Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

[lost_limey]

And of Couse, they have been rumours swirling around the Saints & Viking for a long time now. Personally, I'd like to see the LA Rams return, but that ain't happening.

[Gothamite]

My money's still on the Chargers. They could retain their original territory while claiming LA as their own.

[B-Rich]

The whole relocation thing to LA is a double-edged sword. Luckily for us in N.O., politicians in So. Cal. haven't stooped to wholesale stadium-planning enticement to lure another team (a' la Nashville St. Louis and Baltimore). The "build me a new stadium or I'll go to the LA market" bit is great as leverage for owners, but once a team announces it's moving to the LA MARKET, then LA/Anaheim/whatever has to do that much less to develop a stadium, knowing the team is committed. Then the owner will be in LA, but on the hook to fund a substantial part of a new stadium.

Still think it will eventually be a double expansion (1 AFC & 1 NFC, or more appropriately, one for Fox and one for CBS). NFL is still milking stadium bucks out of New Orleans, Indy and Minnesota. Once that's done, watch for a shared stadium plan partially funded by the NFL, 2 guaranteed Super Bowls w/in 4 years of each other, and twice the exorbitant expansion fees to be split by the other 32 owners.

[Brian in Boston]

I think that we'll see Los Angeles go to an expansion team.

Tagliabue has gone on record as saying that he's amenable to the league returning to Los Angeles either by relocation or expansion. He's even said that the league need not expand by two franchises to a 34-team line-up. However, he's also stated that at some point the league has got to promote geographic stability amongst its member franchises. As a result, I believe that the NFL will do everything in its power to see the Vikings, Saints and Chargers stabilized in their current respective markets, then grant an expansion team to Los Angeles... with or without a second expansion team being granted.

If I were a betting man, I'd say that a major "renovation" of the Coliseum will end up being the home stadium for the new franchise. By renovation, I'm talking about a Soldier Field-like rebuild. With the exception of portions of the outer facade remaining intact, we'll see an entirely new structure built at the Coliseum site. I believe that Anaheim is being courted as nothing more than an alternative should a Coliseum plan not work out. The Rose Bowl is a longshot given Pasadena-based activism against radically renovating the historic structure and sacrificing too much autonomy to the NFL. Plans for a proposed facility in Carson are a non-entity.

Incidentally, the NFL has told Anaheim officials that they're not at all concerned with the city's on-going legal battle with the Angels. As for what an Anaheim-based NFL franchise would be named, league officials have said that they'd be willing to negotiate a deal with Anaheim should the team wish to call itself the Los Angeles _______________. The city has indicated that the major difference between such a deal and the current Angels situation is that a deal with the NFL would be a negotiation between equals beforehand, as opposed to a power-play on the part of the Angels after a lease was already in place. As I said, it is a moot point as Anaheim is a fall-back option for the NFL at best.

As for the franchise's owner, billionaire Larry Ellison - owner of Oracle - is rumored to be very interested in acquiring a Los Angeles-based NFL franchise. What's more, for the price he'll be paying, Ellison will make sure that the Los Angeles market is his alone.

If and when a 34th franchise comes on board, it won't be in LA. I'm not saying that it will happen concurrently with Los Angeles expansion, but I'm still convinced that Toronto (or, perhaps, Mexico) is going to wind up as the home to an NFL franchise. Perhaps the NFL will operate with 33 teams for a period of time, then grant a 34th club "North of the Border" (or South) in the future.

[The_Admiral]

32 teams are too many for a league as it is.

[Bernd]

32 teams are too many for a league as it is.

Agreed. How many teams can the NFL support? The league's division structure is stable and blessedly uniform with 32 teams. 33 and 34 destroys the conference symmetry and opens the door for even further unneeded expansion.

When can we say enough is enough??

[The_Admiral]

We should have been saying enough is enough the moment Houston re-entered the league. The NFL is still far and away #1 in revenue and popularity right now even without a presence in the Los Angeles market.

Given the fickle nature of LA fans, they'd probably just divide themselves between the Raiders and Chargers like they have been during the years when the expansion team is still terrible. If the Chargers have to move back to Los Angeles, so be it, but please don't dilute the quality of the league even further by adding in even more players that wouldn't make the cut in a smaller league, just for the sake of trying to succeed in Los Angeles yet again.

[Gothamite]

33 teams, or even 34 teams, will upset the near-perfect alignment the NFL has now.

We won't see expansion. If LA gets a team, it will be through relocation. Moving the Chargers back to LA won't disturb the "geographic stability" that Tagliabue wants to maintain - they could claim both markets.

[sportsfan331]

I dont give a damn

[CJR]

I dont give a damn

Well I don't give a damn that you don't give a damn, sucker.

[Discrim]

maybe the Bolts could change their name to the Southern California Chargers and split their home games between SD and LA...heh, it's only a suggestion, I dunno if it'd work.

[Gothamite]

Nah, that wouldn't help them with the stadium situation in SD.

Play all games in a modernized stadium in LA, or play some games in an outmoded stadium in San Diego - not much choice there.

[Bernd]

Nah, that wouldn't help them with the stadium situation in SD.

Play all games in a modernized stadium in LA, or play some games in an outmoded stadium in San Diego - not much choice there.

Or split the difference and build a stadium in Orange County so that the whole region can access it.

[sportsfan331]

I dont give a damn

Well I don't give a damn that you don't give a damn, sucker.

I dont give a...

oh yeah youre an admin shouldent say that

[LMU]

Nah, that wouldn't help them with the stadium situation in SD. 

Play all games in a modernized stadium in LA, or play some games in an outmoded stadium in San Diego - not much choice there.

Or split the difference and build a stadium in Orange County so that the whole region can access it.

It would have to be in south Orange County in that case (like the old El Toro Marine Base in Irvine). Problem there is that it's too far for casual fans in both cities.

[Bernd]

Nah, that wouldn't help them with the stadium situation in SD. 

Play all games in a modernized stadium in LA, or play some games in an outmoded stadium in San Diego - not much choice there.

Or split the difference and build a stadium in Orange County so that the whole region can access it.

It would have to be in south Orange County in that case (like the old El Toro Marine Base in Irvine). Problem there is that it's too far for casual fans in both cities.

If the region can't support people who want to drive an hour on a Sunday afternoon to tailgate and watch a football game, then perhaps it doesn't deserve a team.

[Brian in Boston]

The California Court of Appeal has ordered the Angels to show why their name change should not be blocked. The ruling raises the possibility that the Los Angeles place-name could be stripped from the Angels prior to the start of the 2005 American League season.

The appellate court has set a hearing date of March 28th, just eight days before the Angels are scheduled to open their season. The court demanded that the team explain why it should not be prevented from playing as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim until a trial takes place to decide whether that name violates the stadium lease. That trial is set for November 7th.

In their appellate court filing, the Angels argued that a court order blocking the name change would result in "incalculable loss due to the disruption of a successful marketing plan that has been in full progress".

The city countered that it would suffer greater harm as the Anaheim name disappeared - as it has since the start of spring training - from references to the Angels in standings, scores and stories throughout the country.

The city filed a petition for writ two weeks ago. The petition was an emergency appeal asking the court to overrule Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Polos. Polos had refused to put the name change on hold pending trial. Although writs are rarely granted, the vast majority of petitions are denied without a hearing. In effect, the California Court of Appeal has granted the writ with their ruling. The Court of Appeal will now review the merits of Polos' decision. While the three-judge appellate panel typically rules within a month after a hearing, the court might well wish to resolve the issue by opening day.

A Santa Monica-based attorney by the name of Sheldon Eisenberg has been providing expert analysis of the dispute for The Los Angeles Times. His assessment of the situation? "It doesn't mean there's necessarily going to be a reversal, but this is clearly bad news for the Angels."

The Angels have said that they have no comment on Tuesday's court order. If the city prevails, the Angels are expected to ask the California Supreme Court for a stay, which would put the ruling on hold until that court can consider the issue.

The city's co-counsel Andy Guilford said, "I'm pleased the court has acted with incredible speed. I'm hopeful we'll get a ruling from the Court of Appeal before opening day."

[Brian in Boston]

33 teams, or even 34 teams, will upset the near-perfect alignment the NFL has now.

Moving the Chargers back to LA won't disturb the "geographic stability" that Tagliabue wants to maintain - they could claim both markets.

Frankly, the league doesn't give a rat's backside about "near-perfect alignment". How many years did the league play with 14 teams in each conference, with two divisions of 5 teams and a division of 4 teams in both the AFC and NFC? Hell, after the expansion to Cleveland, but prior to the Texans entering the league, the AFC Central managed to get along just fine with 6 teams while the rest of the divisions in both conferences were comprised of 5 clubs.

The league cares about the bottom-line. If the NFL can successfully get teams into new (or extensively renovated) stadia in New Orleans, Minnesota and San Diego, while simultaneously getting a state-of-the-art facility built in Los Angeles, the owners will gladly figure out the vagaries of scheduling and alignment for 33 robust franchises. Further, if other municipalities - in or outside the United States - prove themselves willing to help out with the funding for a state-of-the-art facility, the NFL will continue to expand. The league will go where the money is.

Frankly, if having the Chargers serve as the de facto club for both Los Angeles and San Diego were such an attractive idea, why bother to move the team back to Los Angeles at all? I mean, if a Los Angeles-based Chargers team could satisfactorily serve NFL fans in San Diego, why can't a San Diego-based Chargers team continue to serve NFL fans in Los Angeles? Because the NFL ultimately wants teams in both cities... and whatever other municipalities are willing to support the league with state-of-the-art facilities.

The bottom line is that the NFL would love to have the "problem" of hashing out the supposed "headache" of alignment and scheduling for 33 or 34 teams, just as they were willing to grow from 26 to 28 teams... and 28 to 30... and 30 to 31... and 31 to 32.

[Gothamite]

Oh, I agree that the NFL doesn't care about it. The fans care about it, though.

Not that it makes a whole lot of difference....

[B-Rich]

Frankly, the league doesn't give a rat's backside about "near-perfect alignment". How many years did the league play with 14 teams in each conference, with two divisions of 5 teams and a division of 4 teams in both the AFC and NFC? Hell, after the expansion to Cleveland, but prior to the Texans entering the league, the AFC Central managed to get along just fine with 6 teams while the rest of the divisions in both conferences were comprised of 5 clubs.

The league cares about the bottom-line. If the NFL can successfully get teams into new (or extensively renovated) stadia in New Orleans, Minnesota and San Diego, while simultaneously getting a state-of-the-art facility built in Los Angeles, the owners will gladly figure out the vagaries of scheduling and alignment for 33 robust franchises. Further, if other municipalities - in or outside the United States - prove themselves willing to help out with the funding for a state-of-the-art facility, the NFL will continue to expand. The league will go where the money is.

........

The bottom line is that the NFL would love to have the "problem" of hashing out the supposed "headache" of alignment and scheduling for 33 or 34 teams, just as they were willing to grow from 26 to 28 teams... and 28 to 30... and 30 to 31... and 31 to 32.

Well put, Brian. You made a point I was getting ready to add until I saw your post....

The NFL is, I think, very different than most other top-tier sports leagues. Between the CBA, salary cap, shared TV revenue, ticket split formula and tremendous merchandising $$$, it's essentially hard not to lose money as a team owner. As such, I think we could easily see this league go to 36 teams, or even 40, in our lifetime and not break a sweat. And don't anyone get started on the "dilution of talent" argument, that's something for a different day.

But notice that out of the money-making items above, there was a BIG one I didn't include - stadium revenue. That's because it's not shared like the others. Get a new top-of-the line stadium, with sweet monetary concesssions (share of concessions, naming rights, no or nominal rent, etc.) -- and not spend any money out of your own pocket-- and you can make a lot more, more than the other owner who doesn't have such a deal. If you have a bad deal, or if you have to pay your own way for a stadium, you're at a disadvantage to the guy with the sweet deal. The NFL, which loves parity and equal revenues, is trying to get ALL of its owners "sweet deals", thus the stadium push of the last three years, and the market leverage shell game...