Jump to content

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

OnWis97

By OnWis97
in Sports Logo News

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
FlyingBuckeye7

FlyingBuckeye7

Posted
Posted

For everyone who is saying the Chargers are not drawing fans in Los Angeles, where do you suppose the Chargers should go instead? Should they return to San Diego? Or Should they relocate somewhere completely different?

 

Edit: I believe the move to LA was purely a business move. It was never about the game or the fans. The team could not get San Diego to build them a new stadium so they decided to just piggyback on the Rams. They didn’t have to fight for their own stadium. They don’t have to worry about the upkeep of the stadium either. Is this the best decision for the fans? No. Is this the best decision for the team? We will see in the future.

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brave-Bird 08

Brave-Bird 08

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

He hates both

No, I mean -- he keeps mentioning the Rams "iconic logo" ... is he referencing the helmet horns? Do we know if those are even changing to the point where it's vastly different?

 

He keeps saying logo as if there's an iconic Rams logo he's defending, which makes no sense. The timeframe he's referencing is when the Rams used a helmet as their logo like the Browns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ridleylash

Ridleylash

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, FlyingBuckeye7 said:

For everyone who is saying the Chargers are not drawing fans in Los Angeles, where do you suppose the Chargers should go instead? Should they return to San Diego? Or Should they relocate somewhere completely different?

Ideally for me, the Raiders would still be in LA where they enjoy a healthy fanbase and won their Super Bowl, the Rams would've stayed in St. Louis where they won their Super Bowl and the Chargers would've stayed in San Diego where their actual fanbase resides; that way, Los Angeles gets to have a team they support heavily in the Raiders and the NFL still has roots in both San Diego and St. Louis; win-win on both sides.

 

Keeping the Chargers in SD lets you have a nice three-way hatefest between the Niners, Raiders and Chargers with each having their own slice of California; the Niners as the NorCal and Bay Area team, the Raiders as the LA metropolitan area team and the Chargers as San Diego County's team, which also has the bonus of helping the NFL to penetrate into Mexico since San Diego County is literally right next to Tijuana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlyingBuckeye7

FlyingBuckeye7

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

Ideally for me, the Raiders would still be in LA where they enjoy a healthy fanbase and won their Super Bowl, the Rams would've stayed in St. Louis where they won their Super Bowl and the Chargers would've stayed in San Diego where their actual fanbase resides; that way, Los Angeles gets to have a team they support heavily in the Raiders and the NFL still has roots in both San Diego and St. Louis; win-win on both sides.

 

Keeping the Chargers in SD lets you have a nice three-way hatefest between the Niners, Raiders and Chargers with each having their own slice of California; the Niners as the NorCal and Bay Area team, the Raiders as the LA metropolitan area team and the Chargers as San Diego County's team, which also has the bonus of helping the NFL to penetrate into Mexico since San Diego County is literally right next to Tijuana.

That’s definitely a valid perspective for sure. Sadly, the ideal situation is never what actually happens in the NFL. The Rams definitely SHOULD still be in St. Louis, but with no new stadium to be approved, it was the best business decision for them to move. So I think it was inevitable that the Rams would return to LA. The Chargers, on the other hand should have never even considered moving to LA. In fact I think the Raiders returning to LA and possibly having the Chargers be the team to move to Vegas would’ve worked out better. But that’s just another option that was never going to happen.

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky1324

sky1324

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, FlyingBuckeye7 said:

For everyone who is saying the Chargers are not drawing fans in Los Angeles, where do you suppose the Chargers should go instead? Should they return to San Diego? Or Should they relocate somewhere completely different?

 

Edit: I believe the move to LA was purely a business move. It was never about the game or the fans. The team could not get San Diego to build them a new stadium so they decided to just piggyback on the Rams. They didn’t have to fight for their own stadium. They don’t have to worry about the upkeep of the stadium either. Is this the best decision for the fans? No. Is this the best decision for the team? We will see in the future.

The other owners should force Spanos to sell and move the team back to San Diego. The ideal timeline would've been the Rams and Raiders sharing LA, where the Raiders could've held onto their roots and the Rams would be back in the place they actually belong. The Chargers would be in San Diego wth a privately financed stadium and the world would be at peace. No stupid Vegas experiment (and Nevada wouldn't bend backwards to mortgage the state's future to lure the Raiders) and the Rams should never have been in St. Louis in the first place. The 49ers can keep the Bay Area, the LA metro area gets two teams that it actually wants, and the Chargers stay where their fans are.

the user formerly known as cdclt

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ridleylash

Ridleylash

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Sorry, can't agree with that one. 

And that's fair, not everyone will. I just think it'd have been a smart move to have both the LA and St. Louis markets covered in the NFL, rather then potentially putting too many eggs in the LA basket and self-cannibalizing; as we've seen with the Rams and Chargers, LA doesn't seem to be really all that capable of supporting multiple franchises at a time.

 

Plus part of it was that the Raiders have won a Super Bowl in LA, the Rams have not. Between the three, I'd say the Raiders would probably be the easiest sell as "LA's team", though admittedly the Rams wouldn't be too far behind. The Chargers...well, they should never have moved to LA to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlyingBuckeye7

FlyingBuckeye7

Posted
Posted
Just now, oldschoolvikings said:

 

 

WTH? Where's this nonsense suddenly coming from?

The Rams won a Super Bowl in St. Louis. Their Super Bowl win will always be tied there. But maybe that’s my Gen Z ignorance talking. I do believe there was no possible way that the Rams would’ve stayed. And I’m not sure St. Louis ever gets another NFL team anytime soon.

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky1324

sky1324

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Like I said, the Bidwells should've stayed in St. Louis, with Arizona getting an expansion team (Rattlers? Firebirds? Scorpions? Gilas?).

 

The Rams always belonged in LA. That St. Louis exile, Super Bowl aside, was an abomination. 

Although if Arizona got an expansion team, wouldn't that leave Houston out? 

the user formerly known as cdclt

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlyingBuckeye7

FlyingBuckeye7

Posted
Posted

I don’t know about anyone else but I think there is a good possibility that the Chargers could go the way of the Houston Oilers if they can’t get anything going in LA. I’m talking a new city, new name, new color scheme, and everything else. A move back to San Diego is highly unlikely at this point and they may be irreconcilable in the coming years.

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IceCap

IceCap

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

And that's fair, not everyone will. I just think it'd have been a smart move to have both the LA and St. Louis markets covered in the NFL, rather then potentially putting too many eggs in the LA basket and self-cannibalizing; as we've seen with the Rams and Chargers, LA doesn't seem to be really all that capable of supporting multiple franchises at a time.

 

Plus part of it was that the Raiders have won a Super Bowl in LA, the Rams have not. Between the three, I'd say the Raiders would probably be the easiest sell as "LA's team", though admittedly the Rams wouldn't be too far behind. The Chargers...well, they should never have moved to LA to begin with.

The Rams consistently topped the list of polls when LA fans were asked which of the three teams they would most like to see return. Surpassing even the Raiders (who managed to poll a respectable second). I think it's telling that even with their only Super Bowl coming in St. Louis? The Rams still "belong" in LA.

 

As for covering St. Louis? Again, they've lost two teams now. I think we should be able to admit that St. Louis doesn't work as a NFL market. It could have, had they build the EJD a few years earlier and kept the Cardinals in town, but I honestly think that was their last shot to truly make it work. The Rams never truly belonged there.

ZKNO1Ts.png

PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15

2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion

2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FinsUp1214

FinsUp1214

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brave-Bird 08 said:

No, I mean -- he keeps mentioning the Rams "iconic logo" ... is he referencing the helmet horns? Do we know if those are even changing to the point where it's vastly different?

 

He keeps saying logo as if there's an iconic Rams logo he's defending, which makes no sense. The timeframe he's referencing is when the Rams used a helmet as their logo like the Browns. 


I’m confused as well, but I think that’s exactly what he’s referring to. Given the recent comeback use of it by the team in some applications (merchandise, Super Bowl LII endzone, etc), I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s thinking of the helmet logo. Even if a lot of sideline gear and other throwback applications used the old ram head, as well.

 

If that’s what he’s referring to, I don’t know that I’d call the helmet logo iconic like he does given that other teams have done the same thing. The aforementioned Browns have done it and still do it, but the Bengals and Chargers also had helmet logos too that spawned out of the 80’s-90’s like the Rams’ had. The Rams helmet is iconic, yes, but when I think of the helmet logo, each of the 80’s-90’s teams who did the same thing at the same time (and also have rather iconic helmets in their own right) come to mind as well and I don’t think that makes for the logo itself being iconic. 

 

CCSLC%20Signature_1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
colortv

colortv

Posted
Posted

The league was never going to let the Raiders move to LA for three reasons:

 

1. A lot of owners supposedly still held grudges against Al Davis and his shenanigans over the years.

 

2. No one wanted Mark Davis in charge of the leagues return to LA.

 

3. Probably the biggest reason, the Raiders fanbase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept