duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

oddball    162

$700M will go a long way towards getting it built. That's why you should care.

$700 million ain't going to get a stadium built without government (local) and community approval. Money only goes so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the admiral    10,213

It's Los Angeles. One time they couldn't build a stadium without community approval, so they just got rid of the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MBurmy    428

How about the Vikings play at Farmers Field, and the Chargers at that City of Industry Stadium?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ARTnSocal    77

I've never heard of a new football stadium being built when they know going into it that the only way of gaining a tenant for it is to steal one from a city with an existing franchise, one who has not committed to moving ... (unless there's something underhanded going on with an existing team behind the scenes) .. there'll be no expansion club.

The others who've moved (St L, Tenn, Baltimore) played in an existing stadium upon their move. No new stadium broke ground to be built until after the deal was made for the LA Rams, Houston, and Cleveland to move.

It's going to be very interesting to see if they actually break ground and start building it before they have a team.

LA is the worst city to give an NFL team .....I should know, I live there.

The vast majority out in the LA area are all from other cities across the USA who support other teams. Try going to a CHARGERS game in San Diego and see how many of the opponents fans fill their stadium rooting for their original hometown team and then multiply it if the team is based in LA, and that's considering that the CHARGERS have a pretty strong 50-year home base in San Diego.

101215_downtown_nfl_stadium_aeg.jpg110201_farmers_field.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the admiral    10,213

Los Angeles lost both its teams over facility concerns, not for lack of fan interest. Al Davis grew disenchanted with the LA Coliseum, and Oakland promised to build him a better stadium. The murderous old hag decided she wanted her team in St. Louis and sabotaged the LA Rams to that end. The Rams, Raiders, Chargers, and even the Jaguars would all do very well in Los Angeles. To say that the second-largest metro in the country is unable to support an NFL team is ludicrous, and that the situation has been allowed to even come to the point where people can argue this is one of the NFL's few failures. To repurpose my argument for the preservation of the North Stars, when someone says "I'm taking my football team out of Los Angeles," you're supposed to say "no you aren't."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Six    443

The vast majority out in the LA area are all from other cities across the USA who support other teams.

That's because, hello, there's no team in LA. You think Staples Center is filled to the brim with opposing fans at Lakers and Clippers games? Believe it or not, there are people that are actually from LA that are growing up without a hometown team. A LOT of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gothamite    5,869

$700M will go a long way towards getting it built. That's why you should care.

$700 million ain't going to get a stadium built without government (local) and community approval. Money only goes so far.

Both stadium plans are proceeding quite nicely with local governmental approval, actually. I haven't checked in on them in a while, but hasn't the City of Industry one cleared all hurdles? Aren't they just waiting for a team before rolling the bulldozers in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crashcarson15    974

The others who've moved (St L, Tenn, Baltimore) played in an existing stadium upon their move. No new stadium broke ground to be built until after the deal was made for the LA Rams, Houston, and Cleveland to move.

Right, and at least Tennessee and Baltimore I know played in run-down dumps for a couple of years before the new stadium was built. That's what would happen here if we were talking Minnesota, St. Louis, or Jacksonville to move. They'd come to the agreement, then play in the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl for a couple of years, then move to the City of Industry or Downtown LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Viper    115

I've never heard of a new football stadium being built when they know going into it that the only way of gaining a tenant for it is to steal one from a city with an existing franchise, one who has not committed to moving ... (unless there's something underhanded going on with an existing team behind the scenes) .. there'll be no expansion club.

The others who've moved (St L, Tenn, Baltimore) played in an existing stadium upon their move. No new stadium broke ground to be built until after the deal was made for the LA Rams, Houston, and Cleveland to move.

It's going to be very interesting to see if they actually break ground and start building it before they have a team.

LA is the worst city to give an NFL team .....I should know, I live there.

The vast majority out in the LA area are all from other cities across the USA who support other teams. Try going to a CHARGERS game in San Diego and see how many of the opponents fans fill their stadium rooting for their original hometown team and then multiply it if the team is based in LA, and that's considering that the CHARGERS have a pretty strong 50-year home base in San Diego.

101215_downtown_nfl_stadium_aeg.jpg110201_farmers_field.jpg

The NFL's interest in LA has nothing to do with the ability to fill a stadium, shiny and new or otherwise. It's all about TV and the sheer size of the potential viewing audience, which in LA's case would dwarf that of any of the markets whose teams are being speculated to possibly move to LA. It's quite possible that one of those teams could pull in far more TV viewer-games per season representing LA, even with all their home games blacked out and only a small fraction of local viewers tuning in to the road games that are locally televised, than they ever could in their current home markets even with all their home games sold out and televised. (Jacksonville, that means you... though that might even be the case with mid-sized markets like Minnesota and St. Louis as well.)

It's sort of like the Gary Bettman-era mentality in the NHL, the notion that a team could make more money playing in some big US Sun Belt city where few of the locals care about hockey than it does playing in a smaller Canadian or northern US city with a much more rabid, but also much smaller and/or less affluent fan base and less corporate support.

How about the Vikings play at Farmers Field, and the Chargers at that City of Industry Stadium?

I can't find the link at the moment, but I read somewhere the other day that the City of Industry stadium proposal is pretty much dead now. For the NFL in LA, it looks like Farmers Field or bust.

On the other hand, even if they don't bring in an NFL team, there's always USC football. No doubt the Trojans would ditch the dump they're playing in now for a state-of-the-art jewel like Farmers Field at the drop of a helmet. That is if UCLA doesn't beat them to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rams80    2,751

The vast majority out in the LA area are all from other cities across the USA who support other teams. Try going to a CHARGERS game in San Diego and see how many of the opponents fans fill their stadium rooting for their original hometown team and then multiply it if the team is based in LA, and that's considering that the CHARGERS have a pretty strong 50-year home base in San Diego.

So it'd be like Rams games now, only with more people in the stands and better TV ratings. Can they move now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ARTnSocal    77

That's because, hello, there's no team in LA. You think Staples Center is filled to the brim with opposing fans at Lakers and Clippers games? Believe it or not, there are people that are actually from LA that are growing up without a hometown team. A LOT of people.

We're not talking basketball we're talking football. There's also the issue of location.

The LAKERS have been in LA for 50 years and have a solid foundation which makes for a solid home support when trying to fill a 17-18,000 seat arena, compared to a 60-70,000 seat stadium.

Admiral ... We all know why both the RAIDERS and RAMS left. I'd attended games at the Coliseum for both clubs, and Anaheim stadium post 1980 when the RAMS moved there. The home support for both teams was horrendous, very laid back fans (especially RAMS), and not a true NFL atmosphere. You couldn't tailgate at either stadiums although Anaheim at least had a parking area for it but the RAMS forbade it.

RAIDER games were filled with a bunch of thugs, gang members, and tons of fans from the opposing club. I witnessed the worst violence there. Parking was a major problem, again you couldn't tailgate, Surrounding area is all city streets and some rough neighborhoods.

Part of the NFL experience is tailgating. If they build a football stadium by Staples Center where will people park & tailgate?

If they insist on putting an NFL team back in LA, fine .......... but .............. The heart of Downtown LA? Can that really be considered an area to build a modern-day NFL football stadium? ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LMU    3,017

On the other hand, even if they don't bring in an NFL team, there's always USC football. No doubt the Trojans would ditch the dump they're playing in now for a state-of-the-art jewel like Farmers Field at the drop of a helmet. That is if UCLA doesn't beat them to it.

The Coliseum and the Rose Bowl are both undergoing or are set to undergo renovations. USC is even trying to buy the land under the Coliseum. The issue with those two venues and NFL-feasibility has been the far too large footprints and seating capacities that would ensure blackouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rams80    2,751

That's because, hello, there's no team in LA. You think Staples Center is filled to the brim with opposing fans at Lakers and Clippers games? Believe it or not, there are people that are actually from LA that are growing up without a hometown team. A LOT of people.

We're not talking basketball we're talking football. There's also the issue of location.

The LAKERS have been in LA for 50 years and have a solid foundation which makes for a solid home support when trying to fill a 17-18,000 seat arena, compared to a 60-70,000 seat stadium.

Admiral ... We all know why both the RAIDERS and RAMS left. I'd attended games at the Coliseum for both clubs, and Anaheim stadium post 1980 when the RAMS moved there. The home support for both teams was horrendous, very laid back fans (especially RAMS), and not a true NFL atmosphere. You couldn't tailgate at either stadiums although Anaheim at least had a parking area for it but the RAMS forbade it.

RAIDER games were filled with a bunch of thugs, gang members, and tons of fans from the opposing club. I witnessed the worst violence there. Parking was a major problem, again you couldn't tailgate, Surrounding area is all city streets and some rough neighborhoods.

Part of the NFL experience is tailgating. If they build a football stadium by Staples Center where will people park & tailgate?

If they insist on putting an NFL team back in LA, fine .......... but .............. The heart of Downtown LA? Can that really be considered an area to build a modern-day NFL football stadium? ...

GEORGIA FRONTIERE WROTE THE TEXTBOOK CASE OF NUKING A PROFESSIONAL SPORTS MARKET

Major League is about her, albeit in a non-libelous manner.

No :censored: there wasn't a true NFL atmosphere in Anaheim under the Frontiere regime. That was the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RyanMcD29    312

It strikes me how a stadium yet to have a shovel on the ground has a sponsorship deal yet we're still stuck with the clunker of "New Meadowlands Stadium" still around as a name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CubsFanBudMan    350

The OC Register's story on this has the L.A. mayor quoted as saying he "has a preference of teams -- you've seen pictures," apparently referring to mockups like above where Farmers is replaced by Vikings in one and Chargers in the other. Have we seen these?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColorWerx    397

It strikes me how a stadium yet to have a shovel on the ground has a sponsorship deal yet we're still stuck with the clunker of "New Meadowlands Stadium" still around as a name

And "Cowboys Stadium".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JQK    592

Yes! How dare stadiums not have corporation names on them! OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColorWerx    397

Yes! How dare stadiums not have corporation names on them! OUTRAGEOUS!!!

My point is, that I'd prefer some sort of permanent name, instead of these "placeholder" names.

And, a non-corporate sponsorship name would be ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JQK    592

Personally, i think Cowboys Stadium is staying...

New Meadowlands Stadium, I agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perfect Zero    13

Yes! How dare stadiums not have corporation names on them! OUTRAGEOUS!!!

I was talking to an Arlington City Council member the other day, and he said that there is a name on hold, but the company doesn't want to fork the money over until their situation is complete. BTW, it isn't Bank of America like a lot of people are saying around here (think of a really old company).

In any case, I've never understood naming rights. When the Ballpark in Arlington was built, it was known as "the Ballpark." When Ameriquest bought the naming rights, it was known as "the Ballpark." When it switched to Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, it became known as "the Ballpark." Heck, even Cowboys Stadium is more commonly referred to as "Jerryworld." So how does it even help a company to buy naming rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now