Same story for the last 20 years.
Both Oakland and the Rams are prime candidates. They make the most sense. Stadium issues, no lease to deal with, and ownership that isn't anchored to the current market.
Quote:Same story for the last 20 years.
The only difference is the league stepping in to take on building a new stadium. It would give them a venue they could use for all sorts of things other than just games in the 2nd largest media market in the country.
I'm not sure how I feel about the league deciding to get into the stadium building business for one market while others have to rely on either private money or municipal backing in order to build or renovate aging stadiums. It creates yet another class system in the league where you've got the big market teams, small market teams, and the teams that play in the NFL nurtured market.
I think it's silly for the league to be that desperate to get back into the LA market that they won't look to the city or private money to build a stadium which shows commitment to making the franchise successful. All they see are dollar signs by having a team back in LA.
It's definitely a slippery slope if the league owns the stadium. But the other owners probably look at it as they own 1/32 of the stadium. And you can basically pencil in a Super Bowl there every four years. Not to mention a college football championship game. It would probably be the centerpiece for a World Cup bid.
It would be better for the league to have a team in LA. They are losing out on billions every year by not having a team in that market.
The question becomes is the NFL better off not having a team in Los Angeles in order to use L.A. as leverage in stadium negotiations or would a team or two in L.A. be more valuable to the NFL? A case can be made each way.
The City of Oakland is working to get the Raiders a new stadium.
The Rams are a good candidate, but we will have to see how much of a fight the city of St. Louis is willing to put up before we consider them a candidate for relocation.
LA will always be used as bait for the NFL just like Seattle is now for the NBA.
Quote:......It would be better for the league to have a team in LA. They are losing out on billions every year by not having a team in that market.
Ummmm....the market has had and lost the rams and the raiders. Billions, I doubt it, the market is huge but doesn't support the NFL.
Why should they get yet another chance?
Its a basketball,baseball and soccer town.
Not sure the people of LA even want a team. I think they're happy being a bandwagon town.
Quote:Not sure the people of LA even want a team. I think they're happy being a bandwagon town.
There's segments of people in LA that want the Rams back and other segments that want the Raiders back. The former has a huge Internet presence. Yet, like you, I'm not sure if the masses of people in LA that follow the NFL want a team in the area. LA has a large number of people that have rooting interests of other teams. In part, because many moved to LA from other parts of the USA.
Quote:There's segments of people in LA that want the Rams back and other segments that want the Raiders back. The former has a huge Internet presence. Yet, like you, I'm not sure if the masses of people in LA that follow the NFL want a team in the area. LA has a large number of people that have rooting interests of other teams. In part, because many moved to LA from other parts of the USA.
I have family just east of LA. Some are Chargers fans, some are Rams fams, some are Packers fans. It's such a mixed bag. I think a permanent team would struggle like their predecessors.
I think we will see a team eventually because I think they want to build that stadium.