NFL unhappy with downtown L.A. plan

[IceCap]

Before London the NFL would expand to Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Mexico city.

I really don't think there is anywhere to expand for quite some time though.

Would they ever expand to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver? I thought there was some sort of gentleman's arrangement where the NFL wouldn't screw with CFL cities since the CFL is essentially a sort of AAA+ style minor league for the NFL.

Who knows how seriously the NFL takes that agreement, if one even exists? The Bills in Toronto series was obviously meant to gauge Toronto as a potential NFL market. Now events surrounding that series may have soured the NFL to the market, but they were still willing to try it.

I really wonder how much of an issue this will really be when the NFL does eventually decide to expand

"Eventually"? I respectfully disagree.

Perhaps when intercontinental travel reduces flight times between Seattle and London to somewhere on the order of 4 hours. And they figure out a way to fix the rotation of the Earth to render time differences moot.

The US is pretty well saturated. There are no viable, established markets without a team. Developing markets, as we have seen, make for lousy sports cities. Add that to the fact that several clubs are currently struggling in their home cities, and that's a recipe for relocation, not expansion.

I never even said the NFL was even considering expanding and even said that I don't think they will either soon either. In fact nothing you mentioned was anything I talked about or even made mention of, so I'm just wondering if its directed at me or just a statment in general.

It was in response to your "the NFL could handle scheduling with uneven divisions if they had to" comments. The NFL could, yes, but they won't because they don't want to. So therefore your "the league being unbalanced wouldn't be the worst thing" remark wasn't relevant.

[pmoehrin]

It was in response to your "the NFL could handle scheduling with uneven divisions if they had to" comments. The NFL could, yes, but they won't because they don't want to. So therefore your "the league being unbalanced wouldn't be the worst thing" remark wasn't relevant.

I even said it wasn't that relevant.

I'm just brining this up, because this is something I specifically don't like talking about on this board, because every little thing turns into an argument. Even when I'm agreeing with people I feel I'm still arguing with them.

[IceCap]

Even when I'm agreeing with people I feel I'm still arguing with them.

Welcome to the internet

You're point's taken though

[AHcreative]

P.S: I still cringe my teeth every time I see the Rams winning Super Bowl 34, because that should have been ours. F*** you Frontierre; hope you, Hitler, and Satan are dancing the waltz in hell.

Wow. So you're one of those fans, eh?

He doesn't seem to realize that Frontiere was deliberately making the team bad so she could move either. Watch Major League dude.

Oh, I don't doubt it. What's off-putting is wishing someone burns in Hell while comparing them to Hitler and the Devil because she took their toy football team away.

Besides, the Rams will be in LA again sooner or later. Then LA can (halfheartedly) claim the Super Bowl XXXIV win as their own.

This is the part I never understood the folk of L.A. Everyone wants the Rams back and everyone thinks the Rams will be back at some point in time. If they were stripped of not one, but two NFL teams in 1995, why would the NFL take a shot at a market that has already had 3 chances at a franchise (if you count the 1960 Chargers). Besides, everyone complains about how the Rams suck anyway. I don't think moving them to L.A. would boost reputation, or attendance for that matter.

The question that I have however, is that if the Rams were to relocate, would the NFL ever grant St. Louis another football team?

[Still MIGHTY]

Oh, I don't doubt it. What's off-putting is wishing someone burns in Hell while comparing them to Hitler and the Devil because she took their toy football team away.

Besides, the Rams will be in LA again sooner or later. Then LA can (halfheartedly) claim the Super Bowl XXXIV win as their own.

This is the part I never understood the folk of L.A. Everyone wants the Rams back and everyone thinks the Rams will be back at some point in time. If they were stripped of not one, but two NFL teams in 1995, why would the NFL take a shot at a market that has already had 3 chances at a franchise (if you count the 1960 Chargers). Besides, everyone complains about how the Rams suck anyway. I don't think moving them to L.A. would boost reputation, or attendance for that matter.

The question that I have however, is that if the Rams were to relocate, would the NFL ever grant St. Louis another football team?

Stripped is a little too over-zealous of a word for LA losing its teams.

The Chargers were there for one year in 1960 then were moved to San Diego. I don't really think that counts for all that much.

The Raiders were there for 12 years before Al Davis wanted a new shiny stadium. There were several possible sites, and even a $10 million deposit from Irwindale, that Davis ended up keeping when he left back to Oakland.

The Rams were there for 48 years (including the 14 in Anaheim). As has been already said, Frontierre went out of her way to make the team terrible and burn the ground upon which she walked. She was getting that team out of LA/Anaheim come hell or high water. LA was "stripped" of the Rams, because Frontierre ripped them out herself. And then when she got her new town and new stadium, they morphed from purposefully horrible to Super Bowl Champion. The Rams have been inept for a little while now sure, but has it been purposefully sucktastic? Have they gone out of their way to hire inept coaches and sign/draft inept players to force people to stop watching to validate a relocation? St. Louis fans can make some jokes about that if they want, but I don't think they have.

LA wants the Rams back because of the circumstances of how they left. With the Chargers, they just kinda left after one year, no big deal. With the Raiders, yeah they were successful in LA, but from what I can really gather (like I've said before I was 6 at the time when this happened) there wasn't as much outcry or fight when they left. Plus the Raiders were going back to Oakland, where they probably shouldn't have left in the first place. With the Rams, they were ripped out of LA by some witch of a woman. And as you can see with the thread, there are still some people that have some real hard feelings about them leaving in the first place. The Rams being in LA, sucky or not, would make things just seem right again.

And as far as a boost in reputation or attendance, attendance would definitely go up just because the NFL would be back in LA. It'd be the "cool" thing, and as we know, LA is all about the "cool" thing. Reputation, eh who knows. They'd have to start being good again, obviously. Maybe making the move and more revenue streams might make them want to get better, and I can see playing in LA being a more attractive free agent destination.

St. Louis getting a team back, I could see that too. If the Rams were to leave, St. Louis would have gone through two football teams also (Cardinals/Rams), but when the Rams were good, it seemed like they had the support. Those Rams teams of the late 90s and early 00s are some of the better teams in NFL history. If they do make that new stadium (or at least pave the way for it) and the teams in trouble continue to be in trouble, they'll be a possible destination. However, I could see them as being that city dangled around in front of those troubled teams/cities like LA has been.