NFL should bring Rams back to L.A.

[brinkeguthrie]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5528508...140813162&ATT=5

[NJTank]

This is from a professional what a joke and what a slap in the face to St. Louis the Rams have done fine in St. Louis no need to move them. The best choices are the Chargers and as unfair as it may be the Saints.

[Seadragon76]

I have a better idea: How about NO NFL team in Los Angeles, alright?

I don't see why they should get another chance when the Raiders and Rams both left that city.

[rams80]

SAY WHA...

Somebody tell me how I can email this toolbox and "enlighten" him. The pure fact of the matter is that this franchise has been supported a lot better in the 11 years in St. Louis than it had been in Los Angeles. There is no reason to move a perfectly viable franchise such as this one to LA. Besides, if part of your argument centers on John Shaw, who should have been fired after last season, you really don't have much of an argument.

[SEMOSTLfan]

thats the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.. as a rams fan i am highly insulted. How about the people in LA prove that they can support a team as we in St. Louis have proven and maybe then the NFL could consider moving a team like the Saints or Raiders to Los Angeles.

[Eye]

HELL NO!!! This would be one of the dumbest things to do. The Rams are doing fine in St. Louis. I don't understand why they would move. The only way that I could see the Rams going back to L.A. is if the owner decides to be an ***hole just like Modell and Irsay. Otherwise they are definitely staying in St. Louis.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

rams aren't going anywhere. Saints, Bills or Chargers on the other hand have better chances of going to LA.

[LMU]

Talk about beyond stupid... why on earth would a team move when they have not only won a super bowl, but have a relatively new stadium?

And, to those who keep using the argument that LA shouldn't get another chance, then shouldn't Baltimore, Houston, and Cleveland have fallen under that same opinion? Bottom line is that it's a "build it and they will come" mentality. Doesn't matter at all what happened in a city that lost a team. Put in a brand spanking new stadium with luxury boxes, and that's all you need.

[rockchalk]

Wow, my friends from the east are touchy...like always Anyhoo, I don't know how you guys can really say that the Rams weren't supported in LA. They actually were until the last couple years when the team was already pretty much trying to get out of there, and the Northridge quake was the last straw. The Rams were LA for a long time, and while there wasn't a huge clamor to keep the team there, there isn't really a huge clamor for anything sports unless it's a hugely winning team there. Am I saying the team needs shipped back, no, that's a stupid argument. But don't blindly say you got your team because the city didn't support it. You got your team because the owner is a crazy nutjob who got a sweetheart deal from you guys (yes, you guys, the city and state are paying for it) and Los Angeles didn't care because they wanted her out.

[Burkell007]

Talk about beyond stupid... why on earth would a team move when they have not only won a super bowl, but have a relatively new stadium?

And, to those who keep using the argument that LA shouldn't get another chance, then shouldn't Baltimore, Houston, and Cleveland have fallen under that same opinion? Bottom line is that it's a "build it and they will come" mentality. Doesn't matter at all what happened in a city that lost a team. Put in a brand spanking new stadium with luxury boxes, and that's all you need.

my verry opinion.....if they had a new stadium then both teams would of never left in the first place...........Build a new stadium, then u get a new NFL team plain and simple.

[ninersdd]

The RAiders should move back to LA

[FiddySicks]

OK personally i think this dude is off his rocker. But be as it may, its an interesting outlook on the situation.

NFL should bring Rams back to L.A.

John Czarnecki / FOXSports.com

Posted: 8 hours ago   

If you are a wealthy fan, or more particularly an owner, the new football stadiums that dot the NFL landscape remain one of outgoing Commissioner Paul Tagliabue's shining stars to his legacy.

It remains an amazing accomplishment, 17 totally new stadiums in the last 11 seasons with five more on the way. The building boom is all the more remarkable considering NFL teams have only eight legitimate home games a season, while costs generally exceed those for the more economically-feasible baseball parks.

These thoughts bring me to California, the NFL's most-embarrassing location. There is no team in Los Angeles and stadium woes in San Diego, San Francisco and Oakland.

People speculate all the time that the Chargers, the best team in California, could end up in Orange County if San Diego, more than a billion dollars in debt, can't help them build a new stadium. Over the last three seasons, the 49ers and the Raiders have an identical (and disturbing) 13-35 record with little personnel hope on the horizon. With so much else to do in California, who wants to pay $100 to see such a bunch of losers?

Tagliabue wants to put a team in Los Angeles, but many feel that after the league's $30 million charitable experiment ends in New Orleans, the Saints will be asked to relocate to sunny California.

We don't need a straw poll to tell the NFL that Los Angeles fans aren't clamoring for the Saints. Fans here love their doubleheaders on television or going to a sports bar to watch their favorite team. Funny, but California is full of fans from other parts of America.

You may laugh, but there are a couple solutions available for this mess, one that may actually help stadium construction in California and also upgrade the economic viability of franchises like the Raiders and Chargers. With a new stadium operational in Arizona, the Raiders will rank last in league revenue this season ? despite the fact that they remain a top seller nationally of jerseys and T-shirts. We all know that much of the league likes keeping Davis in last place.

Tagliabue got himself in this California hazy mess by failing to read the relocation map more than a decade ago. Instead of dealing expansion franchises to viable cities like Baltimore and St. Louis, he opted for new locales like Carolina and Jacksonville. The latter has proven to be an economic bust despite producing a quality, competitive team.

In the league's revenue-sharing plan, the Jags could receive almost $10 million annually from the big boys in Boston, Dallas and Washington in order to compete and remain solvent under the new collective bargaining agreement. We have all heard Buffalo owner Ralph Wilson whine about this deal, which could hurt every small-city franchise in the NFL.

To fix this predicament, the NFL's first move should be to bring the Rams back to Los Angeles.

Rams president John Shaw prefers to work and live in Los Angeles; plus there are many in L.A. who still follow the Rams. There is a much bigger connection here with the Rams than with the Saints, Bills, Vikings or Jaguars, the teams most-mentioned of using Los Angeles as a means to improving their bottom lines.

The Rams first showed up in Los Angeles in 1946. Did Los Angeles love the Rams? Well, you can go to the Coliseum offices and see photographs of the facility with more than 100,000 fans packed into it watching a Rams game. Even charity preseason games drew large crowds. Such crowds routinely occurred for a couple of decades. There are even California fans who still fly to St. Louis on weekends to catch a Rams game.

With the Rams back in Los Angeles, the NFL would have a better chance of getting a stadium proposal more to their liking in the city. I know local fans aren't wild about Rams owner Georgia Frontiere, but she rarely attends games anymore while living in Sedona. It's the name and uniforms that matter.

Now, with the Rams back where they belong, what should the NFL do with St. Louis, whose fans deserve a team, considering they have sold out every Rams game for 11 seasons?

Well, move the Raiders there. You can bet Al Davis would make a bunch of money in St. Louis, besides leaving his franchise in fine fiscal shape for his son, Mark. Getting the Raiders out of the Bay Area would most-assuredly help 49ers owner John York's stadium plans. With only one NFL franchise in Northern California to support, the corporate manpower there should be able to figure out a viable plan for some interactive stadium to suit the internet junkies there.

Granted, people in St. Louis would be upset over losing the Rams, but they already lost the Cardinals; so the fan base is used to being, well, used by the NFL.

If they raise a stink, move the Cardinals back to St. Louis and the Raiders to Arizona. That may take some doing, but Cardinals owner Bill Bidwill and Davis could simply split their new local revenues 50-50. Both men would be better off than they are currently.

This plan makes more sense than bringing a fourth franchise to California, a state overwhelmed by fears of the Big One, and a state that can't find money for schools, colleges and new roads ? let alone new football stadiums. The state also has a huge immigrant strain and levees in the Central Valley ready to crack and flood America's agricultural heaven.

Franchise relocation has worked well for the NFL in the past. Moving franchises around is better than adding a 33rd team, an expansion team in Los Angeles, while there are American cities like New Orleans, Oakland and Jacksonville who can't properly (by NFL standards) support their current franchise.

I know it doesn't sound fair. But since when has being fair been a priority in big-time sports?

[FiddySicks]

DHORRRGH!!!!!!!

Sorry, didnt see this was already a topic. You can merge it or just bury it if you want.

[DEAD!]

Move the Raiders to Arizona? Well at least the outside facade of the stadium is silver....

[StoneRaizer]

No freaking way. The Rams have been built to take advantage of the speedy turf and crazy fan atmosphere inside the Edward Jones Dome. Move another team to Los Angeles (besides my beloved Bills) because there's no reason for the Rams to leave St. Louis.

[-kj]

In L.A., footballs are round.

[SEMOSTLfan]

Talk about beyond stupid... why on earth would a team move when they have not only won a super bowl, but have a relatively new stadium?

And, to those who keep using the argument that LA shouldn't get another chance, then shouldn't Baltimore, Houston, and Cleveland have fallen under that same opinion? Bottom line is that it's a "build it and they will come" mentality. Doesn't matter at all what happened in a city that lost a team. Put in a brand spanking new stadium with luxury boxes, and that's all you need.

unfortunately st. louis could have been thrown in that category too. Although maybe the Big Red would have had more support here if Bill Bidwell would have tried to build a winner.

Bidwell left St. Louis because he wanted a new Stadium, mind you he's been in phoenix for nearly 20 years and just this season is getting his new stadium.

[SEMOSTLfan]

But don't blindly say you got your team because the city didn't support it. You got your team because the owner is a crazy nutjob who got a sweetheart deal from you guys (yes, you guys, the city and state are paying for it) and Los Angeles didn't care because they wanted her out.

Say what you will but nowhere in this country are the Rams going to get any more support than they get every single year here in St. Louis.

[DEAD!]

In L.A., footballs are round.

en Español Mockba.....

[Burkell007]

In L.A., footballs are round.

round and fake right???