PDA

View Full Version : Football Governator signs bill to allow construction on 75K stadium in LA


Param
10-22-2009, 03:20 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4585508

INDUSTRY, Calif. -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday he had signed a bill allowing the construction of a 75,000-seat stadium that developers hope will lure an NFL team back to the Los Angeles area.

Schwarzenegger said he signed the environmental exemption bill last week but saved the announcement for a press conference in Industry, where the stadium would be built about 15 miles east of Los Angeles.

The bill would nullify a lawsuit filed by residents in nearby Walnut over the project's environmental impact.

Schwarzenegger called the lawsuit frivolous as he addressed a crowd of union members wearing hardhats. Across the street, a dozen protesters held signs saying "No Stadium."

"This is the best kind of action state government can create -- action that cuts red tape, generates jobs, is environmentally friendly and brings a continued economic boost to California," Schwarzenegger said.

Majestic Realty Co. is heading the stadium project after helping develop Staples Center, the downtown Los Angeles home of the NBA's Lakers and Clippers and the NHL's Kings.

Majestic has targeted seven teams as candidates to move to the Los Angeles area: the Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and San Francisco 49ers.

The firm has said the teams are in stadiums that are either too small or can't be updated with luxury box seats or other revenue sources an NFL club needs to thrive.

Schwarzenegger said the stadium would generate more than 18,000 jobs.

Majestic guaranteed parking lot attendants and concession stand workers would be paid middle-class wages, said Maria Elena Durazo, head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

"This is true economic development," Durazo said. "It's going to benefit everyone in our community."

_________________________________________

Who is going to move there? SD?

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 03:21 PM
Say hello to the Los Angeles Jaguars.

Mr. Flopnuts
10-22-2009, 03:22 PM
Say hello to the Los Angeles Jaguars.

They'll change their name to the LA Brokeasses. California is what? 60 billion in the red? How are they going to finance shit?

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 03:24 PM
They'll change their name to the LA Brokeasses. California is what? 60 billion in the red? How are they going to finance shit?

I think its a privately built stadium similar to the Staples Center.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 03:25 PM
Say hello to the Los Angeles Jaguars.

I think the Rams move back to SoCal and the Jags move to St. Louis

Tribal Warfare
10-22-2009, 03:26 PM
My money is on the Rams

Buehler445
10-22-2009, 03:27 PM
I think the Rams move back to SoCal and the Jags move to St. Louis

Not at all familiar with the situation, but WTF? Why would the Jags move to St Loser if they can't support the lambs.
Posted via Mobile Device

dtrain
10-22-2009, 03:28 PM
They'll change their name to the LA Brokeasses. California is what? 60 billion in the red? How are they going to finance shit?

That exactly!!!!:cuss:

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 03:29 PM
I think the Rams move back to SoCal and the Jags move to St. Louis

Actually I bet both of them move to Los Angeles, CBS & FOX would throw a hissy fit if one got a team and the other didn't.

Pestilence
10-22-2009, 03:30 PM
I think the Rams move back to SoCal and the Jags move to St. Louis

This.

wild1
10-22-2009, 03:30 PM
They'll change their name to the LA Brokeasses. California is what? 60 billion in the red? How are they going to finance shit?

Taxes, duh.

Buck
10-22-2009, 03:31 PM
I wonder how they are going to realign the NFL if the Jags move there.

Rooster
10-22-2009, 03:31 PM
My money is on the Rams

That would make sense to me. Actually having them back in LA would be kinda cool.

wild1
10-22-2009, 03:31 PM
I wonder how they are going to realign the NFL if the Jags move there.

Jags to NFC West

Rams to AFC south.

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 03:32 PM
I think the Rams move back to SoCal and the Jags move to St. Louis

Sorry two replys on comment. This would be really freaking ironic if this did happen. Jacksonville was awarded the expansion team over St. Louis in 1993, which I think they did to get new stadiums for other teams which happened soon after.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 03:33 PM
Not at all familiar with the situation, but WTF? Why would the Jags move to St Loser if they can't support the lambs.
Posted via Mobile Device

If the Rams moved to SoCal, there would be no NFL realignment necessary. But, I doubt that the NFL would allow another team to move from St. Louis without another franchise willing to take its place.

Jacksonville plays in the AFC South with the Titans, Colts and Texans and would not require realignment.

If Jax moved to LA, everything would be a mess and I doubt that in that event, KC would be willing to move to the AFC South.

Brock
10-22-2009, 03:33 PM
LA deserves the Raiders.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 03:34 PM
LA deserves the Raiders.

Please, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

wild1
10-22-2009, 03:36 PM
What about the location for that stadium? I've never been to Industry, is that a good place to build it?

BigChiefFan
10-22-2009, 03:37 PM
Is it an I.O.U. ?

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 03:38 PM
If the Rams moved to SoCal, there would be no NFL realignment necessary. But, I doubt that the NFL would allow another team to move from St. Louis without another franchise willing to take its place.

Jacksonville plays in the NFC South with the Titans, Colts and Texans and would not require realignment.

If Jax moved to LA, everything would be a mess and I doubt that in that event, KC would be willing to move to the NFC South.

You mean AFC South. It would suck major donkey balls to lose the Donks and Raiders rivarlies but the Colts and Titans could be hated on pretty easy if the league chose to do it.

Buck
10-22-2009, 03:41 PM
Hey look, I just realigned the Divisions in a way that makes sense!

Also attached is the current alignment.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 03:43 PM
You mean AFC South. It would suck major donkey balls to lose the Donks and Raiders rivarlies but the Colts and Titans could be hated on pretty easy if the league chose to do it.

Yeah, duh.

I'm losing my mind today. Our nanny isn't here and my daughter is on day 4 of the Swine Flu.

Good times!

Gravedigger
10-22-2009, 03:43 PM
I'd like to believe that they'd move the Jaguars over there, St. Louis does have a bit more going on in their city, sports wise, than Jacksonville.

Gravedigger
10-22-2009, 03:44 PM
Maybe they'll move things around so we can be in the NFC now.... easy playoffs lets do it!!!!

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 03:44 PM
Maybe they'll move things around so we can be in the NFC now.... easy playoffs lets do it!!!!

LMAO

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 03:47 PM
Here is all the information on the stadium
http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/

wild1
10-22-2009, 03:47 PM
Maybe they'll move things around so we can be in the NFC now.... easy playoffs lets do it!!!!

We're 1 or 2 players away from being a playoff team if we can get ourselves in the NFC west!

Brock
10-22-2009, 03:48 PM
Doing a realignment for one team seems unlikely. Atlanta was in the NFC west for like 30 years.

Bearcat
10-22-2009, 03:48 PM
Hey look, I just realigned the Divisions in a way that makes sense!

Also attached is the current alignment.

Sweet, 2nd place!

Buck
10-22-2009, 03:49 PM
Sweet, 2nd place!

Hell yeah, you guys could win like at least 7 games this year if you were in that division.

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 03:51 PM
Doing a realignment for one team seems unlikely. Atlanta was in the NFC west for like 30 years.

I am being dead serious but they picked that alingment out of a hat. The owners couldn't agree on divisions so they drew it out of a freaking hat.

JD10367
10-22-2009, 03:51 PM
"Majestic has targeted seven teams as candidates to move to the Los Angeles area: the Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and San Francisco 49ers."

Buffalo: not as long as Ralph Wilson continues to shakily draw a wheezy breath. Besides, they probably want to have Buffalo play some home games in Toronto to try to drum up business for making the NFL more international.

Jacksonville: I think their lease is for something like 30 years. Doubtful they can break it.

Minnesota: never. They'll dig in and do something to keep them. Especially now that Lord Favrhruhrh is drumming up business for them.

San Diego, Oakland, San Fran: doubtful.

I think the most likely choice is St. Louis.

Bearcat
10-22-2009, 03:55 PM
Minnesota: never. They'll dig in and do something to keep them. Especially now that Lord Favrhruhrh is drumming up business for them.


Aren't they moving into a new stadium next year?

Fruit Ninja
10-22-2009, 03:58 PM
Damn, Rams were my team when i was a relaly really young kid. THen they moved. So i moved on to the Chiefs. lol

THey better not go back. lol

Buehler445
10-22-2009, 03:59 PM
If the Rams moved to SoCal, there would be no NFL realignment necessary. But, I doubt that the NFL would allow another team to move from St. Louis without another franchise willing to take its place.

Jacksonville plays in the AFC South with the Titans, Colts and Texans and would not require realignment.

If Jax moved to LA, everything would be a mess and I doubt that in that event, KC would be willing to move to the AFC South.

Thanks dude.

So are the Rams wanting to move just because they want to sell and an LA buyer is most likely or because the St Loser marker can't support them? If it is the latter, it wouldn't make much sense to move another NFL team in.

Hope your daughter gets to feeling better.
Posted via Mobile Device

Brock
10-22-2009, 04:00 PM
Hey look, I just realigned the Divisions in a way that makes sense!

Also attached is the current alignment.

It's fine if you don't care about the history of the league.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:02 PM
Thanks dude.

So are the Rams wanting to move just because they want to sell and an LA buyer is most likely or because the St Loser marker can't support them? If it is the latter, it wouldn't make much sense to move another NFL team in.

Hope your daughter gets to feeling better.
Posted via Mobile Device

There's been talking of bringing the Rams back to SoCal for a long time. I think that's the most likely scenario.

It wouldn't require realignment which I think the league would want in a Los Angeles team.

Plus, how weird would it be for the Chargers to be in the West and the "Los Angeles Jaguars" to be in the South and face each other every 4 years?

I just can't see that.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:03 PM
It's fine if you don't care about the history of the league.

What history? Jacksonville? The "St. Louis" Rams?

I don't think there's enough history with either franchise to "preserve".

Brock
10-22-2009, 04:04 PM
What history? Jacksonville? The "St. Louis" Rams?

I don't think there's enough history with either franchise to "preserve".

I'm speaking of moving KC, Oakland, and Denver to different divisions. Don't really care about whether they moved the Chargers, though.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:06 PM
I'm speaking of moving KC, Oakland, and Denver to different divisions. Don't really care about whether they moved the Chargers, though.

Ah. Well, I'm sure the Chargers would care. And how much further west can San Diego move?

Kansas City would be the most likely of all teams to move but all think all this talk is way premature.

We've got $300 million dollar hotel/condos sitting empty and unfinished because loans were pulled.

I think that finding funding for a Billion Dollar stadium will be difficult.

SDChiefs
10-22-2009, 04:10 PM
Jags to NFC West

Rams to AFC south.

They would probably move the Chiefs to AFC south. They are the farthest East of any of the teams.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:11 PM
Jags to NFC West

Rams to AFC south.

That'll never work.

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 04:11 PM
Remember tv numbers drive the NFL. Like I said earlier neither CBS or FOX is going to want just one team in LA. They will want one in each conference similar to New York.

Brock
10-22-2009, 04:11 PM
They would probably move the Chiefs to AFC south. They are the farthest East of any of the teams.

I would bet the farm against that. The AFC west is perfect as is. Frankly, if a team moves, they should have to deal with the inconvenience of travelling farther.

SDChiefs
10-22-2009, 04:11 PM
What about the location for that stadium? I've never been to Industry, is that a good place to build it?

Yes. Very good. Only has a population of like 62 and is right in the center of LA metro.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:13 PM
Yes. Very good. Only has a population of like 62 and is right in the center of LA metro.

Which will only make Sunday traffic even more unbearably awful.

They better put a subway stop like at Staples if they build in that location.

Delano
10-22-2009, 04:13 PM
Aren't they moving into a new stadium next year?

The Vikings are staying in the Metrodome. The Twins are moving to Target Field next year. U of M moved into a the new TCF stadium this year. I think Ziggi has thrown out a few proposals for a new NFL stadium/shopping center type of thing in Minny, but the with two other new buildings, he's gonna have trouble getting his.

Param
10-22-2009, 04:17 PM
I remember reading the other day the Rams can get out of their lease in 2014. Something to the effect, if the dome falls in the bottom 25% in regards to revenue or suite revenue. Something like that. I've never been there, but supposedly it's old already?

RickObie
10-22-2009, 04:19 PM
My guess is the Chargers move to LA. They've been trying to get a new stadium for years with very little support from the city and new site locations keep falling through. The Chargers did originate in LA as the Chargers so they can keep the name.

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 04:19 PM
I remember reading the other day the Rams can get out of their lease in 2014. Something to the effect, if the dome falls in the bottom 25% in regards to revenue or suite revenue. Something like that. I've never been there, but supposedly it's old already?

I think the dome has to be in the top 5 stadiums in the league or something like that. OTW is the guy to talk to about St. Louis.

Brock
10-22-2009, 04:20 PM
My guess is the Chargers move to LA. They've been trying to get a new stadium for years with very little support from the city and new site locations keep falling through. The Chargers did originate in LA as the Chargers so they can keep the name.

That would make the most sense. As for the Jaguars, would anyone even care if they just got rid of the team altogether?

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:23 PM
My guess is the Chargers move to LA. They've been trying to get a new stadium for years with very little support from the city and new site locations keep falling through. The Chargers did originate in LA as the Chargers so they can keep the name.

They played in Los Angeles for one year when Barron Hilton owned the team.

That'd be like saying the Chiefs would go back to Dallas if they ever wanted to move.

The Chargers won't move. They know they'd have better support in San Diego than they'd ever have in Los Angeles.

Buck
10-22-2009, 04:24 PM
It's fine if you don't care about the history of the league.

I've read a great article on the history the NFL Division Alignment, its changed so many times over the years. I dont think it would really matter.

It would still be exciting as hell, and travel costs would be decreased by a lot.

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 04:26 PM
I've read a great article on the history the NFL Division Alignment, its changed so many times over the years. I dont think it would really matter.

It would still be exciting as hell, and travel costs would be decreased by a lot.

TV contracts wouldn't like it one bit. Thats why you need an AFC/NFC setup.

RickObie
10-22-2009, 04:26 PM
The support doesn't matter it's the money and if the Chargers can't get a stadium deal done here and a better offer comes from LA, they'll move!

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 04:28 PM
If the Chargers did move to LA, Raiders would be in San Diego so fast you would think Al had super speed.

Buck
10-22-2009, 04:29 PM
Here it is if you want to read it.

I love History, and the History of the NFL is no different.

http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/football/profootball/nflhistory.htm

Buck
10-22-2009, 04:30 PM
TV contracts wouldn't like it one bit. Thats why you need an AFC/NFC setup.

Im sure there are ways around that.

Fox could get all the teams that have Bird and Cat Mascots

CBS would get everyone else.

:)

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:32 PM
The support doesn't matter it's the money and if the Chargers can't get a stadium deal done here and a better offer comes from LA, they'll move!

I can tell you that without a doubt, Los Angeles will not support the Chargers.

For the NFL to be successful in Los Angeles, they'll first need a stadium. Then, they'll need a Los Angeles-based ownership group to bring the team to Los Angeles.

The Spanos family would not be welcome in Los Angeles and they're not going to sell. Los Angeles will want an ownership group absolutely committed to a championship year in and year out.

Just like the Lakers, Ducks, Dodgers and Angels.

Bank on it.

RickObie
10-22-2009, 04:33 PM
I can tell you that without a doubt, Los Angeles will not support the Chargers.

For the NFL to be successful in Los Angeles, they'll first need a stadium. Then, they'll need a Los Angeles-friendly ownership group to bring the team to Los Angeles.

The Spanos family would not be welcome in Los Angeles. They'll want an ownership group absolutely committed to a championship year in and year out.

Just like the Lakers, Ducks, Dodgers and Angels.

Bank on it.

Don't forget the Clippers and the Kings!!

SDChiefs
10-22-2009, 04:33 PM
I would bet the farm against that. The AFC west is perfect as is. Frankly, if a team moves, they should have to deal with the inconvenience of travelling farther.

I don't want it to happen. I hated the idea of the Seahawks leaving the AFC. The best part of sports is the rivals. We have our 3 that I am happy with.

Buck
10-22-2009, 04:34 PM
I can tell you that without a doubt, Los Angeles will not support the Chargers.

For the NFL to be successful in Los Angeles, they'll first need a stadium. Then, they'll need a Los Angeles-based ownership group to bring the team to Los Angeles.

The Spanos family would not be welcome in Los Angeles. They'll want an ownership group absolutely committed to a championship year in and year out.

Just like the Lakers, Ducks, Dodgers and Angels.

Bank on it.

Considering the Dodgers are on a 21 year cold streak, they shouldnt be in that group.

As soon as any team moved to LA and became big market the owners would be making so much more money that they'd be willing to put more into the team.

At least I think thats how it would happen.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:35 PM
Don't forget the Clippers and the Kings!!


The Clippers are the scorn of the league and a mockery of an NBA franchise.

Do you honestly think that if the Clippers wanted to move from another city to Los Angeles, they'd be welcome?

And yes, I did forget The Kings, although they have a HUGE following and do well at Staples.

L.A. Chieffan
10-22-2009, 04:35 PM
donald sterling........GTFO

L.A. Chieffan
10-22-2009, 04:36 PM
KINGS PLAYING WELL THIS YEAR

Frazod
10-22-2009, 04:36 PM
They played in Los Angeles for one year when Barron Hilton owned the team.

That'd be like saying the Chiefs would go back to Dallas if they ever wanted to move.

The Chargers won't move. They know they'd have better support in San Diego than they'd ever have in Los Angeles.

Don't most people in LA root for them by default, or do they just not give a shit about football?

SDChiefs
10-22-2009, 04:36 PM
Which will only make Sunday traffic even more unbearably awful.

They better put a subway stop like at Staples if they build in that location.

Not a lot of industry open on Sundays. Can't imagine it would be any worse then a Monday-Friday. LA traffic sucks regardless. Staples is in the center of downtown so there is going to be more traffic. This would leave better routes for the IE to get there. They don't have many homes in the area to involve commuting esp. on Sundays. MNF would be a BITCH though.

L.A. Chieffan
10-22-2009, 04:36 PM
FUCK NFL, THATS WHAT I SAY. IF THEY WANT LA SO BAD THEN THEYRE GONNA HAVE TO KISS OUR ASS

RickObie
10-22-2009, 04:36 PM
The Clippers are the scorn of the league and a mockery of an NBA franchise.

Do you honestly think that if the Clippers wanted to move from another city to Los Angeles, they'd be welcome?

And yes, I did forget The Kings, although they have a HUGE following and do well at Staples.

Didn't the Clippers move to LA from San Diego?

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:36 PM
Considering the Dodgers are on a 21 year cold streak, they shouldnt be in that group.

As soon as any team moved to LA and became big market the owners would be making so much more money that they'd be willing to put more into the team.

At least I think thats how it would happen.

Considering that Frank McCourt has not only hired a legendary manager and brought in players like Manny, in addition to rebuilding the farm system which brought in players like Eithier, Blake, Loney, Kemp, etc., they absolutely have to be in that group.

And furthermore, the Dodgers have a great history in Los Angeles.

Buck
10-22-2009, 04:37 PM
Don't most people in LA root for them by default, or do they just not give a shit about football?

I think a lot of Orange County roots for the Chargers and Los Angeles County the Raiders

Frazod
10-22-2009, 04:38 PM
I think a lot of Orange County roots for the Chargers and Los Angeles County the Raiders

Plus it's a given that the Raiders automatically get the gangbanger demographic.

Buck
10-22-2009, 04:38 PM
Considering that Frank McCourt has not only hired a legendary manager and brought in players like Manny, in addition to rebuilding the farm system which brought in players like Eithier, Blake, Loney, Kemp, etc., they absolutely have to be in that group.

And furthermore, the Dodgers have a great history in Los Angeles.

I'm just saying the Chargers have made it to the playoffs probably the same amount of times as the Dodgers have since the Dodgers last WS.

You make it out like the Spanos' have no desire to win.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:39 PM
Didn't the Clippers move to LA from San Diego?


More than 25 years ago they moved to Los Angeles and were relegated to the old downtown shithole arena while the Lakers played at the Forum.

The NBA isn't the same today as it was then.

Do you think the Grizzlies would be welcome if the weren't in Los Angeles?

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:39 PM
I'm just saying the Chargers have made it to the playoffs probably the same amount of times as the Dodgers have since the Dodgers last WS.

You make it out like the Spanos' have no desire to win.

The Spanos family isn't the type of family that would succeed in Los Angeles.

SDChiefs
10-22-2009, 04:40 PM
My guess is the Chargers move to LA. They've been trying to get a new stadium for years with very little support from the city and new site locations keep falling through. The Chargers did originate in LA as the Chargers so they can keep the name.

If Escondido site fails, this or the Rams I see as the strongest possibilities. Except the Chargers would no longer have any fans. Even less than before. LA is still going to root for Oakland and I don't see them rooting for a division rival of Oakland. And I can not see San Diego fans routing for an LA team that stole their team. No San Diego sports to begin with. Yes. IE Lakers, KIngs. But not this.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:41 PM
Don't most people in LA root for them by default, or do they just not give a shit about football?

Everyone that I know is from elsewhere so they root for their teams.

I have friends that are die-hard Steelers, Giants, Redskins, Patriots, Cowboys, 49er, Jets and Eagles fans. I don't know anyone that's a Raiders fan or Chargers fan, although I did know many Rams fans back in the day.

Buck
10-22-2009, 04:42 PM
The Spanos family isn't the type of family that would succeed in Los Angeles.

Chargers Playoff Appearances since 1989: 7 / 1 Super Bowl
Dodgers Playoff Appearances since 1989: 4 / 0 World Series

RickObie
10-22-2009, 04:42 PM
More than 25 years ago they moved to Los Angeles and were relegated to the old downtown shithole arena while the Lakers played at the Forum.

The NBA isn't the same today as it was then.

Do you think the Grizzlies would be welcome if the weren't in Los Angeles?

I'm not trying to argue against you here, I would love for the Chargers to stay in SD and have another team move into the LA market. It would give me a chance to see the Chiefs more than once a year out here. When I first moved out here I had the Chargers and Raiders game every year and every few years I could go to Anaheim. I hope I'm wrong!

Mojo Jojo
10-22-2009, 04:42 PM
I wonder how they are going to realign the NFL if the Jags move there.

KC Chiefs welcome to the AFC South. If any of you remember KC was to be put in the AFC South when they went to 8 divisions, and Lamar threw a fit. That is when Seattle went to the NFC and the Chiefs stayed in the AFC West.

SDChiefs
10-22-2009, 04:43 PM
The Clippers are the scorn of the league and a mockery of an NBA franchise.

Do you honestly think that if the Clippers wanted to move from another city to Los Angeles, they'd be welcome?

And yes, I did forget The Kings, although they have a HUGE following and do well at Staples.

Im a Kings fan.

SDChiefs
10-22-2009, 04:44 PM
Didn't the Clippers move to LA from San Diego?

Yes. And they have no fans and are one of the worst franchises in all of sports.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:44 PM
Chargers Playoff Appearances since 1989: 7 / 1 Super Bowl
Dodgers Playoff Appearances since 1989: 4 / 0 World Series

Big deal. Baseball is different than football.

And the Spanos family isn't the type of family that will succeed in Los Angeles.

Why are you trying to argue this point?

An L.A. franchise will need a "Larger Than Life" owner to succeed, period.

The Spanos family wouldn't know how to market their team to Los Angelenos, wouldn't want to get involved in all the politics, etc.

They're just not that kind of owner(s).

Buck
10-22-2009, 04:44 PM
KC Chiefs welcome to the AFC South. If any of you remember KC was to be put in the AFC South when they went to 8 divisions, and Lamar threw a fit. That is when Seattle went to the NFC and the Chiefs stayed in the AFC West.

That would suck if they went against Lamar's wishes. The Key member of the AFL, he deserves to have his team where he wanted it.

Mojo Jojo
10-22-2009, 04:44 PM
Didn't the Clippers move to LA from San Diego?

And they moved from Buffalo to San Diego....

L.A. Chieffan
10-22-2009, 04:45 PM
Yes. And they have no fans and are one of the worst franchises in all of sports.

DUDE. BILLY CRYSTAL

wild1
10-22-2009, 04:45 PM
And yes, I did forget The Kings, although they have a HUGE following and do well at Staples.

I've been to a game there, and I support a conference opponent so I see the Kings from time to time. I always wonder about them, because the seats are always empty there on the lower bowl, and the game I attended was not anywhere near full. Are all the seats sold to corporate or the well-to-do? Does the franchise have financial issues? Is the owner just extremely well heeled? Is just being in LA enough to keep a team afloat?

L.A. Chieffan
10-22-2009, 04:45 PM
THE CLIPPERS NAME CAME FROM CLIPPER SHIPS.

CLIPPER SHIPS ARE COMMON IN SAN DIEGO

Frazod
10-22-2009, 04:46 PM
Everyone that I know is from elsewhere so they root for their teams.

I have friends that are die-hard Steelers, Giants, Redskins, Patriots, Cowboys, 49er, Jets and Eagles fans. I don't know anyone that's a Raiders fan or Chargers fan, although I did know many Rams fans back in the day.

Sounds like a primary reason that there hasn't been enough interest to attract an NFL franchise for so long.

RickObie
10-22-2009, 04:46 PM
And they moved from Buffalo to San Diego....

Buffalo Braves

wild1
10-22-2009, 04:46 PM
Aren't they moving into a new stadium next year?

No plans for them to move.

Frazod
10-22-2009, 04:46 PM
Dodgers Playoff Appearances since 1989: 4 / 0 World Series

.

Buck
10-22-2009, 04:49 PM
Big deal. Baseball is different than football.

And the Spanos family isn't the type of family that will succeed in Los Angeles.

Why are you trying to argue this point?

An L.A. franchise will need a "Larger Than Life" owner to succeed, period.

The Spanos family wouldn't know how to market their team to Los Angelenos, wouldn't want to get involved in all the politics, etc.

They're just not that kind of owner(s).

Okay, so you are telling me that Los Angelenos wouldn't want a team that makes it to the playoffs?

Hell even the Padres have done a better job in the last 21 years over the Dodgers,

They have Made it to the playoffs 4 times, and the world series once. (and one one-game playoff against the Rockies in 2007)

The point I was trying to make is that the Dodgers might throw out big money, but it doesn't really mean they are doing it as smart as they can. The proof is in the numbers.

stevieray
10-22-2009, 04:50 PM
I thought Cali was broke?

stevieray
10-22-2009, 04:51 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4585508

INDUSTRY, Calif. --

Majestic guaranteed parking lot attendants and concession stand workers would be paid middle-class wages, said Maria Elena Durazo, head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.




While charging upper class prices.

RickObie
10-22-2009, 04:52 PM
So Buckin do you think the Chargers are staying???

KCtotheSB
10-22-2009, 04:52 PM
If the Jaguars move out to Los Angeles, that is going to royally dick up the geographic divisions. Cross country trips galore.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:52 PM
Sounds like a primary reason that there hasn't been enough interest to attract an NFL franchise for so long.

Yeah, that's true.

I'm torn on the idea of the NFL returning to SoCal. I think the only way it'll be successful is if the Rams return (where they had a ton of success for nearly 50 years) or it's an expansion franchise.

People just aren't going to suddenly go to a football game on Sundays when it's 80 degrees outside and you can be at the beach, in the mountains, at Disneyland or Knotts Berry Farm just because the Jacksonville Jaguars are now playing a Warner Brothers Stadium in beautiful City of Industry.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:53 PM
Okay, so you are telling me that Los Angelenos wouldn't want a team that makes it to the playoffs?

Hell even the Padres have done a better job in the last 21 years over the Dodgers,

They have Made it to the playoffs 4 times, and the world series once. (and one one-game playoff against the Rockies in 2007)

The point I was trying to make is that the Dodgers might throw out big money, but it doesn't really mean they are doing it as smart as they can. The proof is in the numbers.

Yeah, I am.

First off, the Chargers aren't moving. Secondly, they're not the type of ownership group that will succeed here.

By all accounts, they aren't succeeding in San Diego. What makes you think Los Angeles would be different?

Buck
10-22-2009, 04:54 PM
Yeah, I am.

First off, the Chargers aren't moving. Secondly, they're not the type of ownership group that will succeed here.

By all accounts, they aren't succeeding in San Diego. What makes you think Los Angeles would be different?

Are the Dodgers succeeding in Los Angeles?

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:54 PM
While charging upper class prices.

A decent ticket at a Dodgers game is $120.00.

For a single game.

Can you imagine a similar ticket price for an NFL game?

Frazod
10-22-2009, 04:56 PM
Yeah, that's true.

I'm torn on the idea of the NFL returning to SoCal. I think the only way it'll be successful is if the Rams return (where they had a ton of success for nearly 50 years) or it's an expansion franchise.

People just aren't going to suddenly go to a football game on Sundays when it's 80 degrees outside and you can be at the beach, in the mountains, at Disneyland or Knotts Berry Farm just because the Jacksonville Jaguars are now playing a Warner Brothers Stadium in beautiful City of Industry.

I think team loyalty is generally something you develop as a kid. I tried to like the Rams when they moved to St. Louis, but even a Super Bowl win couldn't get me on the bandwagon. I sort of like the Bears after living up here for 20+ years, but my interest is lukewarm at best, even though I watched them win a conference championship in person. I like the teams I always liked, and it really doesn't matter where I live now.

Mojo Jojo
10-22-2009, 04:56 PM
"Majestic has targeted seven teams as candidates to move to the Los Angeles area: the Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and San Francisco 49ers."

Buffalo: not as long as Ralph Wilson continues to shakily draw a wheezy breath. Besides, they probably want to have Buffalo play some home games in Toronto to try to drum up business for making the NFL more international.

Jacksonville: I think their lease is for something like 30 years. Doubtful they can break it.

Minnesota: never. They'll dig in and do something to keep them. Especially now that Lord Favrhruhrh is drumming up business for them.

San Diego, Oakland, San Fran: doubtful.

I think the most likely choice is St. Louis.

Buffalo...Family already said they are looking for a new owner.

Jacksonville...Publicly said looking for more investors. Bad stadium deal that has a small buyout.

Minnesota...has already publicly been looking at San Antonio and LA. State won't give them a new stadium.

San Diego...Started as a team in LA.

Oakland...Has played as a team in LA.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:57 PM
Are the Dodgers succeeding in Los Angeles?

Why do you keep asking about the Dodgers? What relevance does a baseball team with 50 years of history in this city have to do with a football team that plays less than two hours away?

Do you know how many Chargers jerseys I see on a yearly basis? Maybe two.

The Chargers are in danger of blackouts each week in your city. No one in Los Angeles is going to build a one billion dollar stadium to host the Chargers.

It's not going to happen.

Buck
10-22-2009, 04:57 PM
I mean sure, the Norv thing is fucking stupid, but I just dont get how you can say the Dodgers are doing shit better than the Chargers.

Buck
10-22-2009, 04:58 PM
And the blackouts have more to do with the poor economy in this city rather than fan support.

I guess I should stop talking about Los Angeles because you obviously know more than me, but I obviously know more than you about SD.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:58 PM
I mean sure, the Norv thing is fucking stupid, but I just dont get how you can say the Dodgers are doing shit better than the Chargers.

No one is going to build a one billion dollar stadium just so the Chargers move 95 miles up the road.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 04:59 PM
And the blackouts have more to do with the poor economy in this city rather than fan support.

I guess I should stop talking about Los Angeles because you obviously know more than me, but I obviously know more than you about SD.

You're taking this personally and I'm talking about economics.

And blackouts have been an issue with the Chargers (as they have been with the Chiefs) throughout their history.

Buck
10-22-2009, 05:02 PM
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/oct/15/ca-nfl-los-angeles-101509/

Developer targeting NFL teams for LA-area stadium

By JACOB ADELMAN, The Associated Press

7:31 p.m. October 15, 2009

LOS ANGELES The developer working to bring the NFL back to the Los Angeles area with a sleek, new 75,000-seat stadium has a 600-acre site to build the proposed venue and is close to having the legal go-ahead to break ground.

Now all that's needed is a team.

Majestic Realty Co. plans to build the $800 million stadium in the city of Industry about 15 miles east of Los Angeles and it's casting a wide net in its search. Majestic named seven teams it believes are ready for a new home.

The Buffalo Bills, the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Minnesota Vikings, the St. Louis Rams, the San Diego Chargers, the Oakland Raiders and the San Francisco 49ers are on developer's list of possible targets.

The teams are in stadiums that are either too small or can't be updated to cash in on the box seats, naming rights and other revenue sources that an NFL club needs to thrive, Majestic managing partner John Semcken said on Thursday, a day after the California Senate approved an environmental exemption bill allowing the stadium's construction.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office didn't immediately respond to an inquiry on whether he planned to sign the bill, which would nullify a lawsuit over the project's environmental impact report by citizens in the neighboring city of Walnut.

Majestic helped develop downtown Los Angeles' Staples Center, home of several sports franchises, including the NBA's Lakers and Clippers and the NHL's Kings.

Semcken said the company plans to begin approaching teams after the Super Bowl in February and could have a team playing at the Rose Bowl starting from nest season until 2013, when the company hoped to have the new stadium built.

The NFL is aware of Wednesday's Senate vote and other potential stadium developments in the Los Angeles area, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said. He declined to comment on specific sites or teams that might move to the region.

Marc Ganis, president of Chicago-based consultancy SportsCorp, said persuading a team to move and getting the NFL's approval would be Majestic's greatest obstacle yet.

"Having the legislation and the environmental impact statement is lovely and it's a good thing," he said. "But without having the team in hand, it's just a very nice piece of paper to put up on your wall."

The Jaguars and the Bills are in areas too sparsely populated to make financing a new stadium feasible, Semcken said. The Jaguars' TV market ranks 29th among the NFL's 32 teams, while the Bills' is 31st, according to Nielsen Media Research Inc.

The Jaguars have struggled for years to fill Jacksonville Municipal Stadium and are in danger of having all their games blacked out on local TV this season. The Bills, meanwhile, have been playing some home games in Toronto in an effort to expand their market.

Jaguars majority owner Wayne Weaver and Bills owner Ralph Wilson have steadfastly dismissed any suggestion that they will sell or move their teams.

Other teams would have trouble raising the cash for a new stadium, Semcken said.

Mark Fabiani, who has been overseeing the Chargers' seven-year struggle to have 42-year-old Qualcomm Stadium replaced with a newer venue, said it's harder to finance a stadium in San Diego than Los Angeles because of the smaller market.

He said the Chargers are concentrating on keeping the team in San Diego, but noted that Majestic chairman and chief executive Ed Roski has a long-standing friendship with Chargers owner Alex Spanos and that the team's current lease enables it to move for a fee.

He said the team views a new venue as a necessity and wouldn't wait indefinitely for one to be built in San Diego.

"I can't predict what would happen if he called us in a year or six months," Fabiani said, referring to Roski.

The 49ers' could fall off Majestic's list of targets if residents of the San Francisco Bay Area city of Santa Clara vote to authorize nearly $80 million in public funds for the 75,000-seat venue for the team.

49ers spokeswoman Lisa Lang said managers are striving to keep the team in the area and that she expects Santa Clara voters to approve the $937 million stadium when they cast ballots within the year.

She also said planners were seeking approval to have two NFL teams play at the new stadium and that 49ers representatives have discussed sharing the venue with the Raiders, also on Majestic's list.

The Raiders, who moved to Oakland after playing in Los Angeles from 1982 to 1994, are free to leave Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum when their lease expires next year.

Rounding off the list are the Vikings, whose lease at the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome runs out after the 2011 season, and the Rams, whose lease allows them to move as early as 2014 if the Edward Jones Dome is not deemed among the top quarter of all NFL stadiums.

Messages left with the Rams and Raiders were not immediately returned.

The Vikings are asking state legislators to issue at least $215 million in bonds to build a stadium that would keep the team in the Twin Cities, team spokesman Lester Bagley said.

----------------

So what makes any of the other teams better candidates for the finicky L.A. fans than the Chargers?

SDChiefs
10-22-2009, 05:03 PM
I thought Cali was broke?

We are still a large economy. The governator is just an idiot and ran us to broke.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 05:09 PM
So what makes any of the other teams better candidates for the finicky L.A. fans than the Chargers?

I guarantee you that if that ownership group polled Angelenos about which team they'd want, the Chargers would be on the bottom of that list.

The NFL is making a HUGE blunder in even thinking that people of L.A. even want a team, let alone would support it.

There's no way people are going to pay outrageous PSL's, ticket and parking prices to see the Chargers.

Buck
10-22-2009, 05:11 PM
Okay, but to be honest with you I dont think the people of Los Angeles have any say in which team they get.

Its pretty much the owner of said team / owner of stadium / NFL's decision.

I think you are belittling the Chargers a little too much by the way.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 05:13 PM
Okay, but to be honest with you I dont think the people of Los Angeles have any say in which team they get.

Its pretty much the owner of said team / owner of stadium / NFL's decision.

I think you are belittling the Chargers a little too much by the way.

I'm not "belittling" the Chargers.

I'm "belittling" the citizens of Los Angeles.

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 05:26 PM
LA's needs an Art Morneo for its NFL team. He might just be the best owner in sports, pure genius what he did with the Angels.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 05:30 PM
LA's needs an Art Morneo for its NFL team. He might just be the best owner in sports, pure genius what he did with the Angels.

Exactly. That's what I'm talking about when referring to the Spanos family as not being "right" for an LA franchise.

It's going to take an extremely wealthy, "Larger Than Life" type of guy to get 20 million people who can find 20 million things better to do on a Sunday than drop what will most likely be $1,000 to go watch a football team that they have absolutely no emotional ties with, whatsoever.

For a team to succeed with the fans, it'll take the return of the Rams and/or a team that's willing to give up their identity and essentially "start from scratch" to even have a chance.

And Frank McCourt's done a fine job with the Dodgers as well since getting off to a shaky start.

SDChiefs
10-22-2009, 05:44 PM
Exactly. That's what I'm talking about when referring to the Spanos family as not being "right" for an LA franchise.

It's going to take an extremely wealthy, "Larger Than Life" type of guy to get 20 million people who can find 20 million things better to do on a Sunday than drop what will most likely be $1,000 to go watch a football team that they have absolutely no emotional ties with, whatsoever.

For a team to succeed with the fans, it'll take the return of the Rams and/or a team that's willing to give up their identity and essentially "start from scratch" to even have a chance.

And Frank McCourt's done a fine job with the Dodgers as well since getting off to a shaky start.

Im not from LA but I have never met a Rams fan in Southern California in all my years here. Except those from MO. Raiders. Plenty. Rams would probably get less love than the Chargers.

Brock
10-22-2009, 05:59 PM
I've read a great article on the history the NFL Division Alignment, its changed so many times over the years. I dont think it would really matter.

It would still be exciting as hell, and travel costs would be decreased by a lot.

The AFC west has had the same core teams for 50 years. There's no reason to change it at all. None.

88TG88
10-22-2009, 06:02 PM
Hell even the Padres have done a better job in the last 21 years over the Dodgers,

They have Made it to the playoffs 4 times, and the world series once. (and one one-game playoff against the Rockies in 2007)



ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL lol wtf

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 06:03 PM
Im not from LA but I have never met a Rams fan in Southern California in all my years here. Except those from MO. Raiders. Plenty. Rams would probably get less love than the Chargers.

When the Rams still broadcast their preseason games on LA TV and they don't in Central or Southwest Missouri, I still say they have a fan base there. They also have a radio station affilate I believe.

DaKernal
10-22-2009, 06:04 PM
I see the raiders being the most likely canidate if not the rams. I've been hearing rumors the last couple of seasons now that al davis wants his team back in LA, and has been wanting a new stadium for a while now

dtrain
10-22-2009, 06:07 PM
We are still a large economy. The governator is just an idiot and ran us to broke.

Agree!

Buck
10-22-2009, 06:17 PM
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL lol wtf

4 Playoff Appearances - 1 World Series Appearance
8 Playoff Games Won / 2 Playoff Series Won

4 Playoff Appearances - 0 World Series Appearances
8 Playoff Games Won / 2 Playoff Series Won

Which one sounds better to you?

88TG88
10-22-2009, 06:22 PM
4 Playoff Appearances - 1 World Series Appearance
8 Playoff Games Won / 2 Playoff Series Won

4 Playoff Appearances - 0 World Series Appearances
8 Playoff Games Won / 2 Playoff Series Won

Which one sounds better to you?

IDK 6 rings sounds better to me.

Srsly, they've had some good players, but theyre not really a "power" like Stl or NY. When the Dodgers are down its just a matter of time until they grad a big name and compete again. Where SD has never been a player in FA. They got lucky and drafted some guys who did well, but they haven't done it consistently.

IDK if any of that made sense.

Buzzsaw
10-22-2009, 06:22 PM
Okay, so you are telling me that Los Angelenos wouldn't want a team that makes it to the playoffs?

Hell even the Padres have done a better job in the last 21 years over the Dodgers,

They have Made it to the playoffs 4 times, and the world series once. (and one one-game playoff against the Rockies in 2007)

The point I was trying to make is that the Dodgers might throw out big money, but it doesn't really mean they are doing it as smart as they can. The proof is in the numbers.


Dodgers are in the top-3 in attendance every year. San Diego was 20th. Bandwagon fans.

L.A. Chieffan
10-22-2009, 06:23 PM
baseball was invented in 1989

Buzzsaw
10-22-2009, 06:27 PM
4 Playoff Appearances - 1 World Series Appearance
8 Playoff Games Won / 2 Playoff Series Won

4 Playoff Appearances - 0 World Series Appearances
8 Playoff Games Won / 2 Playoff Series Won

Which one sounds better to you?

Uh, the Dodgers have a case of Championship trophies. Padres have never even won a single WS. More recently the Dodgers won the NLW the two past consecutive season. Really, you can't compare the two franchises in any period of time. Pad's are a non-factor.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 06:32 PM
4 Playoff Appearances - 1 World Series Appearance
8 Playoff Games Won / 2 Playoff Series Won

4 Playoff Appearances - 0 World Series Appearances
8 Playoff Games Won / 2 Playoff Series Won

Which one sounds better to you?

This is a silly comparison.

The Dodgers are coming off of their 2nd straight NLCS appearance.

The Padres are a small market team that's had a fire-sale the past few seasons and just fired their GM.

Your owners can't/won't pay for the player necessary to truly compete in MLB and like the Royals, will continue to trade players that are developed in your farm system.

Buck
10-22-2009, 06:42 PM
This is a silly comparison.

The Dodgers are coming off of their 2nd straight NLCS appearance.

The Padres are a small market team that's had a fire-sale the past few seasons and just fired their GM.

Your owners can't/won't pay for the player necessary to truly compete in MLB and like the Royals, will continue to trade players that are developed in your farm system.

Yeah no shit, I said last 21 seasons though, not last 2.

If we would have made the same argument back in 1998 about the last 3 seasons I would have been able to say the same thing about the Dodgers.

Our owner is going through a divorce and just sold the team actually.

Hopefully Dodgers fans are ready for this too. The McCourts are getting divorced and Jamie McCourt will be taking half of everything Frank McCourt has. I really doubt that the Dodgers will be able to keep this core of players together after next season, so good luck to the Dodgers not fading back into mediocrity.

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 06:47 PM
Yeah no shit, I said last 21 seasons though, not last 2.

If we would have made the same argument back in 1998 about the last 3 seasons I would have been able to say the same thing about the Dodgers.

Our owner is going through a divorce and just sold the team actually.

Hopefully Dodgers fans are ready for this too. The McCourts are getting divorced and Jamie McCourt will be taking half of everything Frank McCourt has. I really doubt that the Dodgers will be able to keep this core of players together after next season, so good luck to the Dodgers not fading back into mediocrity.

You're the one that asked "Which would you rather have?" and I answered.

Why are you getting so defensive? Facts are facts. If the Dodgers end up sucking, they end up sucking. But that doesn't negate the fact that the Padres are a small-market franchise that hasn't had much recent success, just dumped their GM and had a fire sale on players.

ChiefsCountry
10-22-2009, 06:52 PM
I see the raiders being the most likely canidate if not the rams. I've been hearing rumors the last couple of seasons now that al davis wants his team back in LA, and has been wanting a new stadium for a while now

Trouble is NFL doesn't want Al Davis in Los Angeles.

JASONSAUTO
10-22-2009, 06:56 PM
I think the Rams move back to SoCal and the Jags move to St. Louis

i will agree here, the current rams owners privately want it. i would think the prospective ownership groups would also want that shot. i dont care how many teams have failed there most billionaires want a challenge. i also dont care about the rams lease, others have gotten out of them in similar situations

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 07:12 PM
i will agree here, the current rams owners privately want it. i would think the prospective ownership groups would also want that shot. i dont care how many teams have failed there most billionaires want a challenge. i also dont care about the rams lease, others have gotten out of them in similar situations

They really didn't "fail". Each team wanted new stadiums and more money from the cities which refused. The Rams were in Los Angeles for 35 years and were very successful before Georgia Frontierre decided to move the team to Anaheim. They were very successful in the 80's but began to slide in the early 90's. She couldn't get the city of Anaheim to build a new stadium so when St. Louis lost the bid to get an expansion franchise (that went to Jax), they lured the Rams. The president, John Shaw, didn't even visit St. Louis until the first game of the season that year!

As for the Raiders, Al Davis left because Oakland guaranteed a ridiculous amount of money.

Both owners were money-grubbing whores.

JASONSAUTO
10-22-2009, 07:16 PM
They really didn't "fail". Each team wanted new stadiums and more money from the cities which refused. The Rams were in Los Angeles for 35 years and were very successful before Georgia Frontierre decided to move the team to Anaheim. They were very successful in the 80's but began to slide in the early 90's. She couldn't get the city of Anaheim to build a new stadium so when St. Louis lost the bid to get an expansion franchise (that went to Jax), they lured the Rams. The president, John Shaw, didn't even visit St. Louis until the first game of the season that year!

As for the Raiders, Al Davis left because Oakland guaranteed a ridiculous amount of money.

Both owners were money-grubbing whores.

i thought the teams had attendance issues? i mean with everything that there is to do in LA.....

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 07:19 PM
i thought the teams had attendance issues? i mean with everything that there is to do in LA.....

Nope.

The Rams were in the Super Bowl in 1979, the Raiders in 1983. The Raiders were competitive the 80's and early 90's and the Rams were very competitive in the 80's (Eric Dickerson, anyone? Henry Ellard?).

It was money-grubbing owners. The Rams should have never left the Anaheim, let alone the Coliseum.

She was a money-grubbing whore and possibly, a murderess.

JASONSAUTO
10-22-2009, 07:20 PM
Nope.

The Rams were in the Super Bowl in 1979, the Raiders in 1983. The Raiders were competitive the 80's and early 90's and the Rams were very competitive in the 80's (Eric Dickerson, anyone? Henry Ellard?).

It was money-grubbing owners. The Rams should have never left the Anaheim, let alone the Coliseum.

She was a money-grubbing whore and possibly, a murderess.

dane i know the on field successes, but did they consistently sell out the stadiums?

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 07:23 PM
dane i know the on field successes, but did they consistently sell out the stadiums?

The Raiders did well but the Rams attendance begin sliding with the team's slide in the 90's. But once again, it was city vs. owners, not an attendance issue that finally led both teams to leave.

The Raiders got a sick deal with Oakland along with $500 million in improvements to the Oakland Coliseum. The Rams of course got something similar in St. Louis, yet lo and behold, they want to move again.

Poor ownership.

Furthermore, it's not attendance that drives the NFL. It's the TV money, which is more than several billion per year in addition to merchandising.

JASONSAUTO
10-22-2009, 07:23 PM
The Raiders did well but the Rams attendance begin sliding with the team's slide in the 90's. But once again, it was city vs. owners, not an attendance issue that finally led both teams to leave.

The Raiders got a sick deal with Oakland along with $500 million in improvements to the Oakland Coliseum. The Rams of course got something similar in St. Louis, yet lo and behold, they want to move again.

Poor ownership.

ok thanks for the insight

DaneMcCloud
10-22-2009, 07:27 PM
ok thanks for the insight

But with all that said, I still think the NFL will struggle in Los Angeles unless they get the "Perfect" owner(s) and the "Perfect" stadium location coupled with a continuously successful franchise.

With most likely a $1 billion dollar stadium and the highest ticket prices in the NFL, it's going to be extremely difficult to get the casual fan to games and with so much else to do and no ties to the area or community (and likely the state), it's going to be an enormous uphill battle.

And if the team were a loser? Forget it.

Discuss Thrower
10-23-2009, 12:40 AM
But with all that said, I still think the NFL will struggle in Los Angeles unless they get the "Perfect" owner(s) and the "Perfect" stadium location coupled with a continuously successful franchise.

With most likely a $1 billion dollar stadium and the highest ticket prices in the NFL, it's going to be extremely difficult to get the casual fan to games and with so much else to do and no ties to the area or community (and likely the state), it's going to be an enormous uphill battle.

And if the team were a loser? Forget it.

Los Angeles Colts, all riiiiiiiiight, lock it up!

DaneMcCloud
10-23-2009, 12:51 AM
Los Angeles Colts, all riiiiiiiiight, lock it up!

They just got a new stadium so that's not happening.

Ironically, Caroll Rosenbloom (Frontiere's husband she probably murdered) owned the Colts and swapped his franchise for the Rams in 1971 with the Irsay family.

DaneMcCloud
10-23-2009, 11:48 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_wertheim/10/22/nfl.la/index.html

This is an excellent summary of everything that's happened and is happening to get the NFL back to Los Angeles.

The main caveat missing from yesterday's discussion is this: Ed Roski won't break ground or build a damn thing unless he's granted full or majority ownership of any team that wants to move to Los Angeles.

Now, does anyone here really think that the York, Spanos, Wilf, Rosenbloom families are going to give up a majority or sell their teams to Roskie, just to play in Los Angeles?

And Davis? Forget it.

The only chance is possibly Wayne Weaver. If he wants out of Jacksonville and the NFL.

KCChiefsFan88
10-23-2009, 11:54 AM
A team in LA could likely force the Chiefs out of the AFC West, depending on which current team is relocated to LA.

If Buffalo or Jacksonville are the teams that end up being relocated to LA, I think that creates a situation where the "LA Bills" or "LA Jaguars" are moved to the AFC West.

For an "LA Bills" situation:
LA to AFC West
Chiefs to AFC South
Colts to AFC East

For an "LA Jaguars" situation:
LA to AFC West
Chiefs to AFC South

Mojo Jojo
10-23-2009, 12:09 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_wertheim/10/22/nfl.la/index.html

This is an excellent summary of everything that's happened and is happening to get the NFL back to Los Angeles.

The main caveat missing from yesterday's discussion is this: Ed Roski won't break ground or build a damn thing unless he's granted full or majority ownership of any team that wants to move to Los Angeles.

Now, does anyone here really think that the York, Spanos, Wilf, Rosenbloom families are going to give up a majority or sell their teams to Roskie, just to play in Los Angeles?

And Davis? Forget it.

The only chance is possibly Wayne Weaver. If he wants out of Jacksonville and the NFL.

The Rams have a majority of the team for sale. The Bills are 100% for sale. Weaver wants to sell a part of the team; however his kids, just like Ralph Wilson's, don't want the team.

There are at least three teams that will sell 100% or a majority right now.

FYI...Al Davis owns less than 50% of the Raiders...he just has the largest single share. I guess all his partners could sell to one person and leave him in the cold.

bowener
10-29-2009, 02:36 PM
A team in LA could likely force the Chiefs out of the AFC West, depending on which current team is relocated to LA.

If Buffalo or Jacksonville are the teams that end up being relocated to LA, I think that creates a situation where the "LA Bills" or "LA Jaguars" are moved to the AFC West.

For an "LA Bills" situation:
LA to AFC West
Chiefs to AFC South
Colts to AFC East

For an "LA Jaguars" situation:
LA to AFC West
Chiefs to AFC South

I disagree with this. Well, mostly just the last part, actually.

If JAX is moved to LA I think they will still play in the AFC South IMO. There doesn't really need to be an argument made for or against this, but if at the very least to appease people the NFL can point out that LA is still going to be more southern than most other teams... so I think if it becomes the LA Jaguars they stay put in the AFC South... they could always make the argument that the Cowboy MUST move to the NFC South which would then get Jerry Jones on their side to keep them in the AFC South.

And I guess if it is the Bills that move, then the NFL could just move JAX to the AFC East to replace the Bills, and put the Bills in the AFC South (same scenario as above in this case).

One could also make the argument that JAX could be moved to the NFC West once moved to LA, and the STL Rams could then be moved to the AFC South to replace JAX. I am certain JAX would be all for this (weaker division) and the Rams would be adamantly opposed.

edit:

Also, who has checked out the design of the stadium? I don't know why but I really like what they are going to do. It just seems like a very logical and smart decision to build the stadium mostly submerged, especially where they are. I mean it has got to save them a fortune on heating and cooling alone. I am not sure how well that would work in Missouri since it would be extremely wet at those depths here, but for LA it seems like a really smart move. Plus, overall, the complex is pretty cool too... looks like one big money making machine and party atmosphere.

Mojo Jojo
10-29-2009, 02:52 PM
The Raiders did well but the Rams attendance begin sliding with the team's slide in the 90's. But once again, it was city vs. owners, not an attendance issue that finally led both teams to leave.

The Raiders got a sick deal with Oakland along with $500 million in improvements to the Oakland Coliseum. The Rams of course got something similar in St. Louis, yet lo and behold, they want to move again.

Poor ownership.

Furthermore, it's not attendance that drives the NFL. It's the TV money, which is more than several billion per year in addition to merchandising.

You are spot on about the TV revenue, and that is why attendance is so important in LA and why the NFL must make the perfect set up there. When the Rams and Raiders were in LA and not selling out the LA TV market was being blacked out at least 3 hours on Sundays. When both teams left the full NFL broadcast schedule could be shown in TV market #2.

If you are the networks in theory you make more ad money without LA teams...unless you are guaranteed sellouts. When TV makes more money the NFL makes more money. If the Jags or Bills move to LA and they don't sell out...everyone loses money.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 02:59 PM
I disagree with this. Well, mostly just the last part, actually.

If JAX is moved to LA I think they will still play in the AFC South IMO. There doesn't really need to be an argument made for or against this, but if at the very least to appease people the NFL can point out that LA is still going to be more southern than most other teams

No way.

Los Angeles isn't going to get amped up about a rivalry with Tennessee or Indiana or Houston. There would absolutely need to be realignment.

Also, who has checked out the design of the stadium? I don't know why but I really like what they are going to do. It just seems like a very logical and smart decision to build the stadium mostly submerged, especially where they are. I mean it has got to save them a fortune on heating and cooling alone. I am not sure how well that would work in Missouri since it would be extremely wet at those depths here, but for LA it seems like a really smart move. Plus, overall, the complex is pretty cool too... looks like one big money making machine and party atmosphere.

Heating and cooling? Dude, it's 72 outside right now. It'll maybe drop to 59 degrees at night. Heating and cooling are not an issue.

The reason for building it into a hillside is to save $400 million dollars in construction costs. You have no idea how much cement and steel contractors make out here and they have pacts with the city. Everything, and I mean everything, is overbuilt by at least three fold. I have homes being built in my neighborhood where no solid or glue-lam beams are being used: It's all steel girders and concrete.

You can thank Mr. Antonio Villaragosa for the stadium being designed in a hillside. People are tired of extortion.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 03:49 PM
You are spot on about the TV revenue, and that is why attendance is so important in LA and why the NFL must make the perfect set up there. When the Rams and Raiders were in LA and not selling out the LA TV market was being blacked out at least 3 hours on Sundays. When both teams left the full NFL broadcast schedule could be shown in TV market #2.

If you are the networks in theory you make more ad money without LA teams...unless you are guaranteed sellouts. When TV makes more money the NFL makes more money. If the Jags or Bills move to LA and they don't sell out...everyone loses money.

Im just going to throw out that maybe So Cal is just not a big enough market for 3 teams. I do however, think that 1 team in LA and 1 team in SD would be fine. Maybe they weren't selling out in 94 because you had the Raiders in LA, Rams in the OC and Chargers in SD. They oversaturated the market in my opinion. They had 1 team every 50 miles or so. But I think a team in LA would do well and build another rivalry against SD.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 03:50 PM
Im just going to throw out that maybe So Cal is just not a big enough market for 3 teams. I do however, think that 1 team in LA and 1 team in SD would be fine. Maybe they weren't selling out in 94 because you had the Raiders in LA, Rams in the OC and Chargers in SD. They oversaturated the market in my opinion. They had 1 team every 50 miles or so. But I think a team in LA would do well and build another rivalry against SD.

Dude, please.

You couldn't be even more incorrect.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 03:55 PM
Dude, please.

You couldn't be even more incorrect.

Based on your theory that LA people just don't like football. Riiiiight.

Buck
10-29-2009, 03:56 PM
As a result of the passage of Assembly Bill x4_17, the California Withholding Schedules for 2009 have been replaced effective November 1, 2009, to accelerate withholding. These schedules are effective November 1 through December 31, 2009. Basically, these new withholding schedules will result in your employees having somewhere between 8 to 10% MORE state tax withholding taken from their paycheck. Starting January 1, 2010, the tables will revert back to the previously released 2010 withholding tables.

JASONSAUTO
10-29-2009, 03:57 PM
No way.

Los Angeles isn't going to get amped up about a rivalry with Tennessee or Indiana or Houston. There would absolutely need to be realignment.



Heating and cooling? Dude, it's 72 outside right now. It'll maybe drop to 59 degrees at night. Heating and cooling are not an issue.

The reason for building it into a hillside is to save $400 million dollars in construction costs. You have no idea how much cement and steel contractors make out here and they have pacts with the city. Everything, and I mean everything, is overbuilt by at least three fold. I have homes being built in my neighborhood where no solid or glue-lam beams are being used: It's all steel girders and concrete.

You can thank Mr. Antonio Villaragosa for the stadium being designed in a hillside. People are tired of extortion.

my wife's cousin lives in LA(beverly hills IIRC) and it cost them more money than i will make in a couple of years to put in a pool on the hill that they live on. He did say that if there is an earthquake thats where he's gonna be, so much concrete and steel so far into the ground the structure is NEVER going anywhere:D

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 03:58 PM
Based on your theory that LA people just don't like football. Riiiiight.

Hey Dumbshit, I've been saying what this article's been saying for years.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_wertheim/10/22/nfl.la/index.html

Why don't you shut your fucking mouth and learn something.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 03:59 PM
Dude, please.

You couldn't be even more incorrect.

Im sure the NFL will take that into account. Well, Mr. Goodell Dane McCloud said that LA will not take well to a new team, just because. I know there is 20 million people in the area, most of which like/love football, but Dane McCloud said it can't be.

Roger Goodell: That is enough for me. If he said it, it must be true. I deem LA is never again allowed to have an NFL team and any mention of such will be punishable by a lifetime ban from the NFL.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:01 PM
my wife's cousin lives in LA(beverly hills IIRC) and it cost them more money than i will make in a couple of years to put in a pool on the hill that they live on. He did say that if there is an earthquake thats where he's gonna be, so much concrete and steel so far into the ground the structure is NEVER going anywhere:D

I believe it.

Depending on the size of the pool, I'm guessing they had to use 10 to 12 caissons at least 40 foot into the hillside at a cost $250k or more just for the support. Then there's the added cost of the actually swimming pool itself, which was probably $75k-$100k.

I bet it's nice, though!

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 04:01 PM
Hey Dumbshit, I've been saying what this article's been saying for years.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_wertheim/10/22/nfl.la/index.html

Why don't you shut your ****ing mouth and learn something.

The article states that he wants part/full ownership assclown. Not that LA is incapable of having a professional team. You must live in West Hollywood. You fit in there. Or Newport Beach.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:01 PM
Im sure the NFL will take that into account. Well, Mr. Goodell Dane McCloud said that LA will not take well to a new team, just because. I know there is 20 million people in the area, most of which like/love football, but Dane McCloud said it can't be.

Roger Goodell: That is enough for me. If he said it, it must be true. I deem LA is never again allowed to have an NFL team and any mention of such will be punishable by a lifetime ban from the NFL.

Is that what I said, Dumbass?

JFC.

Urine idiot.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:02 PM
The article states that he wants part/full ownership assclown. Not that LA is incapable of having a professional team. You must live in West Hollywood. You fit in there. Or Newport Beach.

Oh really? Why do I fit in there, Sport?

Go ahead. Tell us.

JASONSAUTO
10-29-2009, 04:04 PM
I believe it.

Depending on the size of the pool, I'm guessing they had to use 10 to 12 caissons at least 40 foot into the hillside at a cost $250k or more just for the support. Then there's the added cost of the actually swimming pool itself, which was probably $75k-$100k.

I bet it's nice, though!

it sure looks like it's a big fucking pool from the pics he had last holiday, and yeah fucking nice too. but to them money is NO NO NO object. must be nice:D

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:05 PM
it sure looks like it's a big fucking pool from the pics he had last holiday, and yeah fucking nice too. but to them money is NO NO NO object. must be nice:D

Cool, man! Sounds like you need to take a trip!

:D

JASONSAUTO
10-29-2009, 04:08 PM
Cool, man! Sounds like you need to take a trip!

:D


we are planning to go maybe next summer, it's hard to coordinate our schedules with our kids and their yacht and trips. they dont spend too much time in LA it seems. but when i do get out that way i'm hoping to meet me the great elusive dane mccloud

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 04:08 PM
Oh really? Why do I fit in there, Sport?

Go ahead. Tell us.

:whackit:

MahiMike
10-29-2009, 04:14 PM
Vikings will move 1st.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:14 PM
Vikings will move 1st.

The Vikings aren't going anywhere.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:15 PM
:whackit:

What are you trying to say, Dickhead?

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 04:17 PM
What are you trying to say, Dickhead?

Gee, comprehension isn't your strong suit is. A**hole.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:18 PM
Gee, comprehension isn't your strong suit is. A**hole.

Really? Just say it, Motherfucker.

:shake:

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 04:18 PM
What are you trying to say, Dickhead?

Dane McCloud. Ruining Males virginity since 2000

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:20 PM
Dane McCloud. Ruining Males virginity since 2000

Let me guess: You're 14 years old?

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:22 PM
Gee, comprehension isn't your strong suit is. A**hole.

You're implying that I'm a homosexual because you're ill-informed and completely unconnected when it comes Los Angeles politics and history.

Sounds like you're the asshole, Sport.

Fuck off.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 04:24 PM
Let me guess: You're 14 years old?

Says the one who can't have a logical conversation with someone without insulting them because you have no valid points and you feel agression is your best way to get a point across. And the neg rep thing. LOL Like I give a shit if some lonely asshole who has spent the entire decade on this website posting all the time because he doesn't have a life worth a shit in the oustide world doesn't like me. Oh noes. Whoa is me.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:28 PM
Says the one who can't have a logical conversation with someone without insulting them because you have no valid points and you feel agression is your best way to get a point across. And the neg rep thing. LOL Like I give a shit if some lonely asshole who has spent the entire decade on this website posting all the time because he doesn't have a life worth a shit in the oustide world doesn't like me. Oh noes. Whoa is me.

Really? Well why don't you just go ahead and point out any thing that I've stated in this entire thread that is "not logical".

The bottom line is you don't know a fucking thing about Los Angeles or why a team would or would not fail here. You're little fucking worthless douchebag with a big mouth.

And by the way, Fuckball, Jon Gruden won a Super Bowl with Tony Dungy's team, then proceeded to flush that fucking team down the toilet.

Go fuck yourself.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:30 PM
Like I give a shit if some lonely asshole who has spent the entire decade on this website posting all the time because he doesn't have a life worth a shit in the oustide world doesn't like me. Oh noes. Whoa is me.

Uh, you have a LOT to learn about me if that's what you think.

:shake:

Typical internet forum dildo at work.

MikeMaslowski
10-29-2009, 04:33 PM
Uh, you have a LOT to learn about me if that's what you think.

:shake:

Typical internet forum dildo at work.

I guess I don't pay too much attention to who posts what... but I just noticed that you seem to get into a bunch of fights.

Is it you? Or is it them?

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 04:35 PM
Really? Well why don't you just go ahead and point out any thing that I've stated in this entire thread that is "not logical".

The bottom line is you don't know a ****ing thing about Los Angeles or why a team would or would not fail here. You're little ****ing worthless douchebag with a big mouth.

And by the way, ****ball, Jon Gruden won a Super Bowl with Tony Dungy's team, then proceeded to flush that ****ing team down the toilet.

Go **** yourself.

That LA can't sustain a football team you f***ing MORON. I don't know how much clearer I can say it. I have met stupid people before but you are the top of the list. LA can and will and has sustained professional football teams as well as every other major sport.

You have to be a World Class orginization for LA to accept the team. Bull Sh*t. You have one good team. The Lakers. Kings, epic fail, Clippers, epic fail, Dodgers for the past 30 or so years, epic fail. But yet all do well. Why? Because the market can sustain it. F***in retard.

And what team did John Gruden play in that Super Bowl? Oh right, the team he built. And he out coached them. Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention to whats going on in your surroundings.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:36 PM
I guess I don't pay too much attention to who posts what... but I just noticed that you seem to get into a bunch of fights.

Is it you? Or is it them?

It's them.

It happens quite frequently.

Some new members attacks me because of my posting style, then is butthurt, cries about it, sometimes even makes a poll about it, then gets bitchslapped by the forum.

Round and round and round we go.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:39 PM
That LA can't sustain a football team you f***ing MORON. I don't know how much clearer I can say it. I have met stupid people before but you are the top of the list. LA can and will and has sustained professional football teams as well as every other major sport.

You have to be a World Class orginization for LA to accept the team. Bull Sh*t. You have one good team. The Lakers. Kings, epic fail, Clippers, epic fail, Dodgers for the past 30 or so years, epic fail. But yet all do well. Why? Because the market can sustain it. F***in retard.

And what team did John Gruden play in that Super Bowl? Oh right, the team he built. And he out coached them. Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention to whats going on in your surroundings.

Fuck off.

Los Angeles will NOT support a losing football team. The Dodgers have a 50 year history, as do the Lakers. People are NOT going to shell out exorbitant prices for football PSL's and tickets.

It's simply NOT going to happen unless there's a "Superstar" owner in place.

Wayne Weaver would get run out of town in less than a season.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:39 PM
That LA can't sustain a football team you f***ing MORON. I don't know how much clearer I can say it. I have met stupid people before but you are the top of the list. LA can and will and has sustained professional football teams as well as every other major sport.

You have to be a World Class orginization for LA to accept the team. Bull Sh*t. You have one good team. The Lakers. Kings, epic fail, Clippers, epic fail, Dodgers for the past 30 or so years, epic fail. But yet all do well. Why? Because the market can sustain it. F***in retard.

And what team did John Gruden play in that Super Bowl? Oh right, the team he built. And he out coached them. Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention to whats going on in your surroundings.

Yeah, according this n00b, I'm stupid and I'm gay.

You're quite a welcome addition to the forum.

kstater
10-29-2009, 04:42 PM
I guess I don't pay too much attention to who posts what... but I just noticed that you seem to get into a bunch of fights.

Is it you? Or is it them?

Mother FUCK YOu

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:42 PM
And what team did John Gruden play in that Super Bowl? Oh right, the team he built. And he out coached them. Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention to whats going on in your surroundings.

And furthermore, Douchefuck, "John" Gruden didn't out coach the Raiders.

The fucking Raiders were too stupid to change the way their plays were called in the Super Bowl. "Jon" Gruden knew what plays were called so the defense knew what was coming before each and every play.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 04:45 PM
Uh, you have a LOT to learn about me if that's what you think.

:shake:

Typical internet forum dildo at work.

Yes, you truely are.

MikeMaslowski
10-29-2009, 04:45 PM
**** off.

Los Angeles will NOT support a losing football team. The Dodgers have a 50 year history, as do the Lakers. People are NOT going to shell out exorbitant prices for football PSL's and tickets.

It's simply NOT going to happen unless there's a "Superstar" owner in place.

Wayne Weaver would get run out of town in less than a season.

Charles Barkley wants to own a team. Put him, MJ and Magic and you think there'd be a chance?

Oh, and I could give a piss about LA, just as long as Arrowhead stays put. The rams could go too, but I kinda like the idea of having occasional dome game road trips right down the road.

Pablo
10-29-2009, 04:46 PM
It's them.

It happens quite frequently.

Some new members attacks me because of my posting style, then is butthurt, cries about it, sometimes even makes a poll about it, then gets bitchslapped by the forum.

Round and round and round we go.Dane, you're a fairly abrasive poster. To act like all the fights and arguments you get into are purely the doing of others is laughable. And you know this. Not to say you aren't targeted at a pretty high rate; but you do your part to stoke the fire.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:46 PM
Yes, you truely are.

Gosh, and original, too!

Wow!

LMAO

Fuck off, n00b!

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:49 PM
Dane, you're a fairly abrasive poster. To act like all the fights and arguments you get into are purely the doing of others is laughable. And you know this. Not to say you aren't targeted at a pretty high rate; but you do your part to stoke the fire.

Let's see: I've been called stupid and gay in this thread.

This moron jumps into a thread in which he clearly didn't read, nor did he read the attached article. He knows nothing of Los Angeles politics, nor does he have any basis for his claim other than the fact the Los Angeles has other sporting teams, which is a ludicrous reason for LA supporting the NFL.

The bottom line is that the only people that want the NFL in Los Angeles is the NFL. There has been no outcry the past 15 years for the return of the NFL. Most people are from other areas of the country and could care less. Rationalizing that because hockey and basketball is reasonably supported as your basis for NFL support is tenuous at best.

I've called him a dumbass (well deserved) and when someone's argument goes from "Oh yeah, well then you're GAY!", all bets are off.

JASONSAUTO
10-29-2009, 04:50 PM
And what team did John Gruden play in that Super Bowl? Oh right, the team he built. And he out coached them. Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention to whats going on in your surroundings.

maybe he didnt actually out coach them, maybe TB was a BETTER team. the team gruden built LOST, he won with dungy's team and proceeded to ruin that team when he tried to rebuild it.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 04:50 PM
**** off.

Los Angeles will NOT support a losing football team. The Dodgers have a 50 year history, as do the Lakers. People are NOT going to shell out exorbitant prices for football PSL's and tickets.

It's simply NOT going to happen unless there's a "Superstar" owner in place.

Wayne Weaver would get run out of town in less than a season.

Tell that to the Clippers and Kings fans. Dodgers don't do well save the last couple of years. But yet they have a following. Hmm you must be right. You live in LA so you must know, regardless of prior history, what every person in LA will do and that an NFL team will fail there. To quote that article that you posted, they even said that a team would do well even if they were losing. Tunnel Vision much?

Pablo
10-29-2009, 04:51 PM
Let's see: I've been called stupid and gay in this thread.

This moron jumps into a thread in which he clearly didn't read, nor did he read the attached article. He knows nothing of Los Angeles politics, nor does he have any basis for his claim other than the fact the Los Angeles has other sporting teams, which is a ludicrous reason for LA supporting football.

I've called him a dumbass (well deserved) and when someone's argument goes from "Oh yeah, well then you're GAY!", all bets are off.I'm not going to take the time to read that response; but you're gay.

JASONSAUTO
10-29-2009, 04:52 PM
I'm not going to take the time to read that response; but you're gay.

ROFL

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 04:52 PM
And furthermore, Douche****, "John" Gruden didn't out coach the Raiders.

The ****ing Raiders were too stupid to change the way their plays were called in the Super Bowl. "Jon" Gruden knew what plays were called so the defense knew what was coming before each and every play.

Which means, he out coached them. If their coaches were too stupid to coach, he out coached them. Youre F***in 3rd grade reading level is highly annoying.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:55 PM
Tell that to the Clippers and Kings fans. Dodgers don't do well save the last couple of years. But yet they have a following. Hmm you must be right. You live in LA so you must know, regardless of prior history, what every person in LA will do and that an NFL team will fail there. To quote that article that you posted, they even said that a team would do well even if they were losing. Tunnel Vision much?

The ONLY way that Los Angeles would support a team would be if there was a superstar owner and the stadium was privately financed. I've said this all along.

Our city has NO money and can't afford a public stadium. My neighborhood is lined with multi-million dollar homes and our streets are shit. They're 18 foot wide, have no drainage and there are potholes and chunks missing everywhere. It's like this all over the hills and all throughout the city.

People aren't going to shell out several hundred (if not thousands) of dollars per ticket to drive on the 5 freeway to the City of Industry to watch a loser. It's just NOT going to happen.

Spott
10-29-2009, 04:56 PM
That would make the most sense. As for the Jaguars, would anyone even care if they just got rid of the team altogether?

I have Jags season tickets and I wouldn't care if they left. This is strictly a college football town. As long as the college teams around here(especially UF)continue to have success, this town will never really care about an NFL team.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 04:57 PM
Which means, he out coached them. If their coaches were too stupid to coach, he out coached them. Youre F***in 3rd grade reading level is highly annoying.

Excuse me?

Bill Callahan didn't change the terminology in playcalling. That was a terrible mistake that led Tampa Bay to know each and every play.

And furthermore, Jon Gruden didn't do shit for the next 6 years in Tampa other than send that franchise back to the '70's.

You're really not too bright or too well-informed.

kstater
10-29-2009, 04:58 PM
The ONLY way that Los Angeles would support a team would be if there was a superstar owner and the stadium was privately financed. I've said this all along.

Our city has NO money and can't afford a public stadium. My neighborhood is lined with multi-million dollar homes and our streets are shit. They're 18 foot wide, have no drainage and there are potholes and chunks missing everywhere. It's like this all over the hills and all throughout the city.

People aren't going to shell out several hundred (if not thousands) of dollars per ticket to drive on the 5 freeway to the City of Industry to watch a loser. It's just NOT going to happen.

Sounds to me that if they can afford multi million dollar houses, they could afford a new tax to upgrade their roads.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 05:02 PM
Let's see: I've been called stupid and gay in this thread.

This moron jumps into a thread in which he clearly didn't read, nor did he read the attached article. He knows nothing of Los Angeles politics, nor does he have any basis for his claim other than the fact the Los Angeles has other sporting teams, which is a ludicrous reason for LA supporting the NFL.

The bottom line is that the only people that want the NFL in Los Angeles is the NFL. There has been no outcry the past 15 years for the return of the NFL. Most people are from other areas of the country and could care less. Rationalizing that because hockey and basketball is reasonably supported as your basis for NFL support is tenuous at best.

I've called him a dumbass (well deserved) and when someone's argument goes from "Oh yeah, well then you're GAY!", all bets are off.

I have read and been posting this entire thread. I did read the article. Comprehended it the way it should have been, without the twists on words that you put that say LA can't sustain a team. Because the article clearly states that they can.

There has been an outcry. I know people all the time bitching about how there is no team in LA. The MAYOR is even trying to get a team badly. But you must know more about the politics of LA then the Mayor.

Then you come out calling me an idiot, because I state that LA can. F***in loser. Stay on the internet where your stupidity can't hurt anyone.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 05:03 PM
Sounds to me that if they can afford multi million dollar houses, they could afford a new tax to upgrade their roads.

The city can't.

There are some major issues here, most of which involves the fact that cities like Hollywood, Studio City, Encino, Sherman Oaks, etc. aren't really cities. They're not incorporated and all fall under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles.

As you can imagine, the government doesn't manage their money well. Many of the wealthier neighborhoods have the worst roads and schools. It's a gigantic mess, far too involved to discuss here.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 05:05 PM
The ONLY way that Los Angeles would support a team would be if there was a superstar owner and the stadium was privately financed. I've said this all along.

Our city has NO money and can't afford a public stadium. My neighborhood is lined with multi-million dollar homes and our streets are shit. They're 18 foot wide, have no drainage and there are potholes and chunks missing everywhere. It's like this all over the hills and all throughout the city.

People aren't going to shell out several hundred (if not thousands) of dollars per ticket to drive on the 5 freeway to the City of Industry to watch a loser. It's just NOT going to happen.

I never said they would shell out the money for the stadium. Apparently we have been arguing different topics. They have someone who is going to privately finance a stadium. Thats settled. Now they just need a team. One that the people will support IMHO.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 05:07 PM
I have read and been posting this entire thread. I did read the article. Comprehended it the way it should have been, without the twists on words that you put that say LA can't sustain a team. Because the article clearly states that they can.

With the right owner. Not with just anyone. And if you read the article, it clearly states that Ed Roski won't build a damn thing until he's majority or full owner of an NFL team.

There has been an outcry. I know people all the time bitching about how there is no team in LA. The MAYOR is even trying to get a team badly. But you must know more about the politics of LA then the Mayor.

How many times have you met with the Mayor? How do YOU know his agenda? While he's publicly stated that he'd like a team in Los Angeles, privately, he doesn't think it will happen. And furthermore, it's NOT going to happen without it being fully privately funded.

No city or state money will be used.

Then you come out calling me an idiot, because I state that LA can. F***in loser. Stay on the internet where your stupidity can't hurt anyone.

Oh, just fuck off.

Oh and I wonder how many of your "friends" will be willing to shell out in excess of $10,000 for each PSL and $300.00 minimum per ticket.

I'm guessing not many.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 05:08 PM
I never said they would shell out the money for the stadium. Apparently we have been arguing different topics. They have someone who is going to privately finance a stadium. Thats settled. Now they just need a team. One that the people will support IMHO.

They will not support a losing team. It's going to have to be a top notch organization.

People won't buy season tickets just because it's the NFL. There will be no history involved with a new team, no heritage and no connection.

They'll have to be an instant and lasting winner.

Spott
10-29-2009, 05:10 PM
How many football stadiums does LA have now? I know they have the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum. Do they still have the stadium where the Rams used to play?

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 05:13 PM
[QUOTE=DaneMcCloud;6218070]How many times have you met with the Mayor? How do YOU know his agenda? While he's publicly stated that he'd like a team in Los Angeles, privately, he doesn't think it will happen. And furthermore, it's NOT going to happen without it being fully privately funded.

No city or state money will be used.



QUOTE]

It states in the freakin article that the Mayor has been meeting with the commisioners to try to get a team here. Youre so f***ing dense its unreal. And how do you know, what he privately thinks. For F***s sake man. Get a clue. People in LA manage to support the Lakers, Clippers, Kings, and Dodgers but all of a sudden they are going to go too broke to afford tickets to Football games (that they drive 100 miles to go see now) all of a sudden. No, they WILL spend the money. Its Football. They support the Kings and thats hockey, and they have always sucked.

Spott
10-29-2009, 05:17 PM
People in LA manage to support the Lakers, Clippers, Kings, and Dodgers but all of a sudden they are going to go too broke to afford tickets to Football games (that they drive 100 miles to go see now) all of a sudden. No, they WILL spend the money. Its Football.

It always amazes me that with all the Lakers success, that LA still manages to support the Clippers who are probably the least successful franchise in all of sports.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 05:21 PM
It states in the freakin article that the Mayor has been meeting with the commisioners to try to get a team here. Youre so f***ing dense its unreal. And how do you know, what he privately thinks. For F***s sake man. Get a clue.

You know, it's really stupid for you to assume that everyone on the internet is a minimum wage worker like yourself.

It's also stupid to assume that everyone is the same age.

And it's also stupid to assume that you know something that you don't.


People in LA manage to support the Lakers, Clippers, Kings, and Dodgers but all of a sudden they are going to go too broke to afford tickets to Football games (that they drive 100 miles to go see now) all of a sudden. No, they WILL spend the money. Its Football. They support the Kings and thats hockey, and they have always sucked.

Then tell us: Why didn't the Raiders sell out each and every year in Los Angeles?

Why didn't the Rams sellout each and every year in Los Angeles and Anaheim?

We're all just dying to know the answer.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 05:23 PM
It always amazes me that with all the Lakers success, that LA still manages to support the Clippers who are probably the least successful franchise in all of sports.

First off, their tickets are far less expensive.

A floor seat at Staples for a Lakers game is $1,100 per game. A Clippers ticket is far, far less.

I've been in seats that were 5 rows from the floor, center court at Clippers games that were $150.00. Yet $150 gets you a lower level, obstructed view for the Lakers.

They're not so much supported as tolerated.

kstater
10-29-2009, 05:23 PM
Wait, I thought Anaheim was in LA. Hence the LA Angels.

Pablo
10-29-2009, 05:24 PM
How well does LA's MLS team do?

kstater
10-29-2009, 05:25 PM
How well does LA's MLS team do?


They paid like half a billion dollars for that guy that's married to that Spice Girl

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 05:29 PM
Wait, I thought Anaheim was in LA. Hence the LA Angels.

With traffic, Anaheim is 90 minutes from Los Angeles. Without it, anywhere from 45-60.

But I've never gotten there in less than 90 minutes. It routinely takes 3 hours to get from Hollywood to Disneyland and that's only about 32 miles.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 05:30 PM
How well does LA's MLS team do?

Eh.

One of my wife's college buddies is a front office exec of the Galaxy and they have to work like crazy to get people to come to the games.

The Beckham thing did not pay off, especially since he's kind of a dickhead.

Buck
10-29-2009, 05:34 PM
As a result of the passage of Assembly Bill x4_17, the California Withholding Schedules for 2009 have been replaced effective November 1, 2009, to accelerate withholding. These schedules are effective November 1 through December 31, 2009. Basically, these new withholding schedules will result in your employees having somewhere between 8 to 10% MORE state tax withholding taken from their paycheck. Starting January 1, 2010, the tables will revert back to the previously released 2010 withholding tables.

I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the Stadium Dane, I just put it in here because it was about California.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 05:36 PM
I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the Stadium Dane, I just put it in here because it was about California.

Oh, thanks.

Isn't that little nugget of information nice to know? JFC.

The property tax on my Lexus went from $195 to $477 this year, now this.

Freakin' bastards! :cuss:

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 05:39 PM
You know, it's really stupid for you to assume that everyone on the internet is a minimum wage worker like yourself.

It's also stupid to assume that everyone is the same age.

And it's also stupid to assume that you know something that you don't.




Then tell us: Why didn't the Raiders sell out each and every year in Los Angeles?

Why didn't the Rams sellout each and every year in Los Angeles and Anaheim?

We're all just dying to know the answer.

No body sells out each and every year. Unless the team wins every year. Are the Chiefs selling out every game this year oh Swami of LA politics? No, why? They have been losing too long. Is KC losing them? No, why? Because they still get support. As do every team I mentioned but youre too thick headed to here anything. Youre like a child with your fingers in your ears going "la la la. I can't hear you."

JASONSAUTO
10-29-2009, 05:42 PM
They support the Kings and thats hockey, and they have always sucked.

they have? always?

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 05:42 PM
No body sells out each and every year. Unless the team wins every year. Are the Chiefs selling out every game this year oh Swami of LA politics? No, why? They have been losing too long. Is KC losing them? No, why? Because they still get support. As do every team I mentioned but youre too thick headed to here anything. Youre like a child with your fingers in your ears going "la la la. I can't hear you."

Really? Denver, NY Giants, NY Jets, and Washington Redskins to name a few.

Also, you're proving my point to a tee.

The NFL will suffer if they put a team in Los Angeles that doesn't sell out each and every week and year because they'll lose precious advertising dollars due to blackouts.

It's going to take more than just an "NFL" team in this town for people to spend tens of thousands of dollars per year, sit in terrible traffic and in general, support a team just because it's here.

Again, why didn't the Raiders and Rams sellout each week? You've failed to answer that question.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 05:44 PM
they have? always?

They were in the Stanley Cup finals in 1993.

The Anaheim Ducks won the cup just a few years back.

The Angels won the World Series in 2002.

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

If he wants to debate, fine. But the basis of the debate cannot be "because I said so".

JASONSAUTO
10-29-2009, 05:45 PM
They were in the Stanley Cup finals in 1993.

The Anaheim Ducks won the cup just a few years back.

The Angels won the World Series in 2002.

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

If he wants to debate, fine. But the basis of the debate cannot be "because I said so".


hell didnt they have a cat named gretzky at some point?

yep in 93

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 05:47 PM
hell didnt they have a cat named gretzky at some point?

Yep. And a few other great players along the way.

The thing this SD guy doesn't understand is tradition.

No one's going to do backflips if the Jacksonville Jaguars show up in town. Not only is it going to take incredible ownership, it's going to take a team that's willing to be stripped of it's identity, giving Los Angeles a real team of it's own.

Like what happened in Baltimore.

Reerun_KC
10-29-2009, 05:49 PM
Oh, thanks.

Isn't that little nugget of information nice to know? JFC.

The property tax on my Lexus went from $195 to $477 this year, now this.

Freakin' bastards! :cuss:

Holy shit dude!

That blows, sorry to hear that.....

Jenson71
10-29-2009, 05:50 PM
Holy shit dude!

That blows, sorry to hear that.....

The recession is really hitting some people hard.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 05:51 PM
Holy shit dude!

That blows, sorry to hear that.....

It's the state, Man.

It's a mess.

The biggest bummer is that we have two identical RX350's. So nearly one thousand dollars just for property tax on my cars.

It's insane.

CaliforniaChief
10-29-2009, 05:52 PM
Hey if this McCourt thing stays on course, the Dodgers could be for sale soon too. What a nasty, ugly, ferocious, lawyer-infested pit that's gonna be.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 05:54 PM
Really? Denver, NY Giants, NY Jets, and Washington Redskins to name a few.

Also, you're proving my point to a tee.

The NFL will suffer if they put a team in Los Angeles that doesn't sell out each and every week and year because they'll lose precious advertising dollars due to blackouts.

It's going to take more than just an "NFL" team in this town for people to spend tens of thousands of dollars per year, sit in terrible traffic and in general, support a team just because it's here.

Again, why didn't the Raiders and Rams sellout each week? You've failed to answer that question.

Again. Nobody sells out every week when they are losing. And I started out with saying that 3 teams so close hurts your chances. Not to mention its tough to sell out 90000 seats. You definately do live in LA. You don't listen to reason, quick to judge, self absorbed and generally don't know wtf youre talking about. Thats the reason almost everyone I know hates LA.

CaliforniaChief
10-29-2009, 05:57 PM
Again. Nobody sells out every week when they are losing. And I started out with saying that 3 teams so close hurts your chances. Not to mention its tough to sell out 90000 seats. You definately do live in LA. You don't listen to reason, quick to judge, self absorbed and generally don't know wtf youre talking about. Thats the reason almost everyone I know hates LA.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YoKAcVL_phI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YoKAcVL_phI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 05:57 PM
They were in the Stanley Cup finals in 1993.

The Anaheim Ducks won the cup just a few years back.

The Angels won the World Series in 2002.

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

If he wants to debate, fine. But the basis of the debate cannot be "because I said so".

This has been your whole stance all along. I have given reasons as to why it would work. Rams and Raiders both left because of the owners. Not the lack of fans. Fans will go. They have gone. The NFL knows this and thats why they have been trying to get a team there. Angels are not LA and neither are the Ducks. Wrong county there pal. And what does it have to do with anything that I have said? I never mentioned the Angels or Ducks.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 05:57 PM
Again. Nobody sells out every week when they are losing. And I started out with saying that 3 teams so close hurts your chances. Not to mention its tough to sell out 90000 seats. You definately do live in LA. You don't listen to reason, quick to judge, self absorbed and generally don't know wtf youre talking about. Thats the reason almost everyone I know hates LA.

If I don't know what I'm talking about, why has it been more than 15 years since the NFL played here?

Furthermore, the NFL reduced the number of seats for a sellout to 65,000 at the Coliseum (not mentioned in the article) and the Raiders STILL couldn't sell out.

You've also failed to address the Rams situation. Why didn't they sell out? Aren't they an NFL team as well?

And according to you, there's so much interest here, how could a city of 20 million people NOT sell out a 75,000 seat stadium each week, right?

:shake:

kstater
10-29-2009, 06:01 PM
. Angels are not LA and neither are the Ducks. Wrong county there pal. And what does it have to do with anything that I have said? I never mentioned the Angels or Ducks.

I think you have to legally call the the LA Angels of Anaheim. I wouldn't fuck with Disney.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 06:01 PM
They were in the Stanley Cup finals in 1993.

The Anaheim Ducks won the cup just a few years back.

The Angels won the World Series in 2002.

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

If he wants to debate, fine. But the basis of the debate cannot be "because I said so".

This has been your whole stance all along. I have given reasons as to why it would work. Rams and Raiders both left because of the owners. Not the lack of fans. Fans will go. They have gone. The NFL knows this and thats why they have been trying to get a team there. Angels are not LA and neither are the Ducks. Wrong county there pal. And what does it have to do with anything that I have said? I never mentioned the Angels or Ducks.

I'd like for you to explain to me how a relocated NFL team team will garner enough interest to make 75,000 people sit in traffic for hours on the 5 freeway on a beautiful Sunday afternoon to pay in excess of $200 per ticket (the cheap seats) to watch a losing football team?

As I've stated repeatedly throughout this thread and I'll state again, it will take an enormous effort by the owner to have a championship football team on the field each and every season for Los Angelenos to care.

I'm sorry you don't understand that fact but then again, you haven't live here for the 16 years as I have, you don't run in the same circles and you just do not know what you're talking about.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 06:04 PM
If I don't know what I'm talking about, why has it been more than 15 years since the NFL played here?

Furthermore, the NFL reduced the number of seats for a sellout to 65,000 at the Coliseum (not mentioned in the article) and the Raiders STILL couldn't sell out.

You've also failed to address the Rams situation. Why didn't they sell out? Aren't they an NFL team as well?

And according to you, there's so much interest here, how could a city of 20 million people NOT sell out a 75,000 seat stadium each week, right?

:shake:

Last I checked LA had less than 4 million people. Nice try. But again. THERE WERE 3 F***ING TEAMS RIGHT NEXT TO EACHOTHER. They didn't have to sell out 75000. They had to sell out 225000. Can you not comprehend this. You keep asking a questions that I keep answering. As for as why there hasn't been one in 15 years. Ill repeat what I said earlier. Not that its going to do any good with you. They didn't have a f***ing stadium. They have one now that will be state of the art if they get a team. So you will have a team within 3 years. Mark my words. Do you think SD is looking to move because they have no fans? No, its because they want a new STADIUM. No one wanted to play in the shit hole stadiums they have in LA.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 06:06 PM
I think you have to legally call the the LA Angels of Anaheim. I wouldn't **** with Disney.

Bad marketing ploy. I think they are going to change the name again to the Tijuana Angels of Quebec to try to pull in a bigger fan base. Theyre going international.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 06:12 PM
Last I checked LA had less than 4 million people. Nice try.

Dude, there are over 20 million people in the Los Angeles basin. Are you a teenager?

But again. THERE WERE 3 F***ING TEAMS RIGHT NEXT TO EACHOTHER.

Right next to each other? What the fuck are you talking about?

Have you ever been to Los Angeles? The Coliseum is 90 minutes from Anaheim. It takes more than two hours to get to San Diego from Los Angeles. Hell, Labor Day Weekend, it took four hours.

I'd hardly call that "next to each other". Furthermore, the three teams couldn't have a more disparate demographic. So once again, you just don't know what you're talking about.

They didn't have to sell out 75000. They had to sell out 225000. Can you not comprehend this. You keep asking a questions that I keep answering. As for as why there hasn't been one in 15 years. Ill repeat what I said earlier. Not that its going to do any good with you. They didn't have a f***ing stadium. They have one now that will be state of the art if they get a team. So you will have a team within 3 years. Mark my words. Do you think SD is looking to move because they have no fans? No, its because they want a new STADIUM. No one wanted to play in the shit hole stadiums they have in LA.

Los Angeles will ONLY have a state of the art stadium if someone is interested if giving over majority ownership to Roskie. AND that team will need the NFL's approval to move to Los Angeles.

This is hardly a given and there's absolutely no indication that it will be a successful venture. Especially given the city's recent history with the NFL.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 06:13 PM
[quote=SDChiefs;6218229]

I'd like for you to explain to me how a relocated NFL team team will garner enough interest to make 75,000 people sit in traffic for hours on the 5 freeway on a beautiful Sunday afternoon to pay in excess of $200 per ticket (the cheap seats) to watch a losing football team?

As I've stated repeatedly throughout this thread and I'll state again, it will take an enormous effort by the owner to have a championship football team on the field each and every season for Los Angelenos to care.

I'm sorry you don't understand that fact but then again, you haven't live here for the 16 years as I have, you don't run in the same circles and you just do not know what you're talking about.

Then why do said fans drive 100 miles to Qualcomm to watch the Chargers? Not their team. A little farther than COI. But they are going to stop going once their own cities team has one close by. Makes sense. Its FOOTBALL. People enjoy football and want to see it. If its close people will go. It might not sell out. But they will make plenty of money. Merchandise and such.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 06:20 PM
Dude, there are over 20 million people in the Los Angeles basin. Are you a teenager?



Right next to each other? What the **** are you talking about?

Have you ever been to Los Angeles? The Coliseum is 90 minutes from Anaheim. It takes more than two hours to get to San Diego from Los Angeles. Hell, Labor Day Weekend, it took four hours.

I'd hardly call that "next to each other". Furthermore, the three teams couldn't have a more disparate demographic. So once again, you just don't know what you're talking about.



Los Angeles will ONLY have a state of the art stadium if someone is interested if giving over majority ownership to Roskie. AND that team will need the NFL's approval to move to Los Angeles.

This is hardly a given and there's absolutely no indication that it will be a successful venture. Especially given the city's recent history with the NFL.

You said the city. If were talking about Southern California then yes, over 20 million. LA Metro 14 Million. Your facts are askewed. But then again, it is you were talking about.

You drive slow. From San Diego to Anaheim it takes me 35-40 mins. To LA never more than an hour and a half barring a horrific accident.

Went to the Rainbow 3 weeks ago. 1 hr 20 minutes. I would call 3 teams within 100 miles of eachother close. Im sure most people on here would say so as well.

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 06:21 PM
[quote=DaneMcCloud;6218238]

Then why do said fans drive 100 miles to Qualcomm to watch the Chargers? Not their team. A little farther than COI. But they are going to stop going once their own cities team has one close by. Makes sense. Its FOOTBALL. People enjoy football and want to see it. If its close people will go. It might not sell out. But they will make plenty of money. Merchandise and such.

Generally to watch the opposing team.

SDChiefs
10-29-2009, 06:25 PM
[quote=SDChiefs;6218250]

Generally to watch the opposing team.

So what youre saying, is they will drive 100 miles to watch football and pay the $150/ticket prices, but they won't drive 15 miles to support their home team. Does this make sense to anyone?

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 06:26 PM
You said the city. If were talking about Southern California then yes, over 20 million. LA Metro 14 Million. Your facts are askewed. But then again, it is you were talking about.

First off, my facts are not skewed. You obviously no nothing about how our little municipality is set up here, nor are you familiar with the total population.

You drive slow. From San Diego to Anaheim it takes me 35-40 mins. To LA never more than an hour and a half barring a horrific accident.

Yeah, you're right. I drive slow when it's a complete parking lot from Los Angeles to San Diego on the 5 freeway. It took 4 hours to and from San Deigo over Labor Day weekend and it never takes less than 2.5 hours from Hollywood to San Diego.

Went to the Rainbow 3 weeks ago. 1 hr 20 minutes.

In rush hour? On a Saturday? On a Sunday?

I'm sure if I did 90 miles an hour at 10pm on a Friday night I could get to San Diego in 90 minutes or less. But that's not Sunday morning.

I would call 3 teams within 100 miles of eachother close. Im sure most people on here would say so as well.

Well, considering that are in excess of 20 million people to support those three teams, it should be easy to sell out the stadiums, right?

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 06:28 PM
So what youre saying, is they will drive 100 miles to watch football and pay the $150/ticket prices, but they won't drive 15 miles to support their home team. Does this make sense to anyone?

Absolutely.

Why in the world would lifelong Giants, Jets, Philly, Redskins, Cowboys, 49ers and Chiefs fans go to a Los Angeles Jaguars game unless it was against their own favorite team?

What would make someone instantly shell out cash, take the time and MISS their favorite team, just to watch a newly relocated team?

Tell us.

Because you can damn sure bet I wouldn't go there on a Sunday unless it was against the Chiefs.

Jenson71
10-29-2009, 06:32 PM
Absolutely.

Why in the world would lifelong Giants, Jets, Philly, Redskins, Cowboys, 49ers and Chiefs fans go to a Los Angeles Jaguars game unless it was against their own favorite team?

What would make someone instantly shell out cash, take the time and MISS their favorite team, just to watch a newly relocated team?

Tell us.

Because you can damn sure bet I wouldn't go there on a Sunday unless it was against the Chiefs.

Isn't that something that every relocated or expansion team has to go through?

DaneMcCloud
10-29-2009, 06:37 PM
Isn't that something that every relocated or expansion team has to go through?

Carolina hasn't had a problem. The Colts didn't have a problem. I think the Rams are experiencing problems. I think Houston's been okay.

The difference is that the general feeling that I've gotten in the last 15 years is that no one cares about the NFL unless you've come from another city.

It's going to be an extremely tough sell to the citizens of Los Angeles and if the team's not a winner, it's going to be even tougher.

We've seen that with both the Raiders and the Rams. What would make another relocated team any different if they struggled?

SDChiefs
11-04-2009, 03:11 PM
First off, my facts are not skewed. You obviously no nothing about how our little municipality is set up here, nor are you familiar with the total population.



Yeah, you're right. I drive slow when it's a complete parking lot from Los Angeles to San Diego on the 5 freeway. It took 4 hours to and from San Deigo over Labor Day weekend and it never takes less than 2.5 hours from Hollywood to San Diego.



In rush hour? On a Saturday? On a Sunday?

I'm sure if I did 90 miles an hour at 10pm on a Friday night I could get to San Diego in 90 minutes or less. But that's not Sunday morning.



Well, considering that are in excess of 20 million people to support those three teams, it should be easy to sell out the stadiums, right?

Youre just a complete idiot. The US Census and the California Cenus list those populations. But you would know more than they would. Just like you know what the Mayor of LA is privately thinking. It is 70 miles from San Diego to Hollywood. How in the hell can you NOT make it in an hour and a half?

SDChiefs
11-04-2009, 03:12 PM
Isn't that something that every relocated or expansion team has to go through?

Yes, but some how these small market teams do ok and LA the 2nd largest media market in the country won't. Makes sense.

JASONSAUTO
11-04-2009, 07:25 PM
Youre just a complete idiot. The US Census and the California Cenus list those populations. But you would know more than they would. Just like you know what the Mayor of LA is privately thinking. It is 70 miles from San Diego to Hollywood. How in the hell can you NOT make it in an hour and a half?

have you ever driven it?

DaneMcCloud
11-05-2009, 09:23 PM
have you ever driven it?

He says he has but it sure doesn't seem like it.

Go to Google maps and type in 90068 to San Diego.

If you take the 5, it says 127 miles, 2 hours and 2 minutes with no traffic (not likely).

With traffic it says 3 hours and 50 minutes.

The latter has always been much closer to my experience.