My understanding is that the governor of Missouri somehow managed to get the funding without voter approval.

 

   Or w/o the approval of the Missouri State Legislature

---

 Or w/o the approval of the Missouri State Legislature

 

Ugh, I would hate to think it was an executive order. Why would one person in the whole state of Missouri - which has two NFL teams, BTW - think it is OK to not seek congressional or voter approval for something like this?

 

I personally always hated the idea of using public funds for professional sports teams because their owners are billionaires. Stan Kroenke does not need a penny from the government.

---

To be fair to Mizz, the teams are at complete opposite ends of the state. KC is pretty much in Kansas and St Louis is pretty much in Illinois.

---

   As someone who has participated here for a long time,  I certainly recall the days when the Jaguars were regularly linked to moving to Los Angeles and plenty associated with that.  Those were trying times.

 

   While my preference is for Los Angeles to get an expansion team unless one of the cities involved absolutely fails to put together a viable proposal  (  St. Louis already has a viable proposal that has been approved by local government ) ,   I'm very glad that Jaguars fans and the people in the Jacksonville area in general haven't had this relatively recent direct threat of losing their team.   Hopefully,  the Jaguars will stay in Jacksonville for the generations to come.  

 

 

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.

---

'02

Chargers and Rams to LA, Raiders to St. Louis in the new stadium?

 

Stranger things have happened. Kroenke very obviously purchased the Rams with the intent to move them to LA, and the Chargers have been at their wits end for over a decade now. The Raiders don't particularly want to leave Oakland, but they can't get a stadium deal done there. The Raiders might be more willing to work with St. Louis on a stadium deal than Kroenke ever would have been. Maybe the NFL views the Raiders to St. Louis as an "everybody wins" scenario? The Rams and Chargers get LA, and the Raiders get their new stadium, just in a different town.

 

An even crazier idea I've seen thrown out there by the PFTs of the world: a franchise swap. The Raiders, the Rams and some amount of cash swap hands between the Davis family and Stan Kroenke. Kroenke moves the Raiders to LA with the Chargers, and the Rams stay put under new ownership to figure it out in St. Louis.

 

Of course, there's always San Antonio as a consolation prize for whichever team doesn't get LA.

 

It's gonna be fun to watch this train wreck happen in slow motion. If we're really lucky, the owners will approve the Charaiders Carson plan and leave Kroenke in the cold--and Kroenke will turn that cold into a nuclear winter by suing the NFL, Roger Goodell, all 31 other teams and their owners, the city of St. Louis, the state of California, Inglewood, LA County, the California Real Estate Commission and Tom Cruise (did I forget anybody?) into oblivion for ruining his master plan.

 

 

Just wow.


 

Actually, just a couple years ago at one point it seemed like the Raiders to San Antonio was a done deal.

---

'02

A thought just occurred to me......with three teams trying to move to LA......that is almost 10% of the NFL teams wanting to relocate.

Is that some sort of record?

 

btw.....San Antonio ought to be chasing the tacks as well.

---

Because Jaguars is our mantra 

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. 

---

To be fair to Mizz, the teams are at complete opposite ends of the state. KC is pretty much in Kansas and St Louis is pretty much in Illinois.

 

 

Illinois? Indeed it's right next to Illinois in eastern Missouri, but it's entirely in Missouri.


 

Most of Kansas City is actually in Missouri as well, although the stadium is way out in Kansas.


 

It's actually not as far as it seems. While they are on opposites sides on the state, it's a rather thin state east to west with subtle rolling hills that make the drive between the two cities a breeze. If the Chiefs were to build a new stadium just east of Kansas City, they could easily acquire fans from both cities.

---

'02

A thought just occurred to me......with three teams trying to move to LA......that is almost 10% of the NFL teams wanting to relocate.

Is that some sort of record?

 

BTW....San Antonio ought to be chasing the tacks as well.

 

That reminds me of when San Antonio had the Saints. Some people were saying SA should have a team full time in 2005. Then the Saints played at Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge, so I am not sure they really liked SA.

---

Illinois? Indeed it's right next to Illinois in eastern Missouri, but it's entirely in Missouri.


 

Most of Kansas City is actually in Missouri as well, although the stadium is way out in Kansas.


 

It's actually not as far as it seems. While they are on opposites sides on the state, it's a rather thin state east to west with subtle rolling hills that make the drive between the two cities a breeze. If the Chiefs were to build a new stadium just east of Kansas City, they could easily acquire fans from both cities.

 

No, the stadium is in Missouri. I always see MO when I watch Chiefs home games.

 

If most of KC is in Missouri, why don't they call it Missouri City?

---

  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. 

 

 

I fail to see why a lack of playoff appearances should mean they should stay especially considering they've already experienced a SB victory.

---

'02

I fail to see why a lack of playoff appearances should mean they should stay especially considering they've already experienced a SB victory.

 

I think D6 means NFL fans in LA would not support longtime losers. He posted earlier the Raiders would be better than the Chargers because of talent (or lack of it) on those teams.

---

Like Vic used to say: LA is never going to go away, some poor city is going to lose its team.

 

Don't think anyone will be allowed to leave this time.

 

Hotel California

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

No, the stadium is in Missouri. I always see MO when I watch Chiefs home games.

 

If most of KC is in Missouri, why don't they call it Missouri City?

 

 

My bad. ..and it's even in eastern Kansas City.


 

I visted the city way back on the Kansas side, and it just seemed to me when I saw the stadium like it was on that side. I should have looked it up. It's really not that huge of a drive to go from St. Louis to KC. Where I live in Vancouver WA, fans travel even further to go to Seahawks games.

---

'02

I fail to see why a lack of playoff appearances should mean they should stay especially considering they've already experienced a SB victory.

 

   Here's the question I'll raise as part of the discussion:

 

   Being that St. Louis Rams have had 9 straight non winning seasons,  the overall history of NFL football in St. Louis ( even with a Super Bowl win and a Super Bowl appearance ), an owner that has said nothing to the public for years about commitment to the team's future in St. Louis,  and that same owner announced last January that he's planning on building an 80,000 + seat stadium in Inglewood CA,  can anyone blame St. Louis Rams fans for not wanting to put money in Stan Kroenke's pocket?

---

I think D6 means NFL fans in LA would not support longtime losers. He posted earlier the Raiders would be better than the Chargers because of talent (or lack of it) on those teams.

 

  There's a separate issue.  One in which I definitely believe that star power and the quality of the team are important components for an NFL Franchise in Los Angeles to have.   Especially,  when considering there's a large number of NFL fans in the LA area that root for other teams,  in part because they are originally from other areas.   Not to mention the LA area having 2 MLB teams, 2 NBA teams,  2 NHL teams,  Soccer being big in LA,  and two major college programs.   This is the 2nd largest market in the U.S.   Yet,  there's plenty of competition for the dollar,  including TV ratings. 

---

 

Remember when that Ed Roski [BAD WORD REMOVED] trolled around the NFL saying that he intended to build a stadium in LA, then went on to list the Jaguars, Bills and Vikings as the teams he'd choose his tenant from? lol

 

 

Back then the Vikings owner was talking up LA and San Antonio as a possible destination for the team, but I doubt he ever had serious intentions on moving. The talk as all about gaining leverage for a new stadium, and he was ultimately successful. The Bills as of late have been doing their own talking about possibly moving to Canada.

---

'02

  There's a separate issue.  One in which I definitely believe that star power and the quality of the team are important components for an NFL Franchise in Los Angeles to have.   Especially,  when considering there's a large number of NFL fans in the LA area that root for other teams,  in part because they are originally from other areas.   Not to mention the LA area having 2 MLB teams, 2 NBA teams,  2 NHL teams,  Soccer being big in LA,  and two major college programs.   This is the 2nd largest market in the U.S.   Yet,  there's plenty of competition for the dollar,  including TV ratings. 

 

 

There's no need to fret competition for the entertainment dollar as there are plenty of entertainment dollars to go around in LA. It's posh to point out the lackadaisical attitude toward the NFL back when the Raiders and Rams left,  but consider for a second that there are entirely new generations of fans in the region. Even if the team is a perennial loser and most of the area couldn't care less about them, there would still be plenty enough fans who do care. It's simply that huge.


 

It's similar in New York City. You see, there's not a single county in America where the majority of its fans are Jets fans, and that team has a rather extensive history of losing, and yet they still maintain a very strong fan base.

---

'02

Back then the Vikings owner was talking up LA and San Antonio as a possible destination for the team, but I doubt he ever had serious intentions on moving. The talk as all about gaining leverage for a new stadium, and he was ultimately successful. The Bills as of late have been doing their own talking about possibly moving to Canada.

 

At one point the Bills were named (along with the Jaguars, unfortunately) as a candidate to move to Los Angeles. Then Ralph Wilson died and some idiot threatened to move the Bills to Toronto. Was that Donald Trump? LOL

---

Even if the team is a perennial loser and most of the area couldn't care less about them, there would still be plenty enough fans who do care. It's simply that huge.

 

TV and TV revenue is what they are after ahead of healthy ticket sales or winning.

 

They want it all, but the TV revenue is the crown jewel.  That's why once a team or teams are there, there will always be a team or teams there from then on.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."