Skip to content

Leiweke says “one or two teams” are ready to move to L.A.

6a00d8341c630a53ef0147e1bffddd970b-800wi

The past week included a few developments in the chase to place an NFL team back in Los Angeles.  But with plenty of other things going on, including two key games to be played on Sunday and the question of whether any games will be played on Sundays in the fall come September, we opted to wait until the weekend to sort it all out.

The biggest highlight?  As the folks from AEG continue the process of laying the foundation to eventually lay the foundation for a new stadium in downtown L.A., point man Tim Leiweke has made it known that, if the plan moves forward, up to two teams are ready to move toward Los Angeles.

“We have spent time with teams looking for a new stadium,” Leiweke said, per the Los Angeles Times.  “There are one or two teams ready to move.  Mr. Anschutz believes a team will come if we build it.”

One of those teams very well could be the Chargers.  Tim Sullivan of the San Diego Union-Tribune explains that new/old Governor Jerry Brown’s proposal to scrap redevelopment agencies as a tool for securing public financing would destroy the plan to build a downtown San Diego venue for the Chargers, setting the stage for them to move to the $1 billion L.A. stadium that supposedly will be privately financed, with the use of $350 billion in bonds.

We’re done, finished,” Chargers stadium finagling guru Mark Fabiani said Friday, per Sullivan. “Redevelopment money is an essential part of the downtown concept and without it, the project is dead.”

Though some say the AEG plan has holes, the alternative in the City of Industry could be a viable option.  Either way, it’s looking more and more like there will be a new NFL stadium in L.A., and the only questions are when it will open and which name will appear on the scoreboard as the home team.

Permalink 91 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
91 Responses to “Leiweke says “one or two teams” are ready to move to L.A.”
  1. jc1958coo says: Jan 22, 2011 8:19 AM

    al davis will go there if someone else pays for it!
    that way he can waste some more money on bad players! blameit on the coach and ask for the $$$$ back!

  2. saberstud75 says: Jan 22, 2011 8:21 AM

    The Vikings better hurry get to L.A. before the Chargers beat them there.

  3. joemontanawasthegreatest says: Jan 22, 2011 8:27 AM

    If anyone goes it should be the Chargers or Rams.

  4. tdl8 says: Jan 22, 2011 8:28 AM

    A stadium downtown right next to Staples Center, Nokia Center and the LA Convention Center would be a cluster F**K on Sundays when more than one event was going on! The Lakers, Clippers or Kings usually have a home game every Sunday from October on! There is already limited parking for those events and Staples only seats about 19k. Add another 65-70k people for a football game and you will have to park 5 miles away! If an expo is going on at the Convention Center also you can forget about finding a spot anywhere!

  5. abninf says: Jan 22, 2011 8:43 AM

    Were the issues of why teams left LA addressed?

  6. marty2019 says: Jan 22, 2011 8:46 AM

    Seems kind of silly to move TWO teams to LA, since they failed to support all the other NFL teams that have been there in the past. Maybe they should start with one, and see how that works out.

  7. jimmysee says: Jan 22, 2011 9:02 AM

    Chargers and Vikings could share.

    Like the Lakers and Clips share Staples Center.

  8. Erik says: Jan 22, 2011 9:06 AM

    I really don’t know anything about the ownership, but based on such poor attendance to an otherwise watchable team I could see the Jaguars or Chargers going.

  9. tacoslinger619 says: Jan 22, 2011 9:06 AM

    Everybody wants a team in L.A…….EXCEPT L.A.

  10. Robert says: Jan 22, 2011 9:25 AM

    Los Angeles Vikings–by the end of the month!

  11. smalltownqb says: Jan 22, 2011 9:37 AM

    Or, rather than moving teams (which has no impact on the success of the sport itself) they donate these billions to a cause that serves more than themselves.

  12. mrznyc says: Jan 22, 2011 9:49 AM

    Football fans in LA already have two great teams to watch, USC and UCLA. They play exciting football on a national level, the tickets are available and cheap and the traditions are deep and long. To succeed an NFL team has to have some way of luring those fans and no one has figured it out to this day.

  13. smokim says: Jan 22, 2011 9:50 AM

    Erik..

    You must be blind because the Jags aren’t going anywhere.. They sold out all their games last year.. plus the city of Jax has an iron clad lease with the Jags for the next 25 years.

    Any owner who buys the team and tries to move them would have to effectively pay the city of Jax millions and millions of dollars to break the lease.

    You should at least try to get your facts straight first before you blather.

  14. joepags says: Jan 22, 2011 10:03 AM

    um..the rams couldnt survive there, why do they think a team can make it in such a fraud of a sports town??!?

  15. slickster35 says: Jan 22, 2011 10:05 AM

    Move the Chargers. That city doesn’t care about football.

  16. packfannchitown says: Jan 22, 2011 10:13 AM

    Barring a return by the Rams the Chargers are the only team that L.A. denizens would support.

    Vikings COULD get a shot but only if they are renamed to something less “Northern.”

    Jags and other teams just wouldn’t get the support and they’d have a brand new stadium with little patronage.

    1 Billion dollar stadium you KNOW they’re going to charge the hell outta you with PSLs so you’d damn sure better move a team that people would be willing to spend money on and the Vikes ain’t it.

    Besides the fact the Vikings would still suck with a new name and new city…

  17. baddegg says: Jan 22, 2011 10:28 AM

    Why do teams keep moving to L.A….then promptly leaving? Is L.A. really the best market to move a team right now…is the team going to be supported enough to want to stay there?

  18. datdudegrymey says: Jan 22, 2011 10:32 AM

    You guys obviously dont know a thing about vikings fans. We arent fair weather like alot of you chumps so when it comes to the vikes staying or leaving, we will pony up the dough. Go steal someone elses franchise we already gave you the lakers.

  19. pervyharvin says: Jan 22, 2011 10:34 AM

    AEG President Tim Leiweke can kiss MN Viking ass….

  20. blackglass3 says: Jan 22, 2011 10:36 AM

    So, once the two teams move to LA, how long until those teams move OUT of LA because the fans there don’t give a crap about football?

    In about 15 years we’ll be talking about the Birmingham Chargers.

  21. rugdog100 says: Jan 22, 2011 10:43 AM

    Which is it? 1 or 2 teams… he should know that much. If it’s 1, say 1… if it’s 2 say 2. Not 1 or 2 teams.

  22. rugdog100 says: Jan 22, 2011 10:44 AM

    Oh, I almost forgot… Packers suck.

  23. brintfatre says: Jan 22, 2011 11:07 AM

    I hope they change their name from Viking’s to Favre’s when then get to LA. It would be just like Cleveland named their team after the person responsible for getting them the franchise!

  24. jvillenole says: Jan 22, 2011 11:08 AM

    “We have spent time with teams looking for a new stadium,”

    That effectively eliminates the Jacksonville Jaguars from this conversation.

  25. richm2256 says: Jan 22, 2011 11:16 AM

    I’m sorry, but did he say a “Billion dollars’ for the new stadium?

    One BILLION dollars????

    Are you kidding me?????? WTF is THAT all about? How on earth can you even spend that much on one stadium?

  26. scytherius says: Jan 22, 2011 11:28 AM

    I’m in L.A. and have had Charger season tickets off and on for years. GIVE ME A TEAM HERE PLS.

  27. packfannchitown says: Jan 22, 2011 11:35 AM

    I’m sorry, but did he say a “Billion dollars’ for the new stadium?

    One BILLION dollars????

    Are you kidding me?????? WTF is THAT all about? How on earth can you even spend that much on one stadium?
    ________________________________
    Ask Jerry Jones…

  28. tdl8 says: Jan 22, 2011 11:35 AM

    richm2256 says:
    Jan 22, 2011 11:16 AM
    I’m sorry, but did he say a “Billion dollars’ for the new stadium?

    One BILLION dollars????

    Are you kidding me?????? WTF is THAT all about? How on earth can you even spend that much on one stadium?
    ————————————————-
    Either you have been living under a rock or you aren’t a real football fan because $1 billion isn’t a new thing! The last 2 new stadiums built, Cowgirls stadium and the NY Jokes/Midgets stadium both cost well over $1 billion to build! They cost $1.3 and $1.6 billion respectively!

  29. packfannchitown says: Jan 22, 2011 11:41 AM

    You guys obviously dont know a thing about vikings fans. We arent fair weather like alot of you chumps so when it comes to the vikes staying or leaving, we will pony up the dough. Go steal someone elses franchise we already gave you the lakers.
    ____________________________________
    As a Packer fan I didn’t like it when they added the Bucs to our division when we were the Central. With the realignment I like the NFC North just the way it is. Our four teams are close together and have great rivalries and having to lose the Vikes in favor of the Rams would suck.

    Personally I think loyalty would be tested with a move however. It was easy for Ram fans in LA to remain fans when they were still the Rams, but if a team moves AND changes names the NFL has effective emasculated the team one has come to know and love.

    Would a Vikings fan feel the same passion about his team when they’re now called the Stallions (or whatever), probably change their colors and live in a new city where you need the NFL Sunday Ticket to watch the games?

    If so then so be itt but I wouldn’t blame other fans for losing interest and now that the league is at 32 teams the schedule is PERFECT and there would be very little chance of adding a 33rd/34th team to the mix in order to throw the Minnesota fans a bone the way they did Cleveland and Houston.

  30. tdl8 says: Jan 22, 2011 11:42 AM

    scytherius says:
    Jan 22, 2011 11:28 AM
    I’m in L.A. and have had Charger season tickets off and on for years. GIVE ME A TEAM HERE PLS.
    —————————————————

    So you are the ONE football fan in LA!!! LA is the Lakers city and a beach city! Nobody wants to spend money on the ridiculously over priced NFL tickets for a team that doesn’t win when they can go to the beach for free! Thats why the Rams and Raiders didn’t stay! LA only likes winning teams like the Lakers! All the rumored teams that may move to LA have been losing teams for MANY MANY years so the excitement of the new team won’t last long once they miss the playoffs for a few years! Then everybody will be back at the beach!

  31. trickbunny says: Jan 22, 2011 11:49 AM

    Chargers started in LA… Might as well go back there.

  32. catman72 says: Jan 22, 2011 11:52 AM

    Chargers or Raiders are the only two teams it would make any sense to move to LA.

  33. kidder95 says: Jan 22, 2011 12:02 PM

    Carolina Panthers are a dark horse candidate. Count on it.

  34. dontouchmyjunk says: Jan 22, 2011 12:07 PM

    Always people who don’t live in LA, or California, think they’re experts about our culture and the reasons teams moved away more than a decade ago. The reason was simple. Lack of a modern stadium. The Coliseum and Rose Bowl are each nearly a century old. They were already outdated ancient stadiums for pro football in the 1970’s, let alone the 90’s. They are both horrible places to actually watch an NFL game. They each hold 100,000 fans. The Raiders and Rams routinely drew 70,000 fans to their games in spite of the crappy facility, but that still left 30,000 empty seats.

    The Rams moved to Anaheim in 1979 because of a sweetheart deal offered to the team. Let me repeat what I’ve said before — ANAHEIM IS NOT LOS ANGELES. No matter how much outsiders want to believe it is so, Anaheim is not Los Angeles.

    LA could actually support two NFL teams, like New York, if there was an acceptable modern stadium to play in. Over 10 million people live in Los Angeles County as of 2010. 10 million!

    It more than doubles the population of any other NFL metro area outside of New York. Use your noggins, knuckleheads. If the Coliseum was in your NFL town, you wouldn’t fill it with 100,000 fans each Sunday either.

  35. purpleguy says: Jan 22, 2011 12:08 PM

    Typical Pack fan posts — they’ve got a team poised to go to the Super Bowl, and they’re more interested in if the Vikings will be in LA in 4 years (which won’t happen by the way).

  36. therolandobottom says: Jan 22, 2011 12:12 PM

    The Raiders already tried the L.A. experiment. It didn’t work out. I could see the Chargers and possibly the Rams moving there.

  37. dontouchmyjunk says: Jan 22, 2011 12:16 PM

    @ tdl8

    Nobody wants to spend money on the ridiculously over priced NFL tickets for a team that doesn’t win when they can go to the beach for free!

    ________________________________

    Another knucklehead who doesn’t live here but thinks he knows LA by watching TV shows about our town.

    Here’s a clue about reality — NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY goes to Los Angeles beaches…EVER! There are only 5 types of people who go to our beaches:

    1 – Tourists who don’t know any better
    2 – Surfers
    3 – Crack heads and other drug addicts
    4 – The Homeless
    5 – Gangsta’s

    Normal people stay away from our beaches like the plague. Have been since the 1970’s. We have swimming pools in our back yards. Now, Californians do use beaches to the south, near San Diego and in Orange County. And some to the north, near Santa Barbara in the summer. Points north of there it is too damn cold to use the beach year round.

    Maybe you should learn more about an area aside from television shows that are fiction, not reality.

  38. sdchargers25 says: Jan 22, 2011 12:18 PM

    im out here in san diego, i say, F U Spanos! youre a BILLIONAIRE, and youll make even more money if you build a stadium. I might as well own the team since ill be could be spending the same amount of money as you do… NONE!

  39. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 12:22 PM

    @ abninf

    “Were the issues of why teams left LA addressed?”

    Yes. A new stadium addresses those issues.

  40. ren6two7 says: Jan 22, 2011 12:24 PM

    datdudegrymey says: Jan 22, 2011 10:32 AM

    You guys obviously dont know a thing about vikings fans. We arent fair weather like alot of you chumps so when it comes to the vikes staying or leaving, we will pony up the dough. Go steal someone elses franchise we already gave you the lakers.

    * Actually, Vikings fans are notoriously fair-weather. The only reason that they are being considered for relocation is due to this fact. Living in Minneapolis as a Packers fan, I can fully attest to the fact that not only Vikings fans, but Minnesota sports fans in general have little to no real allegiance to any of their franchises.

  41. chargersrule says: Jan 22, 2011 12:26 PM

    The Chargers are not the team moving. Spanos wants to keep running that team. His sons are set up to take over after him and AJ. The Chargers are using the threat of LA to get something done here. They don’t want to share it with AEG. I think the Roski plan is more of a threat to SD than AEG because Roski doesn’t want a stake in the team.

    If there’s one team that truly should be playing in LA, though, it’s the Raiders. First of all, that’s the only team that city will support. Second of all, the Raiders continue to struggle selling out their stadium. The Chargers had 6 straight seasons of sell outs before this last one and is still a hot ticket in SD where as the Bay Area continues to show difficulty supporting TWO franchises.

    Third of all, you have an owner in Al Davis who would make that kind of decision. The Spanos are good family and I think have too much heart for SD to rip this team away. Davis is getting older, though and AEG would be the perfect buyer if Al is ready to concede part of the team.

    I really think SD, Jville and Buffalo are safe because they have owners with consciences. The Raiders – and maybe the Rams are the two teams LA would want and they both have equally dire stadium issues. The Vikings need a stadium more than anyone, but I can’t see the NFL moving that team. It just wouldn’t be right to do that to those fans.

  42. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 12:29 PM

    @ smokim:

    “Any owner who buys the team and tries to move them would have to effectively pay the city of Jax millions and millions of dollars to break the lease.”

    How many millions? Because moving to LA would make the franchise value sky rocket above $1 billion and a new stadium would increase revenues so the team would be in the top three. So it may be an acceptable outlay to the owner to move.

    Right now the Jags are #32 in revenues and #24 in attendance. (Only 94% of the stadium.)

    “You should at least try to get your facts straight first before you blather.”

    Good advice. You should follow it.

  43. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 12:31 PM

    @ baddegg

    “Why do teams keep moving to L.A….then promptly leaving?”

    Yeah the Rams moved here in 1946 then promptly moved out in 1994.

  44. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 12:36 PM

    @ tdl8

    “So you are the ONE football fan in LA!!! LA is the Lakers city and a beach city! Nobody wants to spend money on the ridiculously over priced NFL tickets for a team that doesn’t win when they can go to the beach for free!”

    You obviously don’t live in LA. The beach is not that big an attraction. We have miles of them and they are there everyday. No big deal for us. For you folks in colder climes I am sure that, if here, you would spend an inordinate amount of time there.

    “Thats why the Rams and Raiders didn’t stay!”
    Uh…….no. But thanks for trying.

  45. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 12:44 PM

    @ jvillenole

    “That effectively eliminates the Jacksonville Jaguars from this conversation.”

    Last in revenues, 24th in attendance? Is that a successful stadium?

    Let’s see the Jags announce a 5 year, $16.6 million dollar naming agreement and are ecstatic over it. Meanwhile in LA, a stadium not yet built for a team not yet here has a naming deal for $400 million for 20 years. ($20 million a year)

    ButJ’vill has one thing going for it: The only owner in the league who would ignore those kind of numbers and be happy with being last in revenue is Wayne Weaver.

  46. phillysoulfan says: Jan 22, 2011 12:52 PM

    This is what I don’t get. LA is the number 2 media market in the country. When the NFL had teams there, they were not selling out, so their games were not televised. Meaning, the NFL lost the number 2 media market every week. Why on Earth would you move back there? Wouldn’t that hurt your ratings?

  47. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 12:54 PM

    @ chargersrule

    “I think the Roski plan is more of a threat to SD than AEG because Roski doesn’t want a stake in the team.”

    He does want a stake in the team. Up to 33%.

    “I really think SD, Jville and Buffalo are safe because they have owners with consciences.”

    In San Diego:
    If Gov Brown eliminates redevelopment agencies as he has stated he will, it kills any new stadium proposal. Fabiani has stated that if that happens, “We are done.”

    In Buffalo:
    Ralph Wilson has already stated the team will be sold upon his death. He is 92. Buffalo is losing populace and the team has already reached out to Toronto.

    In J’Ville:
    The team is last in revenues and 24th in attendance. It had to provide special financing and cut prices to increase attendance. The city regularly provides monies to keep the team in town by foregoing revenue to the team and by hosting rallies.

    “The Vikings need a stadium more than anyone, but I can’t see the NFL moving that team. It just wouldn’t be right to do that to those fans.”

    You don’t know the NFL. The average fan matters little.

  48. smalltownqb says: Jan 22, 2011 1:04 PM

    1 – Tourists who don’t know any better
    2 – Surfers
    3 – Crack heads and other drug addicts
    4 – The Homeless
    5 – Gangsta’s

    —————————————————

    Is that 5 different ways to say “out of work actor?”

  49. FinFan68 says: Jan 22, 2011 1:06 PM

    The NFL is desperate to place an NFL franchise back in one of the top two TV markets in the country. There is no way any owner of a current team outside of California will be willing to move. The taxes and business regulations in that state will prevent them from making any money above what they already do. The Chargers seem to be the likely candidiate due to their current situation, but LA has consistently proven to be less than stellar supporters of NFL franchises. Maybe the answer is for the NFL to build a 100,000+ seat “superstadium” with all of the best features from the stadiums around the NFL. They could play all the SuperBowls there rather than bouncing around to whichever venue gains them the most money. I think that concept is better suited for Las Vegas but LA will work.

  50. tdl8 says: Jan 22, 2011 1:07 PM

    dontouchmyjunk says:
    Jan 22, 2011 12:16 PM

    Another knucklehead who doesn’t live here but thinks he knows LA by watching TV shows about our town.
    Here’s a clue about reality — NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY goes to Los Angeles beaches…EVER! There are only 5 types of people who go to our beaches:
    ————————————————-
    Shows what you know moron… I am born and raised in LA! I never went to Raiders or Rams games because they were both losing franchises! But I have had Lakers season tickets since 1989 and I do go to the beach a lot! It’s not only tourists, crackheads, and surfers that go to the beach! Just because you hate the beach doesn’t mean every LA native hates it also!

    Clueless idiots always jump to conclusions!

  51. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 1:08 PM

    @ dontouchmyjunk

    “Another knucklehead who doesn’t live here but thinks he knows LA by watching TV shows about our town.”

    There was a person on here who posted by the name Deb and she epitomizes that sentiment. She noted that people from LA are plastic because they work in the entertainment industry.

    And where did she get that? From TV and movies of course.

  52. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 1:11 PM

    @ smalltownqb

    “Is that 5 different ways to say “out of work actor?””

    Not really. There is a guy out here who set up a company to provide films and TV shows with real gangsters as extras.

  53. packfannchitown says: Jan 22, 2011 1:15 PM

    If the Coliseum was in your NFL town, you wouldn’t fill it with 100,000 fans each Sunday either.
    _________________________________
    They could in Green Bay, GUARANTEED…

  54. tdl8 says: Jan 22, 2011 1:16 PM

    recon163 says:
    Jan 22, 2011 12:36 PM
    @ tdl8
    You obviously don’t live in LA. The beach is not that big an attraction. We have miles of them and they are there everyday. No big deal for us. For you folks in colder climes I am sure that, if here, you would spend an inordinate amount of time there.

    “Thats why the Rams and Raiders didn’t stay!”
    Uh…….no. But thanks for trying.
    —————————————————
    Born and raised in LA! Everybody I grew up with went to the beach every weekend and we go a lot! SD, Malibu, Santa Monica, Ventura, Santa Barbara etc. It’s more entertaining than spending 100′ of dollars to watch a worthless franchise like the Rams or Raiders lose!
    If you don’t like the beach there are million other things to do in LA that are more fun than watching a losing team every Sunday!

    Another clueless moron jumping to conclusions!

  55. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 1:18 PM

    @ FinFan68

    “There is no way any owner of a current team outside of California will be willing to move. The taxes and business regulations in that state will prevent them from making any money above what they already do.”

    If that was the case, then movie studios would be in Texas.

    “The Chargers seem to be the likely candidiate due to their current situation, but LA has consistently proven to be less than stellar supporters of NFL franchises.”

    Yeah, the Rams were completely unsupported for over 40 years. And the Raiders really struggled during the 80’s. You obviously know little about the situation here in LA re NFL stadiums.

    “Maybe the answer is for the NFL to build a 100,000+ seat “superstadium” with all of the best features from the stadiums around the NFL. They could play all the SuperBowls there rather than bouncing around to whichever venue gains them the most money. I think that concept is better suited for Las Vegas but LA will work.”

    Sure NFL owners who want brand new billion dollar stadiums are not at all interested in leveraging the Super Bowl as rationale for having the city build them a new stadium.

  56. raiders757 says: Jan 22, 2011 1:23 PM

    packfannchitown says: Jan 22, 2011 10:13 AM

    Barring a return by the Rams the Chargers are the only team that L.A. denizens would support.

    ————————————–

    That’s laughable considering there are far more Raider fans in L.A. than Chargers fans, so you might want to change the word “only” in your post.

    Either way. The Chargers belong in San Diego and nowhere else.

    As for the Raiders time in L.A., they had the fan support. It was the city that failed them by not helping them get out of the run down L.A. Coliseum. Personally, I don’t think any team should move there. A previous poster had a great idea when he stated that the millions being put aside for such a project should be used for higher purposes.

  57. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 1:29 PM

    @ phillysoulfan

    “When the NFL had teams there, they were not selling out, so their games were not televised.”

    This is true. But it was due to the stadium situation. We have a 100k seat stadium with limited parking, no amenities, no luxury seating and no club seats in a run down community.

    “Meaning, the NFL lost the number 2 media market every week.”

    Not really. The NFL was blacked out for one game period not both. In other words the PM game would be blacked out if the blackout was not lifted but not the AM game. (LA time periods)

    “Wouldn’t that hurt your ratings?”
    It does, but it doesn’t matter. The league negotiates its’ TV deal based on potential. As an example, if the 2011 season is locked out the league still gets paid. No games on TV through all of 2011 and they will still get money.

    The networks accept that some markets will get blackouts during the season.

  58. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 1:31 PM

    @ tdl8

    “Born and raised in LA! Everybody I grew up with went to the beach every weekend and we go a lot!”

    Sure you were and sure you did.

    “Another clueless moron jumping to conclusions!”

    Yes you are. Anyone who think their personal ‘experience’ speaks for 17 million people in the LA area is a clueless moron.

  59. cosanostra71 says: Jan 22, 2011 1:35 PM

    I think a lot of the people bashing Los Angeles sports fans have never actually even been here and are just relying on tired, untrue stereotypes. LA loves sports, especially football. I would go to plenty of games if there were a team here. Preferably the Vikings or Raiders though, because it would be hard to bring myself to support the Chargers after all these years of hating on them!

  60. banlarson says: Jan 22, 2011 2:02 PM

    LA is not an NFL market. They have fair weather fans who would rather hit the beach. Hasn’t worked in the past and won’t work now.

    Stadiums don’t make franchises, its the fan base. Don’t turn the NFL into a money first league. Its the fans that make a franchise.

    LA = fail!

  61. upperdecker19 says: Jan 22, 2011 2:03 PM

    Could either of the two teams that he’s referring to be the Las Vegas Locomotives and/or the Omaha Nighthawks?

  62. norcalraider510 says: Jan 22, 2011 2:03 PM

    lol whats the point on moving the chargers to l.a its like what a 1 hour trip

  63. duluthvikings says: Jan 22, 2011 2:04 PM

    It would be unfortunate for any existing team to leave their fans behind for LA. As a Vikings fan, I don’t wish it on our fans or the people in San Diego, Buffalo, or J’Ville.

  64. jimmylions says: Jan 22, 2011 2:06 PM

    I don’t like the downtown football stadium scenario for the same reason that tdl8 has mentioned … downtown traffic already sucks, and football Sundays would make it even worse.

    One thing that makes LA different than most of the other NFL markets is that we don’t “need” a football team. We have enough entertainment options that sports aren’t critical to our economy. This isn’t Cleveland where the economy depended on LeBron James!

    People who came here with the typical scenarios that involved taxpayers buying a stadium got run out of town! We’re not interested in giving money to some rich guy for the privilege of being overcharged for sporting event tickets! If this deal gets done, it’s all going to have to be private money.

  65. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 2:13 PM

    @ tdl8:

    “I never went to Raiders or Rams games because they were both losing franchises!”

    So you assume the same applies to everyone in LA?

    “Clueless idiots always jump to conclusions!”

    Exactly. So you don’t speak for all 17 million people in LA, especially since it is clear you don’t even live here. Anyone from LA would know that it is so big and so diverse that you cannot claim that everyone thinks and acts just like you.

    You jumped to a conclusion that folks in LA will go to the beach instead of an NFL game. That is a huge jump that no one who really lives in LA would ever make.

  66. marty2019 says: Jan 22, 2011 2:29 PM

    The Jaguars’ lease with the city of Jacksonville, which runs for the next 25 years, calls for all kinds of financial penalties if they move out. The best estimate for the total of all those penalties is about $100 million. That is not a figure that cannot be overcome, but it is significant.
    And don’t forget, the Jaguars sold 15,000 new season tickets last year and did not black out a single game. Plus, the owner has stated over and over that he’s not moving period.
    So I don’t think it’s going to be the Jaguars.

  67. marty2019 says: Jan 22, 2011 2:40 PM

    recon163 says:
    Jan 22, 2011 12:54 PM

    In J’Ville:
    The team is last in revenues and 24th in attendance. It had to provide special financing and cut prices to increase attendance. The city regularly provides monies to keep the team in town by foregoing revenue to the team and by hosting rallies.
    ==============================

    The “last in revenues” figure is from Forbes magazine and is based on 2009 numbers. In 2010, the Jaguars sold 15,000 new season tickets, at prices ranging from $390 per season to about $3,000 per season, and did not have a single blackout. So I think that “last in revenues” no longer holds true.
    Tampa Bay blacked out every single game. The Jaguars had no blackouts.
    And the part about the city “hosting rallies”?? What exactly is wrong with that? We didn’t want to lose our team, so we went and did something about the ticket sales. Including a few rallies. Is that a bad thing?

  68. Robert says: Jan 22, 2011 2:49 PM

    Los Angeles may be the home to Criminals—but it is also the home to money and the second largest market.

    You really think the NFL and certain Owners know and have already committed to Los Angeles?

    It’s already planned.

    The Vikings swill be announcing very soon there intent.

  69. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 3:21 PM

    @ marty2019

    “The “last in revenues” figure is from Forbes magazine and is based on 2009 numbers.”

    Yes it is.

    “In 2010, the Jaguars sold 15,000 new season tickets, at prices ranging from $390 per season to about $3,000 per season, and did not have a single blackout. So I think that “last in revenues” no longer holds true.”

    We shall see. Just keep in mind that club and luxury seats are considered non shared revenue while general seating is shared. So if those numbers you note are for general seating and those 15k were from sales generated in discounted areas, then the net effect could be negligible.

    You also didn’t mention the zero percent financing and the discounted seats. How much revenue is the team losing out on by foregoing interest on season seat accounts? (How many teams provide financing for season seat sales anyway? I bet it is cash and carry for nearly everyone else.)

    “Tampa Bay blacked out every single game. The Jaguars had no blackouts.”
    The Jags still didn’t fill their stadium. I wonder how many of those tickets were bought back by the team to avoid a blackout?

    “We didn’t want to lose our team, so we went and did something about the ticket sales. Including a few rallies. Is that a bad thing?”

    Not at all. Nothing like using $150k of the public’s money for every rally in order to ensure Mr Weaver keeps making money. How many rallies will J’Ville pay for?

  70. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 3:25 PM

    @ banlarson

    “Stadiums don’t make franchises, its the fan base. Don’t turn the NFL into a money first league. Its the fans that make a franchise.”

    You must be a child. If fans made the franchise then the Colts would be in Baltimore, the Ravens would be an expansion team, the Oilers would be in Houston, the Rams would be in LA, and the Raiders would have never left Oakland in the first place.Owners move teams for better revenue at better stadiums.

    And you really missed the boat on the money comment. The NFL IS a money first league. Always has been, always will be. It is a business first and foremost.

  71. tdl8 says: Jan 22, 2011 3:33 PM

    recon163 says:
    Jan 22, 2011 2:13 PM
    @ tdl8:
    Exactly. So you don’t speak for all 17 million people in LA, especially since it is clear you don’t even live here. Anyone from LA would know that it is so big and so diverse that you cannot claim that everyone thinks and acts just like you.

    You jumped to a conclusion that folks in LA will go to the beach instead of an NFL game. That is a huge jump that no one who really lives in LA would ever make.
    —————————————————-
    You are a freakin idiot. I used the beach as ONE example of something people in LA would prefer to do instead of going to a NFL game and you get your panties all in a twist about how nobody goes to the beach! Just because you don’t go to the beach doesn’t mean nobody does! So who is assuming now? I’m not going to list 1000 things to do in LA other than go to a game and I’m not trying to assume I know what 17 million people want to do but I know it’s not go to football games! Read my last comment! I said if you don’t like the beach there are a million other things to do in LA other than watch a losing team! If LA fans loved going to NFL games so much then they would ALREADY have a team instead of losing 3 teams! Rams, Raiders and Chargers all left town because they weren’t supported! You are assuming 17 million people want to go to NFL games but obviously you don’t know what you are talking about! The majority of people in LA don’t want to spend Sunday afternoons at a game. If all the games were at night they would be more willing to go! If you don’t think thats true then just look at other LA sports. There are 2 baseball teams, 2 hockey teams and 2 basketball teams in the LA area that have no problem selling tickets because the majority of the games are at night!
    By the way, I was born in Torrance, CA grew up in LA, went to high school in Camarillo, CA and now live in Woodland Hills! Oh, and I work in Culver City! So yes I did grow up in the LA area and still live here! I have also had season tickets to the Lakers since 1989 but never went to a single Rams or Raiders game because there are better things to do on a Sunday afternoon than watch losers play!

  72. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 3:34 PM

    @ packfannchitown

    “They could in Green Bay, GUARANTEED…”

    You do realize that Green Bay only averaged 97% of stadium capacity throughout the season. Which is 14th best in the league. Even Carolina beat you guys out.

  73. banlarson says: Jan 22, 2011 5:37 PM

    @ recon163
    You just made my point. You never went to a Rams or Raiders game because they didn’t win. Dude, that’s what a “fair weather fan” is. I’ve been to LA several times for business; its a pit. Traffic sucks, people are rude and self-centered. Its about as far from a community like Green Bay, who love their team whether they win or lose (I’m not from WI). Throw in the fact that nobody who lives there was actually born there and you have the worst sports town in America.

  74. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 5:57 PM

    @ banlarson

    “You just made my point.”
    How so, idiot?

    “You never went to a Rams or Raiders game because they didn’t win.”
    Actually went to plenty of games. Or do you know what I did better then me?

    “I’ve been to LA several times for business; its a pit.”
    Don’t think anyone here really cares what you think. And quite frankly neither does the NFL.

    “Throw in the fact that nobody who lives there was actually born there . . .”
    So you know this is true for all 10 million people in LA and the other 7 million in the region? Wow you are stupid.

    ” . . .and you have the worst sports town in America.”
    You mean because we don’t have our self worth tied into a sports team? Guilty as charged.

  75. panther17 says: Jan 22, 2011 7:14 PM

    kidder95 says: Jan 22, 2011 12:02 PM

    Carolina Panthers are a dark horse candidate. Count on it.

    ________________________________________

    If you knew JR, then you would know the team is not moving while he is owner and he is not selling any time soon.

  76. emossome84 says: Jan 22, 2011 8:18 PM

    Can anyone explain how a team that has been to the NFC Title game 3 of the last 12 years, the playoffs in at least 7 of the last 12, and sold out every single game going back even further than that span has been labeled a “losing” team and how all these people are under the assumption that the Vikings moving to LA is already a done deal? I know the Vikes have done everything in their power to make every football fan outside Minnesota hate them in recent years but the facts remain that they still make the playoffs often, they still sell out every game(whether it is in the Metrodome, Ford Field, TCF Stadium), and plans for our new stadium are being drafted as we speak and are supposed to be done and voted on by the end of February.

    Would it really make sense to move a contending team, who sells out every game, over some of the teams who rarely make the playoffs and don’t sell out every game?

  77. tdl8 says: Jan 22, 2011 8:50 PM

    recon163 says:
    Jan 22, 2011 3:25 PM
    @ banlarson
    You must be a child. If fans made the franchise then the Colts would be in Baltimore, the Ravens would be an expansion team, the Oilers would be in Houston, the Rams would be in LA, and the Raiders would have never left Oakland in the first place.Owners move teams for better revenue at better stadiums.
    ————————————————–
    Why would the Rams be in LA? First off, if you are trying to say teams would never move to a new city if the fans made the franchise then the Rams would be in Cleveland not LA! They were there for 10 years before moving to LA! Get your facts straight!
    Secondly, they wouldn’t still be in LA because there were no Rams fans in LA! That’s why they left in the 1st place!

  78. recon163 says: Jan 22, 2011 9:59 PM

    @ tdl8

    Either you exceptionally uneducated or are a child with a memory span that does not go past 1996.

    “Why would the Rams be in LA? First off, if you are trying to say teams would never move to a new city if the fans made the franchise then the Rams would be in Cleveland not LA!”

    Well that sentence made no sense whatsoever. I never said fans made the franchise. In fact I said if that was the case then those teams would still be in their hometowns. But it is obvious that fans don’t. So are you trying to argue with me using my own point? Do you have any comprehension skills at all?

    “Secondly, they wouldn’t still be in LA because there were no Rams fans in LA! That’s why they left in the 1st place!”

    Here are the attendance records for the Rams 83-92
    Year Annual Avg
    1983 422,329 52,791
    1984 435,637 54,455
    1985 449,938 56,242
    1986 474,282 59,285
    1987 331,491 47,356
    1988 435,749 54,469
    1989 470,770 58,846
    1990 479,356 59,920
    1991 412,685 51,586
    1992 414,502 51,813

    Boy you are stupid. Plenty of Rams fans in LA and there still are. I thought you lived here? Obviously you don’t.

  79. tdl8 says: Jan 22, 2011 11:05 PM

    recon163 says:
    Jan 22, 2011 9:59 PM
    @ tdl8
    Here are the attendance records for the Rams 83-92
    Year Annual Avg
    1983 422,329 52,791
    1984 435,637 54,455
    1985 449,938 56,242
    1986 474,282 59,285
    1987 331,491 47,356
    1988 435,749 54,469
    1989 470,770 58,846
    1990 479,356 59,920
    1991 412,685 51,586
    1992 414,502 51,813
    ————————————————
    Wow! There are so many Rams fans in LA that they could only fill about 80-85% of a 65k seat stadium most of those seasons! That’s a blackout every game! They had to move from the 100k seat Coliseum to a smaller stadium and still couldn’t sell it out! Let’s say there was about 10 million people in LA in the late 80’s and early 90’s. On their best attendance season for those years less than 5 percent of the people in LA went to a game! WOW! That’s so many fans! So if the Packers are filling on average 97% of their stadium, as you stated earlier, in a market that has only about 300k people in the area to draw from, the Rams were doing really great filling 80-85% of their stadium in the second largest market in the US! Lambeau Field is bigger than Anaheim Stadium also!
    If the Rams were so popular in LA they wouldn’t have moved! That’s common sense that you obviously don’t have! Read the history of the team! It clearly states they left because of lack of fan interest! The Raiders left for the same reason! Do your homework before posting stupid attendance numbers that prove people had better things to do than watch football! During that same time period the Lakers were drawing 680-715k fans a year so like I said before, LA is the Lakers city!
    Also, I guarantee if you go to all the popular beaches in LA on any Sunday during football season and do a census of only the locals that are there, the number will be A LOT higher than the 50-55k average that went to Rams games so I guess the beach is more popular in LA than football! The LA beach cities don’t have millions of residence paying higher rent because they hate the beach like you do! Just because you would rather go to a game and hate the beach doesn’t mean everybody is just like you!

    As for me not living in LA.. You must be a complete moron to think that I would make up a story that I was born in Torrance, lived in the city of LA until high school, went to high school in Camarillo, CA, now live in Woodland Hills and work in Culver City! Been in the LA area my whole life! You want my address too? Grow up and get that stupid idea out of your head!

  80. tdl8 says: Jan 22, 2011 11:42 PM

    @recon163 says:
    Well that sentence made no sense whatsoever. I never said fans made the franchise. In fact I said if that was the case then those teams would still be in their hometowns. But it is obvious that fans don’t. So are you trying to argue with me using my own point? Do you have any comprehension skills at all?
    ————————————————–
    You must have no comprehension skills because that sentence made perfect sense. You said teams would still be in their hometowns if the fans made the franchise. Then you said the Rams would be in LA. That is not true! The Rams original hometown is in Cleveland! I never disagreed or tried to argue with your point that teams move to new cities for newer stadiums and better markets. My point is the Rams wouldn’t be in LA, they would be in Cleveland! I never once said that you thought the fans made the franchise!

  81. recon163 says: Jan 23, 2011 1:39 AM

    @ tdl8

    “You are a freakin idiot. I used the beach as ONE example of something people in LA would prefer to do instead of going to a NFL game and you get your panties all in a twist about how nobody goes to the beach!”

    No that would be you. Here is what you wrote:
    “So you are the ONE football fan in LA!!! LA is the Lakers city and a beach city! Nobody wants to spend money on the ridiculously over priced NFL tickets for a team that doesn’t win when they can go to the beach for free!”

    You are assuming that everybody would rather go to the beach than a football game. In fact you called the other poster the “one football fan in LA.” Clearly you believe that no one attended NFL games.

    “I’m not trying to assume I know what 17 million people want to do but I know it’s not go to football games!”
    You just stated you can’t assume for 17 million people thane you assumed that they don’t go to football games. You just wrote that you KNOW that all 17 million people do not want to go to a football game. What an idiot you are.

    “If LA fans loved going to NFL games so much then they would ALREADY have a team instead of losing 3 teams! Rams, Raiders and Chargers all left town because they weren’t supported!”
    Wrong. They left town for better deals. Written about, noted, chronicled, and understood.

    “You are assuming 17 million people want to go to NFL games but obviously you don’t know what you are talking about!”
    I only assume that 70k people want to go to football games and attendance history proves me right.

    “The majority of people in LA don’t want to spend Sunday afternoons at a game.”
    A new stadium doesn’t a majority, it only needs 70k for eight Sundays.

    “By the way, I was born in Torrance, CA grew up in LA, went to high school in Camarillo, CA and now live in Woodland Hills! Oh, and I work in Culver City! So yes I did grow up in the LA area and still live here!”

    No you don’t. If you did you wouldn’t be making such stupid comments about Angelenos.

    “I have also had season tickets to the Lakers since 1989 but never went to a single Rams or Raiders game because there are better things to do on a Sunday afternoon than watch losers play!”

    So you assume everyone is like you? Obviously not. Is that bothersome to you, because you are getting mighty upset that we aren’t all enamored with the beach.

  82. recon163 says: Jan 23, 2011 1:43 AM

    @ tdl8

    You must like being made to look stupid because you are now arguing with yourself.

    “Wow! There are so many Rams fans in LA that they could only fill about 80-85% of a 65k seat stadium most of those seasons! That’s a blackout every game!”

    Not so. You obviously don’t understand blackout rules. Not surprising as you don’t seem to be very smart.

    “They had to move from the 100k seat Coliseum to a smaller stadium and still couldn’t sell it out! Let’s say there was about 10 million people in LA in the late 80′s and early 90′s.”

    Hold on here idiot. You said you knew that no one would attend the games. Obviously that is a lie. You were proven wrong, accept it like the boy you are.

    “So if the Packers are filling on average 97% of their stadium, as you stated earlier, in a market that has only about 300k people in the area to draw from . . .”

    You do realize the Packers draw from the entire State of Wisconsin, don’t you? Yeah I didn’t think so, you just aren’t that smart.

    “If the Rams were so popular in LA they wouldn’t have moved! That’s common sense that you obviously don’t have! Read the history of the team! It clearly states they left because of lack of fan interest!”

    Are you reading Wikipedia again and using that as your research? Here read this: http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-15/news/mn-20298_1_rams-owner

    Note the overwhelming notations that this is a business and the generous offer made by St Louis. Read how Georgia notes that Carroll would have gotten a new stadium. And as she stated in the article: “Looking at the St. Louis deal,” Frontiere said, “how could you stay in Anaheim?”

    “The Raiders left for the same reason! Do your homework before posting stupid attendance numbers that prove people had better things to do than watch football!”

    No, you stated that no one attends games. Obviously you are wrong.

    “During that same time period the Lakers were drawing 680-715k fans a year so like I said before, LA is the Lakers city!”

    You mean you just negated your own ‘everyone would rather be at the beach argument’? BTW: Did you notice the Lakers were 12th in attendance in the 1993 and 22 in the 1994 season? They pretty much reflect LA fans fickleness like every other sports team.

    Raiders left for a better stadium deal. Written about, chronicled, and well understood. Sorry you don’t know about it.

    You should read Playing the Field by Euchner and Glory for Sale by Morgan to understand the reasons for stadium moves. No pictures though so it may be hard for you to follow along.

    “The LA beach cities don’t have millions of residence paying higher rent because they hate the beach like you do! Just because you would rather go to a game and hate the beach doesn’t mean everybody is just like you!”

    I never said I hate the beach, I said it wasn’t that big a deal. Obviously you are emotionally attached to it and if anyone says anything against the beach, you get very upset.
    I think it is funny that you say that not everybody is like me, but you insist they are like you. Weird.

    “Been in the LA area my whole life! You want my address too? Grow up and get that stupid idea out of your head!”

    No you are not a native Angeleno. Because if you had you would know well that not ‘everyone’ would prefer to be at the beach as you stated. And you wouldn’t make blanket statements about how all Southern Californians think. Any native Californian knows there are too many different types to state that everyone has the same idea.

  83. anthonyfromstatenisland says: Jan 23, 2011 5:17 AM

    Hope no existing team moves, and the NFL is forced to expand to Los Angeles and one other city (San Antonio being far and away the most plausible candidate for the other new team).

    That way, they have to extend the regular season to 18 games in order to continue the post-2001 arrangement of every team playing every other team at least once every so many years (every three years for non-division teams within the same conference and every four years for teams in different conferences), since it would be logistically impossible to maintain this with 34 teams playing only 16 games. Try it – I have.

  84. tdl8 says: Jan 23, 2011 10:23 AM

    @recon163

    “You are assuming that everybody would rather go to the beach than a football game. In fact you called the other poster the “one football fan in LA.” Clearly you believe that no one attended NFL games.”-
    How freakin stupid do you have to be to think I literally meant there was only 1 football fan in LA? It was meant as a damn joke and you started crying about it! You must have no common sense or sense of humor! Obviously there is more than 1 football fan in LA but the majority of people have better things to do! That has been proven with low attendance and 3 teams leaving town!

    “You just stated you can’t assume for 17 million people thane you assumed that they don’t go to football games. You just wrote that you KNOW that all 17 million people do not want to go to a football game. What an idiot you are.”-
    Again, if you really think I meant 0 people went to football games than you are a clueless literal IDIOT! When I say nobody went to games it was meant as, not enough people went to games to keep the freakin team in town! The attendance numbers speak for themselves and proves LA in general doesn’t care about an NFL team! It doesn’t matter if 0 people went or the stadium was 80% full… Thats obviously not enough people to keep the team from leaving! Again, proven 3 times already!

    “I only assume that 70k people want to go to football games and attendance history proves me right.”-
    Really? Attendance history proves you right? Look at the BS numbers you posted and tell me what year the Rams averaged 70k a game in attendance? 0 times so obviously the numbers don’t prove you right!

    “No you don’t. If you did you wouldn’t be making such stupid comments about Angelenos.” –
    What stupid comments did I make about Angelenos? Saying Angelenos would rather go biking, hiking, jogging, to the beach, to the mountains, to Vegas, shopping, etc. etc. than go to a football game isn’t a stupid statement or an assumption. It has already been proven 3 times with low attendance at games that people prefer to do other things on Sunday afternoons! You are assuming a football team in LA would work out and I’m making the arguement that it has been tried 3 times before and it hasn’t worked yet! Moving a losing team to LA will probably fail for the 4th time! It’s been 16 years since the Rams and Raiders left town and nobody has tried to bring a team back yet. I guess I’m not the only one that thinks it won’t work! All the billionaire owners and the rich business men in LA must be idiots just like me for “assuming” LA fans won’t support an NFL team!

    “So you assume everyone is like you? Obviously not. Is that bothersome to you, because you are getting mighty upset that we aren’t all enamored with the beach”-
    I didn’t assume anything. You keep saying that I did! I know everybody is different! But you do know that’s not exclusive to LA right?

    “Not so. You obviously don’t understand blackout rules. Not surprising as you don’t seem to be very smart.”-
    The blackout rule isn’t hard to understand! I’m sure the NFL would love it if they had 20% of the seats at every stadium empty every week!(Since you take everything literally… I was being sarcastic with that last sentence!) With the current rules they would have nearly 100% of the games blacked out locally with those attendance numbers! No wonder all 3 teams left LA!

    “You do realize the Packers draw from the entire State of Wisconsin, don’t you? Yeah I didn’t think so, you just aren’t that smart.”-
    The whole State? WOW! In 1990 the whole state only had 4.5 million people according to the US Census! Less than half the population of LA at the time and they still sold more tickets than the Rams! In 2009 the whole state still only had 5.5 million and they continue to sell 97% of the tickets! Something LA couldn’t do with more than twice as many people!

    “Note the overwhelming notations that this is a business and the generous offer made by St Louis. Read how Georgia notes that Carroll would have gotten a new stadium. And as she stated in the article: “Looking at the St. Louis deal,” Frontiere said, “how could you stay in Anaheim?””–
    Of course they couldn’t stay in Anaheim! With only 80% of the tickets being sold they were losing millions a year on empty seats! Even if the average ticket price back in the early 90’s was only $50. 14k empty seats would still cost the team over $5.5 million in unsold tickets for 8 home games and that doesn’t include loss of consessions and souvenir sales!

    “You mean you just negated your own ‘everyone would rather be at the beach argument’? BTW: Did you notice the Lakers were 12th in attendance in the 1993 and 22 in the 1994 season? They pretty much reflect LA fans fickleness like every other sports team.”-
    If you paid a attention and read my comment I also said that if all the football games were at night it would probably make a difference in attendance. Lakers games are primarily at night and not on Sunday afternoons so they don’t interfere with all the many daytime activities people enjoy in LA on weekends! Most people who go to the beach etc. go during the day not at night when a Lakers game is being played so I didn’t negate my beach comment at all! BTW: You are comparing the Lakers attendance of 93 and 94 to the Rams attendance of and 80’s! Thats comparing apples to oranges. Try comparing the Lakers attendance of the 80’s to the Rams attendance of the 80’s and see who had better numbers! Fans were devastated when Magic announced he had HIV in late 1991 so that affected attendance for a few years also! If you had any clue about LA sports you would know that!

    “Raiders left for a better stadium deal. Written about, chronicled, and well understood. Sorry you don’t know about it.”-
    Really? A better stadium?! They left LA and went back to the same stadium they played in before they moved to LA! Sounds like a better deal to me!

    “I think it is funny that you say that not everybody is like me, but you insist they are like you. Weird.”-
    I never said anybody was like me. The attendance numbers and 3 failed tries is proof enough that LA isn’t a football city! You are insisting that LA wants a football team so how are you any different than me?

    “No you are not a native Angeleno. Because if you had you would know well that not ‘everyone’ would prefer to be at the beach as you stated. And you wouldn’t make blanket statements about how all Southern Californians think. Any native Californian knows there are too many different types to state that everyone has the same idea.”-
    Again, I naver said ‘everybody’ prefers the beach! I said that was ONE example of something people like to do rather than watch football but you take everything so freakin literal! You must have a dull life if you take everything people say word for word and don’t read into the humor or sarcasim! If you are such a Southern Californian why are you so uptight? SoCal is a laid back place but I guess you didn’t notice that! You are making just as many blanket statements as me anyway! You assume people want a football team even though it’s been proven 3 times that they don’t care that much about it. You also said the beach is no big deal to anybody in LA! I beg to differ! The millions of people that pay higher rent/morgages to live on or near the beach wouldn’t agree with that statement either!

    You also assume that I am not from LA even though I am! My birth certificate, high school diploma, address and phone number all would prove your theory that I’m not from LA wrong! It actually doesn’t even matter if I am from LA or not anyway! The previous history, low attendance and the fact that THREE TEAMS left town for better markets is enough proof that LA doesn’t care about an NFL team very much! Whether you live in LA or halfway around the world it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that everything the NFL has done in LA has failed and there is a really good chance it will fail again if a team is moved to town!

    Would some people go to games if LA got a team? Yes, of course! Would a new stadium help? Of course but only in the short term! Would it work out in the long term? Who knows but it hasn’t worked 3 times in the past! History isn’t on your side of the arguement!

    Plus putting a stadium in Downtown LA next to Staples, Nokia Center and The Convention Center would be a cluster F**K! There is already limited parking down there just for Lakers games and the freeways are backed up enough as it is! Adding another 65-70k(maybe if it sells out) will be a nightmare for the fans trying to get in/out of there and to find parking! All those private lots that charge $30 or $40 bucks to park right now will probably jack the price up to $60-80 if they build an NFL stadium!

  85. recon163 says: Jan 23, 2011 10:43 AM

    @ tdl8

    Here is what you wrote:
    “Why would the Rams be in LA? First off, if you are trying to say teams would never move to a new city if the fans made the franchise then the Rams would be in Cleveland not LA!”

    So let me get this right…….If fans made the franchise then the Rams would be in Cleveland? Ok. You just validated my point that fans don’t make the franchise. They moved from Cleveland regardless of what any fans thought, as I noted earlier. Anybody have a 1946 Cleveland Plain Dealer that discusses the move to LA?

    Thanks for agreeing with me. Weird way to do it though. Which makes me agree with ‘dontouchmyjunk’ when they posted:
    “There are only 5 types of people who go to our beaches:
    1 – Tourists who don’t know any better
    2 – Surfers
    3 – Crack heads and other drug addicts
    4 – The Homeless
    5 – Gangsta’s”

    I am thinking you are a number 2 with a number 3 problem.

  86. recon163 says: Jan 23, 2011 11:20 AM

    @tdl8

    I have a nice long commentary for you latest stupidity but I am heading to the in laws to partake of the playoff games. But I do want to comment on this:

    “Plus putting a stadium in Downtown LA next to Staples, Nokia Center and The Convention Center would be a cluster F**K! There is already limited parking down there just for Lakers games and the freeways are backed up enough as it is! Adding another 65-70k(maybe if it sells out) will be a nightmare for the fans trying to get in/out of there and to find parking!”

    Considering that some 300k people commute to work in Downtown LA during the week in cars, trains, and buses, I don’t think 70k on a Sunday morning is an issue.

    The stadium only needs about 25k parking spots. That is a standard ratio you see at stadiums across the nation. If traffic really bothers you, take the train.

  87. tdl8 says: Jan 23, 2011 11:21 AM

    @recon163

    “So let me get this right…….If fans made the franchise then the Rams would be in Cleveland? Ok. You just validated my point that fans don’t make the franchise. They moved from Cleveland regardless of what any fans thought, as I noted earlier. Anybody have a 1946 Cleveland Plain Dealer that discusses the move to LA?
    Thanks for agreeing with me. Weird way to do it though. Which makes me agree with ‘dontouchmyjunk’ when they posted:”

    I never said the ‘fans made the franchise’ that was some other guy! I agreed with you on that statement! The only thing I didn’t agree on is where the Rams would be right now! Their original city is Cleveland not LA!

    “I am thinking you are a number 2 with a number 3 problem.”
    How could I be a surfer with a drug problem if I live in a cold weather climate like you stated before and not in LA? Now you are contradicting yourself!

  88. fireeyes111 says: Jan 23, 2011 1:28 PM

    There was a person on here who posted by the name Deb and she epitomizes that sentiment. She noted that people from LA are plastic because they work in the entertainment industry.

    And where did she get that? From TV and movies of course
    __________________

    Have you ever actually spent any time with people who work in M&E in LA? :0

  89. deconjonesbitchslap says: Jan 23, 2011 10:24 PM

    i hope it’s the vikings. and i hope it happens before the next season. get out of MN. we don’t want you wasting our time anymore.

  90. deconjonesbitchslap says: Jan 23, 2011 10:27 PM

    also, why not play at the rosebowl or the collesium?

    why waste another billion dollars on another stadium when you already have more than one. californians are stupid.

  91. recon163 says: Jan 30, 2011 4:00 AM

    @ fireeyes111:

    “Have you ever actually spent any time with people who work in M&E in LA? :0″

    I have and they are like any other industry. Name an ill that you perceive in M&E and you will find the same in every other workplace.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!