Quote:Eventually a team will move to LA. It won't be a threat anymore. Then London will take over as the new "threat" city.

 

 

I agree, but another angle to look at this ... the NFL could put just one team in LA, and then use the second team spot to continue to blackmail current NFL cities to continue investing tax payer money to build, or upgrade stadiums to keep “their” team from being the second team to move to LA.

 

There is a gamble the NFL would make in that scenario. The first team may garner the majority of the local fanbase support. If that happens, what team (owner) would risk playing second fiddle to an existing team in their own city?

 

The NFL has to find (or create) a completely separate, and viable threat to replace LA threat before they can place even a single team in LA. The whole London, San Antonio, or even Toronto has been nothing more than a toe testing the warmth of the water (failed threats). The NFL knows it has been very lucrative to keep the LA market threat OPEN, and void of a true home team. Toronto is out since the Bills have the Toronto market, San Antonio is as ruse (Jones would throw a hissy fit), as is London (weak sauce). Which leaves? LA as the lone “best” threat to continue the blackmailing of the current cities that lack caviar stadiums.

 

The Rams aren't moving back to LA … The Raiders failed in LA because of the distance to their home grown fanbase. I think the only viable team to relocate to LA would be the Chargers. … If that does happen? The LA 2^nd (supposedly) team will continue to carry the blackmail torch.

 

 

Until London ... As we agree.  :yes:

---