NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[DEAD!]

I don't see why a Mickey Mouse organisation is such an insult. Mickey Mouse makes a lot of money ...

[Dynasty]

EDIT: It was already mentioned.

[Bengals1fan]

So Reggie Bush is reportedly suing the city of St. Louis over the injury he suffered at the dome. I didn't think an athlete could sue over something like that.

Well He has a decent argument because I think that the place and way he got injured wasn't really football related.

For example: If I run out of bounds and then get ran over by a guy in a cart who works for the city, can I sue the city for that?

The Cement and the way it's maintained is the same thing. If it's not standard and it really truly caused the injury he may have a case.

[monkeypower]

Just for the record, it doesn't have anything to do with Disney the company, just Bob Iger the individual.

[Gothamite]

Is it just me, or does that seem a bit desperate? They've committed to selling a portion of one of the teams if he can get the relocation plan approved. That's a pretty sweet plum that they wouldn't give up unless they really needed somebody new to come in and push the effort.

[dfwabel]

Following today's meeting, here is the quote from Oakland mayor Libby Schaff as reported by the AP:

"Todays meeting with the NFL reinforced that Oakland is correct in continuing to work directly with the team and the NFL to keep the Raiders in Oakland where they belong.

We were very grateful and excited to have the opportunity to make Oaklands case to the NFL today. I felt it was a positive discussion and that we were well-received by the Raiders leadership and the other NFL owners. They were engaged and asked great questions.

Moving forward, the City of Oakland is working to defeat the current bond and purchase Alameda Countys stake in the land and existing facilities. We are also beginning to analyze ways that we might monetize future revenue that could be generated from a stadium development.

We remain committed to responsibly keeping as many of our sports teams as possible. My focus continues to be on forging a partnership that supports a team-centered effort to build a new stadium for the Raiders in Oakland that will be successful for the fans and the team and responsible for the city and its taxpayers."

[neo_prankster]

Once again, I reiterate, if the Chargers want to go, the name, colors and history should stay here, because I don't think the LA fans would embrace them as much as they would the other two teams. If somehow, the city of San Diego could get a Cleveland type deal, would San Diegans go for it?

[Gothamite]

I don't think the situations are at all analogous.

[Norva]

And the Cleveland Deal should never be invoked ever again under any circumstances.

[OnWis97]

And the Cleveland Deal should never be invoked ever again under any circumstances.

I totally agree...though it's a debate we've exhausted around here.

Specifically for the Chargers, I'd argue that a Cleveland Deal makes less sense than it did for Cleveland or would have for Houston. First, the Chargers have history in LA (one year of AFL history, but still...). Second, the distance is not that great; NFL season ticket holders travel further than that to go to games (I personally know someone who does so from Ames, IA to the VIkings games), so it's quite possible for the LA Chargers to retain a meaningful portion of its current San Diego Chargers base. Even for non-traveling fans, the Chargers would retain the uniforms/history and TV priority. It's not unreasonable to expect that many people would keep watching, certainly more so than St. Louis fans sticking with the Rams. Third, how likely would San Diego be to get a team? If they did, I suppose that could be a point in the "Cleveland Deal" favor but dumping an entire history with no guarantee it will be resurrected is even worse than the Browns situation (where at least we knew it was coming back). I suppose they could do a "Sonics Deal" and change the name / keep the history until such time as San Diego gets a team. And hey, sports fans just love pulling out the White-Out bottles. But I stick by the stance that the best way to help the Chargers with having a fan base in SoCal is to keep the identity. Maybe the Chargers could be LA and south and the Raiders could be LA and north (assuming those are the two teams...)

[STL FANATIC]

Actually, the Cleveland deal SHOULD be the norm. (Well, to some extent. You can't just guarantee every city gets a team back, but you can guarantee that they keep their identity and history just in case.)

The problem is that it isn't reality. The current sports landscape is a CLUSTER:censored: of relocated, reborn, and even shared histories and identities.

There isn't a great way to go back and fix it. Especially in the NFL where so many of the teams legacy's are as attached to an ownership group as to a city. Defining who owns it is not very clear cut. (Well, legally it is entirely clear cut. Defining who SHOULD own it is another story.)

[Mac the Knife]

Once again, I reiterate, if the Chargers want to go, the name, colors and history should stay here, because I don't think the LA fans would embrace them as much as they would the other two teams. If somehow, the city of San Diego could get a Cleveland type deal, would San Diegans go for it?

Actually, the Cleveland deal SHOULD be the norm. (Well, to some extent. You can't just guarantee every city gets a team back, but you can guarantee that they keep their identity and history just in case.)

The problem is that it isn't reality. The current sports landscape is a CLUSTER:censored: of relocated, reborn, and even shared histories and identities.

There isn't a great way to go back and fix it. Especially in the NFL where so many of the teams legacy's are as attached to an ownership group as to a city. Defining who owns it is not very clear cut. (Well, legally it is entirely clear cut. Defining who SHOULD own it is another story.)

The Cleveland Browns are a "Bush v. Gore"-like, one-time precedent which likely will never again occur. In the case of whomever moves back to Los Angeles, the team actually has a history *in* Los Angeles as well as their current city, no matter how distant in their past. Odds are the point would be moot anyway, as there's no way Oakland or San Diego gets a replacement NFL team and St. Louis' history is that they'll adapt to whatever name the team already has (Cardinals, Rams).

[neo_prankster]

And the Cleveland Deal should never be invoked ever again under any circumstances.

I totally agree...though it's a debate we've exhausted around here.

Specifically for the Chargers, I'd argue that a Cleveland Deal makes less sense than it did for Cleveland or would have for Houston. First, the Chargers have history in LA (one year of AFL history, but still...). Second, the distance is not that great; NFL season ticket holders travel further than that to go to games (I personally know someone who does so from Ames, IA to the VIkings games), so it's quite possible for the LA Chargers to retain a meaningful portion of its current San Diego Chargers base. Even for non-traveling fans, the Chargers would retain the uniforms/history and TV priority. It's not unreasonable to expect that many people would keep watching, certainly more so than St. Louis fans sticking with the Rams. Third, how likely would San Diego be to get a team? If they did, I suppose that could be a point in the "Cleveland Deal" favor but dumping an entire history with no guarantee it will be resurrected is even worse than the Browns situation (where at least we knew it was coming back). I suppose they could do a "Sonics Deal" and change the name / keep the history until such time as San Diego gets a team. And hey, sports fans just love pulling out the White-Out bottles. But I stick by the stance that the best way to help the Chargers with having a fan base in SoCal is to keep the identity. Maybe the Chargers could be LA and south and the Raiders could be LA and north (assuming those are the two teams...)

My problem with keeping the name is that San Diegans will disown the Chargers if they move and keep the name. Who are San Diegans supposed to root for if the Chargers leave and keep the name?

[rams80]

And the Cleveland Deal should never be invoked ever again under any circumstances.

I totally agree...though it's a debate we've exhausted around here.

Specifically for the Chargers, I'd argue that a Cleveland Deal makes less sense than it did for Cleveland or would have for Houston. First, the Chargers have history in LA (one year of AFL history, but still...). Second, the distance is not that great; NFL season ticket holders travel further than that to go to games (I personally know someone who does so from Ames, IA to the VIkings games), so it's quite possible for the LA Chargers to retain a meaningful portion of its current San Diego Chargers base. Even for non-traveling fans, the Chargers would retain the uniforms/history and TV priority. It's not unreasonable to expect that many people would keep watching, certainly more so than St. Louis fans sticking with the Rams. Third, how likely would San Diego be to get a team? If they did, I suppose that could be a point in the "Cleveland Deal" favor but dumping an entire history with no guarantee it will be resurrected is even worse than the Browns situation (where at least we knew it was coming back). I suppose they could do a "Sonics Deal" and change the name / keep the history until such time as San Diego gets a team. And hey, sports fans just love pulling out the White-Out bottles. But I stick by the stance that the best way to help the Chargers with having a fan base in SoCal is to keep the identity. Maybe the Chargers could be LA and south and the Raiders could be LA and north (assuming those are the two teams...)

My problem with keeping the name is that San Diegans will disown the Chargers if they move and keep the name. Who are San Diegans supposed to root for if the Chargers leave and keep the name?

The Steelers, Packers, Patriots, or Cowboys. Like everyone else.

Next question.

[leopard88]

And the Cleveland Deal should never be invoked ever again under any circumstances.

I totally agree...though it's a debate we've exhausted around here.

Specifically for the Chargers, I'd argue that a Cleveland Deal makes less sense than it did for Cleveland or would have for Houston. First, the Chargers have history in LA (one year of AFL history, but still...). Second, the distance is not that great; NFL season ticket holders travel further than that to go to games (I personally know someone who does so from Ames, IA to the VIkings games), so it's quite possible for the LA Chargers to retain a meaningful portion of its current San Diego Chargers base. Even for non-traveling fans, the Chargers would retain the uniforms/history and TV priority. It's not unreasonable to expect that many people would keep watching, certainly more so than St. Louis fans sticking with the Rams. Third, how likely would San Diego be to get a team? If they did, I suppose that could be a point in the "Cleveland Deal" favor but dumping an entire history with no guarantee it will be resurrected is even worse than the Browns situation (where at least we knew it was coming back). I suppose they could do a "Sonics Deal" and change the name / keep the history until such time as San Diego gets a team. And hey, sports fans just love pulling out the White-Out bottles. But I stick by the stance that the best way to help the Chargers with having a fan base in SoCal is to keep the identity. Maybe the Chargers could be LA and south and the Raiders could be LA and north (assuming those are the two teams...)

My problem with keeping the name is that San Diegans will disown the Chargers if they move and keep the name. Who are San Diegans supposed to root for if the Chargers leave and keep the name?

Are you suggesting that San Diegans wouldn't disown the Chargers if they changed the name?

[neo_prankster]

And the Cleveland Deal should never be invoked ever again under any circumstances.

I totally agree...though it's a debate we've exhausted around here.

Specifically for the Chargers, I'd argue that a Cleveland Deal makes less sense than it did for Cleveland or would have for Houston. First, the Chargers have history in LA (one year of AFL history, but still...). Second, the distance is not that great; NFL season ticket holders travel further than that to go to games (I personally know someone who does so from Ames, IA to the VIkings games), so it's quite possible for the LA Chargers to retain a meaningful portion of its current San Diego Chargers base. Even for non-traveling fans, the Chargers would retain the uniforms/history and TV priority. It's not unreasonable to expect that many people would keep watching, certainly more so than St. Louis fans sticking with the Rams. Third, how likely would San Diego be to get a team? If they did, I suppose that could be a point in the "Cleveland Deal" favor but dumping an entire history with no guarantee it will be resurrected is even worse than the Browns situation (where at least we knew it was coming back). I suppose they could do a "Sonics Deal" and change the name / keep the history until such time as San Diego gets a team. And hey, sports fans just love pulling out the White-Out bottles. But I stick by the stance that the best way to help the Chargers with having a fan base in SoCal is to keep the identity. Maybe the Chargers could be LA and south and the Raiders could be LA and north (assuming those are the two teams...)

My problem with keeping the name is that San Diegans will disown the Chargers if they move and keep the name. Who are San Diegans supposed to root for if the Chargers leave and keep the name?

Are you suggesting that San Diegans wouldn't disown the Chargers if they changed the name?

I'm suggesting they simply don't want to see the name being used elsewhere.

[leopard88]

And the Cleveland Deal should never be invoked ever again under any circumstances.

I totally agree...though it's a debate we've exhausted around here.

Specifically for the Chargers, I'd argue that a Cleveland Deal makes less sense than it did for Cleveland or would have for Houston. First, the Chargers have history in LA (one year of AFL history, but still...). Second, the distance is not that great; NFL season ticket holders travel further than that to go to games (I personally know someone who does so from Ames, IA to the VIkings games), so it's quite possible for the LA Chargers to retain a meaningful portion of its current San Diego Chargers base. Even for non-traveling fans, the Chargers would retain the uniforms/history and TV priority. It's not unreasonable to expect that many people would keep watching, certainly more so than St. Louis fans sticking with the Rams. Third, how likely would San Diego be to get a team? If they did, I suppose that could be a point in the "Cleveland Deal" favor but dumping an entire history with no guarantee it will be resurrected is even worse than the Browns situation (where at least we knew it was coming back). I suppose they could do a "Sonics Deal" and change the name / keep the history until such time as San Diego gets a team. And hey, sports fans just love pulling out the White-Out bottles. But I stick by the stance that the best way to help the Chargers with having a fan base in SoCal is to keep the identity. Maybe the Chargers could be LA and south and the Raiders could be LA and north (assuming those are the two teams...)

My problem with keeping the name is that San Diegans will disown the Chargers if they move and keep the name. Who are San Diegans supposed to root for if the Chargers leave and keep the name?

Are you suggesting that San Diegans wouldn't disown the Chargers if they changed the name?

I'm suggesting they simply don't want to see the name being used elsewhere.

That makes sense. I thought you were suggesting they would be less angry if name was changed. We can ask Browns fans about that.

[OnWis97]

And the Cleveland Deal should never be invoked ever again under any circumstances.

I totally agree...though it's a debate we've exhausted around here.

Specifically for the Chargers, I'd argue that a Cleveland Deal makes less sense than it did for Cleveland or would have for Houston. First, the Chargers have history in LA (one year of AFL history, but still...). Second, the distance is not that great; NFL season ticket holders travel further than that to go to games (I personally know someone who does so from Ames, IA to the VIkings games), so it's quite possible for the LA Chargers to retain a meaningful portion of its current San Diego Chargers base. Even for non-traveling fans, the Chargers would retain the uniforms/history and TV priority. It's not unreasonable to expect that many people would keep watching, certainly more so than St. Louis fans sticking with the Rams. Third, how likely would San Diego be to get a team? If they did, I suppose that could be a point in the "Cleveland Deal" favor but dumping an entire history with no guarantee it will be resurrected is even worse than the Browns situation (where at least we knew it was coming back). I suppose they could do a "Sonics Deal" and change the name / keep the history until such time as San Diego gets a team. And hey, sports fans just love pulling out the White-Out bottles. But I stick by the stance that the best way to help the Chargers with having a fan base in SoCal is to keep the identity. Maybe the Chargers could be LA and south and the Raiders could be LA and north (assuming those are the two teams...)

My problem with keeping the name is that San Diegans will disown the Chargers if they move and keep the name. Who are San Diegans supposed to root for if the Chargers leave and keep the name?

I was suggesting that San Diegans will be less likely to disown the Chargers if they keep the name. They are not moving that far away and will remain the weekly TV attraction. I am not really sure whether that's true or not, but I tend to doubt changing names will actually have them "disown" the team less. So the only negative to keeping the name is future consideration of a future San Diego franchise, which may or may not every exist.

[neo_prankster]

And the Cleveland Deal should never be invoked ever again under any circumstances.

I totally agree...though it's a debate we've exhausted around here.

Specifically for the Chargers, I'd argue that a Cleveland Deal makes less sense than it did for Cleveland or would have for Houston. First, the Chargers have history in LA (one year of AFL history, but still...). Second, the distance is not that great; NFL season ticket holders travel further than that to go to games (I personally know someone who does so from Ames, IA to the VIkings games), so it's quite possible for the LA Chargers to retain a meaningful portion of its current San Diego Chargers base. Even for non-traveling fans, the Chargers would retain the uniforms/history and TV priority. It's not unreasonable to expect that many people would keep watching, certainly more so than St. Louis fans sticking with the Rams. Third, how likely would San Diego be to get a team? If they did, I suppose that could be a point in the "Cleveland Deal" favor but dumping an entire history with no guarantee it will be resurrected is even worse than the Browns situation (where at least we knew it was coming back). I suppose they could do a "Sonics Deal" and change the name / keep the history until such time as San Diego gets a team. And hey, sports fans just love pulling out the White-Out bottles. But I stick by the stance that the best way to help the Chargers with having a fan base in SoCal is to keep the identity. Maybe the Chargers could be LA and south and the Raiders could be LA and north (assuming those are the two teams...)

My problem with keeping the name is that San Diegans will disown the Chargers if they move and keep the name. Who are San Diegans supposed to root for if the Chargers leave and keep the name?

I was suggesting that San Diegans will be less likely to disown the Chargers if they keep the name. They are not moving that far away and will remain the weekly TV attraction. I am not really sure whether that's true or not, but I tend to doubt changing names will actually have them "disown" the team less. So the only negative to keeping the name is future consideration of a future San Diego franchise, which may or may not every exist.

But still, there are those in SD who consider LA a regional rival.

[teddthebucfan]

Edit: This board has too many NFL threads.