CubsFanBudMan Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The farmersfield.com website states that the stadium will hold approx. 68,000, and will be expandable to 78,000.Building the stadium with a 68-78,000 capacity is foolish just as it was in Soldier Field. The Bears could easily sell out 80,000 every week, but instead they have one of the smallest capacities in the NFL with no room to expand. The LA stadium should seat at least 75,000 for regular games.I agree. I've been thinking that since I first saw the 68,000 number. Incredibly short-sighted, as Chicago found out. I figured they could do temporary expansion like the Cowboys are doind this weekend, but it still seems small.And I agree with McCall that I don't think LA will be there waiting with an open slot in 2015. I think this will be done much sooner than that, maybe after the lockout. Now, that doesn't mean there won't be a threat to have a Minnesota Rams if things aren't resolved by then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Pro sports have taught us that you can move whenever you want if you want to badly enough. Spare years on an expiring lease have a way of disappearing (Hartford Whalers, Seattle Supersonics). ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The post I was responding to was pointing out the HeftyDome roof collapse as one of the chief reasons Minnesota needs a new stadium/won't be long for the world. That is fine. But that poster was using the absence of a roof collapse in St. Louis as a reason why the stadium would be fine with the 2009-2010 improvements they made on the stadium. If it takes the roof falling in for that poster to realize "No, this is not a competitive stadium in the 21st Century NFL", I was sort of lamenting how the dome had a "collapse proof" roof, especially in light of this week's storm.The EJD is an on-spec stadium built on the relative cheap, which as a result, possesses the atmosphere and aesthetic appeal of a mass production warehouse. That's the bottom line and why no amount of "sprucing up" is going to get the stadium into the top third of league stadia.I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruColor Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The farmersfield.com website states that the stadium will hold approx. 68,000, and will be expandable to 78,000.Building the stadium with a 68-78,000 capacity is foolish just as it was in Soldier Field. The Bears could easily sell out 80,000 every week, but instead they have one of the smallest capacities in the NFL with no room to expand. The LA stadium should seat at least 75,000 for regular games.I agree. I've been thinking that since I first saw the 68,000 number. Incredibly shorrt-sighted, as Chicago found out. I figured they could do temporary expansion like the Cowboys are doind this weekend, but it still seems small.And I agree with McCall that I don't think LA will be there waiting with an open slot in 2015. I think this will be done much sooner than that, maybe after the lockout. Now, that doesn't mean there won't be a threat to have a Minnesota Rams if things aren't resolved by then...68,000 would put Farmers Field just below the midpoint as far as NFL capacities go. Here's a screen grab of a report from my database:I don't display the expanded capacities, but 68,000 is still 6,500 more seats than Soldier Field... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Pro sports have taught us that you can move whenever you want if you want to badly enough. Spare years on an expiring lease have a way of disappearing (Hartford Whalers, Seattle Supersonics).Agreed. If serious traction isn't made by 2012 on a stadium replacement I could easily see the Rams and St. Louis agreeing on a buyout that would be less money than the difference of owning the St. Louis Rams now and owning an NFL franchise in a new Los Angeles stadium (gotta pay for those cops someway).Of course, Kroenke did chair the NFL's Los Angeles stadium committee, which is something else to think about. 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 More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Well one thing I think we can all agree on is IF this stadium in LA is built (and the proposal does look to have a good shot at coming to fruition based on the players and amount of money they've already raised) then some team will be moving to LA based on how many candidates in prime position to do so there are around the league. I mean realistically there are no less than 7 viable candidates with at least 4 being VERY likely to want to take advantage of the situation if progress isn't made in their home markets to fix various issues quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 It's a fairly safe statement at this point that a NFL franchise in Los Angeles is inevitable, it's just a question of which one. I would prefer the Rams to return, of course, as I used to head down to Anaheim Stadium for all their home games. But I'd really be happy with any team in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tubby34 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 It's a fairly safe statement at this point that a NFL franchise in Los Angeles is inevitable, it's just a question of which one. I would prefer the Rams to return, of course, as I used to head down to Anaheim Stadium for all their home games. But I'd really be happy with any team in the area.Honestly, I'd want their original team to return too--- in their original colors.But if that doesn't happen, Minnesota is my option---or possibly Jacksonville with a new Identiy--maybe LA Express? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeFrank Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 It's a fairly safe statement at this point that a NFL franchise in Los Angeles is inevitable, it's just a question of which one. I would prefer the Rams to return, of course, as I used to head down to Anaheim Stadium for all their home games. But I'd really be happy with any team in the area.Honestly, I'd want their original team to return too--- in their original colors.But if that doesn't happen, Minnesota is my option---or possibly Jacksonville with a new Identiy--maybe LA Express?eww not liking the express.If they were to go LA Rams, I would keep the current colors. I like both, but the old gold just works better. In Madden I always made the LA Sharks... yeaaaa no. concepts: washington football (2017) ... nfl (2013) ... yikes potd 10/20/12 origin story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I realize that the "Farmers Field" logo was recently made public, why is this thread still where it is since the theme of is has changed dramatically? The city/county has not signed off on the idea, so this and Industry are still questionable. Recall, the place was going to be "larger" but the USA lost the 2022 World Cup vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 It's a fairly safe statement at this point that a NFL franchise in Los Angeles is inevitable, it's just a question of which one. I would prefer the Rams to return, of course, as I used to head down to Anaheim Stadium for all their home games. But I'd really be happy with any team in the area.Honestly, I'd want their original team to return too--- in their original colors.But if that doesn't happen, Minnesota is my option---or possibly Jacksonville with a new Identiy--maybe LA Express?I don't see why the Jaguars would have to change their name.I was just recently thinking about the possibility of both the Rams and Jaguars moving to LA. Rams/Jags has kind of a nice ring to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 It's a fairly safe statement at this point that a NFL franchise in Los Angeles is inevitable, it's just a question of which one. I would prefer the Rams to return, of course, as I used to head down to Anaheim Stadium for all their home games. But I'd really be happy with any team in the area.Honestly, I'd want their original team to return too--- in their original colors.But if that doesn't happen, Minnesota is my option---or possibly Jacksonville with a new Identiy--maybe LA Express?I don't see why the Jaguars would have to change their name.I was just recently thinking about the possibility of both the Rams and Jaguars moving to LA. Rams/Jags has kind of a nice ring to it.Except that its a higher probability the Chargers will get there first. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 How? Jacksonville's average attendance has been worse than San Diego's for four straight years. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 How? Jacksonville's average attendance has been worse than San Diego's for four straight years.Chargers want a new stadium, ones not being built in the San Diego area and LA is just up the coast, with potentially an ideal downtown stadium in the works in the heart of the Southern Cal market of which they are the only team. Its the easiest move of any of the teams mentioned. They're basically stayin in-market so they won't have to acquire a new fanbase as they're essentially the closest thing to a "LA team" at the moment. Not to mention I think its somewhat apparent that LA thinks of them as their first choice. Their basically like the Vikings in that their move would be due to facilities and not due to lack of fan support. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 How? Jacksonville's average attendance has been worse than San Diego's for four straight years.True. By all rights, the Jags should be the one to move. But their owner is trying very hard, harder than he probably should, to grow a fanbase. And a cross-country move is far more disruptive than driving a couple hours up I-5. The NFL, for its part, is content to move slowly. Art Rooney was quoted yesterday as saying this about LA:"It's a great football town. They've supported a few franchises over the years, and hopefully we'll get another one back there by at least 2016."If that's really the League's timetable, then the Rams are squarely in contention. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 If it is the Rams, I don't think St. Louis is getting another shot anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoHoJoe Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Farmer's Field.....Hmmm It has an agrarian touch to it.... BRING BASEBALL BACK TO MONTREAL!!!! MON AMOURS SIEMPRE!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakonius26 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 San Diego Chargers ---> Los Angeles ChargersSt. Louis Rams ---> Los Angeles Rams (lesser possibility, but they want two teams it would only make sense)Minnesota Vikings ---> Los Angeles Aztecs/Marauders/etc. (possible, but I have a feeling that it will get worked out)Jacksonville Jaguars ---> St. Louis Bombers (ode to the Greatest Show on Turf)This all happens by 2016? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 San Diego Chargers ---> Los Angeles ChargersSt. Louis Rams ---> Los Angeles Rams (lesser possibility, but they want two teams it would only make sense)Minnesota Vikings ---> Los Angeles Aztecs/Marauders/etc. (possible, but I have a feeling that it will get worked out)Jacksonville Jaguars ---> St. Louis Bombers (ode to the Greatest Show on Turf)This all happens by 2016?No pro team (big 4 at least) will ever be called the Bombers.And I don't think LA will be vacant by the time the Rams get out of their lease. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I too doubt LA will be vacant in 2016, but I don't see them having an NFC team by then. But in any case, the Rams are free after 2014. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.