BuffaloWest Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 There is a huge buzz in San Diego that The Chargers are selling 36% of the team to Philip Anshultz of AEG. It doesnt bode well, as Anshultz and his team are responsible for LA Live and The Staples Center and rumored to be looking to build an NFL Stadium in downtown L.A... Where there's smoke there's fire, and it doesnt look good. I'm totally opposed to the move. Not because I love The Chargers (I Like them) but because San Diego deserves an NFL team. They are an original AFL team ,who have been here 50 years and get good support. The stadium sucks, but they should keep them here . Here is an interview with Scott and BR and the SD Business Journal: http://www.xx1090sandiego.com/common/global_audio/40/24502.mp3
Albany,n.y. Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) There is a huge buzz in San Diego that The Chargers are selling 36% of the team to Philip Anshultz of AEG. It doesnt bode well, as Anshultz and his team are responsible for LA Live and The Staples Center and rumored to be looking to build an NFL Stadium in downtown L.A... Where there's smoke there's fire, and it doesnt look good. I'm totally opposed to the move. Not because I love The Chargers (I Like them) but because San Diego deserves an NFL team. They are an original AFL team ,who have been here 50 years and get good support. The stadium sucks, but they should keep them here . Here is an interview with Scott and BR and the SD Business Journal: http://www.xx1090sandiego.com/common/global_audio/40/24502.mp3 They were originally the Los Angeles Chargers. Edited December 1, 2010 by Albany,n.y.
BuffaloBill Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 There is a huge buzz in San Diego that The Chargers are selling 36% of the team to Philip Anshultz of AEG. It doesnt bode well, as Anshultz and his team are responsible for LA Live and The Staples Center and rumored to be looking to build an NFL Stadium in downtown L.A... Where there's smoke there's fire, and it doesnt look good. I'm totally opposed to the move. Not because I love The Chargers (I Like them) but because San Diego deserves an NFL team. They are an original AFL team ,who have been here 50 years and get good support. The stadium sucks, but they should keep them here . Here is an interview with Scott and BR and the SD Business Journal: http://www.xx1090sandiego.com/common/global_audio/40/24502.mp3 I really wonder why the owners don't simply expand by two teams and put them both in LA. At the end of the day I do not believe LA is a NFL town so simply moving an existing team there will only hurt the departing city and serve as a black eye for the NFL.
Van_phelaN1 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 Better the Chargers then the Bills! Here here!!
jumbalaya Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 I really wonder why the owners don't simply expand by two teams and put them both in LA. At the end of the day I do not believe LA is a NFL town so simply moving an existing team there will only hurt the departing city and serve as a black eye for the NFL. LA can't support one team let alone two. I'd rather see one in Kalamazoo.
nucci Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 They were originally the Los Angeles Chargers. You are correct. http://www.databasefootball.com/leagues/leagueyear.htm?yr=1960&lg=AFL
bkc Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 I really wonder why the owners don't simply expand by two teams and put them both in LA. At the end of the day I do not believe LA is a NFL town so simply moving an existing team there will only hurt the departing city and serve as a black eye for the NFL. I agree , it is strange that they wouldn't want the expansion fees . I think they like the 32 teams however
sullim4 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 San Diego is the one team that would cause the NFL the least amount of pain to move to LA. It's what, a 2.5 hour drive between the two cities? For Buffalo, this would be like moving to Syracuse, if Syracuse were a flashy, larger city. I would still be a Bills fan if they stayed within the state and they moved outside of Erie County. Not a chance if they moved to Toronto.
Spun Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 I really wonder why the owners don't simply expand by two teams and put them both in LA. At the end of the day I do not believe LA is a NFL town so simply moving an existing team there will only hurt the departing city and serve as a black eye for the NFL. I strongly agree. The NFL has nurtured this national frenzy for the sport and should take responsibility for those who had a large part in expanding NFL wealth. Yes, the Chargers started in L.A. but flourished and prospered in San Diego. The support in the S.D. area is very strong. The NFL neeeds to get off it's lofty cloud and recognize that there is a global recession going on and new stadiums at the expense of fire, police and lifeguard protection while compromising education and libraries in S.D. in particular and also cities around the league is greedy and irresponsible. Remember how the money grubbers were circling New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. While so many people have lost jobs and homes the greed-balls can not see beyond the olives in their martini glasses. I believe L.A. should have an NFL team. An expansion NFL team. No cherry-picking. No scavenging. Oklahoma City and San Antonio have been mentioned as possible sites for an expansion couple. Do the right thing NFL: expansion for L.A., no scavenging. People take their NFL seriously. Slight the wrong fan of the wrong team and the result may not be pretty.
Mike in Horseheads Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 There is a huge buzz in San Diego that The Chargers are selling 36% of the team to Philip Anshultz of AEG. It doesnt bode well, as Anshultz and his team are responsible for LA Live and The Staples Center and rumored to be looking to build an NFL Stadium in downtown L.A... Where there's smoke there's fire, and it doesnt look good. I'm totally opposed to the move. Not because I love The Chargers (I Like them) but because San Diego deserves an NFL team. They are an original AFL team ,who have been here 50 years and get good support. The stadium sucks, but they should keep them here . Here is an interview with Scott and BR and the SD Business Journal: http://www.xx1090sandiego.com/common/global_audio/40/24502.mp3 I read about this earlier in a story that two groups had contacted the Vikings about LA. Its a lousy NFL town. It was however nice NOT to see Buffalo mentioned for once! http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/news/story?id=5868477
BuffaloWest Posted December 1, 2010 Author Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) San Diego is the one team that would cause the NFL the least amount of pain to move to LA. It's what, a 2.5 hour drive between the two cities? For Buffalo, this would be like moving to Syracuse, if Syracuse were a flashy, larger city. I would still be a Bills fan if they stayed within the state and they moved outside of Erie County. Not a chance if they moved to Toronto. Its not the same as Buffalo to Syracuse, Not for San Diego ...San Diego is the polar opposite of L.A, and San Diego doesnt want to be associated with or compared to L.A.....San Diego is like Buffalo to NYC. San Diego is also a world class town...It is way nicer than L.A. L.A. is a Raiders town. Im not suggesting Oaklnad move back to L.A. ,although it makes more sense than San Diego..So do the Rams, but The team that absolutely is a no brainer to move is Jacksonville....It just is not working there, but for whatever reason they refuse to accept that. I agree , better SD than Buffalo, but I dont agree with the move period, anymore than I think Minnesota should move. Lastly-If San Diego leaves, I believe they wil get a team ultimately...It is just way too nice here for them not to get one...let's say it is ten-twelve years, but who do they steal from then...Buffalo? Let's hope not! Edited December 1, 2010 by BuffaloWest
RTW2012 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 They were originally the Los Angeles Chargers. For all of one season, 50 years ago.
Mr. WEO Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 I really wonder why the owners don't simply expand by two teams and put them both in LA. At the end of the day I do not believe LA is a NFL town so simply moving an existing team there will only hurt the departing city and serve as a black eye for the NFL. The League will not expand in our lifetimes. There are already too many perennially bad teams and the talent pool is watered down as it is.
WWVaBeach Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 Its not the same as Buffalo to Syracuse, Not for San Diego ...San Diego is the polar opposite of L.A, and San Diego doesnt want to be associated with or compared to L.A.....San Diego is like Buffalo to NYC. San Diego is also a world class town...It is way nicer than L.A. L.A. is a Raiders town. Im not suggesting Oaklnad move back to L.A. ,although it makes more sense than San Diego..So do the Rams, but The team that absolutely is a no brainer to move is Jacksonville....It just is not working there, but for whatever reason they refuse to accept that. I agree , better SD than Buffalo, but I dont agree with the move period, anymore than I think Minnesota should move. Lastly-If San Diego leaves, I believe they wil get a team ultimately...It is just way too nice here for them not to get one...let's say it is ten-twelve years, but who do they steal from then...Buffalo? Let's hope not! Wouldn't be the 1st time. Remember the SD Clippers?
Mike in Horseheads Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) Wouldn't be the 1st time. Remember the SD Clippers? Who were the Ernie D and Bob Mcadoos Buffalo Braves.........sigh Edited December 1, 2010 by Mike in Horseheads
jimmy10 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 In all the national media I've read and heard, it sure seems the Bills HAVEN'T been mentioned as a likely candidate for relocation to LA. The Chargers, Vikings and Jags seem to be the most consistently mentioned. I think it is recognized that the Bills' fan base is too rabid. We're sort of like the Cubs in that way, I guess.
Thoner7 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 There is a huge buzz in San Diego that The Chargers are selling 36% of the team to Philip Anshultz of AEG. It doesnt bode well, as Anshultz and his team are responsible for LA Live and The Staples Center and rumored to be looking to build an NFL Stadium in downtown L.A... Where there's smoke there's fire, and it doesnt look good. I'm totally opposed to the move. Not because I love The Chargers (I Like them) but because San Diego deserves an NFL team. They are an original AFL team ,who have been here 50 years and get good support. The stadium sucks, but they should keep them here . Here is an interview with Scott and BR and the SD Business Journal: http://www.xx1090sandiego.com/common/global_audio/40/24502.mp3 I think this is good news for the Bills. But if you Google San Diego and LA, they are 2hrs and 4 mins apart by car. I have no idea if this is accurate or not with traffic, but as I have to drive an hour and a half to Bills games, IMO LA already has a team, they are the SD Chargers.
BuffaloBill Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 LA can't support one team let alone two. I'd rather see one in Kalamazoo. I've been to Kalamazoo and it isn't L.A.
Recommended Posts