|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Oct 1, 2015 12:58:21 GMT -5
With three NFL owners pushing two competing stadium plans in Los Angeles County, the NFL soon might face the difficult task of deciding which teams will move into which stadium.
The league has said it only will support one new stadium capable of housing two teams in Los Angeles — but not two new stadiums to be occupied by three franchises. It ultimately could come down to a league vote between the San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams.
And that's where the decision could get tricky, possibly even leading to bare-knuckle politicking among the team owners.
www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2015/05/28/los-angeles-nfl-teams-dueling-stadium-plans/28070227/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2015 13:49:07 GMT -5
None of the mentioned three teams will go to Los Angeles.
For starters, the city of Los Angeles isn't exactly bursting at the seams at the prospect of another NFL team. There are simply too many other things to do in Southern California than sit and watch a football game. Secondly, as long as the city remains devoid of a franchise, the mere threat of pulling up stakes and moving there is worth more to NFL teams than to actually move there.
Be it San Diego, St. Louis, Jacksonville, or any of a number of other teams mentioned as possible future tenants in the City of Angels, the scenario will likely play out the same. Team A threatens to move to Los Angeles (which is, after all, the second largest media market in the country, so the threat has to be taken seriously) unless its ransom demands (a new stadium) are met. The city's leaders cave in to said demands, a blue-ribbon panel is commissioned to study and find all of the wonderful economic benefits a new stadium will bring to the area, and the ransom is paid in the form of a state-of-the-art football mecca on the taxpayers' dime. A subsequent press conference is then called so everyone can state how "delighted" they are with the arrangement.
All will then be quiet on the Western Front until the next franchise gets a case of wanderlust and uses Los Angeles as negotiating leverage to get what they want from their respective city. |
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Oct 1, 2015 14:23:10 GMT -5
Oh they'll get a team, its priority.
Im thinking more like the Jags or Panthers who's market is poor
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2015 16:14:40 GMT -5
Oh they'll get a team, its priority. Im thinking more like the Jags or Panthers who's market is poor It's a priority for the NFL, but not necessarily for Los Angeles. Four teams have called it home, yet all have moved on. The only reason the push for an NFL team in L.A. has resumed is largely fear. The Chargers--who spend their first season in Los Angeles--appear the most likely to relocate, but it isn't because they really want to leave San Diego. What they truly fear is not getting a stadium deal done in San Diego before losing their leverage with Los Angeles.
Why let an existing team move there and reap the benefits of the lucrative Los Angeles market when it would be more propitious to put an expansion team there in the future? The expansion fees alone would be enormous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Oct 1, 2015 16:50:28 GMT -5
The league is pretty balanced at 32 teams. The schedules are easy to predict - you can know who your team will play the next year (though not in what order) after all the week 17 games are done.
Not saying they can't expand, but it would make things more difficult, unless they did something truly silly, like add eight teams. Say, some of them in Europe... >eg<
|
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Oct 1, 2015 20:01:20 GMT -5
An NFL team in Toronto has already been discussed and being pursued.
|
|
