It's a city of over 3 million people...I'm sure there are SOME companies there... No matter, they'll go from a city of 3+ million to a city of 10+ million and will sell fewer tickets...LA is the worst football market in the US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted December 26, 2015 Author Share Posted December 26, 2015 It's a city of over 3 million people...I'm sure there are SOME companies there... No matter, they'll go from a city of 3+ million to a city of 10+ million and will sell fewer tickets...LA is the worst football market in the US there are some, but so many more in LA. And that's what they care about... Not individual ticket sales. They are gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 I think the Rams would be happy to share stadium with Raiders or Chargers like Giants share with Jets. They own the stadium, the surrounding properties which they are developing and the AFC team brings in customers during weeks the Rams are not playing and only get a share of concessions having to use Rams' dedicated suppliers. Kroenke has no reason to share anything. Dude has so much money his money has money. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25377208/report-nfl-likely-to-charge-500m-600m-relocation-fee-for-move-to-la Report: NFL's relocation fee for move to LA will likely be $500M-$600M It would make more sense to build a new stadium in present city It would make more sense for who? The team? Says who? An owner can get $200mm in a new stadium and incentives by moving anywhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Kroenke has no reason to share anything. Dude has so much money his money has money. It would make more sense for who? The team? Says who? An owner can get $200mm in a new stadium and incentives by moving anywhere... He doesn't? - tell him. Kroenke has already PROPOSED a "partnership" (more of a lord-serf relationship) for Chargers or Raiders probably as part of effort to get more votes since he needs 24 for approved move. http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2015/12/02/Stan-Kroenke-Rams-willing-to-share-LA-stadium-with-San-Diego-Chargers-Oakland-Raiders/5351449094092/ The Rams proposed a sort a partnership with either the San Diego Chargers or Oakland Raiders in Inglewood, Calif., the San Diego Union-Tribune reported Wednesday. According to the report, the second team would share construction costs but realize only game-day revenue. The second team would not be involved in the surrounding development or stadium design. NFL Network's Albert Breer reported that the Rams' partnership proposal was sent to the league's Committee on Los Angeles, not the teams, and was made without specifying a team as a partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25377208/report-nfl-likely-to-charge-500m-600m-relocation-fee-for-move-to-la Report: NFL's relocation fee for move to LA will likely be $500M-$600M It would make more sense to build a new stadium in present city I'm trying to understand why the league would charge a fee for a franchise to relocate. What is the fee for? Is it a penalty for moving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Thank goodness for the Pegulas. Why? I keep reading here how the Pegulas don't have a clue. I'm trying to understand why the league would charge a fee for a franchise to relocate. What is the fee for? Is it a penalty for moving? Because they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 I'm trying to understand why the league would charge a fee for a franchise to relocate. What is the fee for? Is it a penalty for moving? The argument is that it is costing the NFL an expansion opportunity and the resulting expansion fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 I've lived in San Diego for over 6 years. There's no fan support here, the stadium is absolute trash, and the tailgating is boring as hell. Even when they're good no one cares Well, LA should offer more of the same then. Get a new stadium, but it seems when people have great weather and a ton of options, professional football isn't the #1 priority. Add in a lot of transplants with no local team history and the teams that threatened LA but got new stadiums in loyal settings probably fare much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 We are lucky this wasn't us. I feel very badly for the Chargers fans who helped build the NFL. The NFL itself does not and if any company continues to treat their best customers like this, it is simply a matter of time before it takes major hits. You may not believe it now but you'll see. In my assessment the only teams that should be allowed to move without bending over backwards in an effort to keep them home are: Jax Titans Panthers Cards And 3 of them I even wonder about. I'm not saying they should be forced to move, just that their roots aren't deep and they would be the least disruptive. Other teams with long histories but mostly crappy fans include: NE*. This is absolutely true btw Mia Cin? Atl.....worst sports city ever.....worse than LA Baltimore should have been forced to be the Colts upon their return but moving a team from Jim Brown's city in the first place, even though they are back......stupid. The teams are not the Seattle Pilots, Cleveland Barons or California Golden Seals. They mean something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple haze Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 (edited) He doesn't? - tell him. Kroenke has already PROPOSED a "partnership" (more of a lord-serf relationship) for Chargers or Raiders probably as part of effort to get more votes since he needs 24 for approved move. http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2015/12/02/Stan-Kroenke-Rams-willing-to-share-LA-stadium-with-San-Diego-Chargers-Oakland-Raiders/5351449094092/ He could always pull an Al Davis and take the league to court as he moves his team anyway. He already has the land, political approval and finances (without public money being involved). And the Raiders/Chargers Carson project, if it requires public money, which I believe it does, will probably not happen. California providing public money for stadiums is fairly unlikely, even though many stadiums in California need to be either demolished or majorly refurbished: L.A. Coliseum, Qualcomm, Oakland Coliseum, Oracle Arena and the Rose Bowl come to mind. I don't think the NFL wants the precedent of Kroenke paying for his own stadium. Most owners won't want to do that if they move. And if Kroenke does it will be a reference point for other cities not feeling like its necessary to help an owner/NFL to do it. Edited December 27, 2015 by purple haze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 The argument is that it is costing the NFL an expansion opportunity and the resulting expansion fee. Why doesn't the league expand in the city that the franchise just left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mellaman101 Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Having the NFL in San Diego is the same as Jacksonville having a team. NOBODY CARES! WORST NFL stadium in the league and college teams flat out refuse to play there because of the conditions. I was stationed out there and I have been to games where there was not more than 30000 in the seats with the entire upper bowl tarp with Geico advertisements. Horrible place to have a football experience and the fans/people DO NOT CARE and the players DO NOT CARE to stay there Cities that deserve a NFL team.... 1. San Antonio 2. Portland 3. Salt Lake City 4. Louisville 5. Omaha 6. Austin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 You would think a west coast Meadowlands style stadium in la will make a killing. Would be up there with Jerry dome in high end events Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 (edited) He doesn't? - tell him. Kroenke has already PROPOSED a "partnership" (more of a lord-serf relationship) for Chargers or Raiders probably as part of effort to get more votes since he needs 24 for approved move. http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2015/12/02/Stan-Kroenke-Rams-willing-to-share-LA-stadium-with-San-Diego-Chargers-Oakland-Raiders/5351449094092/ It is posturing. That or he has found a very clever way to make a lot of money off of the team; meaning since he already owns land it will be him "buying the land" and the other team paying handsomely to use it and pitch in to the stadium cost. I'm trying to understand why the league would charge a fee for a franchise to relocate. What is the fee for? Is it a penalty for moving? It is a penalty for teams leaving their city; a penalty which the NFL can collect handsomely. It also pays for all the signage and business envelopes the league has preaddress printed for each team currently in the league. If they change logos it is my understanding that the fee goes up $100,000. But, as already said - it is a method of which the NFL has to compete to against itself for a new team. However, I don't know if I agree with their thought since it would be easier to replace a team in St Louis than build a team in LA. A team owner can work out deals with a city much easier than the league. The league is seen as pure evil. The argument is that it is costing the NFL an expansion opportunity and the resulting expansion fee. see above. I just can't see how they think this way. Having the NFL in San Diego is the same as Jacksonville having a team. NOBODY CARES! WORST NFL stadium in the league and college teams flat out refuse to play there because of the conditions. I was stationed out there and I have been to games where there was not more than 30000 in the seats with the entire upper bowl tarp with Geico advertisements. Horrible place to have a football experience and the fans/people DO NOT CARE and the players DO NOT CARE to stay there Cities that deserve a NFL team.... 1. San Antonio 2. Portland 3. Salt Lake City 4. Louisville 5. Omaha 6. Austin I would change that up a little bit. Oklahoma City should be on that list before another Texas team or Portland. Omaha or Lincoln deserve to be on the list. Edited December 27, 2015 by Boyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 The argument is that it is costing the NFL an expansion opportunity and the resulting expansion fee. The league cannot pull in enough quailty NFL players now. Expansion most likely Would be two teams. Knowing LA an expansion team would be gone in three years. In fact whoever does move there better win off the bat. The Rams moved out in part because they sucked at the time And it's a tough market to find any loyalty. EX: Old Jack Nicholson is MIA a lot at Lakers games now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOKIE Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 It is posturing. That or he has found a very clever way to make a lot of money off of the team; meaning since he already owns land it will be him "buying the land" and the other team paying handsomely to use it and pitch in to the stadium cost. It is a penalty for teams leaving their city; a penalty which the NFL can collect handsomely. It also pays for all the signage and business envelopes the league has preaddress printed for each team currently in the league. If they change logos it is my understanding that the fee goes up $100,000. But, as already said - it is a method of which the NFL has to compete to against itself for a new team. However, I don't know if I agree with their thought since it would be easier to replace a team in St Louis than build a team in LA. A team owner can work out deals with a city much easier than the league. The league is seen as pure evil. see above. I just can't see how they think this way. I would change that up a little bit. Oklahoma City should be on that list before another Texas team or Portland. Omaha or Lincoln deserve to be on the list. The Bolts would be a beautiful fit here in Oklahoma! Thunder and Lightning! Similar colors and everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John in Jax Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Having the NFL in San Diego is the same as Jacksonville having a team. NOBODY CARES! WORST NFL stadium in the league and college teams flat out refuse to play there because of the conditions. I was stationed out there and I have been to games where there was not more than 30000 in the seats with the entire upper bowl tarp with Geico advertisements. Horrible place to have a football experience and the fans/people DO NOT CARE and the players DO NOT CARE to stay there Cities that deserve a NFL team.... 1. San Antonio 2. Portland 3. Salt Lake City 4. Louisville 5. Omaha 6. Austin You know what they say, "Opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one." LOL I have been living in Jacksonville for about 20 years now.....I actually moved here when they just acquired the franchise. And I'd have to say that your assessment of the situation is grossly exaggerated. I would agree that the fan base is not as rabid as some other franchises, and of course franchises who have winning teams and/or are located in frozen hellholes are going to have more support, because people love a winner, and people in cold climates are somewhat limited to activities in the fall/winter. Lol And your opinion about the stadium is way off base. When is the last time you were there? They have the largest/best scoreboard/video screen IN THE WORLD. They have a pool in one end of the stadium. The experience in and around the stadium is actually pretty awesome, and offers WAY more than say, an antiquated Ralph Wilson stadium. And they have not had a game blacked out in a few years, so the "less than 30,000 people in the seats" crack is way off base. Also, have you ever heard of the annual Florida vs. Georgia game...the "World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party?" Yeah, those fans hate coming here, that's why the RV lot starts filling up on Tuesday before the game, and there are tens of thousands of fans who come to Jax for that weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Having the NFL in San Diego is the same as Jacksonville having a team. NOBODY CARES! WORST NFL stadium in the league and college teams flat out refuse to play there because of the conditions. I was stationed out there and I have been to games where there was not more than 30000 in the seats with the entire upper bowl tarp with Geico advertisements. Horrible place to have a football experience and the fans/people DO NOT CARE and the players DO NOT CARE to stay there Cities that deserve a NFL team.... 1. San Antonio 2. Portland 3. Salt Lake City 4. Louisville 5. Omaha 6. Austin If Omaha ever got an NFL team, they need to sign Peyton Manning to a single game contract so he can call out that first play from the line of scrimmage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts