Quote:If the local fans in LA have any say, I'm fairly sure they'd want the Rams over the other two. The LA Raiders never really caught on despite beating the Redskins in the SB when they first got there. They were largely considered a finesse team in LA, and when they returned to Oakland most agreed that's where they belong. Ask any old timer football fans in LA who their team was, and they'll say the Rams. The Chargers were never LAs team although lately they've been the only team associated with southern Cal so they surely have a modicum of fan base established already.


 

That said, I believe all three teams have an interesting argument that their current stadium is junk. Most players league wide would say they dread playing on the Oakland turf, and fans who don't get their early have to deal with crossing a freeway to park in a large dirt parking lot. What's really sad is how the city of St. Louis has been unable to hold onto a NFL team. They lured the Cards from Chicago only to see them move to Phoenix, and now the Rams want to move back to LA.

 

  It seemed like the L.A, Raiders following was much more inner city compared to the L.A. Rams,  which had a large portion of its following in Orange County because that's where they were based in their last 15 seasons.   There's a major Online movement to bring back the Rams,  as well as one to bring back the Raiders.    There's only a small Online bring back the Chargers to L.A. presence.

 

  IMO,  it's important that St. Louis keeps the Rams. In the 49 seasons of St. Louis NFL history,  they have had only 8 playoff appearance teams.   This is even noticeably less than the Lions have had in the same period.   Considering this, the Rams not having a winning season since 2003,  not making the playoffs since 2005,  and not having even a .500 season since 2006,  it would set a bad precedent if the Rams are allowed to move.   Especially,  since they have a Stadium proposal on the table that has been approved by local governing elected officials. 

---