PDA

View Full Version : Developer targeting Vikings, six others for L.A. stadium


HEAV
10-24-2009, 06:56 PM
By JACOB ADELMAN , Associated Press

LOS ANGELES - The developer working to bring the NFL back to the Los Angeles area with a sleek, new 75,000-seat stadium has a 600-acre site to build the proposed venue and is close to having the legal go-ahead to break ground.

Now all that's needed is a team.

Majestic Realty Co. plans to build the $800 million stadium in the city of Industry — about 15 miles east of Los Angeles — and it's casting a wide net in its search.

Majestic named seven teams it believes are ready for a new home.

The Buffalo Bills, the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Minnesota Vikings, the St. Louis Rams, the San Diego Chargers, the Oakland Raiders and the San Francisco 49ers are on developer's list of possible targets.

The teams are in stadiums that are either too small or can't be updated to cash in on the box seats, naming rights and other revenue sources that an NFL club needs to thrive, Majestic managing partner John Semcken said on Thursday, a day after the California Senate approved an environmental exemption bill allowing the stadium's construction.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office didn't immediately respond to an inquiry on whether he planned to sign the bill, which would nullify a lawsuit over the project's environmental impact report by citizens in the neighboring city of Walnut.

Majestic helped develop downtown Los Angeles' Staples Center, home of several sports franchises, including the NBA's Lakers and Clippers and the NHL's Kings.

Semcken said the company plans to begin approaching teams after the Super Bowl in February and could have a team playing at the Rose Bowl starting from nest season until 2013, when the company hoped to have the new stadium built.

The NFL is aware of Wednesday's Senate vote and other potential stadium developments in the Los Angeles area, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said. He declined to comment on specific sites or teams that might move to the region.

Marc Ganis, president of Chicago-based consultancy SportsCorp, said persuading a team to move and getting the NFL's approval would be Majestic's greatest obstacle yet.

"Having the legislation and the environmental impact statement is lovely and it's a good thing," he said. "But without having the team in hand, it's just a very nice piece of paper to put up on your wall."

The Jaguars and the Bills are in areas too sparsely populated to make financing a new stadium feasible, Semcken said. The Jaguars' TV market ranks 29th among the NFL's 32 teams, while the Bills' is 31st, according to Nielsen Media Research Inc.

The Jaguars have struggled for years to fill Jacksonville Municipal Stadium and are in danger of having all their games blacked out on local TV this season. The Bills, meanwhile, have been playing some home games in Toronto in an effort to expand their market.

Jaguars majority owner Wayne Weaver and Bills owner Ralph Wilson have steadfastly dismissed any suggestion that they will sell or move their teams.

Other teams would have trouble raising the cash for a new stadium, Semcken said.

Mark Fabiani, who has been overseeing the Chargers' seven-year struggle to have 42-year-old Qualcomm Stadium replaced with a newer venue, said it's harder to finance a stadium in San Diego than Los Angeles because of the smaller market.

He said the Chargers are concentrating on keeping the team in San Diego, but noted that Majestic chairman and chief executive Ed Roski has a long-standing friendship with Chargers owner Alex Spanos and that the team's current lease enables it to move for a fee.

He said the team views a new venue as a necessity and wouldn't wait indefinitely for one to be built in San Diego.

"I can't predict what would happen if he called us in a year or six months," Fabiani said, referring to Roski.

The 49ers' could fall off Majestic's list of targets if residents of the San Francisco Bay Area city of Santa Clara vote to authorize nearly $80 million in public funds for the 75,000-seat venue for the team.

49ers spokeswoman Lisa Lang said managers are striving to keep the team in the area and that she expects Santa Clara voters to approve the $937 million stadium when they cast ballots within the year.

She also said planners were seeking approval to have two NFL teams play at the new stadium and that 49ers representatives have discussed sharing the venue with the Raiders, also on Majestic's list.

The Raiders, who moved to Oakland after playing in Los Angeles from 1982 to 1994, are free to leave Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum when their lease expires next year.

Rounding off the list are the Vikings, whose lease at the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome runs out after the 2011 season, and the Rams, whose lease allows them to move as early as 2014 if the Edward Jones Dome is not deemed among the top quarter of all NFL stadiums.

Messages left with the Rams and Raiders were not immediately returned.

The Vikings are asking state legislators to issue at least $215 million in bonds to build a stadium that would keep the team in the Twin Cities, team spokesman Lester Bagley said.

Hogan11
10-24-2009, 07:01 PM
No N.O. Saints on that list......wonder why that is.

HEAV
10-24-2009, 07:08 PM
I can see the Jag's moving and the Raiders can move anytime. I just can't see the Bills,Vikes, 49ers or Chuggers move.

But to me Rams should be back in L.A.

Hogan11
10-24-2009, 07:12 PM
I can see the Jag's moving and the Raiders can move anytime. I just can't see the Bills,Vikes, 49ers or Chuggers move.

But to me Rams should be back in L.A.

The Chargers could go "back home"....I'd hate to see that though because I do like going to San Diego on vacation.

HEAV
10-24-2009, 07:18 PM
I'm just thinking more about the NFC West and how in the hell is St.Louis out west... St. Louis is a baseball town and will only support the Cards.

HAT
10-24-2009, 07:22 PM
I can see the Jag's moving and the Raiders can move anytime. I just can't see the Bills,Vikes, 49ers or Chuggers move.

But to me Rams should be back in L.A.

I'm really hoping for it to be the Rams.....The site is probably closer to Anaheim Stadium than the Coliseum anyway and The Rams have history in both LA & OC.

I wouldn't mind the Raiders so much b/c it would mean being able to see Denver twice a year again with no travel.

STL and the existing Cali teams have to be the front runners becasue anyone else would involve some sort of re-alignment.

Borks147
10-24-2009, 07:31 PM
STL and the existing Cali teams have to be the front runners becasue anyone else would involve some sort of re-alignment.

nah - how long were the cardinals in the NFC east? It'll be sub-optimal, but doable.

frerottenextelway
10-24-2009, 07:43 PM
Hope it's not Jacksonville. America's Team should stay in Florida imo.

Circle Orange
10-24-2009, 08:03 PM
It's hard to understand the NFL's obsession with LA. Granted, it's a big market but two teams have already been there (Rams, Raiders) and the support didn't last. The Lakers have a huge following, there are too many things to do and sporting events to follow. And the Vikings playing in LA is absurd:

LA Vikings (WEIRD. They're a northern cold weather team!)
LA Jaguars (LAME. Sounds too stupid to process.)
LA Bills (CRACK. Even dumber than Vikings. They actually play in cold weather.)
LA Chargers (WEAK. This might work, but the Diegoans are still waitin' for a bowl)
LA 49ERS (POINTLESS. They're the Bay team, for crying out loud. Not inland!)

doesn't work, any way you slice it.

Hogan11
10-24-2009, 08:06 PM
It's hard to understand the NFL's obsession with LA. Granted, it's a big market but two teams have already been there (Rams, Raiders) and the support didn't last.

If I recall correctly, both the Rams and Raiders leaving L.A. had virtually nothing to do with fan support.

Circle Orange
10-24-2009, 08:09 PM
I'll check into that, not sure. I know the Raiders had a good run while in LA, although Oakland was still considered their main fan base. Howie Long actually said he hated the neigborhood around the Coliseum, it was terrible.

Not sure if the Rams deal had to do with a lease or ownership transferral.

tsiguy96
10-24-2009, 08:10 PM
No N.O. Saints on that list......wonder why that is.

they just got a 20 year extension in NO i think.

Rohirrim
10-24-2009, 08:10 PM
Move the Rams back to LA and the Cards back to St. Louis. ;D

UberBroncoMan
10-24-2009, 08:10 PM
49er's moving would be ****ing retarded.

Vikings... how the **** are they going to shuffle up the divisions to make way for this ****.

Chargers... makes sense.

Rams... makes THE MOST SENSE. Give 2 Cali teams in the AFC and NFC + the Rams are already in the NFC WEST so if anything it would make travel even EASIER within the division.

Also the Rams have been in Los Angeles before.

The only reason the dev wants the Vikings is because the team is actually competitive and not in a **** hole mess like the Rams currently are.

Hogan11
10-24-2009, 08:11 PM
they just got a 20 year extension in NO i think.

I hope so.....it's one of the few away cities I like seeing games in

Bronx33
10-24-2009, 08:12 PM
If I recall correctly, both the Rams and Raiders leaving L.A. had virtually nothing to do with fan support.


Heres why the rams left LA.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ix081prSiNc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ix081prSiNc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Hogan11
10-24-2009, 08:13 PM
I'll check into that, not sure. I know the Raiders had a good run while in LA, although Oakland was still considered their main fan base. Howie Long actually said he hated the neigborhood around the Coliseum, it was terrible.

Not sure if the Rams deal had to do with a lease or ownership transferral.

I thought both moves had to do with $$$ more than anything else, but I could be wrong....Georgia F wasn't very far removed from evil Al when it came to NFL team ownership.

tsiguy96
10-24-2009, 08:13 PM
chargers, oakland or rams are best bets.

McDman
10-24-2009, 08:44 PM
It'd be a shame if the Vikings or Bills left their homes. Who cares about the others.

tsiguy96
10-24-2009, 08:45 PM
It'd be a shame if the Vikings or Bills left their homes. Who cares about the others.

are the vikings more popular than the twins or no?

maher_tyler
10-24-2009, 09:04 PM
The only teams i see moving is Jax and Buffalo..maybe the Rams! The Vikings are in the works for a new stadium...i'd be disappointed to see them leave Minn. actually!

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/MinnesotaVikings/newindex.htm

Killericon
10-24-2009, 09:09 PM
It's gonna be Jacksonville.

want2bAbronco2
10-24-2009, 09:16 PM
Ram it! that is soooo funny

McDman
10-24-2009, 09:24 PM
are the vikings more popular than the twins or no?

Yeah, pretty much. I don't live there, but my family lives there and in North Dakota and the majority of them and their friends are hardcore Vikings fans.

The Twins have grown in popularity and just got an awesome new stadium, but overall I think the Vikings own that town.

Bronco Warrior
10-24-2009, 09:42 PM
The MetroDome is being torn down this year and Ziggy Wolf is buiding them another one last I checked ....so why is the Vikings on the list? The Vikings fans love and support them! 49'ers same thing, and they are getting a new stadium soon also! Buffalo..Hell No! They will never leave!

Saying SanDiego is too small a market is stupid to say the least. San diego County and surrounding area has 11 million people and is one of the densest areas in Cali..My GF is from Chula vista and an Ex Charger Girl! The SD problem is they sucked for so lomng and there is a lot of apathy for the team. They will move because the City of SD won't approve a new stadium site or a Bond because they can't sell tickets to the one they have. They will be moving to LA asap! They hired a marketing research firm last year to assess the fanbase to get fans for the Chargers.

McDman
10-24-2009, 10:00 PM
The MetroDome is being torn down this year and Ziggy Wolf is buiding them another one last I checked ....so why is the Vikings on the list? The Vikings fans love and support them! 49'ers same thing, and they are getting a new stadium soon also! Buffalo..Hell No! They will never leave!

Saying SanDiego is too small a market is stupid to say the least. San diego County and surrounding area has 11 million people and is one of the densest areas in Cali..My GF is from Chula vista and an Ex Charger Girl! The SD problem is they sucked for so lomng and there is a lot of apathy for the team. They will move because the City of SD won't approve a new stadium site or a Bond because they can't sell tickets to the one they have. They will be moving to LA asap! They hired a marketing research firm last year to assess the fanbase to get fans for the Chargers.

Haha, I think you've mentioned your gf is a Charger girl in about ten threads!

I wouldn't be admitting that if it were me, I'd be embarrassed.

Jason in LA
10-24-2009, 10:31 PM
It's hard to understand the NFL's obsession with LA. Granted, it's a big market but two teams have already been there (Rams, Raiders) and the support didn't last. The Lakers have a huge following, there are too many things to do and sporting events to follow. And the Vikings playing in LA is absurd:

LA Vikings (WEIRD. They're a northern cold weather team!)
LA Jaguars (LAME. Sounds too stupid to process.)
LA Bills (CRACK. Even dumber than Vikings. They actually play in cold weather.)
LA Chargers (WEAK. This might work, but the Diegoans are still waitin' for a bowl)
LA 49ERS (POINTLESS. They're the Bay team, for crying out loud. Not inland!)

doesn't work, any way you slice it.

You answered it yourself. It's a big market.

I wouldn't put the Raiders or Rams moving on LA fans. It was bad ownership in both cases. Moving the Rams to Anaheim was the first mistake, and then driving them into the ground for a number of years caused attendance to go way down. And the Raiders had a deal at Hollywood Park for a brand new stadium on the table. Actually, it had already been agreed on but when Al Davis went to sign the papers he tried to change the deal and then just walked away from it.

There are like 13 million people in LA. Having the Lakers and other teams isn't going to hurt attendance. I remember one day the Dodgers, UCLA and USC football, and the Kings all played on the same day. The total attendance was like 220,000 for that day. There is more than enough people in LA to support all those teams.

I'd say the mistake here is putting the team way out in the City of Industry. It just doesn't seem smart.

broncocalijohn
10-24-2009, 11:12 PM
If I recall correctly, both the Rams and Raiders leaving L.A. had virtually nothing to do with fan support.

We had little support for the Rams when they left. Granted, there were years with TJ Rubley at Qb and record of 3-13 and 6-10, but blame that dead witch to beat this team down so it would be an easy move. LA PAMS had a huge history for many years. Now that she is dead, a move back might have open arms.

broncocalijohn
10-24-2009, 11:21 PM
Haha, I think you've mentioned your gf is a Charger girl in about ten threads!

I wouldn't be admitting that if it were me, I'd be embarrassed.

Dude, but she is totally going to her Charger Cheerleading 25 year Reunion. She would have been their coordinator after she "retired" but the Ratt Video, MVT thing totally took off and she went with her heart.

Hogan11
10-25-2009, 12:28 AM
We had little support for the Rams when they left. Granted, there were years with TJ Rubley at Qb and record of 3-13 and 6-10, but blame that dead witch to beat this team down so it would be an easy move. LA PAMS had a huge history for many years. Now that she is dead, a move back might have open arms.

I did blame her, saying she wasn't that far removed from Crazy Al.

I can't see the Rams leaving St. Louis though, isn't that dome there fairly new?

Bronco Bob
10-25-2009, 01:04 AM
Move the Rams back to LA and the Cards back to St. Louis. ;D

The Cards just recently got a beautiful new stadium in Glendale.
Why would they want to go back to St Louis?

worm
10-25-2009, 01:07 AM
No N.O. Saints on that list......wonder why that is.

Season ticket waiting list is over 50K for the Saints right now. They are doing well. After Katrina, they have become more intertwined and synonymous with the City they play in then any other team in the league.

McDman
10-25-2009, 08:36 AM
Dude, but she is totally going to her Charger Cheerleading 25 year Reunion. She would have been their coordinator after she "retired" but the Ratt Video, MVT thing totally took off and she went with her heart.

Hahahahaha

Jason in LA
10-25-2009, 08:55 AM
Season ticket waiting list is over 50K for the Saints right now. They are doing well. After Katrina, they have become more intertwined and synonymous with the City they play in then any other team in the league.

They've gotten a ton of support since Katrina, and becoming a good team helps a lot too, but how long will that support last? If they feel that this is just short term support, then they might as well move while there is an opportunity.

Jason in LA
10-25-2009, 09:01 AM
I'll check into that, not sure. I know the Raiders had a good run while in LA, although Oakland was still considered their main fan base. Howie Long actually said he hated the neigborhood around the Coliseum, it was terrible.

Not sure if the Rams deal had to do with a lease or ownership transferral.

People always say that the area around the Coliseum was a problem, but it really wasn't. The only team to ever have serious problems there was the Raiders. USC doesn't have problems. The Clippers didn't have problems. There are a ton of events at the Coliseum without any problems. The problem was Raider fans.

And what would Howie Long having a problem with the area have to do with anything, it's not like he had to live there, or park his car away from the stadium.

Bronco Boy
10-25-2009, 09:03 AM
The MetroDome is being torn down this year and Ziggy Wolf is buiding them another one last I checked ....so why is the Vikings on the list? The Vikings fans love and support them! 49'ers same thing, and they are getting a new stadium soon also! Buffalo..Hell No! They will never leave!



This is not true at all, where did you get this information? The Metrodome will be around for awhile as the legislature is dead sent against building another new stadium after they just built one for the Gophers and one for the Twins. I could easily see the Vikings going to LA. And for the poster that said the LA Vikings wouldn't work because it sounds silly, where do you think the Lakers got their name?

Jason in LA
10-25-2009, 09:13 AM
I thought both moves had to do with $$$ more than anything else, but I could be wrong....Georgia F wasn't very far removed from evil Al when it came to NFL team ownership.

One problem with the Raiders was the Coliseum. Not the neighborhood, but the stadium. It held 100,000 people, meaning it was extremely had to sell out. They rarely sold games out, even if they had a good crowd. So when they renovated the stadium they had to talk out about 10,000 seats and that still didn't work.

Another problem was that there were no luxury boxes. It just wasn't a good stadium for an NFL team.

Al had a great deal for a stadium in Hollywood Park, but on the day that he was supposed to sign the deal he tried to make changes. When City officials said no he just walked away.

Cito Pelon
10-25-2009, 09:40 AM
One problem with the Raiders was the Coliseum. Not the neighborhood, but the stadium. It held 100,000 people, meaning it was extremely had to sell out. They rarely sold games out, even if they had a good crowd. So when they renovated the stadium they had to talk out about 10,000 seats and that still didn't work.

Another problem was that there were no luxury boxes. It just wasn't a good stadium for an NFL team.

Al had a great deal for a stadium in Hollywood Park, but on the day that he was supposed to sign the deal he tried to make changes. When City officials said no he just walked away.

Didn't City of Industry also have a 'deal' in place with Al Davis before the move back to Oakland? I remember something about an old quarry and a $10 million cash payment.

I don't know what to speculate about this now. It's all only on paper right now. 2013??? Play in the Rose Bowl for a couple years while the paper stadium is being built??? There's nothing to this right now except a dream and maybe some blueprints.

Jason in LA
10-25-2009, 09:54 AM
Didn't City of Industry also have a 'deal' in place with Al Davis before the move back to Oakland? I remember something about an old quarry and a $10 million cash payment.

I don't know what to speculate about this now. It's all only on paper right now. 2013??? Play in the Rose Bowl for a couple years while the paper stadium is being built??? There's nothing to this right now except a dream and maybe some blueprints.

Irwindale gave Al Davis $10 million to move the Raiders out there. They dug a big hole to start building a stadium, and then he never signed any deal to actually move out there. They pretty much got jacked.

It looks like this new stadium plan is for real because millions of dollars have already been spent on this project. But when really looking at it, Irwindale spent a total of $20 million ($10 mil to Davis, and another $10 mil on legal feels and environmental studies and other expenses). So I wouldn't be shocked if this new stadium was never built. And Ed Roski has said that he's not going to start construction on this stadium until there is a deal for a team to move there, and the only deal he's going to make is with a team that's going to sell him at least 40% of the team. So there are stumbling blocks here.

cutthemdown
10-25-2009, 10:08 AM
Jaguars and the the Rams seems like the 2 most likely to me.

cutthemdown
10-25-2009, 10:10 AM
Raiders would fail miserably. They have some loyal fans but they just don't have any money. 2 bit thug gangmembers make about about 15%-20% of the base. But between prison and having no job these people don't spend a lot to go to games.

400HZ
10-25-2009, 10:27 AM
This is not true at all, where did you get this information? The Metrodome will be around for awhile as the legislature is dead sent against building another new stadium after they just built one for the Gophers and one for the Twins. I could easily see the Vikings going to LA. And for the poster that said the LA Vikings wouldn't work because it sounds silly, where do you think the Lakers got their name?

I think the dome would be fine for football if they would install better turf next year - which they have the flexibility to do now with Target Field opening. Wolf wants more luxury boxes. Well, screw Wolf. There is nothing wrong with the facilities, Wolf just wants more revenue that he doesn't have to split.

Overall, the Vikings aren't better suited to move than any of the other teams that have been associated with Roski. And speaking of Roski, that whole deal still smells fishy to me. Roski lost $1 billion of his $2.5 billion net worth last year, he's getting no public financial assistance, AND none of the teams that are reportedly relocation candidates have any interest in transferring majority ownership. How is he financing it in the short term and how is he getting a return on his investment in the long-term?

Cito Pelon
10-25-2009, 11:27 AM
Irwindale gave Al Davis $10 million to move the Raiders out there. They dug a big hole to start building a stadium, and then he never signed any deal to actually move out there. They pretty much got jacked.

It looks like this new stadium plan is for real because millions of dollars have already been spent on this project. But when really looking at it, Irwindale spent a total of $20 million ($10 mil to Davis, and another $10 mil on legal feels and environmental studies and other expenses). So I wouldn't be shocked if this new stadium was never built. And Ed Roski has said that he's not going to start construction on this stadium until there is a deal for a team to move there, and the only deal he's going to make is with a team that's going to sell him at least 40% of the team. So there are stumbling blocks here.

SD might do it. The Spanos' been talking about it for many years. But then SD is a lame duck team in SD. Unless they play in the Rose Bowl prior to the new stadium being built. And unless he (Roski) gets 40% of the Chargers from the Spanos'. I don't know, I guess we'll find out. The Spanos clan might go for it if that 40% is worth say $600 mil.

Jason in LA
10-25-2009, 11:59 AM
SD might do it. The Spanos' been talking about it for many years. But then SD is a lame duck team in SD. Unless they play in the Rose Bowl prior to the new stadium being built. And unless he (Roski) gets 40% of the Chargers from the Spanos'. I don't know, I guess we'll find out. The Spanos clan might go for it if that 40% is worth say $600 mil.

I'm assuming that if a team would move to this new stadium they'd play at the Rose Bowl, or possibly the Coliseum for a couple years while the stadium is being built. They couldn't stay in their home city because their ticket sales would go into the tank.

McDman
10-25-2009, 12:09 PM
This is not true at all, where did you get this information? The Metrodome will be around for awhile as the legislature is dead sent against building another new stadium after they just built one for the Gophers and one for the Twins. I could easily see the Vikings going to LA. And for the poster that said the LA Vikings wouldn't work because it sounds silly, where do you think the Lakers got their name?

This would be terrible. I like the Vikings, my whole family is from ND, and it'd be shame to see a storied franchise move into a market that could care less about an NFL team.

I don't get why they would build a stadium for the Twins and not for the Vikings, the Twins had a good home field advantage playing in the Homer dome.

Also I don't mind the dome, it's not super nice, but it's not uncomfortable or anything.

cutthemdown
10-25-2009, 12:12 PM
Jacksonville makes most sense.

No one goes to the games and the state already has 2 other pro teams. Other states nearby, Georgia etc also have a pro team.

It would make for some travel problems as the play teams on the other side of the country.

McDman
10-25-2009, 12:13 PM
I think the dome would be fine for football if they would install better turf next year - which they have the flexibility to do now with Target Field opening. Wolf wants more luxury boxes. Well, screw Wolf. There is nothing wrong with the facilities, Wolf just wants more revenue that he doesn't have to split.

Overall, the Vikings aren't better suited to move than any of the other teams that have been associated with Roski. And speaking of Roski, that whole deal still smells fishy to me. Roski lost $1 billion of his $2.5 billion net worth last year, he's getting no public financial assistance, AND none of the teams that are reportedly relocation candidates have any interest in transferring majority ownership. How is he financing it in the short term and how is he getting a return on his investment in the long-term?

I'm not a fan of Wilf, he just doesn't seem to be a great owner. He isn't very loyal, I think if he had a chance to make a huge profit by moving the team he would in a heartbeat.

People hate on Jerry Jones, and much of it is deserved, but he is a very loyal owner to the city of Dallas. I'd put Bowlen in that same group as well. I really think Denver means a lot to him.

Cito Pelon
10-25-2009, 12:16 PM
I'm assuming that if a team would move to this new stadium they'd play at the Rose Bowl, or possibly the Coliseum for a couple years while the stadium is being built. They couldn't stay in their home city because their ticket sales would go into the tank.

This could be an attractive deal to the Spanos clan.

Bronco Warrior
10-25-2009, 12:47 PM
Wow I'm a lazy typist...lol! Chargers to LA! Back where they started!

Bronco Warrior
10-25-2009, 12:53 PM
Yeah my info on the Met is outdated, but Wolf was trying to get a new stadium or the Metrodome redone. Doesn't change the fact that they aren't going anywhere.
Chargers are moving to LA unless somebody maybe Jags make a better offer before the Chargers get their ducks in a row. Chargers can't stay in SDD, they are going somewhere and have already hired a firm to do market research in LA!

Jason in LA
10-25-2009, 01:15 PM
a market that could care less about an NFL team.



It's annoying that people continue to say that, because it simply is not true.

Jason in LA
10-25-2009, 01:19 PM
Raiders would fail miserably. They have some loyal fans but they just don't have any money. 2 bit thug gangmembers make about about 15%-20% of the base. But between prison and having no job these people don't spend a lot to go to games.

I wouldn't really say that. When the Raiders play at SD they damn near fill up the stadium. Especially when the Raiders were really good earlier this decade and the Chargers sucked. It was like another Raiders home game.

When I went to the Broncos/Raiders game in Denver last year there were a number of Raider fans on my flight to and from Denver.

I don't think the team is an issue, it's the location of the stadium.

HEAV
10-25-2009, 01:47 PM
The L.A. Jaguars? Yuck! I would hope a name change takes place.

McDman
10-25-2009, 02:14 PM
It's annoying that people continue to say that, because it simply is not true.

Well history backs my case. LA has not been able to keep a team, why should we believe that they will now?

Bronco Warrior
10-25-2009, 02:22 PM
Dude, but she is totally going to her Charger Cheerleading 25 year Reunion. She would have been their coordinator after she "retired" but the Ratt Video, MVT thing totally took off and she went with her heart.

That's some funny stuff right there! It was 88-89 so only her 20 yr reunion..but how did you know? Actually it wasn't so much the Ratt Video as the Porn career that captured her heartt :rofl: :rofl:

Garcia Bronco
10-25-2009, 02:23 PM
This is not true at all, where did you get this information? The Metrodome will be around for awhile as the legislature is dead sent against building another new stadium after they just built one for the Gophers and one for the Twins. I could easily see the Vikings going to LA. And for the poster that said the LA Vikings wouldn't work because it sounds silly, where do you think the Lakers got their name?

yep

Bronco Warrior
10-25-2009, 02:26 PM
LA not keeping a team was partly the Rose Bowel being the venue and then Al Davis throwing a fit and going back to Oakland. Funny Cleveland, Baltimore, and St. Louis twice couldn't keep NFL teams as well! That's working out better the second time.

A new State of the art stadium will be a big attraction. It will happen! Especially with the league wanting back in that top 5 TV market!

Bronco Warrior
10-25-2009, 02:32 PM
The LA Lakers is an Iliteration that works, and doesn't tie into a areas demigraphic like "Vikings" do in a high density of Scandinavian decent fan base in the region. The Utah Jazz stuck coming from New Orleans in large part because of the same reasons the "Lakers" worked. If the long shot happened and the Vikings move they will change the name like the Ravens and the Titans did. Also Dalls was the original home of the Chiefs (Dallas Texans) and they obviously changed their name!

Bronx33
10-25-2009, 05:57 PM
i just got a headache

Cool Breeze
10-25-2009, 06:07 PM
I don't think the Vikings move.
But, I was shocked when the North Stars did

Jason in LA
10-25-2009, 11:38 PM
Well history backs my case. LA has not been able to keep a team, why should we believe that they will now?

History doesn't really back your case. I've talked about the two screwed up owners already in this thread. You can read that post, either on page 1 or 2.

Broncotilldeath
10-25-2009, 11:59 PM
I'm going with Jacksonville.

Cool Breeze
10-26-2009, 01:56 AM
I'm going with Jacksonville.

Me too
or the Rams

Blart
10-26-2009, 02:02 AM
What happens to the AFC West if an east coast AFC team comes to LA? Does KC get shifted out to another division? Does Denver?

cutthemdown
10-26-2009, 04:35 AM
What happens to the AFC West if an east coast AFC team comes to LA? Does KC get shifted out to another division? Does Denver?

I doubt it. No way it would be Denver that wouldn't even help the travel much for East Coast teams. Only the Chiefs would make sense. Put Jags in the west, Chiefs in with INDY in the AFC South.

I think they would just leave it the same though and make teams fly to play the Jags in LA. If they ever expanded again then maybe they would look to move some teams around.

IMO though Broncos will always be the AFC WEST along with Oak and SD. Chiefs, well they are far away.

cutthemdown
10-26-2009, 04:37 AM
History doesn't really back your case. I've talked about the two screwed up owners already in this thread. You can read that post, either on page 1 or 2.

We will support a team as long as the stadium is really nice and the owner fields a decent team. Has to be a bloody rich owner that does the things Lakers and dodgers do. Go out for big name players etc etc.

Then because its going to be a bit of a drive I think stadium has to be extra cool. So nice and fun to go to that people like you Jason say screw it it's worth the drive.

cutthemdown
10-26-2009, 04:38 AM
History doesn't really back your case. I've talked about the two screwed up owners already in this thread. You can read that post, either on page 1 or 2.

There are some great strip clubs in the city of industry. That place knows how to make very few rules when it comes to making money. The NFL will love it in the city of industry.

Bronco Warrior
10-26-2009, 09:48 AM
Chargers will be in that stadium, maybe in the RoseBowl before it's ready. Like I said they hired a Marketing and research firm last year to research the viability of the fanbase and developing more Chargers Fans in LA/OC. Any other teams done the same thing? Would be interested to know.

TailgateNut
10-26-2009, 09:52 AM
Chargers will be in that stadium, maybe in the RoseBowl before it's ready. Like I said they hired a Marketing and research firm last year to research the viability of the fanbase and developing more Chargers Fans in LA/OC. Any other teams done the same thing? Would be interested to know.

Will you sue me if I reply?:rofl:

bronco militia
10-26-2009, 09:57 AM
I say chargers or raiders....

Russell was booed heavily Sunday, but Raiders fans are speaking loudest with their indifference. The paid attendance for Sunday's loss was the lowest in Oakland since 1968

TailgateNut
10-26-2009, 10:03 AM
I say chargers or raiders....

Russell was booed heavily Sunday, but Raiders fans are speaking loudest with their indifference. The paid attendance for Sunday's loss was the lowest in Oakland since 1968


Couldn't happen to a "Nicer" team.:spit:

Jason in LA
10-26-2009, 10:13 AM
I say chargers or raiders....

Russell was booed heavily Sunday, but Raiders fans are speaking loudest with their indifference. The paid attendance for Sunday's loss was the lowest in Oakland since 1968

Yeah, like 39,000 people.

TailgateNut
10-26-2009, 10:21 AM
Yeah, like 39,000 people.


.....9000 of those were cardboard cutouts of costumed fans placed strategically in the stands by the stadium staff.Hilarious!

broncocalijohn
10-26-2009, 11:53 AM
I say chargers or raiders....

Russell was booed heavily Sunday, but Raiders fans are speaking loudest with their indifference. The paid attendance for Sunday's loss was the lowest in Oakland since 1968

when I saw some highlights I was noticing the empty seats in prime areas but figured it was close to the end of the game (they were losing big time). Then I noticed it said 2nd quarter. Either they left really early or they never sold those seats. Those should be season ticket seats so either they lost a ton of seat holders from the last few years or they just didnt bother to go. With their win last week and Seymour giving them false hope about playoffs, I could have seen more people there. It shows fans are starting to know better and it was pure luck from last week's win.

Hogan11
10-26-2009, 12:27 PM
Couldn't happen to a "Nicer" team.:spit:

Amen...it's comeuppance for decades of assholism done in the name of the Oakland Raiders. People sometimes say that it's bad to have the Raiders wallow in futility all these years, not me. I'm enjoying the smoking rubble of that once "proud" franchise.

24champ
10-26-2009, 12:29 PM
And Ed Roski has said that he's not going to start construction on this stadium until there is a deal for a team to move there, and the only deal he's going to make is with a team that's going to sell him at least 40% of the team. So there are stumbling blocks here.

I'd like to reiterate this part of the whole deal.


Ed Roski is NOT just building a stadium. He wants a team he can own or co-own. That probably rules out a good chunk of teams considered.

I'd say since the Rams are actually in the process of putting the team up for sale, there is a good chance that Roski will put in a bid for them.


There's also very slim possibility of expansion, very very slim.

HAT
10-26-2009, 06:28 PM
What the league ought to do is tell Roski to go ahead and build the stadium now and then go to a 17 game schedule (And reduce PS to 3 games).

Each team gets 8 home/8 away and one neutral site, nationally televised game in LA. Thursday Night Football anyone?

Once Roski finds his relocation partner....The league can keep the same concept except take it on the road each week. London, Mex-city, Toronto, college towns, etc...

cabronco
10-26-2009, 06:58 PM
I'd like to reiterate this part of the whole deal.


Ed Roski is NOT just building a stadium. He wants a team he can own or co-own. That probably rules out a good chunk of teams considered.

I'd say since the Rams are actually in the process of putting the team up for sale, there is a good chance that Roski will put in a bid for them.


There's also very slim possibility of expansion, very very slim.

Well that eases my mind about the raiders coming back here. Unless Al Davis kicks the bucket pretty soon, but I want that senile fugger around along time keeping his team six feet under.

El Minion
12-07-2009, 06:42 PM
Boost for City of Industry stadium plan? (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/12/change-on-nfl-revenuesharing-good-news-for-city-of-industry.html)
December 7, 2009 | 11:43 am

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef01287625a610970c-450wi

Has the proposed $800-million football stadium in City of Industry just inched closer to reality?

The National Football League's decision to end one part of its revenue-sharing program won't be good news for the Jacksonville Jaguars, Buffalo Bills, Minnesota Vikings or any of the other struggling franchises often mentioned as candidates for relocation or sale.

Calling the change "a significant move," ESPN reported (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4718965) over the weekend that the league has decided to cancel a program that allows its poorest franchises -- usually eight to 12 teams in any given year -- to divvy up roughly $100 million. That's a comparative drop in the bucket next to the revenue-sharing agreement that all 32 teams are part of; that one brings in $6.5 billion every year. And the plan to end the subsidy -- known as the supplemental revenue-sharing program, or SRS -- has to be seen as part of ongoing posturing (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/09/04/ominous-words-on-revenue-sharing-from-jerry-jones/) connected to negotiations over the collective bargaining agreement between the league and the NFL players union.

Nonetheless, for franchises on the financial ropes, this could be the jab that knocks them to the canvas in the next two or three seasons. (According to a report (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/78658812.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiU9PmP:QiUiD3aPc:_Yyc: aUU) from the Twin Cities, for example, the Vikings rely on $15 million to $20 million in SRS cash every year.) With that KO could come an agreement between an existing owner and developer Edward Roski, Jr., who is spearheading the City of Industry effort, to bring a team to Southern California. That in turn would fast-track a stadium plan by architect Dan Meis that I have argued makes little sense (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/11/are-you-ready-for-la-live-san-gabriel-valley-editionthe-downtown-entertainment-complex-may-get-a-cousin-of-sorts-23-miles.html), whatever its design appeal, from an urban-planning or land-use point of view.

-- Christopher Hawthorne

Image: A rendering of the proposed City of Industry stadium. Credit: Meis Architects/Aedas

El Minion
06-10-2011, 01:00 PM
Raiders, Vikings Among 5 Teams Being Serenaded by AEG to Play in L.A. (http://laist.com/2011/06/10/raiders_among_5_teams_being_serenad.php)


http://laist.com/attachments/la_andy/raiders.jpg
Raiders quarterback Jason Campbell, center, at a team workout in Buford, Ga on May 24, 2011. What are the chances the Raiders would return to L.A. in Al Davis' lifetime? (AP Photo/David Goldman)

The Raiders may be returning (http://justblogbaby.com/2011/06/10/los-angeles-could-be-getting-a-raiders-reunion/) to Los Angeles. Or possibly the Rams. AEG president Tim Leiweke confirmed that he has approached five NFL franchises about taking majority ownership of the team and relocating it to AEG's proposed Farmers Field stadium (http://laist.com/tags/stadium) in downtown Los Angeles, according to the OC Register (http://www.ocregister.com/sports/aeg-303920-leiweke-million.html).

The Minnesota Vikings organization is believed to be the most likely candidate to be L.A.'s first NFL team in 16 years. It's seeking a billion dollar stadium proposal -- ostensibly one without a collapsible dome (http://laist.com/2010/12/13/indoor_avalanche_at_the_metrodome_-.php).

Leiweke, whose brother Tod is (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/AEG-has-talked-with-five-NFL-teams-about-relocat?urn=nfl-wp2532) CEO of the Seattle Seahawks, was in Minneapolis in late May meeting with Vikings officials, according to (http://www.nfl.com/goto?id=09000d5d82008c26) the NFL Network.

"St. Louis, Jacksonville (http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2011/6/10/2217107/aeg-says-theyve-spoken-with-the-jaguars), not extensively, certainly Oakland, San Diego, Minnesota are still in the mix," Leiweke said in the Register (http://www.ocregister.com/sports/aeg-303920-leiweke-million.html), listing the teams AEG has met with before adding: "We're not packing any (moving) vans right now."

AEG is hoping to open Farmers Field for the 2016 NFL season and is looking for a quick return on its investment in the proposed $1.35 billion Farmers Field and Convention Center renovation (http://laist.com/2011/03/25/gensler_wins_bid_to_design_downtown.php). Leiweke said AEG would even pick up the tab if necessary to assist teams in breaking free of existing agreements. The Chargers (http://boltbeat.com/2011/06/10/more-la-chargers-talk-aeg-has-talked-with-team-about-purchasing-share/), for example, would owe $24 million to break its lease and bolt for L.A.

According to the Register (http://www.ocregister.com/sports/aeg-303920-leiweke-million.html):
AEG and Los Angeles officials are negotiating a ground lease for Farmers Field in the millions annually that will help cover shortfalls in the repayment of $350-million in public bonds for the renovation of the convention center's West Hall.AEG has asked the city to approve a memorandum of understanding by July 31 for the project to move forward. The Daily News (http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_18241669), in an editorial, suggest the city take its time and only agree to the best deal for all Angelenos.

Contact the author (http://laist.com/staff.php) of this article or email tips@laist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Andy Sternberg (http://laist.com/profile/la_andy) in News (http://laist.com/news) on <abbr class="published" title="2011-06-10T09:30:39-08:00">June 10, 2011 9:30 AM</abbr>

broncocalijohn
06-10-2011, 01:03 PM
With California having the biggest amount of Broncos fans, a chance for us to see more Broncos games. Jax, Viks and Raiders have been talked about before and won't hold my breath on those teams. Just because you build it, doesn't mean they come.

24champ
06-10-2011, 01:35 PM
With California having the biggest amount of Broncos fans, a chance for us to see more Broncos games.

Only if it is the Jacksonville Jaguars moving to Los Angeles. In which case, it is possible the Chiefs would move to the AFC South while the Los Angeles team would be in the AFC West.

So the divisions would look like this.

AFC South
Kansas City
Houston
Tennessee
Indianapolis

West
Oakland
San Diego
Denver
Los Angeles

TheReverend
06-10-2011, 01:36 PM
With California having the biggest amount of Broncos fans, a chance for us to see more Broncos games. Jax, Viks and Raiders have been talked about before and won't hold my breath on those teams. Just because you build it, doesn't mean they come.

Do you ever make sense?

Man-Goblin
06-10-2011, 01:41 PM
Only if it is the Jacksonville Jaguars moving to Los Angeles. In which case, it is possible the Chiefs would move to the AFC South while the Los Angeles team would be in the AFC West.

So the divisions would look like this.

AFC South
Kansas City
Houston
Tennessee
Indianapolis

West
Oakland
San Diego
Denver
Los Angeles

If the Jaguars move to L.A., it would make geographical sense to just put them in the NFC West and the Rams in the AFC South.

broncocalijohn
06-10-2011, 02:09 PM
Do you ever make sense?
It makes enough sense for those not flexing and posing in the mirror for other dudes to see them.

Rohirrim
06-10-2011, 02:23 PM
It would be nice to see the Rams return to L.A.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-10-2011, 02:24 PM
Do not want.

24champ
06-10-2011, 02:28 PM
It would be nice to see the Rams return to L.A.

Yeah I would like to see them return too.

broncocalijohn
06-10-2011, 02:36 PM
It would be nice to see the Rams return to L.A.

Now that the wicked witch of the west is dead, I wouldn't mind either.

TheReverend
06-10-2011, 03:15 PM
It makes enough sense for those not flexing and posing in the mirror for other dudes to see them.

Sure...

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that CO has the most Bronco fans, but you believe what you wanna believe, queer-bait.

Oh and nice self-pic avy.

broncocalijohn
06-10-2011, 03:23 PM
Sure...

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that CO has the most Bronco fans, but you believe what you wanna believe, queer-bait.

Oh and nice self-pic avy.

Well, forgeting the rest of the line..... outside of Colorado but I am sure most maners could figure it out without nitpicking. I guess some need it word for word. Keep having that hate relation with me and send those neg reps. Your maturity is decreasing with that and changing other homo words for queer bait. I am sure some doc can sit down with you and discuss what you have been holding back in relations to dudes.

fdf
06-10-2011, 06:12 PM
chargers, oakland or rams are best bets.

Raiders move. Six months later, Al Davis sues everyone in Oakland, Los Angeles, and the NFL for a billion dollars.

I wouldn't deal with the Raiders so long as Davis is owner. Who knows if he thinks his lawsuits have some merit or if he is just making stuff up. So it doesn't matter if he's crazy or dishonest. He's litigious and has enough money to sustain billion dollar nuisance litigation. I won't do business with people with that kind of history. They never change.

KipCorrington25
06-10-2011, 06:32 PM
Most these teams will just use this as leverage to get their own stadium built locally.

Except probably Jax who I see moving somewhere in the next decade so why not LA? In fact they would be perfect, very ambiguous branding, no real local ties, minimal history, they could plop down in LA tomorrow with minimal impact on NFL culture or lore. The teal and black with the generic helmet logo it's almost too perfect.

Drek
06-10-2011, 06:47 PM
It would be nice to see the Rams return to L.A.

Won't happen though. They always sell out and are locked into their stadium until 2014. The new owner (Stan Kroenke, Denver sports fans are familiar I'm sure) was born and raised in Missouri, went to college in Missouri, and lives in the state still to this day. His wife's family is from northern Arkansas and when they spread Wal-Mart throughout the nation the very first state to have an actual "Wal-Mart" store open was Missouri. They were going to every game when he was just the minority owner. Now he's the principle owner and has repeatedly said that as long as the city does right by them for a new stadium he's got no desire to move the team.

Given their recent uptick of success and the fan excitement around Bradford at QB and Laurinaitis at MLB there is very little reason to think the fan sentiment to keep the Rams in town isn't going to push for a new stadium VERY hard.

That dovetails perfectly with the fact that >20 acres of land directly north from the current stadium is vacant after several condemned apartment buildings were demolished there three years ago, just before the economy tanked. Its sat in development hell ever since and could likely be had cheaper than just about any section of "downtown" property you'll find in any city not named Detroit.

fdf
06-10-2011, 07:41 PM
chargers, oakland or rams are best bets.

Raiders move. Six months later, Al Davis sues everyone in Oakland, Los Angeles, and the NFL for a billion dollars.

I wouldn't deal with the Raiders so long as Davis is owner. Who knows if he thinks his lawsuits have some merit or if he is just making stuff up? So it doesn't matter if he's just crazy or dishonest. He's litigious and has enough money to sustain billion dollar nuisance litigation. I won't do business with people with that kind of history. They never change.

gunns
06-10-2011, 08:09 PM
Move the Rams back to LA and the Cards back to St. Louis. ;D

Absolutely. I loved the Rams when they had the fearsome foursome and one of my favorite matchups were the 49ers and Rams. I hated the 49ers especially when they had Brodie at QB. I'm surprised at the 49ers on that list.

TheReverend
06-11-2011, 12:49 PM
Well, forgeting the rest of the line..... outside of Colorado but I am sure most maners could figure it out without nitpicking. I guess some need it word for word. Keep having that hate relation with me and send those neg reps. Your maturity is decreasing with that and changing other homo words for queer bait. I am sure some doc can sit down with you and discuss what you have been holding back in relations to dudes.

I'm sorry, but you do notice it's you making repeated personal attacks, right?

Keep pointin that finger though

Cleo McDowell
06-12-2011, 12:58 AM
The MetroDome is being torn down this year and Ziggy Wolf is buiding them another one last I checked ....so why is the Vikings on the list? The Vikings fans love and support them! 49'ers same thing, and they are getting a new stadium soon also! Buffalo..Hell No! They will never leave!

Saying SanDiego is too small a market is stupid to say the least. San diego County and surrounding area has 11 million people and is one of the densest areas in Cali..My GF is from Chula vista and an Ex Charger Girl! The SD problem is they sucked for so lomng and there is a lot of apathy for the team. They will move because the City of SD won't approve a new stadium site or a Bond because they can't sell tickets to the one they have. They will be moving to LA asap! They hired a marketing research firm last year to assess the fanbase to get fans for the Chargers.


I began reading without checking the date as i though it was a new thread.

thinking the BroncoWarrior has returned.
http://www.yellowbrickroad.com/follow/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/happy-man-looking-at-computer.jpg


then I checked the date.

http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/6-forever-alone.jpg

TheReverend
06-12-2011, 08:23 AM
Lol forever alone always gets me

Punisher
06-12-2011, 02:45 PM
Are you guys ready for the L.A Broncos?

RhymesayersDU
06-12-2011, 09:33 PM
The only reason the dev wants the Vikings is because the team is actually competitive and not in a **** hole mess like the Rams currently are.

If this is true (and I don't think it is) it would be ridiculously short sighted. The Rams almost made the playoffs last year and have a hot young QB who (hopefully) will make them competitive.

The Vikes do have a legitimate superstar in AP, but I don't see them as that much better than the Rams given their QB situation.

theAPAOps5
06-12-2011, 09:41 PM
The MetroDome is being torn down this year and Ziggy Wolf is buiding them another one last I checked ....so why is the Vikings on the list? The Vikings fans love and support them! 49'ers same thing, and they are getting a new stadium soon also! Buffalo..Hell No! They will never leave!

Saying SanDiego is too small a market is stupid to say the least. San diego County and surrounding area has 11 million people and is one of the densest areas in Cali..My GF is from Chula vista and an Ex Charger Girl! The SD problem is they sucked for so lomng and there is a lot of apathy for the team. They will move because the City of SD won't approve a new stadium site or a Bond because they can't sell tickets to the one they have. They will be moving to LA asap! They hired a marketing research firm last year to assess the fanbase to get fans for the Chargers.

Man his time here was so short but so wonderful. That guy was a modern day da Vinci when it came to hilariously lame posting.

HAT
06-13-2011, 12:10 AM
Man his time here was so short but so wonderful. That guy was a modern day da Vinci when it came to hilariously lame posting.

Yes....And he failed to inform us that ex-Charger girl GF was from the AFL days.

El Minion
08-04-2011, 04:49 PM
Go, Fight, Win: L.A. is One Step Closer to a Football Stadium (http://laist.com/2011/08/04/football_fans_dont_lose_hold.php)


http://laist.com/attachments/la_callie/farmersfield.jpg
Updated downtown stadium Gensler rendering with Farmers Field logo added to once-blank top of the stadium (in previous renderings)

Football fans, don't lose hold of your dreams for a local NFL team. An ad hoc L.A. City Council committee has endorsed developer AEG's financial framework plan for building a football stadium downtown at L.A. Live, reports ABC7 (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8288992).

The vote took place last night, with committee members agreeing in a unanimous 4-0 vote to push the deal through to the full council. The plan states that AEG will pay to build the estimated $1.2 billion stadium, tentatively called Farmer's Field. The new stadium would require that a wing of the L.A. Convention Center be torn down, notes L.A. Now (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/08/los-angeles-nfl-downtown-stadium-financing-deal-bonds.html). That part of the financial expenditure would be covered by $275 million in tax exempt bonds. AEG would also reimburse the city if they lose any convention business while the stadium is being built, according to city negotiators.

The stadium is estimated to be worth $700 million over the next 30 years (http://laist.com/2011/02/01/downtown_nfl_stadium_named_farmers.php), and could create as many as 6,000 new jobs.

The full city council is expected to vote on the plan next week.

DomCasual
08-04-2011, 05:57 PM
The benefits of each team moving, as I see them, from a purely selfish perspective:

1) Chargers: I'd love to see all thirteen of their fans worked up. There is probably a sports bar in San Diego that could fill a whole section with Chargers fans, used to going to the games on Sundays. This could be a real boon for the sports bar, and the two or three servers it would take to work Chargers games. The downside is that Alex Spanos would have more money to <strike>line his pockets</strike> reinvest into the product on the field.

2) Bills: Having lived in western New York for two years, I would take great pleasure in knowing obnoxious Bills fans lost their team. The people of the great (ahem) city of Buffalo are truly unique. They like to start their game days with their breakfast of champions (Genesee Beer) and end their game days with their weekly baths/showers in polluted water from the Niagara River.

3) Jacksonville Jaguars: The city of Jacksonville should have never gotten a team. And when they inexplicably got it, they should have never used teal as their primary color. And once they did both of those things, they should have never beaten the Broncos in the playoffs - quite possibly keeping John Elway from having retired as a three-time defending Super Bowl champion. They deserve to pay for all of these things. The downside to a move would be that Jaguars fans would actually get to see their team on TV twice as much as they do now.

4) Oakland Raiders: It's about time the criminals in Los Angeles get their team back from the criminals in Oakland. And it would be fun to see what Al Davis could do with the extra revenue he'd generate from being in LA. At the very least, you would think he'd be able to afford the very best medical treatment money could by - hopefully extending his life by another 15-20 years.

5) Minnesota Vikings: I have a brother-in-law that's a Vikings fan. He is too much of a gentleman/wuss to make snide remarks to my face about the Broncos; so he has his kids do it - very irritating and cowardly. Plus, his wife is always bragging about how they are BIG Vikings fans, despite the fact that she can't name more than two players on the team. My passive aggressive side would really take pleasure in seeing them suffer.

6) St. Louis Rams: I don't have anything against the people of St. Louis, other than the fact that they share a state with the people of Kansas City. But the Rams back in Los Angeles would be cool. I always associated the Rams with Southern California growing up. They just fit there. St. Louis is a baseball town, anyway.

7) The 49ers: The only thing I have here is that there are a lot of 49ers fans here in Utah - solely because it's where Steve Young played. I get tired of them whining about 49ers games getting blacked out, because SLC is considered Denver's market. Since the 49ers would have to, at least, change their logo with a move, it would make all these clowns have to throw out their 49ers garb. And the local Fox affiliate sometimes gets a little carried away, and shows the 49ers instead of the Broncos, when the Broncos get an NFC team at home. I have Sunday Ticket, so I don't really care all that much. But it still seems wrong.

I get that the reasoning gets weaker, as we go down the list. If you read all of that, you get a cookie.

boltaneer
08-04-2011, 07:20 PM
The benefits of each team moving, as I see them, from a purely selfish perspective:

1) Chargers: I'd love to see all thirteen of their fans worked up. There is probably a sports bar in San Diego that could fill a whole section with Chargers fans, used to going to the games on Sundays. This could be a real boon for the sports bar, and the two or three servers it would take to work Chargers games. The downside is that Alex Spanos would have more money to <strike>line his pockets</strike> reinvest into the product on the field.

2) Bills: Having lived in western New York for two years, I would take great pleasure in knowing obnoxious Bills fans lost their team. The people of the great (ahem) city of Buffalo are truly unique. They like to start their game days with their breakfast of champions (Genesee Beer) and end their game days with their weekly baths/showers in polluted water from the Niagara River.

3) Jacksonville Jaguars: The city of Jacksonville should have never gotten a team. And when they inexplicably got it, they should have never used teal as their primary color. And once they did both of those things, they should have never beaten the Broncos in the playoffs - quite possibly keeping John Elway from having retired as a three-time defending Super Bowl champion. They deserve to pay for all of these things. The downside to a move would be that Jaguars fans would actually get to see their team on TV twice as much as they do now.

4) Oakland Raiders: It's about time the criminals in Los Angeles get their team back from the criminals in Oakland. And it would be fun to see what Al Davis could do with the extra revenue he'd generate from being in LA. At the very least, you would think he'd be able to afford the very best medical treatment money could by - hopefully extending his life by another 15-20 years.

5) Minnesota Vikings: I have a brother-in-law that's a Vikings fan. He is too much of a gentleman/wuss to make snide remarks to my face about the Broncos; so he has his kids do it - very irritating and cowardly. Plus, his wife is always bragging about how they are BIG Vikings fans, despite the fact that she can't name more than two players on the team. My passive aggressive side would really take pleasure in seeing them suffer.

6) St. Louis Rams: I don't have anything against the people of St. Louis, other than the fact that they share a state with the people of Kansas City. But the Rams back in Los Angeles would be cool. I always associated the Rams with Southern California growing up. They just fit there. St. Louis is a baseball town, anyway.

7) The 49ers: The only thing I have here is that there are a lot of 49ers fans here in Utah - solely because it's where Steve Young played. I get tired of them whining about 49ers games getting blacked out, because SLC is considered Denver's market. Since the 49ers would have to, at least, change their logo with a move, it would make all these clowns have to throw out their 49ers garb. And the local Fox affiliate sometimes gets a little carried away, and shows the 49ers instead of the Broncos, when the Broncos get an NFC team at home. I have Sunday Ticket, so I don't really care all that much. But it still seems wrong.

I get that the reasoning gets weaker, as we go down the list. If you read all of that, you get a cookie.

AEG wants a stake in a team playing in their stadium, if not full ownership. Which of those teams are willing to sell?

Really, the only team that makes sense are the Raiders. They still have a big fanbase there and it's the only team the city would easily embrace but it's never going to happen as long as Al is in charge, since he will never sell the team.

gunns
08-04-2011, 07:33 PM
I can see the Jag's moving and the Raiders can move anytime. I just can't see the Bills,Vikes, 49ers or Chuggers move.

But to me Rams should be back in L.A.

Agreed.

FireFly
08-04-2011, 07:33 PM
The Vikings aren't going anywhere - their fans love them!

KipCorrington25
08-04-2011, 07:40 PM
I think Jax is going to be the one, they won't even have to change the uniform and the teal and black is perfect for LA.

El Minion
08-05-2011, 08:18 PM
The benefits of each team moving, as I see them, from a purely selfish perspective:

1) Chargers: I'd love to see all thirteen of their fans worked up. There is probably a sports bar in San Diego that could fill a whole section with Chargers fans, used to going to the games on Sundays. This could be a real boon for the sports bar, and the two or three servers it would take to work Chargers games. The downside is that Alex Spanos would have more money to <strike>line his pockets</strike> reinvest into the product on the field.

2) Bills: Having lived in western New York for two years, I would take great pleasure in knowing obnoxious Bills fans lost their team. The people of the great (ahem) city of Buffalo are truly unique. They like to start their game days with their breakfast of champions (Genesee Beer) and end their game days with their weekly baths/showers in polluted water from the Niagara River.

3) Jacksonville Jaguars: The city of Jacksonville should have never gotten a team. And when they inexplicably got it, they should have never used teal as their primary color. And once they did both of those things, they should have never beaten the Broncos in the playoffs - quite possibly keeping John Elway from having retired as a three-time defending Super Bowl champion. They deserve to pay for all of these things. The downside to a move would be that Jaguars fans would actually get to see their team on TV twice as much as they do now.

4) Oakland Raiders: It's about time the criminals in Los Angeles get their team back from the criminals in Oakland. And it would be fun to see what Al Davis could do with the extra revenue he'd generate from being in LA. At the very least, you would think he'd be able to afford the very best medical treatment money could by - hopefully extending his life by another 15-20 years.

5) Minnesota Vikings: I have a brother-in-law that's a Vikings fan. He is too much of a gentleman/wuss to make snide remarks to my face about the Broncos; so he has his kids do it - very irritating and cowardly. Plus, his wife is always bragging about how they are BIG Vikings fans, despite the fact that she can't name more than two players on the team. My passive aggressive side would really take pleasure in seeing them suffer.

6) St. Louis Rams: I don't have anything against the people of St. Louis, other than the fact that they share a state with the people of Kansas City. But the Rams back in Los Angeles would be cool. I always associated the Rams with Southern California growing up. They just fit there. St. Louis is a baseball town, anyway.

7) The 49ers: The only thing I have here is that there are a lot of 49ers fans here in Utah - solely because it's where Steve Young played. I get tired of them whining about 49ers games getting blacked out, because SLC is considered Denver's market. Since the 49ers would have to, at least, change their logo with a move, it would make all these clowns have to throw out their 49ers garb. And the local Fox affiliate sometimes gets a little carried away, and shows the 49ers instead of the Broncos, when the Broncos get an NFC team at home. I have Sunday Ticket, so I don't really care all that much. But it still seems wrong.

I get that the reasoning gets weaker, as we go down the list. If you read all of that, you get a cookie.

Listening to the Rich Eisen podcast this week and the scuttlebutt he has been hearing is that LA will have two existing teams by 2015 and the most likely candidates are the Raiders and Rams, with another team moving to Stl. to replace the Rams. That makes since both are in the West division, have already been in LA, already fan base, plenty of local corporate money and realignment wouldn't be necessary. I think Jaguars would then be the most logical move to Stl. and would be better geographically aligned with the other AFC South division teams. JAX has the 4th worst metropolitan area by population (40th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas)) with relative short history so no local brand loyalty or support. Unlike Green Bay (153rd largest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas)) which consistently supports the Packers regardless of record and both Buffalo (47th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo-Niagara-Cattaraugus,_NY_CSA#Combined_Statistical_Area)) and New Orleans (46th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans-Metairie-Bogalusa,_LA_CSA)) also have a long and rich history with their fans so them moving, especially with the Saints SB win and Toronto so close to Buffalo, is unlikely. I can totally see Stl. going from the Cardinals to Rams to Jaguars. Saint Louis Jaguars :yayaya:

Chargers have outside chance, but Raiders and Rams will return if LA gets Farmers Field built in downtown LA and SF doesn't share a stadium before then with the Raiders. Oakland is a smaller city then Fresno, Sacramento and Long Beach.

bpc
08-05-2011, 10:25 PM
Some good discussion on page five.

- Vikings should not be going anywhere. Hopefully that deal gets done. Minneapolis is a good football city.

- Buffalo Bills, I'd hate to see them leave their location. I think the NFL would be wise to *assist* the Buffalo/Toronto merger. It makes sense.

- St. Louis is a baseball/hockey city. I do think they support football though. As I lived in the state & area from 00'-04, the permeating feeling is that the Rams weren't truly their team. Merely on loan. The Super Bowl made the transition easier, the switch from yellow to gold in their color scheme was a poor attempt to attach to the community. Finally, fans over there hate dome football. The Edward Jones Dome was a horrible place to watch a game. I don't know if you move the Rams to LA and the Jags to St. Louis, seems like a lot of wasted movement here but these two teams are definitely candidates. We'll call them option 2A, 2B for LA.

- Raiders should move back to Socal. Oakland's a crap hole, doesn't deserve a team. Not saying Raider fans in LA are better, the market is more deserving of a team though. I think this one is money, and it's a natural selection since the Raiders have already been there and most residents already root for them.

- 49ers are a bay area team. They should not be moving. Lots of stadium proposals out there including a joint facility between them and the Raiders. It hasn't been agreed upon but in this tight economic time, it makes a lot of sense. IF the Raiders move though, this option goes out the window... or maybe not.

- San Diego is a horrible football town. Great to visit on a vacay, poor fans and attendance. With no stadium proposals on the horizon, they'll be forced to look around. I doubt that the LA market would host two AFC west teams, not like that would be the deciding factor. It does put a kink in the plan though. I think California with it's large markets in Socal & Norcal can easily support four teams, which it has done previously. It's not going to be the most exciting move, but I think it makes a lot of sense in that the area of San Jose definitely is deserving of an NFL franchise. It's a booming area that is really looking to define it's big city image and this would be the move that does it. Addition traction would be that the Spanos family is originally from near the Bay Area in Modesto and Dean has all of his companies run from there. Work on saying it, the San JOSE Chargers.

A stadium deal has already been floated in the Santa Clara area by the 49ers where they have their practice facility. The Chargers/9ers could easily pair up their situations and create a joint venture near Great America open lots which would provide a great deal of space.

LA could follow suit... lure the Raiders back into town and most likely move the Rams back into the area, maybe host both teams in a joint facility. It would be setting a trend for major markets setting up with two franchises. Follow suit by putting the Jags/renaming them to give it a home town flavor back in St. Louis.

AFC East: Miami Dolphins, NE Patriots, NY Jets, Toronto Bills

AFC North: Baltimore, Cincy, Cleveland, Pittsburgh

AFC South: Houston Texans, Indianapolis Colts, Tennessee Titans, St. Louis _______ (formerly Jaguars)

AFC West: Denver Broncos, Kansas City Chiefs, LA Raiders, San Jose Chargers

NFC East: Dallas, NY Giants, Philly, Washington

NFC North: Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota

NFC South: Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, Tampa Bay

NFC West: Arizona, LA Rams, San Francisco 49ers, Seattle Seahawks.

Done deal.

Hogan11
08-05-2011, 10:28 PM
2) Bills: Having lived in western New York for two years, I would take great pleasure in knowing obnoxious Bills fans lost their team. The people of the great (ahem) city of Buffalo are truly unique. They like to start their game days with their breakfast of champions (Genesee Beer) and end their game days with their weekly baths/showers in polluted water from the Niagara River.

A man hailing from SLC shouldn't say a negative thing about any other city.

El Minion
08-06-2011, 05:40 PM
Some good discussion on page five.

- Vikings should not be going anywhere. Hopefully that deal gets done. Minneapolis is a good football city.

Agree, the market is large enough to support, just need stadium built.

- Buffalo Bills, I'd hate to see them leave their location. I think the NFL would be wise to *assist* the Buffalo/Toronto merger. It makes sense.

Yup

- St. Louis is a baseball/hockey city. I do think they support football though. As I lived in the state & area from 00'-04, the permeating feeling is that the Rams weren't truly their team. Merely on loan. The Super Bowl made the transition easier, the switch from yellow to gold in their color scheme was a poor attempt to attach to the community. Finally, fans over there hate dome football. The Edward Jones Dome was a horrible place to watch a game. I don't know if you move the Rams to LA and the Jags to St. Louis, seems like a lot of wasted movement here but these two teams are definitely candidates. We'll call them option 2A, 2B for LA.

That's why if a team moves they should leave the logo and colors with the original local. The Rams should have won the SB as the Cardinals, in only make sense since they are the only city where both football and baseball franchise have the same team name and colors. I always that was cool.

- Raiders should move back to Socal. Oakland's a crap hole, doesn't deserve a team. Not saying Raider fans in LA are better, the market is more deserving of a team though. I think this one is money, and it's a natural selection since the Raiders have already been there and most residents already root for them.

Yup, hate that they usurped fan loyalty away from the Rams though.

- 49ers are a bay area team. They should not be moving. Lots of stadium proposals out there including a joint facility between them and the Raiders. It hasn't been agreed upon but in this tight economic time, it makes a lot of sense. IF the Raiders move though, this option goes out the window... or maybe not.

Yup, I think the Niners partnering with the Raiders only strengthens their ties to the SF-Santa Clarita area.

- San Diego is a horrible football town. Great to visit on a vacay, poor fans and attendance. With no stadium proposals on the horizon, they'll be forced to look around. I doubt that the LA market would host two AFC west teams, not like that would be the deciding factor. It does put a kink in the plan though. I think California with it's large markets in Socal & Norcal can easily support four teams, which it has done previously. It's not going to be the most exciting move, but I think it makes a lot of sense in that the area of San Jose definitely is deserving of an NFL franchise. It's a booming area that is really looking to define it's big city image and this would be the move that does it. Addition traction would be that the Spanos family is originally from near the Bay Area in Modesto and Dean has all of his companies run from there. Work on saying it, the San JOSE Chargers.


A stadium deal has already been floated in the Santa Clara area by the 49ers where they have their practice facility. The Chargers/9ers could easily pair up their situations and create a joint venture near Great America open lots which would provide a great deal of space.

I think a more logical partnering is Niners/Raiders. Why would the Chargers move to Niners/Raiders territory and start from scratch to build fan loyalty? Might as well start with a new team name if they do, but shouldn't.

San Diego is still best place for the Chargers. The problem for the franchise, and really for every struggling franchise right now, e.g. Min, is the stadium situation, with the exception of Jax which doesn't have the fan base support, population and corporate accounts to sustain an NFL franchise. San Diego in my opinion has to puts a football stadium in the downtown district, like baseball did. Qualcomm Stadium is too far from everything good about San Diego, i.e. hotels, parks, bars, restaurants, etc. Put a stadium downtown San Diegoians!

LA could follow suit... lure the Raiders back into town and most likely move the Rams back into the area, maybe host both teams in a joint facility. It would be setting a trend for major markets setting up with two franchises. Follow suit by putting the Jags/renaming them to give it a home town flavor back in St. Louis.

This would be ideal, a win-win-win for everyone, NFL, LA, Stl. and fans. Jax shouldn't be considered a loser, they never could support an NFL team, maybe in future but they are more of a collage football town.

AFC East: Miami Dolphins, NE Patriots, NY Jets, Toronto Bills

AFC North: Baltimore, Cincy, Cleveland, Pittsburgh

AFC South: Houston Texans, Indianapolis Colts, Tennessee Titans, St. Louis _______ (formerly Jaguars)

AFC West: Denver Broncos, Kansas City Chiefs, LA Raiders, San <strike>Jose</strike> Diego Chargers

NFC East: Dallas, NY Giants, Philly, Washington

NFC North: Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota

NFC South: Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, Tampa Bay

NFC West: Arizona, LA Rams, San Francisco 49ers, Seattle Seahawks.

Done deal.

The Bills should move to Toronto and play, say, one or two games in Buffalo. Like the Packers do/did when they played in Milwaukee. And build a training camp and campus on the Ralph Wilson Stadium lot instead of having training camp in Rochester. They should really follow what Green Bay is doing as the Packers are the smallest market NFL team that is thriving.

Stl. already has a hockey team called the Blues, so the new football franchise should build on that already established brand and become the St. Louis Blues football team. Though develop a new logo, the hockey's one is lame:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/StLouis_Blues.svg/200px-StLouis_Blues.svg.png

cabronco
08-06-2011, 05:52 PM
I see Jax being the team coming to LA. Though I'd rather see the Rams. That way I could go and chuck blue & orange colored eggs at McD.

That One Guy
08-06-2011, 05:58 PM
If LA got two teams, they'd almost have to be one NFC, one AFC, so that the local team could be seen in the local market every week. Otherwise it'd be a huge scheduling headache where both teams couldn't have the same time slot.

And for all my life, I've absolutely hated STL but then I met the hottest Bronco Fan/Stripper there a few years ago and got a very mild soft spot for the place. Jax, Oak/SD would be my favorites to move with Buff not far behind.

DomCasual
08-06-2011, 05:58 PM
A man hailing from SLC shouldn't say a negative thing about any other city.

I wondered if you would see that. :)

Having lived both places, I feel I am distinctly qualified.

Tombstone RJ
08-06-2011, 06:07 PM
Go, Fight, Win: L.A. is One Step Closer to a Football Stadium (http://laist.com/2011/08/04/football_fans_dont_lose_hold.php)


http://laist.com/attachments/la_callie/farmersfield.jpg
Updated downtown stadium Gensler rendering with Farmers Field logo added to once-blank top of the stadium (in previous renderings)

Football fans, don't lose hold of your dreams for a local NFL team. An ad hoc L.A. City Council committee has endorsed developer AEG's financial framework plan for building a football stadium downtown at L.A. Live, reports ABC7 (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8288992).

The vote took place last night, with committee members agreeing in a unanimous 4-0 vote to push the deal through to the full council. The plan states that AEG will pay to build the estimated $1.2 billion stadium, tentatively called Farmer's Field. The new stadium would require that a wing of the L.A. Convention Center be torn down, notes L.A. Now (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/08/los-angeles-nfl-downtown-stadium-financing-deal-bonds.html). That part of the financial expenditure would be covered by $275 million in tax exempt bonds. AEG would also reimburse the city if they lose any convention business while the stadium is being built, according to city negotiators.

The stadium is estimated to be worth $700 million over the next 30 years (http://laist.com/2011/02/01/downtown_nfl_stadium_named_farmers.php), and could create as many as 6,000 new jobs.

The full city council is expected to vote on the plan next week.

I was watching a Rich Eisen podcast on NFLN and he said the LA market is trying to attracked 2 teams to come to come to the new stadium, it makes more financial sense to have 2 teams playing like the NY stadium.

It may be the Rams and the chargers or the faiders and the rams again, or the niners and the faiders or the niners and the rams (interesting) you get the picture.

El Minion
08-06-2011, 06:14 PM
I was watching a Rich Eisen podcast on NFLN and he said the LA market is trying to attracked 2 teams to come to come to the new stadium, it makes more financial sense to have 2 teams playing like the NY stadium.

It may be the Rams and the chargers or the faiders and the rams again, or the niners and the faiders or the niners and the rams (interesting) you get the picture.

.....Uhh.....post #110 (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3243877&postcount=110)...... ;D

Listening to the Rich Eisen podcast this week and the scuttlebutt he has been hearing is that LA will have two existing teams by 2015 and the most likely candidates are the Raiders and Rams, with another team moving to Stl. to replace the Rams. That makes since both are in the West division, have already been in LA, already fan base, plenty of local corporate money and realignment wouldn't be necessary. I think Jaguars would then be the most logical move to Stl. and would be better geographically aligned with the other AFC South division teams. JAX has the 4th worst metropolitan area by population (40th) with relative short history so no local brand loyalty or support. Unlike Green Bay (153rd largest) which consistently supports the Packers regardless of record and both Buffalo (47th) and New Orleans (46th) also have a long and rich history with their fans so them moving, especially with the Saints SB win and Toronto so close to Buffalo, is unlikely. I can totally see Stl. going from the Cardinals to Rams to Jaguars. Saint Louis Jaguars

Chargers have outside chance, but Raiders and Rams will return if LA gets Farmers Field built in downtown LA and SF doesn't share a stadium before then with the Raiders. Oakland is a smaller city then Fresno, Sacramento and Long Beach.

Tombstone RJ
08-06-2011, 06:17 PM
.....Uhh.....post #110 (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3243877&postcount=110)...... ;D

oh, you watched it too? fantastic.

KipCorrington25
08-06-2011, 08:11 PM
Stan Kronke is from Missouri, I just don't think he bought the team to then move them.

El Minion
08-06-2011, 09:44 PM
Stan Kronke is from Missouri, I just don't think he bought the team to then move them.

So a billionaires loyalty is stronger to his hometown then too his business interest? Kronke will leave millions, possibly billions, on the table to stay loyal to Mizzu? I doubt it when the second biggest market is available for an NFL franchise, especially with a built-in fanbase.

Bronco Boy
08-06-2011, 11:03 PM
Still betting on the Vikings. They won't get a stadium any time soon and their owner has no ties to the city. Sure, they have a good fan base and market, but so did the North Stars. They will probably be bad this year, which won't help.

HAT
08-07-2011, 12:36 PM
@ BPC post #111....

A lot of good stuff there but I don't see SD going to the Bay area only to have the Raiders move back South.

The Raiders were only here for 12 years and besides, I can't see the powers that be handing over their shiny new stadium to a fan base like the Raiders.

I get that it's popular to rip on SD fans on a Broncos message board but truth be told, they are no different than any other SoCal fans.....Lakers, Angels, Kings, etc. Just because we're more laid back down here doesn't mean there isn't a huge fan base. There's a ton of Charger fans in OC who just won't bother trekking down to the Q.

Point being....The Chargers are more of a SoCal brand than a San Diego brand. The Rams have history in both LA & OC. The Raiders were only here for a minute.

If the dual stadium thing is going to take off it makes far more sense for the Chargers & the Rams to play in metro LA and for the '9ers and Raiders to share a bay area stadium.

If it were the Chargers & the Rams....The NFL would be making a mistake going with the downtown LA stadium. The City of Industry stadium makes far more sense in that situation since it centrally located to all of SoCal.

If it's going to be a different team with no history in SoCal than the downtown project makes the most sense. With no pre-existing fan base, it will be more of an 'event' for the first generation so go with the glitz and glamour of the LA Live area.

That One Guy
08-07-2011, 04:23 PM
I was thinking about something earlier:

Think of the ramifications if the Vikings actually cave to the people refusing to fund the new stadium. That could mean the end of publicly financed stadiums. Last I heard, the people were still basically telling the Vikings to sit on their thumbs so I think they could end up calling the peoples' bluff just for the sake of the rest of the NFL. If the next time a stadium issue rolls around, the team can point to Minny and say "look what happened there" then the people will be more inclined to budge. Currently no such example exists.

ol#7
08-08-2011, 03:49 AM
I was thinking about something earlier:

Think of the ramifications if the Vikings actually cave to the people refusing to fund the new stadium. That could mean the end of publicly financed stadiums. Last I heard, the people were still basically telling the Vikings to sit on their thumbs so I think they could end up calling the peoples' bluff just for the sake of the rest of the NFL. If the next time a stadium issue rolls around, the team can point to Minny and say "look what happened there" then the people will be more inclined to budge. Currently no such example exists.

Why, exactly do you need to make an example out of a storied franchise. You cant just say look what happened in Baltimore or Cleveland? Most of the league plays in new stadiums. There are only a handful of places you can even make the argument about. Put two expansion teams in LA and leave everyone elses cites alone.

That One Guy
08-08-2011, 07:41 AM
Why, exactly do you need to make an example out of a storied franchise. You cant just say look what happened in Baltimore or Cleveland? Most of the league plays in new stadiums. There are only a handful of places you can even make the argument about. Put two expansion teams in LA and leave everyone elses cites alone.

Because the owners want to maximize their profits and if the Vikings cave to public pressure to pay for their own stadiums, it could spread to other cities when their stadium bills come up for vote. At a couple hundred million per stadium, the public money is big enough to consider the repercussions.