OnWis97

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

Recommended Posts

I thought we had a whole thread in another forum dedicated to discussing what a bad idea it was for the Chargers to move to LA?  We get it.

 

As unsuited to the task as I am, can I be the voice of reason here? Yes, it was a terrible decision for the Chargers to move. Yes, their owner is spectacularly dumb. But, no, the NFL is not going to open the can of worms that would result in yanking a team away from it's owner, giving it to someone else, and moving it back. And also yes, given enough time (say ten or fifteen years) and enough sucsess (a couple of decent playoff runs) the Chargers will be moderately well received by enough fans that it won't look like a complete desaster. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I thought we had a whole thread in another forum dedicated to discussing what a bad idea it was for the Chargers to move to LA?  We get it.

 

As unsuited to the task as I am, can I be the voice of reason here? Yes, it was a terrible decision for the Chargers to move. Yes, their owner is spectacularly dumb. But, no, the NFL is not going to open the can of worms that would result in yanking a team away from it's owner, giving it to someone else, and moving it back. And also yes, given enough time (say ten or fifteen years) and enough sucsess (a couple of decent playoff runs) the Chargers will be moderately well received by enough fans that it won't look like a complete desaster. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

 

Not to be pulling the thread off topic, but I think 10-15 years is a good time period to determine if LA is actually a good two-team market or not. I do think that one of the reasons for the Rams-Chargers marriage in the first place is that the league wants LA to be a two-team market. I don't know that it ever really has been.

 

In NY, you can make the argument that the Giants have always been favorited over the Jets, but I do think the Jets carved out their own market, even with years now of sharing a stadium (and clearly being the second fiddle in the market). I also think it worked in Oakland and San Francisco, where the two teams both clearly had success. In the case of the Niners and the Raiders, I think both franchises are where they are now because it's simply very hard to built any new stadium in California and use taxpayer money. But, generally, in both NY and the Bay Area, the support for two teams was there.

 

It will be interesting to look back in a decade and a half and see what happened in LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those crowds were sparse when the rams weren’t winning and it’ll be the same in the new stadium. Whichever team is hot will be packed if not then it’ll be a ghost town. LA fans do not support their teams at all! Football has never survived there! Yet the nfl continues to try and go there! They don’t care about you! They have better things to do than spend their whole day at some spaceship watching some average team! Waste of money IMO on the stadium, on the chargers moving because by 2030 one if not both of these teams will be gone AGAIN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Let's be honest - it's similar for the Rams too.

 

Around the 1:30 mark, you hear the PBP guy reference all the Eagles fans, and then you can hear the crowd noise when they score a TD around 1:38.  I'll internet fight the notion that the Rams are some beloved team that sell out of home fans and are rallied around by the whole town.  I'll reassess after the new stadium opens, as those things do have the ability to effect dramatic changes in support.

 

 

Except you can look at the games against literally else outside maybe 3 teams and every game it's all Rams fans. Hell go back and watch the game against the chiefs a fan base that travels pretty well and it's 90% Rams fans. And this happens in every sport here outside of basketball. The Kings have it far worse than the Rams do when it comes to road fans and the Dodgers will have a massive amount of road fans when the Red Sox, Yankees, or cubs come to town, plus when the Giants are good there is a large number of their fans in the stadium. 

 

I've seen more and more rams gear every year since they've moved back and they have tons of support here now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jgiff17 said:

Whichever team is hot will be packed

 

The Chargers went 12-4, made the playoffs, and competed for the division title two seasons ago and the soccer stadium was still filled with the other teams' fans for every "home game." They will never be the "hot team" in LA no matter how many games they win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Let's be honest - it's similar for the Rams too.

 

Around the 1:30 mark, you hear the PBP guy reference all the Eagles fans, and then you can hear the crowd noise when they score a TD around 1:38.  I'll internet fight the notion that the Rams are some beloved team that sell out of home fans and are rallied around by the whole town.  I'll reassess after the new stadium opens, as those things do have the ability to effect dramatic changes in support.

 

 

 

That's pretty bad, but it could have been so much worse.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IceCap said:

First, it doesn't disprove my point. Secondly? Spanos is, as others have pointed out, a tennant. It's not his stadium. Sure, he's getting a good deal. Still? He's second fiddle in "his" own building.

 

It does disprove your point. Kroenke could just have easily built a stadium with his own funds in St Louis as LA(actually, much easier).

 

They both ended up moving teams to a different city in a privately financed stadium. Kroenke didn't even give St Louis an option to retain the team, Spanos did.

 

Neither of them has the moral high ground. They just made business decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jgiff17 said:

Those crowds were sparse when the rams weren’t winning and it’ll be the same in the new stadium. Whichever team is hot will be packed if not then it’ll be a ghost town. LA fans do not support their teams at all! Football has never survived there! Yet the nfl continues to try and go there! They don’t care about you! They have better things to do than spend their whole day at some spaceship watching some average team! Waste of money IMO on the stadium, on the chargers moving because by 2030 one if not both of these teams will be gone AGAIN!

I agree in some aspects but still money supersedes all that. The Rams aren't going anywhere for a long time ( never say never, especially when it's happened before) I understand about Kroenke isn't a young fellow but he didn't spend what is looking like well over 5 Billion for LA ( Stadium and relocation ) just to be gone by the end of the decade. Sofi will still have plenty of life in it and it's design makes it applicable for many other sports and revenue sources. 

So point being Rams definitely will be there and unless they force Deano out or the Chargers in Sofi is even worse somehow they will unfortunately be there as well because  💰💰💰.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lights Out said:

 

You will never see anything like this happen for the Chargers in LA:

 

10,000+ people would show up to rallies after road wins consistently during the 2000s. Tens of thousands of people showed up for a parade downtown after the Chargers LOST the Super Bowl. San Diegans donated a collective 77,000 pints of blood to the Chargers' annual blood drive during its 40-year run.

 

Meanwhile, LA can't even fill a tiny soccer stadium with Chargers fans for their "home games." You're talking out of your ass when you dismiss the loyal support that San Diego gave to a franchise that didn't really deserve it - especially in comparison to the proven apathy towards the Chargers in LA.

 

You had to pull a clip from how many years ago? How many teams have smaller fanbases than the Chargers?

 

There are 20 million people in Southern California. You think they'll never be able to put 80k into a stadium? You keep using the word "never". That's when someone is talking out of their ass.

 

You just don't get it, the sheer size of the market will ensure plenty of success and support in an absolute sense. It's just numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are people saying the Chargers being a tenant is a bad thing?

 

They have 40 years worth of leases(I believe they are paying something like a dollar as an honorary figure per year).

 

It's basically a free stadium in the 2nd biggest market in the country, they won't have to foot a dollar to stadium costs for decades.

 

It's an amazing deal for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

What's worse: Supporting a team with a hated brand and an insulting COO or supporting Spanos? 

Supporting Spanos is worse.  No contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

You had to pull a clip from how many years ago? How many teams have smaller fanbases than the Chargers?

 

There are 20 million people in Southern California. You think they'll never be able to put 80k into a stadium? You keep using the word "never". That's when someone is talking out of their ass.

 

You just don't get it, the sheer size of the market will ensure plenty of success and support in an absolute sense. It's just numbers.

Right, because the sheer size of the market meant that no team would ever relocate, right? With all those people, there should be no reason for any team to move, right? Then tell me why it's happened three times to three different NFL teams. You may say that the Rams and Raiders moved in the '90s because of poor stadiums, but shouldn't the amount of people make it worth it to stay there in the long run? LA simply isn't a football town, despite how much the NFL wants to make it one. The Clippers draw despite being garbage because LA loves basketball, but the simple fact is that there aren't enough people in LA that care about football to make the Chargers staying worth it in the long run. They can't sell PSLs for :censored: and just don't have the fanbase in LA that they did in San Diego. 

 

2 minutes ago, colortv said:

Why are people saying the Chargers being a tenant is a bad thing?

 

They have 40 years worth of leases(I believe they are paying something like a dollar as an honorary figure per year).

 

It's basically a free stadium in the 2nd biggest market in the country, they won't have to foot a dollar to stadium costs for decades.

 

It's an amazing deal for them.

Again, the stadium deal is great for them, no one's questioning it. But the money comes from selling tickets and merchandise to fans (and the TV deals), and if the Chargers don't have any fans, they won't sell any of the merchandise and tickets needed to make operating in LA worth it. It'll get worse over time, and if the Chargers couldn't fill a soccer stadium with a majority of Chargers fans, what are they gonna do in an 80,000 seat football palace? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, colortv said:

You had to pull a clip from how many years ago?

 

The pro-San Diego side of the argument has 55 years of history on our side, so...

 

16 minutes ago, colortv said:

How many teams have smaller fanbases than the Chargers?

 

Right now? None of them. The Chargers barely have a fanbase at all anymore.

 

17 minutes ago, colortv said:

There are 20 million people in Southern California. You think they'll never be able to put 80k into a stadium?

 

They couldn't even put 27k Chargers fans in a stadium, and you haven't given a single substantive argument for why it's ever going to change. All you've given is hypotheticals and trying to diminish the actual, proven fan support that existed in San Diego.

 

19 minutes ago, colortv said:

You just don't get it, the sheer size of the market will ensure plenty of success and support in an absolute sense.

 

We're several years into the relocation already and it hasn't happened yet. This is supposed to be the honeymoon period and it's already a failure. Just imagine how bad it's going to be once the novelty wears off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, colortv said:

It does disprove your point. Kroenke could just have easily built a stadium with his own funds in St Louis as LA(actually, much easier).

He COULD have, but he didn't WANT to build a stadium in St. Louis. Kroenke was chomping at the bit to get the Rams to LA, he outright shat all over St. Louis on the way out to try and salt the earth for gridiron football there; this is far from some hidden secret.

 

For a man who was born in that state and was literally named after two legends of St. Louis sports (Enos Slaughter and Stan Musial), Enos Stanley Kroenke did everything in his goddamned power to :censored: on his hometown as a football market just so he could go to LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jws008 said:

In NY, you can make the argument that the Giants have always been favorited over the Jets, but I do think the Jets carved out their own market, even with years now of sharing a stadium (and clearly being the second fiddle in the market). I also think it worked in Oakland and San Francisco, where the two teams both clearly had success. In the case of the Niners and the Raiders, I think both franchises are where they are now because it's simply very hard to built any new stadium in California and use taxpayer money. But, generally, in both NY and the Bay Area, the support for two teams was there.

I wouldn't say that. The Jets and Giants are probably the only complement in the NY sports landscape where the teams are just about equal in terms of popularity. The Yankees, Knicks, and Rangers are clearly more popular than the Mets, Nets, and Isles, but I know pretty much just as many Jets fans as I do Giants fans and the Jets had better attendance this year (it kind of flip-flops).

 

But on a more related note, it's important to note the NY and SF/Bay Area sports fans are very very different than LA fans, who have generally been far more fair-weather to the teams not named the Dodgers and Lakers, partially due to the constantly great weather and limitless options for entertainment in the area. The only exception I can think of are the Angels, who have generally put up decent attendance as of late in spite of zero playoff appearances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how people in this thread really mark out for team fan base etc. Bottom line is this, the owners dont really care if the sold out stadium is comprised of half visiting team fans.

 

The ket here is sold out. As long as tickets are sold, and fans are in attendance buying beer and concessions and paying for parking and shopping at the shops that are paying rent to be at Hollywood park, that's all that matters.

 

This is a real estate investment and the rams are just the anchor tenant to the project. No way they're gone in 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

It does disprove your point. Kroenke could just have easily built a stadium with his own funds in St Louis as LA(actually, much easier).

 

They both ended up moving teams to a different city in a privately financed stadium. Kroenke didn't even give St Louis an option to retain the team, Spanos did.

 

Neither of them has the moral high ground. They just made business decisions.

Kroenke actively turned down tax payer money in Missouri to build a stadium on his own dime elsewhere. 
Spanos sought tax payer money in San Diego. 
Spanos is worse. 

 

As for Kroenke not wanting to build in St. Louis? So what? St. Louis is not entitled to a NFL team and if Kroenke is going to build his own stadium on his own land then he can do it wherever he damn well pleases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 63Bulldogs63 said:

I love how people in this thread really mark out for team fan base etc. Bottom line is this, the owners dont really care if the sold out stadium is comprised of half visiting team fans.

 

The ket here is sold out. As long as tickets are sold, and fans are in attendance buying beer and concessions and paying for parking and shopping at the shops that are paying rent to be at Hollywood park, that's all that matters.

 

This is a real estate investment and the rams are just the anchor tenant to the project. No way they're gone in 20 years.

We're...not talking about the Rams moving? We're talking about the Chargers moving back to San Diego because Los Angeles clearly could not give anything short of a :censored: about them. The LA market can only support one team, and that'd be either the Rams or Raiders in an ideal world.

 

The Chargers cannot, will not, work in Los Angeles. It's been proven every single season in the city so far that a large chunk of fans at Chargers games aren't Chargers fans, they're fans of everybody else but the Chargers. There's no home field advantage for them since their own damn arena is essentially a home field for basically every popular NFL team when they come to town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

He COULD have, but he didn't WANT to build a stadium in St. Louis. Kroenke was chomping at the bit to get the Rams to LA, he outright shat all over St. Louis on the way out to try and salt the earth for gridiron football there; this is far from some hidden secret.

 

For a man who was born in that state and was literally named after two legends of St. Louis sports (Enos Slaughter and Stan Musial), Enos Stanley Kroenke did everything in his goddamned power to :censored: on his hometown as a football market just so he could go to LA.

Hot take (apparently): St. Louis is a bad NFL market and probably shouldn't have a team, considering they've lost two now.

Stan Kroenke was justified in moving the Rams back to LA. Partially because he was willing to build his own stadium with his own money and partially because the team should have never left LA in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the only reason the Rams left in the first place was Georgia Frontiere got a ludicrously sweet deal from her hometown.  A deal so out of balance that St. Louis couldn’t even live up to their end of the contract.

 

The NFL should never have let the Rams move out of LA.  The return was justice, plain and simple.

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.