duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

Oh man that thing is obscene. Imagine a 200 foot tall cross made from shed materials. Even if I don't like it, I get that people want to tell everyone they're Christian, I just don't understand making it so ugly and obtrusive.

Also, because its basically halfway between my mom and I, we occasionally meet there. There's actually a pretty decent restaurant near there (Firefly Grill) that makes you go…"Wait this is Effingham!?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man that thing is obscene. Imagine a 200 foot tall cross made from shed materials. Even if I don't like it, I get that people want to tell everyone they're Christian, I just don't understand making it so ugly and obtrusive.

Why imagine when one has google... ^_^

10368000.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, pcgd called it.

Back on topic, things just got interesting. Sam Farmer of the LA Times just reported that there won't be an owners' vote on the proposals. Apparently Spanos and Kroenke each have the nine votes necessary to kill the other proposal, so the NFL will "manage" the relocation process.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/17/report-nfl-to-manage-the-outcome-in-l-a/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, pcgd called it.

Back on topic, things just got interesting. Sam Farmer of the LA Times just reported that there won't be an owners' vote on the proposals. Apparently Spanos and Kroenke each have the nine votes necessary to kill the other proposal, so the NFL will "manage" the relocation process.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/17/report-nfl-to-manage-the-outcome-in-l-a/

Nothing quite like the corporate equivalent of a Mexican stand-off, is there?

If Farmer's report's accurate, it's all over already - it'll be the Chargers and Rams, playing at Kroenke's site. Who'll own what are the details they'll work out during the next several months, but if both Spanos and Kroenke each can count on 9 "No" votes for a relocation plan that doesn't include them? The Raiders are screwed blue and tattooed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, pcgd called it.

Back on topic, things just got interesting. Sam Farmer of the LA Times just reported that there won't be an owners' vote on the proposals. Apparently Spanos and Kroenke each have the nine votes necessary to kill the other proposal, so the NFL will "manage" the relocation process.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/17/report-nfl-to-manage-the-outcome-in-l-a/

Nothing quite like the corporate equivalent of a Mexican stand-off, is there?

If Farmer's report's accurate, it's all over already - it'll be the Chargers and Rams, playing at Kroenke's site. Who'll own what are the details they'll work out during the next several months, but if both Spanos and Kroenke each can count on 9 "No" votes for a relocation plan that doesn't include them? The Raiders are screwed blue and tattooed.

San Antonio Raiders anyone?

Because they sure as heck can't stay where they are, and Oakland isn't going to be helping them do anything except pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always San Antonio :D

Chargers/Rams in LA and the Raiders in San Antonio would be just fine with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think we're going to see the Chargers and Rams in LA. I'm not sure why, I just don't think so.

But my tune has changed from a week ago or whenever that was. Not feeling very optimistic that the Rams stay in St. Louis.

I still think it's the most logical thing in that it directly solves many issues, but where big money and big egos are involved, that may be completely irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Rivers getting his contract means the Chargers aren't moving :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still hold the opinion that if the Chargers came to LA, they'd be miserably supported because they'll have move with the Rams or Raiders, two teams with existing and large fanbases here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Rivers getting his contract means the Chargers aren't moving :P

Yeah, not sure about that. They've been pretty clear to say he'll finish his career a Charger, not that he'll be finishing his career in San Diego.

I still hold the opinion that if the Chargers came to LA, they'd be miserably supported because they'll have move with the Rams or Raiders, two teams with existing and large fanbases here.

Take it for what it is, but some polling shows that LA fans are actually pretty fond of the Chargers overall. Second only to the Rams. The Raiders for all their fan bluster and visibility, are actually not that wanted in LA. Which shouldn't surprise anyone as that's their existing situation up in Oakland as well. The Raiders have visible and highly motivated fans, but there are far too few of them. You're either a die-hard, or you're not a Raider fan at all unlike normal teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think we're going to see the Chargers and Rams in LA. I'm not sure why, I just don't think so.

It's an odd pairing, to be sure.

Rams and Raiders is probably the strongest set. You'd have the establishment team in the Rams, with the long history. To contrast that, the Raiders would stand as the anti-establishment, rough and tumble team.

How would the Chargers market themselves if they have to share the Rams' stadium? How do they build on whatever support they already have? "We're the AFC club" hardly seems notable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the plus side? You only need one set of peripheral signage ;)

I'm not sure about the Rams staying in St. Louis solving very many problems. If anything? It creates problems.

Raiders/Rams? That works.

Chargers/Rams? That works.

Raiders/Chargers, which would happen if the Rams stay in St. Louis? That doesn't. It forces either the Raiders or Chargers to move to the NFC. Which is unacceptable for a multitude of reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone overthinks the marketability of these teams. I think we've seen enough case studies in sports and specifically in LA that if a team is successful it will find pretty strong support, and if it's not—especially if the other is—it will probably lack support.

If both teams are successful then I suspect they'll do just fine drawing from the large LA area including (especially if the Chargers are involved) San Diego.

On field results will largely dictate support after an initial honeymoon stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about the Rams staying in St. Louis solving very many problems. If anything? It creates problems.

Raiders/Rams? That works.

Chargers/Rams? That works.

Raiders/Chargers, which would happen if the Rams stay in St. Louis? That doesn't. It forces either the Raiders or Chargers to move to the NFC. Which is unacceptable for a multitude of reasons.

Well it's not JUST the Rams staying in St. Louis. It has to come with the Carson plan being picked of course. And it solves problems because it keeps two California teams in California with a sparkling new stadium and can still market to San Diego. It gets the Rams a new stadium (if they choose to work with it). If they care about keeping the STL market, it also of course does that, though I know there's debate here upon that.

But any scenario that involves the Rams moving to LA, even if one of the other two joins them, still leaves a team without an acceptable (at this point) plan for a new stadium.

While alignment may be a consideration, I think it is way, way, way, way down on the list of factors here. There's no gigantic and direct monetary aspect to that part of the situation. There is for new stadiums and market retaining/gaining.

Many here, I think, believe that St. Louis market just isn't very valuable and that the San Diego market is significantly more so. I don't think I agree, but fair enough. But my stance on what is logical is based on solving each teams stadium drama with secondary attention to the losing the least amount of a market as possible. (Again, SD is still Southern California, at least.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point you're ignoring is that San Diego's offered plan is just as good as St. Louis'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.