YoloinOhio Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 I can tell you that the Chargers employees believe that they will be moving to LA.
RyanC883 Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Chargers update: http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-chargers-stadium-san-diego-20150609-story.html http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jun/08/chargers-city-special-election-gambit-acee/ thanks for the updates. According to the first article, there would be 3 teams in LA.? I can't see LA supporting 3 NFL teams. Maybe so, but that does not have the same "big guy swallowing up little guy" that LA/SD or BUF/TOR would have had. good point also. Although it's funny to think of SD as a "small guy," but compared to LA it def is. Any update on the impact on Rivers if the franchise moves to LA? If he wouldn't go, should we want SD to move in long-shot hopes that we land Rivers? !?
Kirby Jackson Posted June 9, 2015 Author Posted June 9, 2015 thanks for the updates. According to the first article, there would be 3 teams in LA.? I can't see LA supporting 3 NFL teams. good point also. Although it's funny to think of SD as a "small guy," but compared to LA it def is. Any update on the impact on Rivers if the franchise moves to LA? If he wouldn't go, should we want SD to move in long-shot hopes that we land Rivers? !? That is an interesting thought. I have no idea if there is any update on that. it sounds as if some progress is being made. Our best bet on that is for the Chargers to not sign him before the year and go like 6-10. At that point they may try to tag and trade him if they don't believe that their team is very good. What is the reason to tie up $20+M a year in a QB in his mid 30's if you are not going to be competitive? They could potentially add 1-2 more 1sts to go with what is probably a top 7-8 pick in that scenario. That would be a nice way to start the rebuild.
MDH Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 I can tell you that the Chargers employees believe that they will be moving to LA. You've hinted at having a family member in the front office of an NFL team. I guess we now know which team?
8-8 Forever? Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 yeah not sure NFL will succeed in L.A. but the stadium could be used for a million different things. really crappy part of town though. good luck getting in an out of there. Lakers games at the Forum bad enough. how about 4x the number of people. yikes.
MDH Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Once LA has a team what is the NFL going to do without having the power to threaten a local municipality with no team unless they give in to their demands?
vorpma Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Saint Louis is a stolen team to begin with, I could care less about them. yeah not sure NFL will succeed in L.A. but the stadium could be used for a million different things. really crappy part of town though. good luck getting in an out of there. Lakers games at the Forum bad enough. how about 4x the number of people. yikes. If LA is such a great NFL market, why no team for all these years. Truth is it is not a great NFL market.
Heitz Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 If LA is such a great NFL market, why no team for all these years. Truth is it is not a great NFL market. This kinda gets thrown around a lot - I'm not sure I would say "LA is a bad NFL market" as much as "LA is a complicated political market". I spend a lot of time in SoCal and I know PLENTY of football fans out there that would definitely support a team (especially in a nice spanking new stadium)...
nucci Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 If LA is such a great NFL market, why no team for all these years. Truth is it is not a great NFL market. It's the 2nd largest TV market in the country. That's what the NFL cares about
KollegeStudnet Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) If the Warriors win: Oaktown should riot across the street, burning the Oakland Colliseum to the ground, making the city rebuild a new crib for the Raiders. If the Warriors lose: Oaktown should riot across the street, burning the Oakland Colliseum to the ground, making the city rebuild a new crib for the Raiders. If LA is such a great NFL market, why no team for all these years. Truth is it is not a great NFL market. The sad part is it is a great market, but the teams that were there before were burned by false claims and lies on getting new stadiums they were promised by SoCal governing Edited June 9, 2015 by KollegeStudnet
clearwater cadet Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Lets get real, the only thing that saved the Bills in Buffalo was Ted Rogers died before Ralph could sell him the team.
vorpma Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 If the Warriors win: Oaktown should riot across the street, burning the Oakland Colliseum to the ground, making the city rebuild a new crib for the Raiders. If the Warriors lose: Oaktown should riot across the street, burning the Oakland Colliseum to the ground, making the city rebuild a new crib for the Raiders. The sad part is it is a great market, but the teams that were there before were burned by false claims and lies on getting new stadiums they were promised by SoCal governing I attended NFL games in LA and it was not your typical NFL experience; boring to say the least. Many competing venues for the entertainment dollar and zero enthusiasm for the Rams or the Raiders. Not buying that previous teams were burned; why did no one in the NFL relocate to LA over the last twenty years? It's a lousy market, much like Toronto. Lets get real, the only thing that saved the Bills in Buffalo was Ted Rogers died before Ralph could sell him the team. And you have the facts to back this up?
Ramblin' Rob Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Lets get real, the only thing that saved the Bills in Buffalo was Ted Rogers died before Ralph could sell him the team. Lets get real, is this an opinion or a fact you can substantiate? You Ralph bashers are pathetic. Disagree with how he ran the team, but the man died and left the vast majority of his money to two poor cities, in addition to having a lease and language in his will that made it difficult for the team to be moved. Substantiate your claim or get a life. Respectfully. Edited June 9, 2015 by Ramblin' Rob
TheBrownBear Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 San Diego is as good as gone. The owner doesn't want to be there and they are doing everything in their power to encourage the city government, residents, and fans to just give up and let them go. Kudos to Mayor Faulconer for at least putting up a fight.
The Wiz Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 This kinda gets thrown around a lot - I'm not sure I would say "LA is a bad NFL market" as much as "LA is a complicated political market". I spend a lot of time in SoCal and I know PLENTY of football fans out there that would definitely support a team (especially in a nice spanking new stadium)... I think you got the nail on the head there in regard to the problem. Fans: we want a NFL team! Politics: Ok, but you're gonna pay through the nose for it Fans: vote for other guy! He wants to tax us to build a stadium
K-9 Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 It's the 2nd largest TV market in the country. That's what the NFL cares about Actually, the LA ratings are what they are, with or without teams located there, and that's always been the case. Home team presence would barely move the ratings needle in LA. If it were strictly a matter of increasing ratings to garner more in broadcast rights from the networks, there would have been teams there long ago. TV ratings in LA are a double-edged sword for the broadcasters, especially the local affiliates. The last time the Raiders played there, it wasn't unusual for them to be beat out in the Sunday afternoon ratings by local programming. Not good when a re-run of 'Gilligan's Island' is beating out a Raiders/Chiefs game in the ratings. However, owners have other reasons for wanting a presence their now; chiefly the sheer amount of stadium revenues to be generated via the huge corporate dollars available there. That dynamic has shifted tremendously since a team was last located there. GO BILLS!!!
SF Bills Fan Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 The Rams are as good as gone. The Raiders have little hope at all of staying in Oakland. I think the league sincerely wants the Chargers to remain in San Diego. I don't think they care so much on the Rams and Raiders moving.
Mark Vader Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 I think you got the nail on the head there in regard to the problem. Fans: we want a NFL team! Politics: Ok, but you're gonna pay through the nose for it Fans: vote for other guy! He wants to tax us to build a stadium That about sums it up
metzelaars_lives Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Lets get real, the only thing that saved the Bills in Buffalo was Ted Rogers died before Ralph could sell him the team.Nah. The only thing that saved the bills in buffalo was Terry pegula coming along. He wasn't getting outbid by anyone. He wasn't just some dude who bought the bills by default; he's the fourth richest owner in the nfl. I would agree that without him magically appearing out of thin air to buy the sabres and then the bills, it's very likely that someone from another market would've bought and moved the bills. We owe a great deal to the man.
ALF Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 With the 49's in self destruct , a move by Raiders to there stadium might work now. Give Oakland time to build a new stadium maybe. It looks like Rams owner is serious moving to LA
Recommended Posts