The Dean Posted December 21, 2014 Author Posted December 21, 2014 Is it just me or does the whole "NFL to LA" thing kind of feel like 1 of those "I'll do it tomorrow" chores? Completely agree. Actually the threat of a move to LA is probably more valuable to the NFL than actually having a team in LA at this point. Now I see many have come to the conclusion there won't be a team in LA in 2015 (duh). But if if a team were to move to LA for 2015 where would they play? I have seen no discussion of where the NFL team (Rams, Raiders, Chargers) would play had they moved.
Rocky Landing Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 Completely agree. Actually the threat of a move to LA is probably more valuable to the NFL than actually having a team in LA at this point. Now I see many have come to the conclusion there won't be a team in LA in 2015 (duh). But if if a team were to move to LA for 2015 where would they play? I have seen no discussion of where the NFL team (Rams, Raiders, Chargers) would play had they moved. The two locations that have been proposed as interim facilities should a team move to LA are the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, and the Pasadena Rose Bowl.
Nitro Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) I lived in California in the mid 80s. They were talking about a new stadium in LA back then. The politics are a nightmare, getting a plot of land to build near highways and infrastructure is astronomical in cost plus the green crowd will throw obstacles along the way. Nothing that big will be built anytime soon in LA area and the NFL will not move there with out a stadium or one that is past the planning stage and into the construction phase. SoCal already has a team in the Chargers. I see them leveraging a move to get a new stadium. The Dean is correct. LA is move valuable to the NFL as a "build us a new stadium or we move" gambit. Edited December 21, 2014 by Nitro
The Dean Posted December 21, 2014 Author Posted December 21, 2014 The two locations that have been proposed as interim facilities should a team move to LA are the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, and the Pasadena Rose Bowl. I find it amusing that there is speculation any team would move to play in a dump like the Coliseum without an iron-clad new stadium agreement---and maybe with construction underway, just for good measure. I don't recall having been to the Rose Bowl, so I can't comment on it. I also find it interesting the articles discussing a particular team's potential imminent move (which I have read several of the past month or two) a specific site wasn't mentioned as the one that team would utilize for 2015. If a team was going to move in 2015, wouldn't a site have to be identified further in advance? I'm told Super Bowls need to have a site named years in advance, yet the NFL wants us to believe an entire season of football can happen in another city with less than on-year in which to plan? Do they believe we are that stupid? Clearly some sports journalists are.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 I find it amusing that there is speculation any team would move to play in a dump like the Coliseum without an iron-clad new stadium agreement---and maybe with construction underway, just for good measure. I don't recall having been to the Rose Bowl, so I can't comment on it. I also find it interesting the articles discussing a particular team's potential imminent move (which I have read several of the past month or two) a specific site wasn't mentioned as the one that team would utilize for 2015. If a team was going to move in 2015, wouldn't a site have to be identified further in advance? I'm told Super Bowls need to have a site named years in advance, yet the NFL wants us to believe an entire season of football can happen in another city with less than on-year in which to plan? Do they believe we are that stupid? Clearly some sports journalists are. No team would move to LA without a certain stadium deal already done. Then and only then would they play in the Coliseum or Rose Bowl. They have recently discussed using Dodger Stadium as a temporary site. But again, only if there is a certain stadium deal done.
Rocky Landing Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 I find it amusing that there is speculation any team would move to play in a dump like the Coliseum without an iron-clad new stadium agreement---and maybe with construction underway, just for good measure. I don't recall having been to the Rose Bowl, so I can't comment on it. I also find it interesting the articles discussing a particular team's potential imminent move (which I have read several of the past month or two) a specific site wasn't mentioned as the one that team would utilize for 2015. If a team was going to move in 2015, wouldn't a site have to be identified further in advance? I'm told Super Bowls need to have a site named years in advance, yet the NFL wants us to believe an entire season of football can happen in another city with less than on-year in which to plan? Do they believe we are that stupid? Clearly some sports journalists are. I believe that 2015 has been taken off the table entirely. It has also been widely reported that no team will be approved without a stadium deal. Here is a link to one of the best articles I have read on the subject: http://www.ibtimes.com/nfl-los-angeles-team-2015-stadium-deal-team-owners-are-relocation-hurdles-1763060
Mr. WEO Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 No team would move to LA without a certain stadium deal already done. Then and only then would they play in the Coliseum or Rose Bowl. They have recently discussed using Dodger Stadium as a temporary site. But again, only if there is a certain stadium deal done. This is why the NFL "announcing" there will be no team in LA next year is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure the teams he was directing that bit of info to already knew they weren't moving next year....
The Dean Posted December 21, 2014 Author Posted December 21, 2014 I believe that 2015 has been taken off the table entirely. It has also been widely reported that no team will be approved without a stadium deal. Here is a link to one of the best articles I have read on the subject: http://www.ibtimes.c...hurdles-1763060 My guess is the deadline for 2016, and maybe 2017, is approaching quickly, if we are to be realistic. No?
Mike in Horseheads Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 No team would move to LA without a certain stadium deal already done. Then and only then would they play in the Coliseum or Rose Bowl. They have recently discussed using Dodger Stadium as a temporary site. But again, only if there is a certain stadium deal done. I heard Dodger Stadium also, how ironic if the Raiders move there and still have the dirt infield to contend with!
Kelly the Dog Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 I heard Dodger Stadium also, how ironic if the Raiders move there and still have the dirt infield to contend with! I'm not a big fan of the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl, although they are both iconic venues of some sort. But Dodger Stadium is a really cool place. I love that stadium and I am not a baseball fan.
Rocky Landing Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 My guess is the deadline for 2016, and maybe 2017, is approaching quickly, if we are to be realistic. No? I can't remember where I read it, but I did read something (conjecture?) about an announcement about a team moving coming after the Super Bowl. The timing of the thing is the biggest hurdle, I think. Either, a team has to announce that they are moving, and play out the next season or two in a city that hates them, or move and play in one of the interim facilities, neither of which are too attractive, although the Rose Bowl is a MUCH nicer facility than the Coliseum. Neither are up to par with an NFL franchise. I would think the latter plan would be the most economically attractive. But, it will be a hardship for whichever team shows up. Of course, that's not the only hurdle, political, or otherwise. With the speed that these issues are resolving, I would say 2017 at the earliest. But, who knows? There may be a "strike while the iron is hot" thing going on, and at some point, the City of LA, or AEG, or Kroenke, or the Raiders, or whoever is going to have to crap or get off the pot. It most certainly is not a dead issue-- AEG did get a contract extension in October-- but, maybe it doesn't happen in the foreseeable future?
Deranged Rhino Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 I'm not a big fan of the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl, although they are both iconic venues of some sort. But Dodger Stadium is a really cool place. I love that stadium and I am not a baseball fan. It's a fantastic stadium. No idea how it'd be for football but watching a Dodgers game with Scully in your ear is as close to baseball nirvana you can get. And I'm not even a Dodger fan.
The Dean Posted December 21, 2014 Author Posted December 21, 2014 It's a fantastic stadium. No idea how it'd be for football but watching a Dodgers game with Scully in your ear is as close to baseball nirvana you can get. And I'm not even a Dodger fan. I know I'm supposed to like Scully. But as a research guy, I just can't get past his babbling something like "Billy Jo is batting .258 against left handers over 6'3" on Thursdays when the temperature is over 80 degrees" as if it is something insightful. Sometime the best think to say is NOTHING. (Yes, I've become an old cranky man.)
Deranged Rhino Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 I know I'm supposed to like Scully. But as a research guy, I just can't get past his babbling something like "Billy Jo is batting .258 against left handers over 6'3" on Thursdays when the temperature is over 80 degrees" as if it is something insightful. Sometime the best think to say is NOTHING. (Yes, I've become an old cranky man.) you have but its part of your charm.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 I know I'm supposed to like Scully. But as a research guy, I just can't get past his babbling something like "Billy Jo is batting .258 against left handers over 6'3" on Thursdays when the temperature is over 80 degrees" as if it is something insightful. Sometime the best think to say is NOTHING. (Yes, I've become an old cranky man.) Yes, you have become a cranky old man. Vin Scully (outside of RJ of course) may be the best announcer of any sport of all time. A lot of people think so. He's incredible.
The Dean Posted December 21, 2014 Author Posted December 21, 2014 Yes, you have become a cranky old man. Vin Scully (outside of RJ of course) may be the best announcer of any sport of all time. A lot of people think so. He's incredible. Yes, I know a lot of people think so. I just can't take the fake stats. I'll take John Miller any day of the week. (And yes, he should shut the hell up once in a while, too.)
26CornerBlitz Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 @RapSheet #Raiders will announce a 1-year extension of their lease in Oakland, source tells me. Not a surprise, their lease runs out after the season #Raiders owner Mark Davis worked hard to rebuild relationships with other owners after his father’s passing. Now closely aligned with league When #Raiders owner Mark Davis took over, he handled his father’s financial obligation from his legal battles — in the tens of millions 1 reason the league not opposed to having the #Raiders in Los Angeles? Because of how Mark Davis has rebuilt those relationships with owners
Recommended Posts