L.A. dance continues for Rams, Raiders, Chargers

AP

Sunday’s game between the Raiders and Chargers launched a three-week round-robin of franchises that may move to L.A.  This week, it’s Rams-Chargers; next week, it’s Raiders-Rams.

Off the field, this trio of teams are widely believed to be jockeying for position in the market that has transformed in recent weeks from luxury to necessity.

Los Angeles is a great option,” Raiders owner Mark Davis said Sunday, via U-T San Diego.  “We loved it when we were down here.”

But if the Raiders want to return to L.A., they may have to fend off their AFC West rivals, who have been trying for more than a decade to build a new stadium in the city just down the road from the place where the Chargers spent their first AFL season — with a young Al Davis as an employee of the club.

“We’re looking into all our possibilities, all our options,” owner Dean Spanos said, via U-T San Diego.

Brent Schrotenboer of USA Today recently looked at the game of musical chairs being played out between the Raiders, Chargers, and Rams.  In the end, one may be stuck in its current market.

I’d like to see two franchises in L.A.,” Patriots owner Robert Kraft told USA Today.  “I think within the next year or two we can see something real with L.A.  At least one team.”

That’s a sentiment that has been gaining momentum throughout the last several weeks, starting with a report that the NFL currently envisions one or two teams moving to L.A. within the next one or two years.  In St. Louis, the sentiment has gotten so strong that native son Joe Buck of FOX had some not-so-sentimental things to say about Rams owner Stan Kroenke.

“I’ve heard from people in the league that I respect, who have power within the league, that it’s just a matter of time. That Stan Kroenke’s plan is to go to [Los Angeles],” Buck recently said on FOX 2 in St. Louis, via insidestl.com by way of The Big Lead.  (It’s like scoring a triple play to give proper credit at times.)  “I’m really disappointed in Stan Kroenke.  I don’t know how you’re an NFL owner in a city like this with the kind of sports fans we have here and you’re as invisible as this man has been.  I think any smart person steps back and says, ‘Well he’s keeping his options open.’  Otherwise at some point you step out front, hoping you’re going to get support from fans here and say, ‘We’re going to do our darnedest to keep the Rams in St. Louis.’

“That’s never been said, he’s never seen, he’s not around town.  I think clearly his objective as a shrewd businessman is to cash in in L.A., whatever that’s going to cost him.  A lot has to happen for a franchise to move.  It would be crushing to me if we lost an NFL franchise for a second time.  This city’s too good for that.  It’s not a reflection on the city or the fans.  In this case I think it’s a reflection of the ownership that really is not invested in keeping the team here.”

It’s also a reflection on the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission’s decision not to provide the Rams with the type of stadium upgrades that would have kept the Rams from abandoning the lease, 20 years after the team was lured there with a promise that, after 20 years, the Rams would have a stadium among the top 25 percent of all NFL stadiums.

That failure has given the Rams an opening.  The Raiders and Chargers have openings, too.  For one of those three teams, the opening will disappear when the other two take up residence in the city where all three of them once were located.

81 responses to “L.A. dance continues for Rams, Raiders, Chargers

  1. Keep the Rams in St. Louis. L.A. had TWO teams, and couldn’t keep either one. I agree with St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland not filling their stadiums, but moving them to L.A. would be the same result. If L.A. wants a team, get an expansion team. Fans don’t deserve to lose their team because of greedy ass billionaires.

  2. Individual owners should not be commenting on what they want, unless it’s there team moving. If Bob Kraft thinks it’s a good idea to have at least one team in LA, then he ought to move his team there.

  3. I’m not even sure what point I’m trying to make because the Rams do need a new/up to date stadium but the Raiders and Chargers are playing in stadiums built in the 60’s and in Oakland RENOVATED in 1995….that would be the year the Rams facility was built.

    All 3 need new places but damn….the Raiders and Chargers had needed new stadiums for a LONG time when ground was broke in St Louis.

  4. LA is perfect for an NFL team in 2014. Anyone who thinks differently is either afraid of their team getting moved (sorry) or they are stuck in the 80s.

  5. I’m a diehard Minnesota Vikings fan from as far back as 1976. I would like nothing better than to have the Rams move back to LA. Bring back the old uni’s and it’s a slam dunk. LA is where the Rams belong.

  6. Those fan bases that have lost teams (Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston) no doubt sympathize with the fans in St. Louis. Even those who were threatened with losing their teams (Buffalo, Minnesota) have a sense of what Rams fans are going through now. This simply isn’t good for pro football. It may be good for Bob Kraft and Jerry Jones, but not for pro football fans.

  7. As a taxpayer do you want to be on the hook for everything though? I feel for St. Louis but if I lived there I wouldn’t want to shoulder all the costs while the owner swims in his money.

  8. One is enough. Raiders or Rams. Rams fix geographical line up of NFC West. Raiders natural fit. Either is good, both would be ok, but not needed.

  9. The Rams belong in Los Angeles — and the gold/navy colors need to stay in St. Louis. Bring back the bright yellow and blue the LA Rams are known for.

  10. I think that Raiders going back to Los Angeles would be crazy (in the sense of repeating the same action and expecting a different result), but then again I think that Son-of-Al has mental stability issues (impulse control).

    The Raiders were born in Oakland and the vast majority of their great years were there. The first time the team moved to La-La land there was carry-over success at first (3rd Super Bowl win) but the players went Hollywood and the team lost the hard-nosed / blue collar edge it had in Oakland. And when the Raiders were no longer dominant (after 1985) there were many times when the L.A. Coliseum was half-empty (selling out only when the team faced elite opponents).

    There’s a reason that NO team has considered moving to La-la land in the last 20 years. The Raiders best strategy would be to stay in the Bay Area (if not Oakland then nearby Sacramento). And if they have to move, then San Antonio or even Portland would be much better than returning to La-la land.

    But unfortunately, the owner isn’t exactly someone who can be counted on to make rational choices. Which is why I always hope that he’ll just sell the team.

  11. So is that Cali-taxpayer LA stadium all ready to go now? The enviro-nut groups dropped their lawsuits? Got the necessary votes from the owners? Got the billion dollar relocation fees? All set? Done deal? Ready for 2015 huh? Heck, I guess all three teams can move right on in then. That was easy.

  12. When the Rams move to L.A. they should instist Jack Buck’s son be removed from their broadcasts because he obviously won’t be an impartial announcer.

  13. NFL is to big to fail anywhere. They can play in Montana and the team will make money. I don’t think the NFL wants a team in LA because they always use it as leverage for cites to pay for the stadiums.

  14. There has been a lot of movement recently in Saint Louis to keep the Rams. The Governor of Missouri formed a group tasked with presenting the Rams with a proposal on a new stadium. It is being headed by a former Anheuser Busch executive who wouldn’t waste his time if it weren’t a serious endeavor. This action is going make it impossible for the Rams to move after this season but if Kronke is hell bent on getting out, there is a chance that next year could be the last one for the Saint Louis Rams…

  15. The Raiders are 0-10, have not won a game in a year, and still manage to sell out. I am not so sure the fans of Los Angeles would support the team as Oakland has. And, out of the three teams rumored looking to move, the city of Oakland is the only one that has stepped up and came up with a plan for a new stadium for the team. Mark Davis, take the deal that is on the table and STAY IN OAKLAND!

  16. For the Raiders it all comes down to 1 thing – will Oakland build a stadium. History and the financial status of the city don’t make it look like it will happen. I think Mark Davis wants to stay, but they just can’t continue to play in the worst baseball stadium in the league.

  17. It’s obvious that the Rams owner is committed to moving them back to L.A. but in all honesty the only team I think should move back is the Raiders!

    The city of Oakland firmly committed itself to supporting the A’s (MLB) and that didn’t have to exclude the wishes of the Raiders but it has played out that way.

    Moving them back does hurt the Chargers but that is the least amount of damage to the national fan base.

  18. 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 and 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 70 degrees in November, while your plowing snow out of your driveway

  19. Seriously why would the NFL allow the city of San diego follows the Chargers?San diego is an excellent place to hold Super Bowls and it’s such a wonderful city!The NFL should be working its ass off to get a new stadium built there.As far as LA they’ve done a piss poor job of luring a team.Theres still no definitive stadium plan.The raiders should seriously consider San Antonio as at least the Alamodome is a football ready venue and they can be big fish in a semi sized pond.

  20. raiderssf says: Nov 19, 2014 9:24 AM

    The Raiders are 0-10, have not won a game in a year, and still manage to sell out. I am not so sure the fans of Los Angeles would support the team as Oakland has. And, out of the three teams rumored looking to move, the city of Oakland is the only one that has stepped up and came up with a plan for a new stadium for the team. Mark Davis, take the deal that is on the table and STAY IN OAKLAND!

    – – –

    Well, the only reason that they manage to “sell out” is because the team has tarped off the entire upper portion of the stadium, thus reducing the max capacity by thousands and thousands of seats. Further, they have slashed all ticket prices by massive amounts. Despite your obvious home-preference bias, the facts quite dispute your opinion that the Raiders can succeed in the bay area. They have been steadily declining in value for a decade, and are now one of the least profitable teams in the league. That means they aren’t making much money off stadium ticket sales, merchandise sales, or commercial revenue.

  21. “they may have to fend off their AFC West rivals, who have been trying for more than a decade to build a new stadium”

    Let me fix that for you. The billionaire that owns the Chargers has for more than a decade been trying to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers.

    No welfare for billionaires let them pay for their own stadiums !!!!!!!

  22. I appreciate Florio pointing out the fact that a big reason St Louis was even able to lure the Rams away from LA was the insane promises the made in regards to their stadium. They essentially promised to upgrade the dome into a top of the league stadium every 10 years and they couldn’t even manage to keep that promise at the first 10 year mark. The sad thing is that St Louis taxpayers could still be paying for those promises for years after the team is long gone.

  23. For the “they won’t support the team” dingbats, the Rams averaged 5000 + ABOVE the NFL’s per game average during their 49 years in LA and many times during the 80’s outdrew the Cowboys and Steelers.

    But hey, keep pimping your lies.

  24. “We’re looking into all our possibilities, all our options,” owner Dean Spanos said, via U-T San Diego.

    You have ZERO options because you have no fan base, Dean.

  25. I just want to see some discussion on the possibility of a 17 game season, where every team adds one neutral site game to their schedule, and a bunch of those neutral site games can be in LA. Not saying it is the best solution, I just want it in the discussion.

  26. LA fans do not want Chargers in LA. If the Bolts go to LA, they will move to another market in less then 6 years. Trust me. LA Football teams need new blood.

  27. It is written, “You reap what you sow.” 20 years ago, Georgia Frontiere took the Rams, an iconic LA franchise to St. Louis and didn’t care who she was hurting in LA. Well, ol’ Georgia is now resting in eternity and can’t do a thing about this potential return here to LA.

    20 years later, it’s time to pay the piper. It’s reaping time! And the Rams should return to LA–with their blue and gold colors.

    St. Louis shouldn’t be mad at this Rams owner, but at the Cardinals’ owner Billy Bidwell for moving their Cards to Arizona! Lest they forget! Hurt people, hurt people.

    I grew up watching the LA Rams with Eric Dickerson, Jack Ham, Jack Youngblood and Cullen Bryant, and St. Louis (Football) Cardinals during the Jim Hart, Conrad Dobler, Terry Metcalf days. What exciting teams! While I feel for the people of St. Louis and that region, you knew from the start, the Rams were “ill gotten gains.” It’s time to surrender the stolen goods and return them back to LA.

    I’d welcome the Rams back here. The Raiders have such a negative element~pathetic on the field and dangerous crowds off the field. So, the LA Rams would be more family-friendly.

    Leave the Raiders in Oakland and the Chargers in SD.

    Rams, in the words of the American Idol judges, “Welcome to Hollywood!”

  28. The only reason that Al Davis and the Rams owner left is because they wanted a new staduim and the city of LA wouldn’t pay for it but now they want to be back because no one goes to there games

  29. They’re already excavating the hills of The City of Industry for the past year and said they are preparing for a major development coming in in the next few years.

    Whichever team it is……it’ll be in the City of Industry.

  30. I don’t get the NFL’s burning desire to have a team(s) in the LA market.

    Unlike baseball or hockey, football is not a regional sport. The TV stations in LA carry NFL games. It’s not like people don’t watch the NFL in LA.

    The networks aren’t going to up their bids because there are teams in LA. And stadium generated revenue is on a declining slope not an asending one. Especially in a town like LA where you have so many outdoor options year round. And the expense of doing business there is through the roof.

    There have already been multiple failures of teams in LA.

    What’s changed?

    I’d love to see the cost-benefit analysis on this one. I bet I could tear it apart in less than 10 minutes.

    The whole concept just strikes me as a major case of hubris.

  31. This 2 team concept is ridiculous. 1 team could really succeed & build a local fan base. 2 teams automatically splits the pie & lowers the support for the other team. It also becomes a pain at the stadium. Whichever team moves will probably be a bad team. They will need to earn fans, which is harder to do with 2 teams.

  32. Keep the Rams where they’re at (give them back there old uniforms) plus they won a super bowl.

    The Raiders have to stay in Oakland, won three super bowls there to much history to move them back to L.A.

    Chargers have to stay in SD. they won the AFL title in 63′.

    The only team that needs to move is Jacksonville. Fans dont care about them and they’re irrelavent. LA Jaguars. or just change the name.

  33. Isn’t there a rule now that the team that moves has to leave their old name and colors behind, like the Browns did when they became the Ravens?

    Even with the problems these franchises have had, how strange would it be to not have the Chargers, Raiders or Rams team names in the standings anymore?

    As a life long Charger fan I know I won’t follow a new team that goes to LA and changes their name and colors.

  34. When the NFL and or owners finance a stadium in L.A. can u imagine how ticked off the people in these other cities who paid for their teams office buildings are going to be? Add to that, how hard will it be for other teams to get public financing when the people see that when the NFL and owners want to, they can pay for it themselves. I think we’ve all seen how much the NFL and its owners care about their fans. “Pay for it or we’re leaving!” Oh, um also fork over money to buy a license to buy a seat. Suckers.

  35. dabeagle says:
    Nov 19, 2014 11:17 AM
    Isn’t there a rule now that the team that moves has to leave their old name and colors behind, like the Browns did when they became the Ravens?

    Even with the problems these franchises have had, how strange would it be to not have the Chargers, Raiders or Rams team names in the standings anymore?

    As a life long Charger fan I know I won’t follow a new team that goes to LA and changes their name and colors.

    ____________________________
    The NFL did that because of the history the Browns had in Cleveland. You could argue the Raiders have that same history but the Rams and Chargers do not. The Raiders would still keep their name considering it is just moving back to where they once were. Also I think the NFL always knew that Cleveland was going to get a team back in there.

  36. sfsugator says:
    Nov 19, 2014 11:12 AM
    Keep the Rams where they’re at (give them back there old uniforms) plus they won a super bowl.

    The Raiders have to stay in Oakland, won three super bowls there to much history to move them back to L.A.

    Chargers have to stay in SD. they won the AFL title in 63′.

    The only team that needs to move is Jacksonville. Fans dont care about them and they’re irrelavent. LA Jaguars. or just change the name.

    ________________________
    None of those teams have the history the Browns had you could probably throw the Colts in there as well at the time of their move.

  37. da beagle

    The Rams were the Cleveland Rams and the Los Angeles Rams. Doubt St. Louis (Cardinals) have a real claim to that name.

  38. Hey morons, St. Louis already lost one team if they lose another team will you idiots still say the same thing. The fact is LA gets a ton of hate even though the Rams are an LA team. Half century says so. And the owners were one the ones insisting on moving fans stopped supporting once they knew Frontiere and Davis were leaving LA, kind of like how the Browns knew towards the end Modell was leaving and stopped showing up. Stop spouting that media fed dribble that LA won’t support there teams. The Rams were here for nearly 50 years so stop riding that “LA won’t support a team BS”

  39. “I’d like to see two franchises in L.A.,”
    __________________

    Even though having ONE there has failed.
    On two separate occasions.

  40. Dean Spanos never said or was quoted as saying we are looking into all possibilities. That would have made huge headlines in San Diego. What is going on here?

  41. If the objective in saying that two teams will reside in LA, is that zero teams will be there and you continue to generate leverage on other cities, then good job NFL.

    Otherwise there is no way to see how a city with no NFL team for the last couple of decades will support two of them.

    Just the owners playing their game. Billionaires looking to maximizing their return and minimize what they put into their stadium overhead.

    And if they do put someone in LA, they probably will go expansion team in order to maximize the new franchise fee.

  42. This has nothing to do with “fan support.” The argument that this town has more “fan support” than that town is irrelevant. Heck, the fans are the least important part of the equation.

    This has EVERYTHING to do with owners maximizing their earnings via their stadium deals: luxury boxes, PSLs, parking, concessions, apparel, etc. Simply put, the owners will move their teams to the locale that will give them the best deal.

    If you want to complain about municipalities funding facilities, that’s certainly a legitimate complaint. But you can’t also complain when teams move… owners chase the money. That’s just the way it works.

    If Oakland, St. Louis, and San Diego pony up the cash to improve their facilities, those teams will stay put. But if they see a better opportunity in Los Angeles, San Antonio or London, they’ll take it.

  43. Stan ‘s got the money and is buying the real estate in LA for a stadium. Seems like he’s moving the team. And the NFL would probably not stand in his way given his financial resources. However, he may be buying land in preparation to sell to another team with a profit in mind. Articles I’ve seen indicate that new stadiums being built are not just going to cash in on fan purchases, but are planing to build retail complexes next to the stadium that will become destination points in themselves. A lot of money to be made even if you don’t own the team next store.

  44. How’s there a dance?

    The Rams and Chargers haven’t taken the floor yet. Meanwhile, the Raiders are trying to, but politics (ahem the NFL) won’t let them.

    Let’s call it a dance when at least one team takes the first step.

  45. If LA is such a hot market for NFL, why do they not play 3-4 games a year there, like they do London? After 20 plus years without an NFL team I don’tt think the people of LA don’t really care if they have one.
    Remember when the bidding was happening for the last expansion team, everyone thought it was a done deal for LA, and it went to Houston.
    Also they have lost 2 teams because of lack of support.

  46. 1. L.A. Rams 2. L.A. Raiders 3. St. Louis Jaguars 4. Sacramento Chargers(switch with Seattle in the NFC West)

    Note:

    The Raiders don’t sell out in Oakland(see Tarps) and the last game against Denver had the Bronco fans filling the venue up.

    The Chargers don’t have a HFA in San Diego and the Raider fans of L.A. always out number them.

    Sacramento has proven itself as loyal(see the lowly Kings) and will give the Chargers a tremendous HFA,and sell outs. Plus they will be in a new division, they will not play the Raiders twice a year.

  47. Has any city lost as many pro sports teams as St. Louis? The only team the city cares about plays baseball, which is the only place Joe Buck doesn’t completely embarrass himself when he calls a game, mostly because it moves so slowly you almost can’t screw up. They got the Rams from LA (who got them from Cleveland incidentally), and they got the Cardinals in the first place from Chicago. They lost the Hawks and Bombers from the NBA, and they also lost The Spirits, an ABA team. They also lost a baseball team in the Browns

    Say what you want about St. Louis fans, but the bottom line is that their entire history is littered with teams leaving. Owners of teams want to make money, no doubt. But they seem to believe they can’t make it in St. Louis.

  48. The Raiders are 0-10, have not won a game in a year, and still manage to sell out.

    —————————-

    Hahahahahahaha, funniest comment all day. Yeah, some guy named “Tarps” keeps buying 20,000 tickets every week. That guy must be rich!

  49. The St. Louis Rams just never sounded or felt right. Move the Rams back to LA, and then build an outdoor stadium to attract . . . the Raiders. Keep them in the AFC West and you have an immediate intrastate rivalry with the Chiefs.

    And once I figure out how to pay for all this, I’ll let you know.

  50. funny when you talk about other teams you always say the Dallas Cowboys, The NY Jets, The Seattle Seahawks, but when you talk about the Raiders, you just say the Raiders….so don’t matter where they go they will always be the Raiders…..but makes more sense for them to stay put…..If Davis can’t afford to build a stadium, then sell it to one of the .com billionaire that live in the bay

  51. The raiders want out of oakland because there’s no Raiders fans up there and that’s why they’ve had the lowest attendance every single year since they moved back to Oakland on the other hand in LA they would probably lead the leauge in attendance

  52. The Jacksonville Jaguars are here to stay. It’s time to move on from the nonsensical talk haters.

  53. Some of you postsers should check your history books..”ill gotten gains” for St. Louis?? Apparently you’ve forgotten that The Rams originally were from Cleveland. Franchises have been moving since the early years of the NFL-should we put the Bears back in Decatur and the Cardinals back in Chicago??. It’s a business in the offices of every NFL team, and a sport on the field. Businesses go where it’s better for business. As for the Rams’ stadium-if it wasn’t for a stupid stupid lease clause, the stadium would not be an issue. Could it be better? Sure! It’s almost 20 years old, but it’s not the run down toilet bowl some in the media portray it as. And regarding local support? Yes, they don’t sell out every game, BUT when your ownership (of which Kroenke was a partner) allows your team to go 15-65 over a 5 year span, you kinda of get pissed at the product on the field. and of those 15 wins-7 came in one season. I challenge any city on the planet to continue to sell out with such historical ineptitude! Rams are staying in St Louis where they belong!

  54. I used to bleed NFL football. But the way the greedy owners and league are screwing their cities and fans, I’ve now turned to Soccer. If the Rams do move to LA, good luck dealing with Kronke. In a few years in LA and maybe 15 -20 wins total, Silent Sam will still be a hated man and attendance will be way worse than it was in St. Louis.
    Look how Kronke operates Walmart, it’s not St. Louis, it’s Kronke who sucks!
    Ask any Arsenal fan in England how they like Silent Sam.
    Bring the Jags to St. Louis!!!! Their owner blows away Kronke.

  55. Has any NFL city had crappier ownership than STL? First you had Billy and Stormy Bidwell, so cheap they squeaked. Look at the record of the STL football Cardinals,(0-3) in playoffs in 27 years! Heck, Bidwell even threatened to move the team to Atlanta in 1964. Then we get Georgia. Again, a cheap owner with only profit in mind. She dies and her heirs can’t afford to pay the taxes, so “Silent Stan” Kroenke steps in and “finances” his option to buy the majority shares, screwing Shahid Khan. (By the way, why does the NFL allow Stan to have cross-ownership by holding onto his Denver teams?). Kroenke is the consummate absentee landlord. Is any owner less concerned about the fans?
    A local scribe stated “there are no bad NFL cities, only bad owners”. Perhaps STL will get another franchise owned by Carl Icahn or Donald Trump!
    LA should get two teams, but STL should not be disparaged for having perhaps the three worst ownership groups of any franchise’s history.

  56. How many times does the NFL have to fail in L.A. before they finally realize that L.A. doesn’t care about NFL football?

  57. Bring The CHARGERS to L.A. !!! Los Angeles needs a Winning team with Class! Heck I’ll accept the rams coming back too but please keep the raiders out The last thing LA needs is to Bring a bunch of Hoodlums to our Home game! Hahaha

  58. “Dogsweat says: Nov 19, 2014 12:38 PM

    The Chargers don’t have a HFA in San Diego and the Raider fans of L.A. always out number them”

    ————————————————————-

    Lol, sounds like you never been to a Charger game in the past 14 years, Charger fans always outnumber Raider fans. Always.

  59. Ethereal is so much more to it then just pointing fingers at Stan anybody would make the same moves as him specially after so long the fans kept quiet and not wanting to mak anything work with a new stadium or even upgrades this has been going on for over five years now and St. Louis waits till the last minute to finally make an effort to keep them if anything don’t point fingers at Stan the fans should be pointing fingers at the city alone for waiting so long stan said before these rumors came about that he would love for the Rams to stay in St. Louis. And what did the city do when that statement was made?(which was the beginning of 2014) they did nothing now everyone is crying and pointing fingers at Stan saying that he doesn’t care when really the city has no one to blame but themselves for waiting this long to actually do something about it. In the end if anyone was a business owner and had a chance to make your team from one of the lowest valueable teams in the franchise to the second highest valuable, anyone would make that move. I don’t care what anyone says because in the end St. Louis had a lot of time to figure something out to keep the team. Now if they don’t move to LA then that’s stans decision, no matter what I will be a die hard Rams fan, but regardless I just want what my teams deserve. As well as a huge fan base to support them and selling out the stadium every Sunday. They need true fans that is one main key to get our Rams to the super bowl. No matter where they go die hard Rams fans will always be in LA. I would love to see them come home but once a Rams fan always a Rams fan.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.