PromoTheRobot Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) Hopefully they keep the name San Diego Chargers like the Niners did. I realize it's a bigger change in general, but I don't think LA Chargers sounds right at all.You do know they were the LA Chargers once in the old AFL? How about SoCal Chargers? Edited January 13, 2016 by PromoTheRobot
Mark Vader Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 I don't think the Raiders would have to pay the $550 M relocation fee if they shared the 49er stadium. That would make more sense to me. That makes perfect sense. I don't know why the Raiders and 49'ers share Levi's Stadium.
Uffalo Ills Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 You do know they were the LA Chargers one in the old AFL? How about SoCal Chargers? I like the California Chargers/Bolts or Golden State Chargers. I know they used to be the LA Chargers, but that doesn't make it sound any better to me.
26CornerBlitz Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 @GrantWahl As Stan Kroenke moves the NFL's Rams to LA, just think of what'll happen when he tries to move Arsenal to New York. http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/01/12/los-angeles-rams-nfl-st-louis-relocation
Big Turk Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 The NFL's greed and indifference to fans other than the super rich is just disgusting. Wait and see what happens if Buffalo and the State of New York aren't willing to cough up big bucks for a new stadium. It will be the London Bills, the Mexico City Bills, the Las Vegas Bills or the San Antonio Bills once the onerous prohibitions against moving expire in the current lease. It's up to the owner to move the team, not the NFL. Pegula is not moving the team, so stop making up nonsense.
It's in My Blood Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Pegula did not buy the Bills to make money. That's nonsense. He overpaid by $400m for no reason just to get it over with. While I do believe there was a bit of philanthropy involved with the purchase, it's foolish to think he made a 1.4b investment just to simply please the masses. The Pegulas saved the Bills. For me, they get a very long long pass for any incompetence that may arise.
machine gun kelly Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 I'm not sure why the Pegulas have come up in this thread, but they are good in my book. They'll make money on the team as they move it downtown, and basically own the heart of downtown. Good with me as it entrenches this team in Buffalo for the next 25 years. As far as the vote yesterday, it is interesting the committee recommended Carson, and the vote ended on Englewood. Kronkie placed the right deal on the table. The other winner here is Mark Davis will get compensation for staying in Oakland. They will get hundreds of millions of dollars most likely to build a new stadium and get to stay put. I feel bad for St, Louis and San Diego fans.
Chandler#81 Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 The ghosts of Bob Waterfield, Elroy 'Crazy Legs' Hirsch, Tom Fears, the Fearsome Foursome, Eric Dickerson come alive today. (Yes, Waterfield was a Cleveland Ram as well). They shouldn't have left to begin with. Never was good with the 'St. Louis Rams'. Then again, The Cardinals shouldn't have left either, IMO. Go Golden State 'Cha-jas', GO!
26CornerBlitz Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 The ghosts of Bob Waterfield, Elroy 'Crazy Legs' Hirsch, Tom Fears, the Fearsome Foursome, Eric Dickerson come alive today. (Yes, Waterfield was a Cleveland Ram as well). They shouldn't have left to begin with. Never was good with the 'St. Louis Rams'. Then again, The Cardinals shouldn't have left either, IMO. Go Golden State 'Cha-jas', GO! From Chicago?
KD in CA Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 I'm not sure why the Pegulas have come up in this thread, but they are good in my book. They'll make money on the team as they move it downtown, and basically own the heart of downtown. Good with me as it entrenches this team in Buffalo for the next 25 years. As far as the vote yesterday, it is interesting the committee recommended Carson, and the vote ended on Englewood. Kronkie placed the right deal on the table. The other winner here is Mark Davis will get compensation for staying in Oakland. They will get hundreds of millions of dollars most likely to build a new stadium and get to stay put. I feel bad for St, Louis and San Diego fans. I don't get it either. They and the other owners voted to move the Rams back to where they moved from 20 years ago, voted for the proposal that didn't require massive taxpayer money, and voted to at least temporarily keep two of the great AFL franchises in place. There's at least a hope now that Oakland and/or SD can work out something in their current city. Did people here really want to see both the Chargers and Raiders move to Carson? Or did people really think the NFL was never going to return to LA? Or is this reaction just the obsessive need to make everything about Buffalo and Bills' fans darkest fears? I can't think of how this process could have ended up going any better. From Chicago? LOL By now Cleveland ought to have 3 teams!
May Day 10 Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 The ghosts of Bob Waterfield, Elroy 'Crazy Legs' Hirsch, Tom Fears, the Fearsome Foursome, Eric Dickerson come alive today. (Yes, Waterfield was a Cleveland Ram as well). They shouldn't have left to begin with. Never was good with the 'St. Louis Rams'. Then again, The Cardinals shouldn't have left either, IMO. Go Golden State 'Cha-jas', GO! I agree on the Rams. I never really got used to the St. Louis thing. The Cardinals, I had more trouble getting used to the Phoenix-Arizona thing. St. Louis will get a crack at the NFL before long.
26CornerBlitz Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 Eric Dickerson feels 'bad for St. Louis' but Rams should be 'back in LA' Former Los Angeles Rams great Eric Dickerson is pretty excited about the Rams coming back to L.A.
papazoid Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 can't stop thinking how lucky we are that the Bills are NOT part of relocation speculation.
May Day 10 Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 I don't get it either. They and the other owners voted to move the Rams back to where they moved from 20 years ago, voted for the proposal that didn't require massive taxpayer money, and voted to at least temporarily keep two of the great AFL franchises in place. There's at least a hope now that Oakland and/or SD can work out something in their current city. Did people here really want to see both the Chargers and Raiders move to Carson? Or did people really think the NFL was never going to return to LA? Or is this reaction just the obsessive need to make everything about Buffalo and Bills' fans darkest fears? I can't think of how this process could have ended up going any better. I agree. I hate teams moving... but let's face it, team(s) were moving, it was just determining the configuration. It would have been silly for Pegula to vote against it, just because RW might have. He is his own owner and needs to gain political favor there as the new guy. Kroenke incinerated the bridge to St Louis and if he were not selected, it would have gotten very ugly and probably worse for St Louis fans. Then we would have both San Diego and Oakland also relocating.
Dorkington Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 I like the Raiders in Oakland and the Chargers in San Diego, so hopefully something can change... never liked the Rams move to St. Louis, though, so I'm glad they're back in LA. I'm inconsistent.
26CornerBlitz Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 I agree on the Rams. I never really got used to the St. Louis thing. The Cardinals, I had more trouble getting used to the Phoenix-Arizona thing. St. Louis will get a crack at the NFL before long. I'm not so sure since they have now lost two teams in fairly recent history.
BarleyNY Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) That makes perfect sense. I don't know why the Raiders and 49'ers share Levi's Stadium. And that stadium is as close to Oakland as it is to San Francisco. Plus then nobody would have to go into Oakland to see a game. Edited January 13, 2016 by BarleyNY
May Day 10 Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Im not sure I would consider this them 'losing' a team as much as it was a highly motivated owner desiring to create an enterprise in Los Angeles. As far as I know, St. Louis had a pretty legit $1 Billion dollar stadium development in the works. Maybe they can dangle that carrot for Oakland, San Diego, or a future expansion opportunity.
26CornerBlitz Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 smartazz.. Sorry. Couldn't help it.
Recommended Posts