Skip to content

NFL believes it’s 12-24 months away from a return to L.A.

Press Conference Held To Annouce Name Of NFL Stadium In LA Getty Images

The Bills won’t be moving to Los Angeles.  But someone will.  Fairly soon.

As the 20th anniversary of the NFL’s departure from Los Angeles, the NFL seems closer than ever to returning.  Per a league source, the current plan is that the NFL will send one or two teams back to Los Angeles within the next 12 to 24 months.

The timeline would include a team announcing its intention to move in the 2015 or 2016 offseason, with arrangements to play at the Rose Bowl or the L.A. Coliseum pending the construction of a new stadium.  Possible sites for a venue in L.A. include the AEG project at L.A. Live in downtown, the land purchased recently by Rams owner Stan Kroenke at Hollywood Park, Chavez Ravine, and a couple of locations that have not yet been publicly disclosed.  Ed Roski’s shovel-ready site at City of Industry is not regarded as a viable destination.

Currently, the universe of teams that may relocate consists of three:  the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers.  The Raiders’ current lease expires after the 2014 season.  The Rams can exit without penalty after each season.  The Chargers can leave by paying a relocation fee that shrinks every year.

All three teams previously played in Los Angeles.  The Rams and Raiders left after the 1994 season.  The Chargers played there in 1960, before moving to San Diego the next year.

Permalink 73 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Top Stories
73 Responses to “NFL believes it’s 12-24 months away from a return to L.A.”
  1. orivar says: Oct 5, 2014 5:46 PM

    NFL is 12-24 months from losing half its fanbase if these refs don’t improve.

  2. gregalthoff says: Oct 5, 2014 5:46 PM

    Translation: LA is being used as leverage for new stadium deals in San Diego, Oakland and St Louis.

  3. NFLisnotreality says: Oct 5, 2014 5:49 PM


  4. doctorrustbelt says: Oct 5, 2014 5:49 PM

    Los Angeles will steal the Rams… just like the Belgians did to Anheuser-Busch.

  5. renbutler says: Oct 5, 2014 5:51 PM


    This time they won’t have to deal with TWO mediocre teams in awful stadiums. It will work.

    The only thing that could get in the way is the state of California, which seems to turn everything into crap these days.

  6. taintedsaints2009 says: Oct 5, 2014 5:51 PM



  7. tcmiller30 says: Oct 5, 2014 5:55 PM

    It’s nice that we’ll never see the Bills’ name in these speculative stories again. Thank you Pegula’s!

  8. searchingwithmygoodeyeclosed says: Oct 5, 2014 5:56 PM

    And 48-60 months away from a team in London.

  9. rubicon202 says: Oct 5, 2014 5:56 PM

    No one cares really who moves to LA…

  10. mrjpil says: Oct 5, 2014 5:58 PM

    So next October a team is just gonna move to LA? Should make for good viewing

  11. TheWizard says: Oct 5, 2014 5:58 PM

    Why trot out this garbage in the middle of football Sunday?

    Save this crap for Wednesday morning.

  12. billybone says: Oct 5, 2014 5:58 PM

    I would imagine owners of the NFC and AFC West would welcome the idea considering the Cards, Hawks, Broncos, etc. would all benefit by getting the exposure they would receive by playing against an LA (mass population) based team.

    Besides the dollars and cents it would bring to the owners I would hate to see any fanbase lose their team. With that being said at least the Raiders and/or Rams would be returning to a place where they once presided.

  13. bonnovi says: Oct 5, 2014 5:59 PM

    I feel bad for whatever unfortunate fanbase will lose their team in 12-24 months.

  14. ronniethec says: Oct 5, 2014 6:00 PM

    What is interesting is that according to NFL rules any team relocating must leave the team name, colors and logo behind in the city that they are leaving. So there will not be the rams raiders or chargers in LA.

  15. mackcarrington says: Oct 5, 2014 6:02 PM

    Well, it’s a certainty that the taxpayers of LA won’t be paying for it. Whatever team it is, they’re going to build their own stadium.

  16. upnorthvikesfan says: Oct 5, 2014 6:03 PM

    Rams for sure. Chargers should stop playing nice with San Diego and just leave. Enough with that procrastinating city already. But in reality, the second team will most likely be the Raiders.

  17. bigredtuna says: Oct 5, 2014 6:03 PM

    It is still business as usual for Revenue Roger.

  18. ocdn says: Oct 5, 2014 6:04 PM

    I’ve been hearing this for 20 years out here in Southern California………..

  19. bobnelsonjr says: Oct 5, 2014 6:05 PM

    I’m glad the vikings blew their opportunity.

    The vikings ownership group blew a chance to double the value of the franchise and quadruple the fan base by moving to LA.

    The Rams have a great opportunity to go back and be even better than before.

    The Rams do not belong in an indoor arena.

  20. upperdecker19 says: Oct 5, 2014 6:06 PM

    In L.A., we’re 12-24 months from not even realizing that a team moved here.

  21. patriotsdefense says: Oct 5, 2014 6:06 PM

    Rams to LA. Jaguars to St. Louis. Khan originally bought the Rams afterall until Stan used a clause within his minority owner status.

  22. renbutler says: Oct 5, 2014 6:06 PM

    To bigredtuna:

    Few or no teams have moved under Goodell. OTOH, teams moved every few years under Tagliabue and Rozelle.

  23. numberoneinthehoodg says: Oct 5, 2014 6:08 PM

    Can we stop lying to ourselves? Raiders in LA real soon.

  24. clamdiggers says: Oct 5, 2014 6:13 PM

    Send the queens.. The no better than an expansion franchise anyway.. There fan base is horrible.. Opposing teams fans always create more noise whether its the dome or there new college stadium..

  25. wwwmattcom says: Oct 5, 2014 6:13 PM

    Chargers don’t deserve a new stadium. Their stadium is empty and they are a winning franchise.

    send the Jets to LA.

  26. beavertonsteve says: Oct 5, 2014 6:14 PM

    The message coming out of the St Louis media has certainly changed in tone over the last couple months. It’s sounding more and more like a done deal for a February announcement. There is no money for a new stadium and the voters are dead set against public money being used to construct one. Unless people think that Kroenke will stay out of the goodness of his heart it’s time to face the facts that the team is leaving.

  27. bucsorbust says: Oct 5, 2014 6:15 PM

    Who cares? LA sure doesn’t…which is why they lost the last 27 teams they had.

  28. nfl4days says: Oct 5, 2014 6:18 PM

    LA doesn’t deserve a team.

  29. iowahbr says: Oct 5, 2014 6:25 PM

    don’t wait a day. take the Bears now!

  30. mikeo76 says: Oct 5, 2014 6:30 PM

    No teams has been successful in LA in the modern era, why try again? Large fan base? Great, now convince them to actually go to a game.

  31. billsfan66 says: Oct 5, 2014 6:42 PM

    It won’t be the Bills so who cares…..

    Seriously. Why does the NFL care about LA? They could care less about having a NFL team! Proved over and over.

  32. dejadoh says: Oct 5, 2014 6:45 PM

    The problem with the AEG Farmers field site is that it is really the skid row site. Downtown LA is a sesspool of degraded, decayed asphalt. There is no room for tailgating. It is a crap site for fans. So please rename the team going there, the Portapotties, Dirt or Grime.

    The Coliseum is 40 years too old and really isn’t any better than when the Raiders last played there (it’s a crumbling behemoth) . Sure the Rose Bowl just spent $millions on an upgrade, and the grounds are spectacular, but unless all of the Pasadena city councilmen and mayor want to be removed within a year(and believe me, as a resident, they will be ousted as fast as I can post this), they better say no, Plus the number of events are capped between 12-18 and UCLA plays 6+ games there, it would be tough to see a pro team there more than 2 years.

    And while you may not like the Industry/Walnut location, it would most likely present the best fan experience.

    And while the Rams could move to Hollywood Park (an okay location for a stadium), and Inglewood wants to be viable again, nobody likes the Rams.

    Which owner is going to give up interest in his team just to move it to LA? Davis is old enough to know that while the appeal of LA is nice, the location in Oakland across the bay is a better location. Nobody in LA wants the Chargers (that’s more of an OC thing). Jacksonville could relocate, but the Jaguars? So who else could be coming?

  33. Paul M. says: Oct 5, 2014 6:45 PM

    The L. A. Packers are going to happen.

  34. beavertonsteve says: Oct 5, 2014 6:49 PM

    Well, define “modern-era” since there hasn’t even been a team there in the last 20 years. The Rams and the Raiders both had a lot of success in the 80’s and the Raiders were still winning up until they left. If winning a Superbowl is your only measure of success then there are a lot of NFL markets that haven’t had success recently.

  35. gadgetdawg says: Oct 5, 2014 6:52 PM

    No teams has been successful in LA in the modern era, why try again? Large fan base? Great, now convince them to actually go to a game.

    I bet it fills up when a team like Pittsburgh, Green Bay or Dallas plays the LA Whatevers. That is the only way to fill a stadium in LA. . .

  36. realnflmaster says: Oct 5, 2014 6:54 PM

    Rams & Raiders. It’s obvious.

  37. The Steelers are Marching. 7 rings. SFL 2015. says: Oct 5, 2014 7:04 PM

    orivar says:
    Oct 5, 2014 5:46 PM
    NFL is 12-24 months from losing half its fanbase if these refs don’t improve.

    You have it wrong. The refs are doing a decent job fulfilling their obligations. The rulebook, however, has become a joke.

  38. govtminion says: Oct 5, 2014 7:06 PM

    Kind of surprised that the Jaguars aren’t on the list. I know Shad said he doesn’t want to move the team, but… Not meaning it as a troll but as a serious question here, is he making money on this team? Are people in northern Florida going to these games enough to justify keeping the team there?

  39. the610limited says: Oct 5, 2014 7:13 PM

    So if the NFL is using LA as leverage and only one of these teams gets a new stadium deal in their current city, then what? Is the league going to force someone to go to LA? And if someone is still left after that, what happens to that team? Congratulation, San Antonio, you get a consolation prize???

  40. renbutler says: Oct 5, 2014 7:15 PM

    The Jags aren’t going anywhere. At least, not west…

  41. harrisonhits2 says: Oct 5, 2014 7:27 PM

    Does the NFL really think LA will approve public funding of a stadium ? I think most of the country has seen through these horrible deals now and won’t do so any more.

    The stadiums don’t even pay for themselves with the life cycle they have these days, the jobs they create are mostly minimum wage crap, and the owners not only want the public to pay for them they want a big piece of concessions and everything else that goes on there on top of it.

    Hope we have seen the last publicly funded NFL stadium. No welfare for billionaires let them all pay for their own buildings the way Kraft did.

  42. gregalthoff says: Oct 5, 2014 7:28 PM

    I suppose having a team in LA could empower the NFL to negotiate a larger TV contract.

    However, the amount of money the NFL has fleeced out of local taxpayers via the threat of moving teams to LA vastly outnumbers whatever bump in TV money the league would get from having a team there.

    The minute a team goes to LA, every other team loses its leverage the next time it wants to get a bigger/better stadium.

    Having no teams in LA has been a boon for the league.

  43. madroaddog says: Oct 5, 2014 7:29 PM

    “Per a league source, the current plan is that the NFL will send one or two teams back to Los Angeles within the next 12 to 24 months”

    Ya think the respective owners of those teams might have something to say about being SENT to LA ? Especially with the NFL wanting two teams there. Sounds like more of the heavy handed tactics that Pete Rosell tried on Al Davis. Besides, with a new stadium costing upwards of a billion dollars and the cost of profit sharing the LA twerps will demand makes it just an NFL dream.

  44. mikeo76 says: Oct 5, 2014 7:30 PM

    To beavertonsteve and gadgetdawg: My measure of success has nothing to do with wins and loses, but rather the ability of LA football teams to consistently fill the stadium. The LA fans have proven, time after time, to be indifferent to their NFL teams.

  45. i10east says: Oct 5, 2014 7:32 PM

    The Jags aren’t tagged, but that won’t stop the trolls from mentioning us within their tinfoil plans…

  46. gmen32 says: Oct 5, 2014 7:38 PM

    …and 24 years away from putting a team in that non football market known as Toronto!!!

  47. smokim says: Oct 5, 2014 7:45 PM

    Jags will go no where as Billionaire Khan just spent mega millions on the stadium. Khan doesn’t need the money and he has business connections in Jacksonville. Now the Patriots,,, that’s a different story.

  48. 8oneanddones says: Oct 5, 2014 7:46 PM

    It’s gotta be SD, right? Who in LA would buy a $40,000 PSL for the privilege of buying tickets to watch the Raiders or Rams?

  49. boss81hogg says: Oct 5, 2014 7:55 PM

    Don’t let Dan Snyder (I’ll change the name for a new stadium) see this.

  50. campcouch says: Oct 5, 2014 8:09 PM

    The Jets.

  51. bigdaddy44 says: Oct 5, 2014 8:28 PM

    Great! Send Brady to LA and let the Garoppolo era begin!

  52. norcalseahawkfan says: Oct 5, 2014 8:31 PM

    The nfl will expand by 4 teams. they will put 2 in LA, 1 in London and 1 in Germany. Then when the 2 fail in LA, because no one will go to the games. They will move 1 to Mexico City and the other to China.

    Where is the sarcism button?

    The whole move to LA storie is getting old,20 years old.
    I remember when Ken Bering moved the Seahawks to LA in the middle of the night and the NFL made him move them back.

  53. larams29 says: Oct 5, 2014 8:42 PM

    Los Angeles Rams has a nice sound to it. I’ve been a Rams fan my whole life. LA is where the Rams belong. And change the uniforms back to the throwback colors of Royal Blue and Yellow Gold, the famous Rams colors and best looking uniforms in the NFL. Bring back the memories of great LA Rams players. Eric Dickerson, Vince Feragammo, Jack Youngblood, Fred Dryer, Deacon Jones, Merlin Olson, Lamar Lundy, Rosey Grier, Roman Gabriel, Henry Ellard, Flipper Anderson, Jim Everett, Pat Hayden, Jackie Slater, and Head Coaches Chuck Knox, and John Robinson.

  54. arcross12042004scorp15 says: Oct 5, 2014 8:45 PM

    Why not expand to 36 teams ?
    Add- Toronto, London, LA and San Antonio .

    Owners each get their piece of the $ 1.5 Billion per team expansion fee,( $ 6 Billion to cut up 32 ways) TV revenues go up, No negative press from relocating a team.

    Once again, God Bless Terry & Kim Pegula.

  55. borchertfield says: Oct 5, 2014 9:36 PM

    “ronniethec says:
    Oct 5, 2014 6:00 PM
    What is interesting is that according to NFL rules any team relocating must leave the team name, colors and logo behind in the city that they are leaving. So there will not be the rams raiders or chargers in LA.”

    Where did you get that idea?

  56. davidmcgovern says: Oct 5, 2014 10:02 PM

    Rams are coming home.

  57. davidmcgovern says: Oct 5, 2014 10:08 PM

    norcalseahawkfan – Wow. You really don’t know much about LA sports do you?

    The Los Angeles Rams played here for 50 years, and they still hold some very hefty all-time NFL attendance records.

    Fans only stopped going to games the last couple years because Georgia F made it clear she was moving the Rams out of LA. Hard to support a team that is clearly on its way out (see: STL Rams of the last 5 years)

    Not to mention the Raiders selling out the Coliseum on a consistent basis (God only knows why anyone would support the Raiders, but I digress).

    Oh, and BTW – last night alone in Los Angeles, Dodger Stadium was sold out (56k). Angel Stadium was sold out (45k). Coliseum was sold out (94k). Rose Bowl was sold out (92k).

    All on the same night. So you may want to rethink your misnomers.

  58. dahwood says: Oct 5, 2014 10:11 PM

    Meanwhile everyone is saying the Raiders are one of the teams going back to LA. If you had paid attention, Mark Davis has already started the economic study of NFL in San Antonio and visited twice liking what they saw. If that economic study passes(it will Texas is football crazy) and Oakland fumbles its coliseum city deal you could be hearing the Raiders to SA announcement after the Superbowl. If you look it up someone from ESPN St Louis already spread the word that the Rams are packing up and moving to LA after the bowl. Chargers wouldn’t be a bad second team in though.

  59. mnvikingsfan says: Oct 5, 2014 10:27 PM

    “Per a league source, the current plan is that the NFL will send one or two teams back to Los Angeles within the next 12 to 24 months”

    That just means that LA is 72-84 months from losing 2 franchises (again) due to lack of interest.

  60. garbageman1 says: Oct 6, 2014 12:00 AM

    Mark Davis refused to share a stadium in Santa Clara with the 49ers with their fan base intact, not logical to move to LA where he would still share and likely have to give up a % of ownership? He wants his own stadium so it’s Oakland or SA likely Oakland or somewhere in the Bay Area otherwise he will lose most if the Raider fans!

  61. dejadoh says: Oct 6, 2014 9:00 AM

    The Farmers Field choice is also bad because of security. For about a decade until the Raiders left, the Coliseum and surrounding area had been transformed into war zone. The Raiders left because there was more action in the stands than there was on the field. It was more than just kind of scary. The LAPD could not control the fights which would break out in every section of the stadium. And it wasn’t all that different down in Anaheim. 20 years and my memory is pretty good. What’s the plan for that? Teams have risk management departments. What’s the plan? Is that why Farmers is attractive? No tailgating? That won’t work either.

  62. mogogo1 says: Oct 6, 2014 12:37 PM

    This story just gets cut and pasted every few months. They’ve thought they were just a few months away from returning for the past decade.

  63. roknsoul says: Oct 6, 2014 12:58 PM

    Bring Back The Los Angeles Rams

  64. themalesheep says: Oct 6, 2014 1:03 PM

    The amount of support that St. Louis gives the Rams is astounding when you consider that they have been historically bad the past 15 years. If they move back to LA it won’t be because of a lack of fan support.

  65. dawsonleery says: Oct 6, 2014 2:10 PM

    Its going to be the Raiders and the Rams back in LA sharing a stadium. The Chargers will get a new stadium in SD within the next 5 years. The NFL will be forced to put Raiders in LA because they have no where to play in 2015.

  66. quizguy66 says: Oct 6, 2014 3:12 PM

    I’m confused are the Rams going to L.A. or are they coming home to Cleveland?

  67. drwbrsdmndsnxplntn says: Oct 6, 2014 3:45 PM

    Only 2 of the above replies hold any merit, or merit any further discussion. And those are coming from the 2 people obviously from L.A. discussing the logistics of such an endeavor.

    Yes, downtown L.A. is a dump, but L.A. Live is an island. Skid Row is very close but its on the other side of the 110, I’ve never had issues at L.A. Live, its no more terrifying than going to a Laker or Clipper game. Farmers Field is on the site of the convention center so one would assume that would become part of the tailgate festivities.

    The Colliseum is a rotting giant but, what isn’t in Los Angeles? It will work for a couple seasons. Frankly, the areas around L.A. Live are long overdue for some serious gentrification, and nothing says gentrification like billions of dollars of investment, and in order to protect that investment property taxes on properties surrounding it must be raised, thus shewing the riff raff elsewhere whilst big business reclaims its rightful place on the infrastructure it created in the first place.

    Raiders and or Rams to LA, move the Chargers to Anaheim. Who doesn’t love the Kings/Ducks rivalry dynamic in the NHL?! LA/Ventura/Riverside/San Bernadino counties for Rams/Raiders, and Orange/San Diego counties for Chargers.

    Makes too much sense.

  68. ybenner says: Oct 6, 2014 4:17 PM

    Downtown Los Angeles is quickly gentrifying. The people calling it a cesspool clearly haven’t been in DTLA lately.

    With that said, I think the Hollywood Park option is the best in terms of room and parking, it will be more attractive when the Crenshaw metro line is up and running.

  69. cptcavalier says: Oct 6, 2014 7:21 PM

    I have the perfect solution! Let Dan Snyder move the Redskins to LA so Washington DC can get a new team with a new owner that cares more about winning then making money! Three playoff teams since 1992!

  70. gerwinke1985 says: Oct 6, 2014 11:06 PM

    and 60 to 72 months away from losing it….again

  71. drunkwino says: Oct 7, 2014 5:40 AM

    Been hearing this since the NFL wanted to get a brand new franchise in L.A. but the lack of support and the lack of people in L.A. to give a billion dollar football team welfare gave us the Houston Texans. Stick to your guns L.A. Maybe the era of holding teams hostage until taxpayers give hundreds of millions in welfare to billionaires who turn around and gouge the life out of people are crazy enough to go to a game.

  72. flipt143 says: Oct 7, 2014 6:27 PM

    You’re kidding yourself if you think the stands won’t be full. It’s been 20 years— we’re ready for some football!

  73. socaldave2011 says: Oct 10, 2014 4:13 AM

    Can you imagine the traffic! It may be full for a couple of seasons, then half empty because there is a million and one things to do in L.A. Nice weather fans….

Leave a Reply

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