|
Yudo posted:Let me preface my question by saying that I don't know much about this. The Rams have had bottom three attendance figures for a decade
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
Another "late to the party" couple of questions: -Why does Los Angeles need three (3) NFL teams other than "second largest market in the US has no team"? Not even NYC has that many, and NYC has seemingly 17 teams in each league. -How likely is it that even one team gets moved (or, similarly, the other owners give them all the finger and they all stay put)? -With these proposals "to play for the 2016 NFL Season in Los Angeles", where are the LA Rams/LA Raiders/LA Chargers planning on playing? I'd imagine the Coliseum would be in play. There's no way in gently caress they're putting up those stadiums in 8 months. Jerry World took what, three years? I hate seeing a fan base lose a franchise and am kind of wondering if this is going to be this year's Minnesota/Jacksonville-to-SoCal in the end. It's interesting that ESPN says the league says neither San Diego nor Oakland's plans are "actionable" and that St. Louis has a proposal for a new stadium. CBJSprague24 fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
-They're not going to get 3 teams, there are just 3 trying to move. At most only 2 will be allowed to move -Almost certain, there will not be a better time to move for over a decade, and Oakland and, to lesser extent, San Diego have no concrete plans in place for replacing the stadium. Oakland in particular needs a one, the Colliseum is a poo poo hole of historic proportions and Oakland has 0% interest in helping fund a new one since they are still paying off the renovations to bring the Raiders back to town -Coliseum is going to host one, but is legally prevented from hosting 2. The Rose Bowl has said they won't deal with the ordeal of getting approval for it, so the second one will likely be at one of the baseball stadiums or where ever the gently caress the Galaxy plays The Glumslinger fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
The Rams are the most likely to actually move, after that it gets hairy because the Chargers seem to have the (other) best laid out plan but the Raiders have the strongest fan support.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
I would almost not be shocked if we on ownership swap since Kroenke has the best stadium plan for LA, but St Louis has the best plan in place to keep a team
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:I would almost not be shocked if we on ownership swap since Kroenke has the best stadium plan for LA, but St Louis has the best plan in place to keep a team There won't be an ownership swap. If he can't go to LA, he wants the Broncos since he already owns the Nuggets. zen death robot posted:Honestly it's a toss up at this point only because St. Louis has a stadium proposal approved at this point, but an owner that knows he'll make tons more in LA. The Chargers have a market they're interested in protecting and the Raiders are just sick of playing in a total shithole. Who knows how this will end up shaking out. I love how the Chargers brass keeps harping on protecting their "25% of revenue" that they get from Orange County/LA but never really comment on the other 75% that they're gonna lose from moving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Yudo posted:Let me preface my question by saying that I don't know much about this. Yes, but they're also missing out on a lot of money by not having a team in LA, so there's pros and cons. And, at the end of the day, there's more than 32 cities who are willing to use public funds to help finance a stadium, so cities that refuse to get "shaken down" just won't have a football team.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:I would almost not be shocked if we on ownership swap since Kroenke has the best stadium plan for LA, but St Louis has the best plan in place to keep a team Rams fans and Chargers fans both ducking a bullet, breathing a sigh of relief, taking their helmets off to scratch their head, and then getting their brains splattered on the pavement by the ricocheting bullet meant for the other fanbase.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:
The Rose Bowl, the Dodgers, and the Angels have already said no, and Home Depot Center only seats like 40k maximum and isn't set up for the NFL at all. There's literally no where for a second team to play
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:There won't be an ownership swap. If he can't go to LA, he wants the Broncos since he already owns the Nuggets. He owns the Avs too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:The Rose Bowl, the Dodgers, and the Angels have already said no, and Home Depot Center only seats like 40k maximum and isn't set up for the NFL at all. Rent Qualcomm for a year. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
^^^(the Colorado sports properties are in the name of Josh Kroenke, one of his children, to satisfy NFL ownership restrictions that forbid a team owner from owning teams in other markets) The NFL should suck up taxpayer money from St Louis for a stadium, move the Chargers to LA and put the Raiders on an aircraft carrier that moves constantly. I saw like 4 in Brownsville, TX when I was there just waiting to be scrapped
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:He owns the Avs too. And Rapids, and Arsenal in EPL. Goddamn Kroenke is loving rich
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:^^^(the Colorado sports properties are in the name of Josh Kroenke, one of his children, to satisfy NFL ownership restrictions that forbid a team owner from owning teams in other markets) Please don't bring up skull boat because it hurts me too much that it's not being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Is there a richer NFL owner?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:Is there a richer NFL owner? Paul Allen I think
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yes, but they're also missing out on a lot of money by not having a team in LA, so there's pros and cons. And, at the end of the day, there's more than 32 cities who are willing to use public funds to help finance a stadium, so cities that refuse to get "shaken down" just won't have a football team. Then move the Raiders? They have a history in LA too and are homeless. If St. Louis is sucker enough to pony up--it seems like they are--and the Rams move regardless it's terrible PR and will make other cities reluctant to do the same (add to that the clear lack of economic benefit). The league is greedy as gently caress and the owner wants out, sure, but it doesn't seem like that great of a move for the league considering the two other teams that need/want to move.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Yudo posted:Then move the Raiders? They have a history in LA too and are homeless. Teams have moved without the league's approval before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:Teams have moved without the league's approval before. The stakes in LA are very, very high. The NFL of 2k16 is nothing like the NFL of the 1980s, either. I mean, you never know, but it seems unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:I love how the Chargers brass keeps harping on protecting their "25% of revenue" that they get from Orange County/LA but never really comment on the other 75% that they're gonna lose from moving. Implicit in that is that there's 14 million people in LA so losing the 3 or so million in SD doesn't mean anything to them. They just won't day that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Raiders and Rams to LA. Chargers to St Louis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:Implicit in that is that there's 14 million people in LA so losing the 3 or so million in SD doesn't mean anything to them. They just won't day that. Yeah but 95% of LA doesn't and probably still won't care about the Chargers, whereas there is a decent fanbase in SD. It's a net loss in fanbase if they move, pretty much guaranteed. The amount of Orange County folks who are happier about the shorter drive aren't going to fill an arena and the majority of people attending Charger home games in LA will probably just be folks trying to network à la Levy's Stadium today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Zurreco posted:Yeah but 95% of LA doesn't and probably still won't care about the Chargers, whereas there is a decent fanbase in SD. It's a net loss in fanbase if they move, pretty much guaranteed. How so? If they stayed, the 25% of people who go to their games in LA would gradually drift to an LA team due to convenience. So they lose that market. What do they lose if they move to LA? Where do SD Charger fans go? Sure they have a longer drive and you're going to get less people from San Diego at games, but that's easily outweighed by the perks of having a city as massive as LA to get fan outreach going on. Not to mention that being in LA with such a huge amount of people means they'll be getting larger turnout from fans of other teams that come to visit, which sells tickets. From a business sense, they're absolutely right in trying to get into LA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
It was impression that LA fans were pretty fairweather. Weren't the Raiders playing in an empty stadium before they moved back up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:It was impression that LA fans were pretty fairweather. Weren't the Raiders playing in an empty stadium before they moved back up? Yes. It was/is a massive toilet as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Yudo posted:Yes. It was/is a massive toilet as well. The (LA) coliseum is cool and pretty it's just a super lovely place to watch sports because it's way too big and shallow so none of the seats are good seats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:The (LA) coliseum is cool and pretty it's just a super lovely place to watch sports because it's way too big and shallow so none of the seats are good seats. Fair enough. I read that it was a terrible football stadium and clearly I misunderstood what made it terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:The (LA) coliseum is cool and pretty it's just a super lovely place to watch sports because it's way too big and shallow so none of the seats are good seats. wasn't there an idea to remodel the Coliseum so that it could host an NFL team? Yep: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
To put the Coliseum in perspective, the concession booths didn't take credit cards until 4 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:To put the Coliseum in perspective, the concession booths didn't take credit cards until 4 years ago. Is that when they got their Square card readers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:I love how the Chargers brass keeps harping on protecting their "25% of revenue" that they get from Orange County/LA but never really comment on the other 75% that they're gonna lose from moving. Same. I love hearing Dean spout that line. Hope someone calls him out on that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
Zurreco posted:Yeah but 95% of LA doesn't and probably still won't care about the Chargers, whereas there is a decent fanbase in SD. It's a net loss in fanbase if they move, pretty much guaranteed. I agree, but it may not matter. To be honest, selling out a stadium is not going to be a problem anywhere in Southern California, SD or LA. The real money is in PSLs and naming rights and LA has a bigger business base to draw from. That's hundreds of millions of dollars that all go directly into the owner's pockets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
There's no justice if Dodge don't get naming rights for the stadium if the Rams and Chargers move.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Every single morning, I am forced to drive by Kroenke's vacant mansion in Columbia, MO and every time I want to burn it to the ground. gently caress this guy. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14512603/rams-owner-stan-kroenke-assert-st-louis-better-2-sport-city-los-angeles-relocation-application quote:-- The Rams and owner Stan Kroenke view their current home as a two-sport city that should no longer include football and offers a stadium plan that would not appeal to any NFL team, they told the league in their application for relocation to Los Angele
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
This is going to be a long post so apologies for the ranting. I've been an STL Rams fan since they moved here 20 years ago and as such have been engrossed in the relocation saga. Due to how pathetic the team has been during the last decade, it's been more "interesting" watching this play out than the team on the field. Given how much everyone here in STL already hates Stan, it's sort of amazing how that released document takes it to another level.Not even when Harry Ornest tried to move the Blues to Saskatoon (that was more sadness because the Arena really was a complete dump) or when Bidwell took the Cards to the desert (some anger yes, but a whole lot of public indifference) was there anywhere near the public sentiment there is towards Kroenke right now. He is literal Sports Hitler in STL this morning. Even people that have no interest in professional sports are angry for a variety of reasons because of the stunt taking place by the Rams/NFL. The attendance waning thing is the biggest loving joke of a statement I've ever seen regarding pro sports. The Rams have been horrendous the last 12 years, including what is/was (haven't checked today) the worst 5 year stretch in the history of the NFL. I believe the first time they didn't have a sellout was 08, which was during this stretch. Everyone has also known for several years what Stan's grand plan was. It's amazing that the last few years have been as well attended as they have, especially this year. So yeah, that report is complete horseshit given the context. All of the teams Stan currently owns are all in the bottom segment of their given league for attendance. Hmm, must just be a coincidence. He claims STL cannot support 3 pro sports franchises. Yes, that is really an NFL owner pleading publicly that he cannot compete with an NHL team. I love the Blues, but give me a loving break. Ignoring that, in the early 2000's when the Rams, Blues, and Cards were good everything was sold out. The positive I take from this document is that Kroenke has now finally taken all the speculation away and shown himself publicly to be on the same level as a movie villian (like in Major League), where I think it really hurts his case because of how bad the NFL is going to look when/if he hauls the Rams to LA. The most likely scenario is that Stan is going to be blocked. I really hope this happens not because I'm a Rams fan, but because I want to see what this worm does when confronted with that. gently caress the NFL.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
I recently got into a discussion with an Angelino about the Chargers moving to LA. The thing that pissed me off the most about this conversation was this quote: "San Diego clearly doesn't want the Chargers, if they did, they would have paid up years ago. The city should have just given them what they want if they love the Chargers so much." Since when is being a fan of a team also the same thing as being willing to pay massive taxes to keep said team? This pisses me off the most about the whole situation. The City of San Diego can't even elect officials who don't end up in jail, much less fix simple potholes and provide basic services. If I'm a taxpayer in SD, OF COURSE I want to keep the team, they're my hometown team and I will root for them provided they're in SD. But just because I love the Chargers doesn't mean I'll also direct scarce public resources to subsidize them. I have a feeling that if somehow this ends up going to a vote here, people will shoot it down. And frankly they should, but it won't be because we don't "want the Chargers", it'll be because the NFL is run by a bunch of greedy fuckers and we've had enough. And that's the distinction a lot of people are missing here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:Paul Allen I think By about 10 billion, There are a bunch of 5 billion guys including Kroenke, but if you count his wives Walmart money I am not sure if he tops Allen or not. Either way cites should just say don't let the door hit you in the rear end on the way out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
I'm surprised they would even consider building a stadium in Inglewood when, as I am told, it is always up to no good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
It is a cold comfort to have sport owners revealed as soulless villains looking for the best payout. Its been less than a decade since the SuperSonics' move to OKC and its already decided by every other sports fan that the cause was something to do with the city. The team(s) moving will be a blow to their original fanbase(s), but you really should find happiness that you won't be on the hook for another stadium payout and that some other group of suckers is. There is really no economic counter-reason to move a sports team if the owner has already decided and starts working toward it. Any budget issues are solved by a few cheap suite passes and donations to the involved civic leaders of the city you already want to go to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
Eltoasto posted:I'm surprised they would even consider building a stadium in Inglewood when, as I am told, it is always up to no good. I see you too have consulted Mr Shakur and the esteemed Dr Dre, MD. I can't imagine land prices in Compton or Watts are too high if they need an alternate site.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:48
|
|