|
Keyser S0ze posted:I was guessing you guys all really just miss the Oilers though, and only tolerate the replacement Houston Texans because you really couldn't tolerate supporting the Cowboys. I'm old enough to remember the Oilers and the assholery of Bud Adams, but I wasn't invested enough in football at the time to follow them to Tennessee or switch to the Cowboys. Now that Bud is dead (and the Titans haven't really had our number anyway) no one really seems to hate the Titans. The Texans are our team, and another vehicle for our Dallas rivalry.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
kiimo posted:Forcing the South Side of Chicago to root for the Cubs would be so hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Forcing the South Side of Chicago to root for the Cubs would be so hilarious. A lot of the South Side already does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Rotoworld posted:The Chargers have applied to trademark "Los Angeles Chargers."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Eww go away Chargers nobody wants you here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Forcing the South Side of Chicago to root for the Cubs would be so hilarious. They learned to like the Bears after the Cardinals left 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
and then there was one.  we're gonna have to put up with another year of this bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
so with the Chargers moving in surely there is zero need for public money right
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Apparently no one cares, because this is the #9 story on ESPN, right under Ray Rice coaching college running backs and Antwaan Randle El being all messed up from football.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
It's because filing for trademarks means absolutely nothing. You do it if the chance of moving is anything >0%.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Goon project, register San Antonio raiders and profit
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:It's because filing for trademarks means absolutely nothing. You do it if the chance of moving is anything >0%. This. The cost (on NFL cost scales) is miniscule, you just do it immediately because you don't want a situation where the decision gets made to move, and you don't have your team name trademarked yet. I wouldn't be surprised if the Raiders go ahead and TM the LA Raders (if they don't have it already, which they probably do), just in case they wind up going in 2017. Maybe grab San Antonio Raiders too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
It seems to me like the Chargers being second fiddle to the Rams in LA is a way worse proposition than staying with San Diego.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Kirios posted:It seems to me like the Chargers being second fiddle to the Rams in LA is a way worse proposition than staying with San Diego. Whichever team starts winning first will control LA for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Might as well just merge them as the L.A. Ramchargers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
LA Rams. LA Chargers. LA Dodgers. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:LA Rams. Brought to you by Ford.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Jubs posted:Whichever team starts winning first will control LA for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:Might as well just merge them as the L.A. Ramchargers. As long as Dodge gets the stadium naming rights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
I don't buy any news story any more. Everyone is mostly convinced of a different thing. This is some BS reporting, nobody knows a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Yes, but they didn't try to trademark "LA/Lost Angeles Superchargers." Now is our chance to get on that and force them to make a new fight song!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
I'll believe it when they trademark "Los Angeles Chargers of Anaheim"
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
quote:The mayor of Los Angeles won't be advocating for the addition of a second team. lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
The city has already gone Rams crazy and nobody wants the Chargers here. Kroenke has already won.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
A rivalry alright in the preseason
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
kiimo posted:The city has already gone Rams crazy and nobody wants the Chargers here. Kroenke has already won. Hopefully it's a double win. My team stays, AND Spanos gets boned
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
I hope so. The worst case scenario is the Chargers move to LA, nobody cares and they're the 90s Clippers for 25 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:Hopefully it's a double win. My team stays, AND Spanos gets boned
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Spanos is going to have to publicly hand over control to his kids who, by all reports, want to stay in SD. Do that, kill/fire Fabiani and go on a charm offensive and they might have a chance
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:Spanos is going to have to publicly hand over control to his kids who, by all reports, want to stay in SD. Do that, kill/fire Fabiani and go on a charm offensive and they might have a chance Fire Fabiani, bring in Larry Lucchino, ???. profit!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Can't wait for Spanos to decide he's gonna stay in SD, but then have the ballot measure get voted down and the city/county refuse to help pay for a new stadium. I was really surprised they didn't wait until they got the results of that ballot measure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
So who can't wait for London to be the new boogeyman to coerce cities into paying for stadiums with taxpayer money? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/american-football/35360989 As a Brit I am really lukewarm about this plan, and I get the impression a lot of people in the UK aren't too excited either. The Wembley games are cool and fun, but it's nice to have them as a special thing. I don't think you would get nearly the turnout for a full 16 week season, especially since this team is guaranteed to be pretty poo poo. There is no way good talent will want to play in London and whoever the owners are will almost certainly not care about the on field product and will be primarily concerned with making money - else why up sticks and move to London? I think you would see a repeat of NFL Europe - a short burst of excitement, followed by a slow decline in the quality of the play on the field and corresponding drop in the attendance, until the whole thing is quietly folded back up into the league or just folds outright. It's also an open question how many fans would switch allegiance from their current team to a London one. As a 10+ year Lions fan i'm not sure I just want to drop the Lions because Goodell wants to cement his legacy as bringing the NFL abroad, plus it just feels weird to me to have a team that would be so disconnected from the rest of the league in every way. I always thought it was a shame that NFL Europe died, though I did give up on it after the Claymores got shitcanned. A lot of people disliked the rotating rosters and the D-League feel of it, but I actually liked that aspect and getting to see no-name players get a second chance and flourish in the NFL proper like Kurt Warner. I guess it was just too expensive to run though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
The quality of play would depend on the owners, not the players. The NFL CBA gives players almost no power and since free agency was implemented, every single new agreement takes more power from them and gives it to the owners, so you pretty much have to expect that trend will continue in the next agreement, which will happen before 2022. The players they draft will be there 4-6 years minimum if they are players they want to keep...at present, 7 years minimum if it's a first round draft pick worthy of a franchise tag (fifth year option after the initial four year deal, then two franchise tags before they become untaggable). The bottom line is that it could lose the NFL a lot of money, but it also could gain them much MORE money if it succeeds, and if down the line they could put more franchises in Europe, they could remove the scheduling unpleasantries, increase revenue exponentially, and increase the talent pool enough that further expansion not only doesn't dilute the talent pool, the pool is stronger than it currently is with essentially just the US. I mean, we all agree it probably won't work. But it theoretically could, and the NFL has so much money it's not much skin off their back if it fails. I think this is what they're thinking. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I was really surprised they didn't wait until they got the results of that ballot measure. Can't wait, gotta be first to the market! *second to the market behind the city's most beloved franchise*
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:The quality of play would depend on the owners, not the players. The NFL CBA gives players almost no power and since free agency was implemented, every single new agreement takes more power from them and gives it to the owners, so you pretty much have to expect that trend will continue in the next agreement, which will happen before 2022. I guess I was thinking more of baseball and how players will have no-trade clauses to make it more expensive to move them to cities they don't want to play in, and forgot how little power NFL players have in comparison. But still, you have to imagine that quality free agents are going to want a premium to move to London (even if hiring top free agents is not a good way to build a football team but w.e.) But you are totally right that it is down to ownership, and I simply cannot see an owner that is going to want to move to London also put out a winning team on the field. As with the Rams and whatever other team moves to LA, having a memorable team on the field in the early years will be crucial to keeping people's interest, otherwise they are going to see a lovely team driving people away, and we are back to square one with an owner facing dwindling revenue and threatening to move.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I guess I was thinking more of baseball and how players will have no-trade clauses to make it more expensive to move them to cities they don't want to play in, and forgot how little power NFL players have in comparison. But still, you have to imagine that quality free agents are going to want a premium to move to London (even if hiring top free agents is not a good way to build a football team but w.e.) I think you might be wrong on quality free agents, because while there will be people who don't want to move to London, there will be people who are very excited to move to London. Versus Cleveland or Indy, where there is literally no one who is excited to go there. So it's probably going to be like any other major market, where there are a lot of people drawn to it for various reasons and some put off by it for others. Regarding ownership, you're probably right, unless a UK-based owner ends up buying and moving a team or getting an expansion franchise. I don't know how likely that is. Barring that, the team would probably only be successful if they lucked out on the next Peyton or Brady.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Jeez the Rams already have 45,000 season tickets deposits in just 2 days. Also heard on the radio that the Rams value doubled after moving to LA. edit: also a second lawsuit from PSL holders in St. Louis was just filed. kiimo fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Move the AFC to Europe
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Sharzak posted:Move the NFC East to North Korea
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:10
|
|