RunTheBall Posted September 10, 2011 Posted September 10, 2011 LA Times column on getting a NFL team next season I was just surfing the net and came across this article. I haven't followed the LA team quest much except for the background Buffalo paranoia about the team possibly being moved after Ralph hits the box. It seems a bit optimistic to me that the league would move a team there that quick in time for next season. RTB
Arkady Renko Posted September 10, 2011 Posted September 10, 2011 I love how no one seems to be objecting to the fact that the NFL is actively encouraging a team to relocate by supporting this whole enterprise. Why can't they expand again?
Offside Number 76 Posted September 10, 2011 Posted September 10, 2011 That's the first time I've seen the 49ers in the conversation. I don't think the Bills are moving anywhere.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 10, 2011 Posted September 10, 2011 I love how no one seems to be objecting to the fact that the NFL is actively encouraging a team to relocate by supporting this whole enterprise. Why can't they expand again? Excellent observations, johnny. The League's role in all these discussions is intentionally murky, but there is something deeply inappropriate about the League allowing such discussions. The question of why they cannot expand is a good one. Perhaps there are already too many teams and they do not want to water down the product. I also happen to think that the League does not want LA to have a bad team—they would prefer the LA franchise to be a success relatively quickly, which speaks in favor of an existing franchise.
justnzane Posted September 10, 2011 Posted September 10, 2011 AEG should not be able to own as many teams as it does. To allow them to control an NFL franchise, I believe, perpetuates the idea that a corporation can act as a person does. Give me a Wilson, Mara, Rooney, Jones, Kraft, Snyder, Brown, Wilf, Hunt or Debartolo anyday over a conglomerate hellbent on monopolizing entertainment.
SF Bills Fan Posted September 10, 2011 Posted September 10, 2011 Lieweke tried to talk the Bills and was flat out told NO. The Bills, if you recall, were at the top of the list of teams they wanted to poach. They have since fallen off most lists. I am surprised they were still mentioend here. The Niners will never leave the Bay Area. They have as much of a chance of going to LA as the Bears would. The Chargers will be the team that moves and you can expect an announcement after the season ends. They will never get a new stadium in San Diego. It is also very possible that the Rams will also move back to become the second team in LA. The current owner is on the board for the stadium commission in LA and has very strong ties to Philip Anschutz, who is trying to get a team. Only and only if Ralph Wilson passes away within 2 years will the Bills be in danger of moving to LA. After 3 years, the Bills are secure. Nobody is going to pay over a billion to outbid Golisano or the Jacobs or whoever to move the team to San Antonio or Portland, OR.
Matt in KC Posted September 10, 2011 Posted September 10, 2011 Excellent observations, johnny. The League's role in all these discussions is intentionally murky, but there is something deeply inappropriate about the League allowing such discussions. The question of why they cannot expand is a good one. Perhaps there are already too many teams and they do not want to water down the product. I also happen to think that the League does not want LA to have a bad team—they would prefer the LA franchise to be a success relatively quickly, which speaks in favor of an existing franchise. Well, some existing franchises.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 10, 2011 Posted September 10, 2011 (edited) Well, some existing franchises. Touché. I almost wrote "which would be good news for Bills fans." Oh, and nice sig line. It's, well, Wunderbar. Edited September 10, 2011 by RJ (not THAT RJ)
Matt in KC Posted September 10, 2011 Posted September 10, 2011 Oh, and nice sig line. It's, well, Wunderbar. And i thank you for that!
TH3 Posted September 10, 2011 Posted September 10, 2011 And i thank you for that! The whole la stadium thing is very interesting - as a business model - it is the same a Gerry Stadium in Dallas - by requiring private funding now for these stadiums - essentially what you now have is owning a stadium that you need to fill to make a return for the private investors - the NFL team simply becomes one element to making the stadium pay for itself....and that won't happen simply with 10 sundays a year. The business model includes all sorts of other attractions to fill and pay off the investors. What you have is a stadium owner using a football team......instead of a football team owner using the city/county/state supplied stadium. Also interesting because public funding for stadiums is gone for the future - prolly good for our bills as LA is the only location left in the US where a privately funded stadium could make sense Of course there is Toronto.......
C.Biscuit97 Posted September 10, 2011 Posted September 10, 2011 It's my fault but why do people keep bringing this up? It's like telling some guy his girlfriend was flirting with another guy. What does it really accomplish. And when I was last in LA, they only mentioned the Cali teams to move to LA.
Recommended Posts