Skip to content

Rams are regarded as the favorites to move to L.A.

Cunningham AP

Two weeks ago, we sparked a flurry of reports and quotes and boasts and ultimately concerns regarding the return of the NFL to Los Angeles, reporting that the league believes one or two teams will move there within the next 12-24 months.

Of the three teams viewed as the most likely to move — the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers — the team viewed by the NFL as most likely to make the move is the Rams.

If it’s the Rams, the most likely location for a new stadium becomes the land owner Stan Kroenke purchased last year at Hollywood Park.  AEG’s proposed downtown stadium is believed to hinge on owner Philip Anschutz purchasing a significant piece of the anchor tenant.

The Rams currently have a year-to-year arrangement at the Edward Jones Dome.  They can leave without financial consequence after the coming season, and every season thereafter.

The powers-that-be in St. Louis reportedly are working on a proposal of a new open-air stadium in St. Louis.  It could be a legitimate effort to keep the team.  Or it could be an effort to diffuse criticism that the local politicians didn’t try hard enough to keep him.

But what about San Diego’s threat to oppose the relocation of any team to the L.A. market?  Per a league source, those concerns likely would be resolved, possibly with the Chargers getting a larger slice of the relocation fee than other teams receive.

Permalink 109 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Top Stories
109 Responses to “Rams are regarded as the favorites to move to L.A.”
  1. ctiggs says: Oct 20, 2014 9:53 AM

    Lol once again congrats Lambs on your victory over the PEdhawks, LA is lovely i miss living there. #GoNiners #Nobodyhasitbetter #NFLwantspeytontogetNUMBEr2

  2. tajuara says: Oct 20, 2014 9:57 AM

    Why leave St. Louis without a footbal team? Move the Raiders or the Chargers instead

  3. metalhead65 says: Oct 20, 2014 9:59 AM

    I think it will be hilarious in 10 years when whatever team does moves there and after spend a billion or 2 on a stadium threatens to leave because the newness has worn off and with the team losing people stop showing up and they start losing money. nobody but greedy owners and this site cares about football in that town. they had 2 teams and did not support either one and do not deserve another one. nobody cares about why they left only that you had 2 teams and did not support them.

  4. 6ball says: Oct 20, 2014 10:01 AM

    St Louis Rams : Dead Franchise Playing
    .

  5. d1l2g3 says: Oct 20, 2014 10:02 AM

    No need for a team in L.A.

  6. RegisHawk says: Oct 20, 2014 10:02 AM

    LOL, whiner fans needing another team to do what they can’t.

  7. steammkr says: Oct 20, 2014 10:02 AM

    Good let them leave
    Kronk can build his own stadium

  8. araidersfan says: Oct 20, 2014 10:03 AM

    Makes sense since the Rams spent 49 years in Los Angeles before the relocation to St. Louis.

    I’d prefer the Raiders to stay in Oakland but anywhere other than L.A. is better for them.

  9. sdnative1904 says: Oct 20, 2014 10:03 AM

    Speculation Rankings. Week 542

  10. haybeav says: Oct 20, 2014 10:03 AM

    Is Kronke willing to give up ownership % to AEG in order to move the team to LA? Is that a requirement AEG is making? Honestly asking.

  11. ketch20too says: Oct 20, 2014 10:07 AM

    Don’t understand the infatuation with LA except the huge population. If a team moves there the stadium will sell out the first year or two, then attendance will start dwindling until the fourth team that LA didn’t adequately support leaves the market again. They have had 3 shots at supporting NFL teams and three times they have had teams move out of the market. No need to make it four.

  12. nyyjetsknicks says: Oct 20, 2014 10:07 AM

    I love the standard NFL saying “give me hundreds of millions of dollars or I’m taking my ball elsewhere”.

  13. bender4700 says: Oct 20, 2014 10:08 AM

    LA Raiders is the most natural choice.

  14. trollhammer20 says: Oct 20, 2014 10:11 AM

    How convenient that this announcement comes after one of the biggest wins for the franchise in years, right as talk of a new stadium in St. Louis begins to pick up steam…

  15. Getoffmylawn! says: Oct 20, 2014 10:12 AM

    So it’s settled then? Good, that didn’t take long.

  16. cafetero1075 says: Oct 20, 2014 10:14 AM

    NFL doesn’t want a team in LA. They lose all the leverage when they do. They use LA for the cities to pay for the stadiums. NFL owners make billions but they don’t want to spend any of it.

  17. jjackwagon says: Oct 20, 2014 10:17 AM

    St Lous…LA…it doesn’t matter neither one is a Football town. The Rams need to move to a city that would actually support the team. Plenty of places that would be die-hard fans instead of Bandwagoners, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Albequerque, Des Moines, Little Rock, Richmond, Portland.

  18. roknsoul says: Oct 20, 2014 10:17 AM

    BRING BACK THE LOS ANGELES RAMS

  19. jagsfanugh says: Oct 20, 2014 10:21 AM

    Why not just make another expansion team there.

  20. saintskin33 says: Oct 20, 2014 10:23 AM

    LA is not a football town.

  21. mnvikingsfan says: Oct 20, 2014 10:27 AM

    WAIT A TIC……..

    All teams get a slice of a relocation fee? As if greedy owners need even more money……sheesh!

    But this does somewhat explain the NFL/Owners infatuation of moving a team to London. The relocation fees would likely be in the billions!!!

  22. atthemurph says: Oct 20, 2014 10:28 AM

    Move the Browns to LA and the Rams back to Cleveland.

  23. gregmoval says: Oct 20, 2014 10:28 AM

    Just say bye St.Louis, just say bye. It’s done. 2015 the Rams will be in Los Angeles, back where they belong……B.B.T.L.A.R (bring back the Los Angeles Rams)

  24. El Pollo Loco says: Oct 20, 2014 10:28 AM

    The only time this year the Rams will the favorite for anything

  25. greengoldandbold says: Oct 20, 2014 10:29 AM

    The Rams moving back to L.A. makes all the sense in the world.

    1st, they get the new stadium with all the amenities to accumulate the extra cash necessary to compete for players.

    2nd, this team is in the NFC West division.

    3rd, St Louis is a baseball town 1st. Getting them to support the Rams can be challenging during BB season which is 1/2 of the football season.

  26. DaveKShape says: Oct 20, 2014 10:29 AM

    I just don’t understand the big rush to get a team back there. Honestly, I know it all boils down to the initial big money on the table, I realize. But then, you’ve got an L.A. team with a bunch of fairweather/disinterested fans, and you’re going to be scratching your head as to where the money is going to come from.

    “But Dave, we’ll just move the team again in 10 years and start the process all over again! $$$!” – NFL

  27. leroyquimby says: Oct 20, 2014 10:31 AM

    Then you could just move the Cardinals back to St Louis!

  28. dcapettini says: Oct 20, 2014 10:38 AM

    LA is not a football town: Tell that to UCLA and USC. They draw despite there being other college teams in the area, who also draw. No team in their right mind would agree to play in the Colosseum. It was an Olympic stadium and circular. The seats at midfield are so far away from the action you need binoculars. The Raiders tried it and it did not work 25 years ago and now it is 25 years older. Actually, the Chargers should move back to LA. They can’t fill their aging stadium in San Diego and they could keep their diehard fans in their new location.

    Somebody should move to San Antonio though. A million and half population and over 2 million in the metro. It is the same size as Baltimore, Kansas City, and Denver. Bigger than Charlotte, Tampa, and Jacksonville.

  29. mogogo1 says: Oct 20, 2014 10:40 AM

    I’d think an expansion team that wasn’t seen as somebody else’s hand-me-downs would have the best chance of latching on with the LA fan base. And sending back a franchise that has already bailed on them once before is particularly dicey.

  30. jwh8541 says: Oct 20, 2014 10:40 AM

    these stories make no sense. ok the franchise value could maybe double to 2 bil but owner has to pay relo and there will be some stadium cost.

    whatever i’m done worrying about it.

  31. Pittsburgh Steelers (@Steelers) says: Oct 20, 2014 10:42 AM

    Watch tonight’s game. Steeler Nation shuts up the haters again.

  32. patriotsdefense says: Oct 20, 2014 10:43 AM

    I’ve been saying it for years: Rams will move back to LA and STL will secure funds for new stadium and eventually lure the Jaguars to move north.

    AFC South: IND, TEN, HOU, STL
    NFC West: SEA, SF, ARI, LA

  33. frenchysgoldfish says: Oct 20, 2014 10:47 AM

    Tell Stan K. not to go swimming in the Pacific, or he may end up like Carroll Rosenbloom. Like a bad movie, the wife and boyfriend will end up with the team.

  34. sparty0n says: Oct 20, 2014 10:48 AM

    The Rams belong in LA.

    But, the Cardinals belong in St Louis too!

  35. censoredagain says: Oct 20, 2014 10:48 AM

    What is with the obsession with having an NFL team in LA? The people who are so insistent on getting this done have obviously never heard the following: “Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat”

    Los Angeles had football teams and did not support them, so yeah…..lets give them another one! If they want another baseball team, since they’re such supportive fans, lets give them the TB Rays as well. The irony would be murderous.

  36. limitfive says: Oct 20, 2014 10:49 AM

    Sure is nice not to have the BUFFALO Bills included in that conversation.🙂

  37. scottousse says: Oct 20, 2014 10:50 AM

    NFL should just expand 2 more teams. Yes, Oakland and St.Louis do suffer from poorer attendance than the rest of the league, but they are still in the mid-80’s percentage wise. NFL is big business – could put a team in LA, put another in San Antonio and make even more money. Hell they could add 4, put one in Portland or Omaha(big college football followings), Vegas, Columbus…..lots of good options. Some say it would water down the league, I say it’d make it even more even……plus they’d be creating more jobs.

  38. jimmysee says: Oct 20, 2014 10:50 AM

    Move the Cardinals back to Chicago.

    After all, Chicago deserves an NFL team.

  39. tvguy22 says: Oct 20, 2014 10:53 AM

    If they go back, they should also go back to their old uniforms. Much better than those newer, crappier ones.

  40. powayslugger says: Oct 20, 2014 10:54 AM

    It’s not even funny how LA and San Diego aren’t really good at supporting their football teams. Too many things to do besides sit in the sun at a freaking hotter than hell stadium and bake for three hours and then fight for two hours to get out of the stadium parking lot and home?

    Hmmmm. Seeing as how I just did that (KC@SD) I can understand why it’s such a pain. Toss in a losing team and it’s— stay away city.

  41. trytobnimble says: Oct 20, 2014 10:58 AM

    “NFL should just expand 2 more teams. ”

    NO NO NO NO NO. There aren’t enough starting quarterbacks to serve 32 teams let alone 34. If anything the NFL should contract and lose two teams. NFL quarterback play is abysmal. There’s only about 15 really good ones. And if you don’t have a good quarterback, your team is never going to win.

  42. deljzc says: Oct 20, 2014 11:00 AM

    I said a couple years ago, you can make a dual-stadium in LA and move the Rams and either Oakland or SD (both AFC teams) to fix their stadium issues.

    In a couple more years, the Jaguars will move to St. Louis into a new stadium.

    That fixes a LOT of stadium issues with not that drastic an effect on the league or markets.

  43. travishenryskid says: Oct 20, 2014 11:07 AM

    Thank you Pegula. So glad the Bills aren’t in these conversations anymore.

    If the NFL does move two teams to LA, how are they going to leverage the next team into doing what they want? The NFL loves using fear as a tactic to get politicians to do what they want. It’s essentially extortion of state tax dollars. A sickening practice. Greed rules the NFL.

  44. erod22 says: Oct 20, 2014 11:14 AM

    I hope so. I grew up with the Los Angeles Rams. It sounds right.

    And the Cardinals should still be in St. Louis, too.

  45. maverick2560 says: Oct 20, 2014 11:16 AM

    It’s a done deal. The player are aware of the move. They were told
    not to buy houses . It’s over in St. Louis

  46. jeffsnow7 says: Oct 20, 2014 11:18 AM

    makes sense geographically… they are in the NFC West correct? take em back to their roots

  47. musician0785 says: Oct 20, 2014 11:21 AM

    All these morons spouting this LA didn’t support the teams crap, apparently need a history lesson. LA supported those teams for 25+ years. I guess u idiots forget that both owners (al Davis and Georgia frontiere) were certifiably insane nd tried to gouge the la taxpayers……but I guess facts get in the way of the LA hate, don’t b jealous that it was 80 degrees in October at the beach

  48. PFT's Most Deleted Commenter says: Oct 20, 2014 11:28 AM

    The Rams and Raiders were beloved in SoCal and with the Chargers it was a wonderful time to be an NFL fan.

    Al Davis grew increasingly nuts and his back and forth between LA and Oakland was a mess. But the Raiders belong in Oakland.

    And Frontiere was terrible and was looking only for more money. The move crushed fans in LA.

    Bring the Rams back home where they belong.

  49. 87hollywoodhorn says: Oct 20, 2014 11:29 AM

    Why not add a few more teams? 32 is such a perfect number for scheduling and playoffs standings, but come on! So many states dont have teams!
    The plethora of big teams in college football fosters a provencal rivalry that is found in very few NFL games.

  50. exjock says: Oct 20, 2014 11:33 AM

    What will happen to LA’s current professional football team? USC.

  51. briang123 says: Oct 20, 2014 11:38 AM

    I still call them “Los Angeles” so if they move back it won’t be an issue with me.

  52. cmb79 says: Oct 20, 2014 11:46 AM

    Still makes more sense than all of this London relocation stuff does.

  53. cacheesehead1237 says: Oct 20, 2014 11:50 AM

    No team is going to move to LA until every team has extorted their municipality into contributing $$$ for a new stadium. The NFL has been using LA as the hammer to force cities/counties/states into ponying up big money for a new stadiums.

  54. gadgetking2010 says: Oct 20, 2014 11:52 AM

    a mediocre NFL team cannot compete with UCLA and USC for football fans

  55. bayousooner90 says: Oct 20, 2014 12:02 PM

    Why does the NFL want to go to LA so badly? They haven’t had a team in over 20 years, and nobody seems to miss it. Whoever ends up there will be in London 5year after they arrive in LA

  56. nflfan1326 says: Oct 20, 2014 12:04 PM

    Did a previous poster just say to move a team from St Louis to Des Moines? Seriously?

  57. granadafan says: Oct 20, 2014 12:07 PM

    As an LA resident, I say ugh. Give us a brand new team to cheer for. I’d hate to support ANOTHER greedy NFL owner ripping a team out of another community.

    To those ignorants who claim LA doesn’t support football, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Politics and greed (NFL owners) are keeping football out of here.

  58. getakluwe says: Oct 20, 2014 12:12 PM

    With any luck, they’ll leave Fisher in St. Louis. Despite yesterday’s very lucky win, Fisher is a mediocre coach at best with only 3 division titles in 20 years and a losing playoff record.

  59. claymatthewshairplugs says: Oct 20, 2014 12:24 PM

    I love all these people who knock LA for teams leaving. Cleveland, St. Louis, Indianapolis all had teams leave the city and get teams back what’s wrong with LA getting a team?

  60. camdenyard says: Oct 20, 2014 12:28 PM

    LA hasn’t had a team in how many years, yet now “1 or 2” are slated to move there? What about the fans in St. Lous that have already gotten the shaft one? Don’t they matter?

  61. raiderlyfe510 says: Oct 20, 2014 12:28 PM

    It’s the best choice. The LA vs San Francisco rivalry is good for the NFL.

  62. galizische says: Oct 20, 2014 12:28 PM

    Yes, your #2 TV market, billion dollar stadium, and established fan base await you. Just ditch the yellow/blue disco outfits and go back to the navy blue/white uniforms. GO RAMS!!

  63. Dan says: Oct 20, 2014 12:33 PM

    St. Louis is likely going to put together a good package to keep the Rams. Many are overlooking that the city has a 1% income tax and losing an NFL team would greatly reduce the the city’s tax revenue. Kroenke has played his cards perfectly and has the leverage to turn the deal in his favor. But the most likely scenario at this point is the Rams stay in the city that Kroenke helped move them to.

  64. hardrockfootballfanatic says: Oct 20, 2014 12:34 PM

    I loathe when Billionaire owners hold cities hostage for a new stadium. You own the team, you make the profit for the team, you pay for the stadium. That being said, I do have to say the Edward Jones Dome is a horrible NFL venue. There is no atmosphere and it doesn’t have the feel of an NFL venue at all. The open air stadium along the Riverfront is enticing just let the owner pay for it.

  65. jaccfrost says: Oct 20, 2014 12:38 PM

    Homeward Bound!!! I’d welcome The Los Angeles Rams with open arms!! Remember the last time My Rams changed cities, they won their only SuperBowl!!

  66. stableinnh says: Oct 20, 2014 12:38 PM

    If the Rams come back to LA, can we also bring back Deacon Jones, and Merlin Olsen?

    What about Roman Gabriel?

    ….where did I leave that box with all the old football cards….

  67. bobnelsonjr says: Oct 20, 2014 12:38 PM

    1) St Louis attracted the Cardinals from Chicago and Rams from Los Angeles. They will be able to attract another team.

    2) The problem with a Los Angeles deal is that there is no taxpayer dollars involved, unless like the vikings they violate the law and not allow the voters to have a voice.

    3) The great thing about the deal is that the government involvement is minimal. In LA every imaginable political group and corrupt official will want a a cut of the action or payoff. Just watch what hoop they have to jump through just to get water to the new stadium.

    4) The Los Angeles downtown idea is a bad one. They will not have parking revenue and will not be able to expand around the stadium unless it is very expensively. Moving to a revenue limiting site means another move in 25 years or less.

    5) The Rams have no connections with anyone. They moved from Cleveland to Los Angeles to St Louis and they will move again.

  68. abninf says: Oct 20, 2014 12:39 PM

    The majority of the LA population watches soccer.

  69. shackdelrio says: Oct 20, 2014 12:42 PM

    The Jaguars aren’t moving to St Louis.

    Dream on guys.

  70. stopthemadness101 says: Oct 20, 2014 12:50 PM

    LA blew their chances. They don’t deserve an NFL team. So sick of this…

  71. rosloe62 says: Oct 20, 2014 1:04 PM

    If St. Louis is a baseball town is the reason for moving them back, then LA is Laker town, so why move them there.
    1. Lakers
    2. Dodgers
    3. Kings
    4. Clippers
    5. Angels
    6. NFL

  72. galizische says: Oct 20, 2014 1:05 PM

    LA would welcome the Rams back, but no other team. Keep in mind the lunatic owners when they had two teams. One a Missouri gold-digger and the other a delusional AFL renegade. That’s why LA doesn’t have an NFL team.

  73. JSpicoli says: Oct 20, 2014 1:09 PM

    Imagine that. Despite all the rooting for it to be the Raiders.

  74. keepyerstickontheice says: Oct 20, 2014 1:11 PM

    I wouldn’t panic too much about anything you read here.

    Remember, it was absolutely set in stone that the Bills were moving. Period. End of sentence. The only debate to be had was “LA or Toronto?”

    The good news is that this “story” will continue to generate click-bait headlines for the next 12-24 months.

  75. babygaga19 says: Oct 20, 2014 1:15 PM

    Raiders have dropped out of consideration for LA. They are currently being quarantined in Oakland for Ebola outbreak and other forms of radioactivity. True story.

  76. mackcarrington says: Oct 20, 2014 1:24 PM

    People who don’t live in or around Los Angeles aren’t qualified to comment on the situation. No, the taxpayers aren’t going to foot the bill for a new stadium. If that means “no support” then so be it. But didn’t Oakland, Houston, Cleveland, Baltimore and St. Louis lose teams because of “no support”. Then they bent over backwards reaching for their wallets to provide welfare for the billionaire owners. LA is the only city who drew the line at public money for a new stadium.
    AEG will privately finance a stadium but they will want a piece of whatever team plays there. Otherwise it makes no financial sense to just build a stadium and lease it out. So if any team wants to move to LA it will build it’s own stadium or sell a piece to to someone who will.

  77. cafetero1075 says: Oct 20, 2014 1:27 PM

    I don’t think we have to worry about a team in London. That no profit organization will not fly in London.
    Also in the UK they will probably pay 55% income to the government.
    It’s all BS. NFL owners are to greedy to give up anything.

  78. mnvikingsfan says: Oct 20, 2014 1:39 PM

    dcapettini says:
    Oct 20, 2014 10:38 AM

    LA is not a football town: Tell that to UCLA and USC.
    ============================

    When the average cost for a family of four to attend a college game exceeds $500-750, you have a valid argument. Until then, your argument seems pretty foolish!

  79. Dogsweat says: Oct 20, 2014 1:47 PM

    1. Rams 2. Raiders 2015

    The Jaguars will replace the Rams in St. Louis.

    No harm, no foul.

  80. casualmalexlfan says: Oct 20, 2014 1:58 PM

    I think it would be really funny if Vladimir Putin somehow convinced Mikhail Zaltsman to relocate his team, the Moscow Black Storm, to L.A. just because of how upset it would make Robert Kraft.

  81. i10east says: Oct 20, 2014 2:00 PM

    The people that are saying the Jags are moving to St Louis are idiots.

  82. The one, the only, Terrence M Pegula says: Oct 20, 2014 2:04 PM

    So many miserable people on here just hoping to break a city’s heart. Why? Everyone on here saying “SEE YA LATER RAMS!” are the same people who last month were saying “BILLS ARE GONE, BYE BUFFALO!” Hopefully Oakland, St. Louis, and San Diego have a similar outcome to Buffalo and work out a way to keep their teams.

  83. thebraso says: Oct 20, 2014 2:07 PM

    LA does not want or need a team. This is a basketball town, the NFL has no chance of being supported.

  84. tipstopten says: Oct 20, 2014 2:08 PM

    The Chargers should get nothing if the Ram move to LA, the ram are LA, the Chargers give up on LA
    in 1961 and moved the SD let them stay and suffer at the gate. Raiders belong in Oakland where they
    started in 1960, they only used LA as a ploy to get
    a better stadium in Oakland and it really did not
    work out for Al. LA does not want the Chargers a not so good team and LA will not support them, the
    Ram have a good coach and a good owner that wants a winner. LA better hope it gets the Rams, the owner of the Chargers is just about money, case in point he wants to stop teams from coming to LA, because he thinks LA is his market. I’m a Bronco fan and would like to see the Rams in the market where I live.

  85. rolltide43 says: Oct 20, 2014 2:08 PM

    I’m honestly not familiar with California that much, I know bigfoot was spotted in 1967 near where some ken folk live but wasn’t there a new venue of some kind being built near LA? Farmers insurance stadium or something like that? In Texas back in the 90s, the Alamo dome was built and is a basically a convention hall when some high school team isn’t using it, that didn’t attract an NFL club to relocate there either.

  86. boomboombrown says: Oct 20, 2014 2:10 PM

    Move the Packers! Make them get on even ground with the rest of the taems in the league and quit showing favoritism towards them.

  87. abqpacker says: Oct 20, 2014 2:14 PM

    Sorry – but I just don’t think “Los Angeles Rams” has any sort of ring to it (sarcasm for us old enough)

  88. coachglove says: Oct 20, 2014 2:16 PM

    “mackcarrington says:
    Oct 20, 2014 1:24 PM
    People who don’t live in or around Los Angeles aren’t qualified to comment on the situation. No, the taxpayers aren’t going to foot the bill for a new stadium. If that means “no support” then so be it. But didn’t Oakland, Houston, Cleveland, Baltimore and St. Louis lose teams because of “no support”. Then they bent over backwards reaching for their wallets to provide welfare for the billionaire owners. LA is the only city who drew the line at public money for a new stadium.
    AEG will privately finance a stadium but they will want a piece of whatever team plays there. Otherwise it makes no financial sense to just build a stadium and lease it out. So if any team wants to move to LA it will build it’s own stadium or sell a piece to to someone who will.”

    The Raiders didn’t leave Oakland due to lack of fan support. LA politicos convinced Al that moving to LA would mean a big payoff for his team and it did. He started exploring leaving LA when they failed to come through on their promised renovation of the Coliseum to include more luxury boxes and because back then you couldn’t tarp off part of the seating to reduce capacity and they were having trouble selling out a 96,000+ stadium every week. That doesn’t mean there isn’t support for an NFL team, but no team currently draws 96,000 home fans every week, so the site is workable on a temp basis if they allow capacity to be reduced to 70-ishK for NFL games. You aren’t going to get many Denver fans going into the hood to watch a Raiders/Broncos game, so you better have enough fans of the Raiders (or whatever team is there) to fill it…and no one can pull that now.

  89. ramminit29 says: Oct 20, 2014 2:23 PM

    Youtube “rams rammit”. That should tell you why they shouldn’t move back to LA!

  90. i10east says: Oct 20, 2014 2:26 PM

    Shad Khan NEVER had any connections with St Louis. He went to the University of Illinois. He was interested in owning a NFL team, and pursued the Rams to no avail; If anything that is the opposite of a ‘connection’ and more like Khan was dissed.

    Instead Khan has anchored to Jaguars in Jax, and that STL ship has long sailed. STL’s screw up (along with the 93 expansion) was Jacksonville’s gain. The emotional Jacksonville haters are thinking with the hate within their hearts instead of using actual logic. Keep on hating, LOL

  91. luther6 says: Oct 20, 2014 2:29 PM

    Jerry Jones is likely the one pushing for this. He’s such a loathsome human being. He tried to pressure the Bills to move to Toronto. How much more money does he need?

    I hope no teams are forced to relocate for greed — greed and stupidity.

  92. vetdana says: Oct 20, 2014 2:34 PM

    Regardless of comments by those ” who live there”, and I did for many years,the fact remains that the basic demographics of the LA area, has not changed for many, years.Because we can always expect history to repeat itself, given the same inputs, we can predict the support, or lack thereof, of the local fan base.After the newness of a Stadium wears down, you would see another mass exit of Team support.This is a great opportunity for an investor who is bloated with disposable income, and needs a mega tax deductible expense loss to offset capital gains, to act !..because this is exactly what he would get in a few years time. [ A Mega Loss Deduction !!]

  93. icebowler says: Oct 20, 2014 2:35 PM

    Rams to LA, Raiders to Portland (always trying to keep up with Seattle), and the Chargers move a few miles south to Tijuana (which would give Goodell his “international” flavor).

  94. johnnyace562 says: Oct 20, 2014 3:24 PM

    There are NO Rams fans in LA. NONE.

    The Rams were in LA longer and did NOT win a Super Bowl. The Raiders DID.

    Everyone here is Raider fans. They belong here instead. It makes the most financial sense. If it’s the Rams, they’ll only leave again in a few years.

    {{-_-}}

  95. thatstinks says: Oct 20, 2014 3:32 PM

    An AFC team will go there as well just so the NFL can raise the price of the AFC TV contract. If the black out rule is done it makes sense even if the stadium is only half full .

  96. shortmandan says: Oct 20, 2014 3:42 PM

    No town is a football town if the team doesn’t win. Even Green Bay. I remember seeing the Packers play in front of half empty stadiums in the 70′ & 80’s because they were losers.

  97. shortmandan says: Oct 20, 2014 3:45 PM

    The Raiders should be disbanded or sold and moved to San Antonio or someplace that’s not wasteland like Oakland.

  98. crommy5 says: Oct 20, 2014 4:11 PM

    Things have changed since 1994, especially NFL TV revenue. The LA Rams will be WAY more widely followed and watched compared to a regional St Louis team. It’s simply the most profitable move Kroenke can make for his team. With that, any talk of LA not being able to support an NFL team is short-sighted.

  99. NoHomeTeam says: Oct 20, 2014 6:22 PM

    tajuara says:

    Why leave St. Louis without a footbal team? Move the Raiders or the Chargers instead

    Why leave Oakland without a “footbal” team? Or San Diego?

    Somebody is going to lose a team if we’re going to get one.

  100. The one, the only, Terrence M Pegula says: Oct 20, 2014 7:18 PM

    Things have changed since 1994, especially NFL TV revenue. The LA Rams will be WAY more widely followed and watched compared to a regional St Louis team. It’s simply the most profitable move Kroenke can make for his team. With that, any talk of LA not being able to support an NFL team is short-sighted.

    —————-

    Its completely the opposite of that. The NFL TV revenue in 2014 is exactly why the small market teams can thrive. Being in a big market just doesn’t matter as much any more.

  101. eads101 says: Oct 21, 2014 1:28 AM

    Dome stadiums are horrible so whether STL builds an outdoor stadium and the Rams stay or STL eventually gets a new team with a new outdoor stadium really makes no difference to me. They never should have built a dome in the first place.

  102. bresilhac says: Oct 21, 2014 5:40 AM

    This is yet another reason to believe that the Raiders are relocating to San Antonio. With the primary competition out of the way having gotten their Rams back there is nothing to prevent the big move to Texas for the Raiders franchise. San Antonio is ready, willing and able to have its own NFL franchise finally. And with the city heavily involved in ongoing negotiations with the powers that be of the Raiders it’s only a matter of time now.

  103. kombayn says: Oct 21, 2014 8:55 AM

    The Raiders make the most sense for relocation, but if San Antonio has the better deal it wouldn’t shock me if they go there.

  104. brianjoates says: Oct 21, 2014 9:19 AM

    Why does St. Louis keep losing their football team? Seems like a very blue collar city much like some of the smaller market east coast cities with teams.

    And if the Rams do move to LA this off season , the Brady to Rams talk will go into overdrive. The league will want Tom and Giselle to be the face for a couple seasons in. LA, much like Beckham and his wife were for LA MLS.

  105. BIG RED says: Oct 21, 2014 2:08 PM

    “As one executive with a team other than the Jaguars told PFT on Wednesday morning, “People that I trust think there is a chance [Rams owner] Stan Kroenke moves the Rams to L.A. and [Shahid] Khan moves to St. Louis.”

  106. bencoates57 says: Oct 22, 2014 10:09 AM

    Football? In LA? Everyone there is too busy mailing screenplays and auditioning for Glad Zip Loc commercials. This is not a sports town.

  107. 21nraider says: Oct 22, 2014 10:36 AM

    Oakland never lost a team because of no support…they had 16 straight years of sellouts in oakland before Al Davis ripped them away. By the way, the raiders are 0-5 and have sold out all of their home games this year! Never would happen in l.a

  108. seabrawk12 says: Oct 24, 2014 10:21 PM

    Forget LA they had their chance. California does not need 4 teams.

  109. rodvmunchiii says: Oct 25, 2014 5:25 PM

    Somebody should move to San Antonio though. A million and half population and over 2 million in the metro. It is the same size as Baltimore, Kansas City, and Denver. Bigger than Charlotte, Tampa, and Jacksonville.

    ———–

    San Antonio metro population is 2.1mil, Tampa is 2.9mil.

    Other than Jacksonville, I don’t think you got a single point there correct.

Leave a Reply

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