Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Las Vegas is everything people say is bad about America, all concentrated in one place.

 

You spelled New Jersey wrong. 

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Well keep in mind it would not have been a sublet if permanent. The Raiders were offered full partnership early on before the Niners were rejected and went it alone. So the implication of playing there still stands. Remember per the NFL bylaws teams can't move if there is a legitimate option in their home city. It's why St. Louis is suing and will likely win that suit as they presented a viable option that Kroenke didn't want to use. Levis was a viable option for the Raiders they conveniently ignored. 

 

I maintain an open air stadium IN THE SWAMP ON THE :censored: ING Mississippi River isn't nearly as viable a football venue as St Louis likes to pretend it is.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any precedent to teams playing in literally the same stadium in the same city (like Santa Clara) but each being based in other cities and named for those cities? Having both an Oakland team and a SF team playing in Santa Clara makes my brain a splode. 

 

The Raiders should just change their name in that case, esp since Oakland is suing them. 

 

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should just pull the logos off of their helmets and play for a year as the Rogue Raiders or something. They already have plain enough uniforms. 

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

The Raiders should just change their name in that case, esp since Oakland is suing them. 

 

If Oakland was guaranteed a franchise like Cleveland was after they left then I'd say ... yes, have them rebrand. But, I don't see the NFL expanding into an old market, let alone one already shared with another NFL team.

 

Relocation? Really the only team I could see on the move would be MAYBE the Jaguars? 

kimball banner.png

"I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." Lily Tomlin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Is there any precedent to teams playing in literally the same stadium in the same city (like Santa Clara) but each being based in other cities and named for those cities? Having both an Oakland team and a SF team playing in Santa Clara makes my brain a splode. 

 

The Raiders should just change their name in that case, esp since Oakland is suing them. 

 

 

I mean most of the scenarios involving the Raiders next year are mind blowing. 

 

A. They stay in Oakland and get gouged for a portion of the money Oakland is hoping to recoup in the lawsuit (and essentially fund the suit against them and the NFL)

B. They move to Santa Clara for a year, prove they should have been there all along, and we get the weird two teams with different cities names playing in a third city thing.

C. They move to San Diego, force the Chargers to play an away game at a venue and city they abandoned only two years ago and prove San Diego is a better NFL town than Carson.

D. They move to San Antonio, play 1200 miles from their nearest fans

E. Give in and move to Vegas early to play in a venue that is ill equipped and botch the initial entry to their new market. 

F. Move to London for a year, which is just whacky on its face. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Is there any precedent to teams playing in literally the same stadium in the same city (like Santa Clara) but each being based in other cities and named for those cities? Having both an Oakland team and a SF team playing in Santa Clara makes my brain a splode. 

 

The Raiders should just change their name in that case, esp since Oakland is suing them. 

 

It's a thing in Aussie Rules.  Four teams (Melbourne, Richmond, Collingwood, Hawthorn) all play at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

VmWIn6B.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Really one of the best things that ever happened on this board.

 

I like the title of that YouTube clip: "Mets fan rages." If they only knew. And then he got to be on television with A-Rod!

 

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Las Vegas is everything people say is bad about America, all concentrated in one place. 

 

Too much food, too much wasted money, too many wasted resources, irresponsible indifference to the changing climate around it, and, in the last year, a major gun massacre. It gets more and more true. Vegas is the pits. I wish Summer League were held elsewhere.

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kimball said:

 

If Oakland was guaranteed a franchise like Cleveland was after they left then I'd say ... yes, have them rebrand. But, I don't see the NFL expanding into an old market, let alone one already shared with another NFL team.

 

No, I meant change the "Oakland" part of their name. Just be the Raiders.  They're too big to be tied down to only one city. 

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Camden Crazy said:

 

Let me guess, Vegas is also to blame for Sacramento not getting an MLS team too, right?

 

No, Vegas is just the most garbage city on a long list of garbage cities. Their USL club is actually pretty cool. I’m actually kinda sad for them, being stuck in the world’s largest trash can, after all. They deserve better. 

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

No, I meant change the "Oakland" part of their name. Just be the Raiders.  They're too big to be tied down to only one city. 

 

Gotcha.

 

I could see that working with them.

kimball banner.png

"I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." Lily Tomlin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

I mean most of the scenarios involving the Raiders next year are mind blowing. 

 

A. They stay in Oakland and get gouged for a portion of the money Oakland is hoping to recoup in the lawsuit (and essentially fund the suit against them and the NFL)

B. They move to Santa Clara for a year, prove they should have been there all along, and we get the weird two teams with different cities names playing in a third city thing.

C. They move to San Diego, force the Chargers to play an away game at a venue and city they abandoned only two years ago and prove San Diego is a better NFL town than Carson.

D. They move to San Antonio, play 1200 miles from their nearest fans

E. Give in and move to Vegas early to play in a venue that is ill equipped and botch the initial entry to their new market. 

F. Move to London for a year, which is just whacky on its face. 

 

If option C is used, it will reinforce the fact that the Raiders were more popular than the Chargers ever were in San Diego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, neo_prankster said:

 

If option C is used, it will reinforce the fact that the Raiders were more popular than the Chargers ever were in San Diego.

 

Won’t agree with that. The Chargers were very popular in San Diego when they were a San Diego team. Their lack of support now that they’re not representing San Diego is not indicative of anything from 5-10 years ago before the Dolts started agitating to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2018 at 10:13 AM, bosrs1 said:

Remember per the NFL bylaws teams can't move if there is a legitimate option in their home city. It's why St. Louis is suing and will likely win that suit as they presented a viable option that Kroenke didn't want to use.

 

Once St. Louis defaulted on the Rams’ lease, nothing else mattered.  They lost any hope of forcing the team to stay in town, no matter how much Goodell tried to help the city behind the scenes. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.