Jump to content

Possible Rams to L.A.

Rust Belt Nights
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tasmo Practice Squad

Tasmo

Posted
Posted
They were not supported in LA before - not sure why it would be different now.

 

Why would any team last in L.A.? They have something new going on there every week. The only bad thing about this is that they have until 2015 until the lease is up. I really hope Ralph can make it that long, but who knows?

 

Put it this way people, I'll feel a whole lot better once the Jags or Rams or any team other than the Bills commits to that new mega stadium in L.A... :thumbsup:

BuffaloBill Hall of Famer

BuffaloBill

Posted
Posted
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/st...F8?OpenDocument

 

"The Rams' brain trust is meeting in Los Angeles today and Thursday for the team's annual end-of-season summit meeting."

 

Ouch.

 

 

While it will never happen, this sitution shows that residents from the team's home city should be able to buy into ownership and have a voice about what happens with the the team relative to relocating it. L.A. is not a NFL city. The people could care less. I lived there when both the raiders and rams were there and I did not know anyone who gave a flip about either team.

Rust Belt Nights Practice Squad

Rust Belt Nights

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Why would any team last in L.A.? They have something new going on there every week. The only bad thing about this is that they have until 2015 until the lease is up. I really hope Ralph can make it that long, but who knows?

 

Put it this way people, I'll feel a whole lot better once the Jags or Rams or any team other than the Bills commits to that new mega stadium in L.A... :thumbsup:

 

Los Angeles is too close to the proximity of Chargers, Raiders, and 49ers fans. If I had to move a team there - it would be a California team.

KD in CA Hall of Famer

KD in CA

Posted
Posted

I think it's a perfect solution. Since both STL and LA suck at supporting an NFL franchise, they should just share the Rams in perpetuity. Every 10 years they can move the team back and forth.

Big Turk Hall of Famer

Big Turk

Posted
Posted
They were not supported in LA before - not sure why it would be different now.

 

It wouldn't be...although being in a market in st. Louis where baseball is and always will be king isn't too great either...

Alaska Darin Hall of Famer

Alaska Darin

Posted
Posted
I think it's a perfect solution. Since both STL and LA suck at supporting an NFL franchise, they should just share the Rams in perpetuity. Every 10 years they can move the team back and forth.

I don't think St Louis "sucks" at supporting an NFL franchise. Bidwell was a horrible owner in St Louis and the Frontierre/Zygmunt/Shaw systematic dismantling/mismanagement of "The Greatest Show on Turf" led to what is going on now.

 

I think it's awesome that the BILLS sell out pretty much every game but I wonder if that would be the case if there were PSLs involved like there are in places like St Louis. I remember plenty of half (or less) empty stadiums during the Stephenson/Bullough regimes and tickets/merchandise/beers/etc were WAY cheaper then.

Typical TBD Guy Veteran

Typical TBD Guy

Posted
Posted

It's pretty obvious to me that the NFL wants 2 teams ASAP in LA and 1 in Toronto. Since expansion is off the table, any loyal Buffalonian should be ROOTING for the Rams to relocate to LA. I'm also rooting for the Chargers to go to LA and the Jags to Toronto. Once these 3 relocations are achieved, I believe the most financially viable choice for any prospective post-Ralph Bills owner would be just to stick with our beloved city.

Typical TBD Guy Veteran

Typical TBD Guy

Posted
Posted
the only other city that comes to mind quick is San Antonio. Would Vegas ever receive consideration?

 

I doubt either are viable, top-32 NFL cities (they may get expansion franchises many years from now).

 

In terms of population, Buffalo is actually bigger than both of those cities when you incorporate the nearby Rochester metro area. Neither San Antonio nor Las Vegas would even place among the top 75% largest NFL TV markets at the moment.

 

In terms of corporate support, San Antonio and Las Vegas are better but not by enough to justify the added fees of relocation and stadium construction/upgrades, on top of the initial franchise purchase price. The deep economic recession will only continue to diminish this comparative advantage over Buffalo.

 

Furthermore, the great Jacksonville experiment proves that you can't just plop an NFL franchise down in any small market and expect automatic fan support. Just like Jacksonville will always be a college football town, I suspect San Antonio would remain a Cowboys town and Las Vegas a frivolous vacationers town. Buffalo, on the other hand, is approaching three solid generations of loyal fan support (even though the most recent generation has known only futility).

BillnutinHouston All Pro

BillnutinHouston

Posted
Posted

1) Larry Felser reported recently (Sunday I think) that Al Davis continues to hold the sole legal and exclusive rights to the LA market.

 

2) As a former resident I can tell you that San Antonio demographically does not meet the profile of a new NFL city, and as long as Jerry Jones has any influence, that market will continue to be "his" forever.

Mr. WEO Hall of Famer

Mr. WEO

Posted
Posted
It's pretty obvious to me that the NFL wants 2 teams ASAP in LA and 1 in Toronto. Since expansion is off the table, any loyal Buffalonian should be ROOTING for the Rams to relocate to LA. I'm also rooting for the Chargers to go to LA and the Jags to Toronto. Once these 3 relocations are achieved, I believe the most financially viable choice for any prospective post-Ralph Bills owner would be just to stick with our beloved city.

The NFL did try to expand into LA, but there was no vialble ownership group, nor was there a cogent stadium plan. The franchise went to Houston.

 

At this time, there is no stadium still. Ed Roski has yet to break ground and now seems to say he won't until a team agrees to move AND agrees to allow him significant ownership of an LA team. Good luck with that.

 

Toronto as an NFL destination has been a bust--if their interest in Bills games so far is an indication--I'm sure the Rogers group is cursing thier dead CEO for paying $78 million for that. Also, they have no football stadium.

 

Jax owner has said repeatedly that he won't move to LA or sell. If he moves, it will be to Orlando.

Kipers Hair Veteran

Kipers Hair

Posted
Posted

With the Rams to LA, does this put the Bills squarely in Toronto? It would stand to reason, the NFL wants a team there and they will argue that the Bills have not left the Bill's geographic market - heck, maybe WNY will be able to retain a game or two a year!

Whites Bay RFA

Whites Bay

Posted
Posted
the only other city that comes to mind quick is San Antonio. Would Vegas ever receive consideration?

 

San Antonio?!?

 

Good...friggin'...luck.

 

Jerry "More for me, Screw you" Jones considers San Antonio to be a Cowboys market. Been there lately? You might see one, maybe two Cowboys jerseys. There's NO F-ING WAY Jones would roll over on that one - not having just plunked down a cool billion on a memorial to himself. He has a hell of a note to service. You'd have a better chance of putting a second team in New England.

MikeSpeed RFA

MikeSpeed

Posted
Posted

Here's my stupid idea.

(I already have no self esteme so when you guys bash the !@#$ out if my idea it won't bother me.)

Why move one team there? Since people in LA could care less , and the NFL makes teams play at nutrial site every year any ways, just select a game every week from the schedule. Force those 2 teams to play in LA. The NFL Network could use it for it's Thursday night games, and wouldn't have to travel all over to cover the game. The NFL is happy, and all NFL fans are equally PO'd that they could possibly lose a game a year.

Never happen I know.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...