NFL could move only one team to L.A., indefinitely


It’s been presumed that two teams will return to Los Angeles. The only question is which of the two teams that once were in L.A. will go back.

The question may have changed in recent weeks.

Per a league source with knowledge of the situation, the NFL may ultimately move only one team to Los Angeles. And that would happen not as a short-term thing, but as an indefinite move that could result in a second team never going to Los Angeles.

The shift comes from the league’s intense desire to get it right in L.A. Although it would be a lot easier to build a stadium with private money if 20 games per year are played there, instantly assigning two teams to a market that for 20 years has had none may not be the best way to reconnect with Los Angeles.

If only one team goes, that team likely would be the Rams, since owner Stan Kroenke already has plans in place to fund privately a one-team stadium in Inglewood. The proposed project in Carson hinges on two teams: the Chargers and the Raiders.

A one-team market in L.A. likely would hinge on working something out for the Chargers in San Diego, which may not be easy to do without public money. It could be even harder if the Chargers are dead-set on leaving — and if owner Dean Spanos has the votes to block Kroenke from moving to L.A. alone.

Meanwhile, Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times reports that the L.A. relocation process soon will shift from league-office personnel to a key group of owners and Commissioner Roger Goodell.

The so-called Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities (they need a clunkier name for it, I think) consists of Steelers owner Art Rooney II, Patriots owner Robert Kraft, Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, Texans owner Bob McNair, and Giants co-owner John Mara. Ultimately, 24 owners will have to agree with whatever this group recommends, but there’s currently no reason to suspect a rebellion.

Unless the recommendation is that the Rams will get L.A., the Chargers will stay in San Diego, and the Raiders will continue to float aimlessly. At that point, Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis could cobble together nine votes aimed at blocking the move, which could eventually force Kroenke to move in violation of the league’s relocation policy — perhaps setting the stage for another high-profile NFL loss in a court of law.

122 responses to “NFL could move only one team to L.A., indefinitely

  1. The league has no real power to stop anyone from moving their team to Los Angeles. Just ask Al Davis – if you could. No federal laws have changed since he defied the league and moved to LA in the 80’s. I don’t think Irsay had league permission to move from Baltimore to Indy either. No court would side with the NFL. Teams are privately owned.

  2. And Katie Holmes could run it….Great story…the twists and the turns. And maybe even Jon Voight can get in on some action too…

  3. Kraft will agree to a team move/new stadium to LA provided whichever team moves will allow his people to install the videotape/camera system to their liking in the new stadium.

  4. Just play some games there … like London. Another town where they don’t care about the NFL.

  5. A couple thoughts:

    1) “The so-called Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities (they need a clunkier name for it, I think)”

    Yes, that is clunky. How about Los Angeles Stadium Transition, or LAST?

    2) Interesting group of owners who will make the recommendations – RG1’s BFFs Kraft, Richardson, Rooney & Mara, plus a couple others. I suppose McNair & Hunt are there just to alleviate suspicion that Rog and his besties are getting together for tea while they try to run everyone else’s lives.

    3) This looks to me like all 3 teams’ cities have called the NFL’s bluff and refuse to succumb to the league’s demands that the cities fire all their teachers, firemen and entry level office workers in order to give the billionaire a free stadium. Good for them.

  6. Oh, good: Mara is on the case.

    Well then, Im sure everything will be completely fair and totally taken care of legitimately, above the table…

    *eye roll*

  7. I still hope that something could be worked out with Oakland but if the Raiders do move then anywhere but Los Angeles is preferable as the franchise still hasn’t recovered from that original mistake. Sacramento would be a good venue if a stadium deal could be worked out there. And I’m completely fine with San Antonio because there’s already a stadium in place and Texas is a state where they’re passionate about football (polar opposite of La-la land). I also have no objection to Portland.

  8. As a Ram fan who lives and used to attend Ram games, very happy. But, L.A. is thee worst sports town in the country. No loyalty. People here are trendy and will root for a team only when in championship mode without even knowing teams key players name. The worst sports town! People put “Lil cute” flags on thier cars (so bandwagon-like) when a basketball or baseball team is in the finals only. This is not Green Bay or Cleveland(examples). This is L.A. I can see the sea of bald heads (another trend here) chanting “let’s go, umm, who?”. That and I visualize wanna be fans who like to wear jerseys because they look so hard. Yuck.
    I fear many many fake fans to appear.

  9. “The so-called Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities (they need a clunkier name for it, I think)”

    How about the “Los Angles Multi-Cultural Central Committee for Social Awareness and Equal Opportunity”?

    They probably already have one of those.

  10. Goodell has been fixated on the 2 teams in LA strategy to generate double the revenues at the $Billion plus stadium that he wants to build as his ediface. However, if the Rams have their own stadium it sort of screws up the economics.
    The smart answer is to have just one team – the Rams in LA and keep the Chargers in San Diego, where they have a decent following. Ignore the Raiders in any of this discussion – leave them in Oakland.

  11. Finally, now this makes sense. You go from no teams for over 20 years to 2 teams overnight and you expect that market to quickly embrace and support both forever? Its called unrealistic expectations. This makes sense. Chargers need to work it out since the city is amenable to cooperating with them (now), Raiders, well, need to figure it out.

  12. As a general fan of the NFL, and someone who doesn’t live on either coast, having four teams in two cities is extremely lame.
    I don’t agree with 2 in NYC and 2 in L.A. just because of their population sizes. Can you imagine the BSPN broadcasters talking and hoping for an NYC vs LA Super Bowl every season? Ugh.

  13. As I keep track of the LA situation, I suspect that the Chargers will be on LA next season, the Rams will stay in St. Louis as that city is working on a stadium solution, while the Raiders may end up in San Antonio (wouldn’t that be interesting–two AFC teams in Texas in different divisions?).

    My opinion is that the NFL doesn’t need LA. The popularity of the league has grown exponentially since both the Raiders and Rams moved out in 1995. LA hasn’t missed the NFL and NFL fans haven’t missed Los Angeles. Why is the NFL so hell-bent on putting a team in a city that has little desire to have one?

  14. The team that is guaranteed to sell tickets in L.A. is the Raiders since they have Raider Nation and a nationwide fan base. But Mark Davis would need help from the league and maybe some public money. (Plus Kroenke sell him the Inglewood site).

    The NFL in a last ditch effort would like to get Kroenke’s Rams in L.A. because they know he can foot the bill. However not so fast. Kroenke’s not the type to just throw money into a pit. He’s got to be guaranteed that if he puts up a billion he’s going to get back 2 billion in value.

    The Chargers are a problem and they want L.A. more than anyone. But this is another team that can’t do anything on their own. They need NFL money and public money. Plus out of these three teams it is the most riskiest because they have to start from scratch to get fans. San Diego fans will not follow them to L.A.

    Regarding the Carson site, nobody has believed that that is a viable option for a few months now.

  15. Kroenke moves his Rams to LA. Part of his $1B relocation fee gets sent to SD to placate Spanos. Spanos uses that plus other funding to build a new stadium in San Diego. The League and NFL fans everywhere are overjoyed because San Diego is still a destination game for fans stuck in nasty cities (Miami, Seattle and SF notwithstanding) and Diego instantly is back in the Super Bowl rotation – heavy rotation, that is.

  16. I just don’t see the Chargers or Raiders having the money to both build a stadium and pay the massive relocation fees associated with moving to Los Angeles.

    The Rams are pretty clearly the team the stars are aligning for. The Chargers and Raiders will end up in San Antonio and St. Lois, as consolation prizes.

  17. If I was Kraft, I’d make sure to know the worst possible outcome for Goodell and make sure that was what happened, unless my stolen money and draft picks were returned with an apology.

  18. No State needs or deserves FOUR NFL teams. If the NFL wants a team in LA so bad, then move one of the three teams already in California to LA, but LEAVE THE REST OF THE U.S. ALONE!

  19. “It’s been presumed that two teams will return to Los Angeles. ”

    It’s been quite obvious for some time that LA is nothing more than a bargaining chip for teams trying to get a better deal from their current cities. They’ll be lucky to get a single team moved there when you consider that none of the LA area stadium deals are exactly slam dunks to get approved.

  20. Raider Nation wants the Raiders to stay in Oakland, I get that! But if they stay in Oakland, the stay in!

    Wouldn’t you rather have a financially viable and progressive franchise in a venue/city that allows to do that?

    If M.Davis doesn’t have the funds to build anywhere on his own and a city like San Antonio is hungry for an NFL team, to me the decision is difficult but necessary.

    Either way, I’d love to see a Goodell vs. JJ battle in the courts for territorial rights in Texas. Would make the Brady thing look like a walk in the park!

  21. Regarding the failure of teams in LA, please note:

    1). One of these two teams were the Raiders. Families would not attend games at the Coliseum for fear of getting stabbed, beaten, etc. by Raiders fans.

    2). During their previous stay in “LA”, the Rams played at a baseball stadium in ORANGE COUNTY!

    As evidenced by turnouts at Dodgers and Lakers games for decades, Angelenos care about sports, and actually tend to speak about sports more intelligently than most other regions of the country, as is demonstrated in comments above.

    We’ll take The Chargers or the Rams with open arms. Hell, we’ll take The Jaguars at this point. Let the Raiders go out of business.

  22. Good grief. It’s infuriating to see so many not understand a simple saying.

    You all continue to say “they could care less”. This implies they still have room to care.

    What you are all looking for is the saying “they COULDN’T care less”. This states that they could not care any less than they do now.

    So in this instance, LA couldn’t care less about having an NFL team in the city.

    English is hard bro!

  23. “scrp2 says:
    Sep 23, 2015 10:35 AM
    The team that is guaranteed to sell tickets in L.A. is the Raiders since they have Raider Nation and a nationwide fan base. But Mark Davis would need help from the league and maybe some public money. (Plus Kroenke sell him the Inglewood site).”

    Dude, no. Nowhere but Oakland and in cheap heavy metal videos is there a Raiders fan base. The rest of us think the silver-painted, spikey-helmeted “fans” need help. Especially fashion help.

  24. One thing has changed since the Rams/Raiders left Los Angeles. The blackout rules are not longer the threat they were. Now when no one goes to a game it will still be televised in the LA market, unlike before.

    I tend to think this would kill a move, not encourage it. It surely won’t support two teams and LA having a home game EVERY week.

    I will not believe a move to LA will happen until after I see the first game. I just don’t see the advantage. When there were 31 teams as a result of the near instant awarding of the Browns expansion/replacement team the NFL had to award a 32nd team and LA could not pull their act together then.

    I think the Raiders move (their stadium is horrible), the Chargers are 60/40 to stay and the Rams are 75/25 even with the land purchase (the Redskins OWN their less than 20 year old stadium and are looking to move in town, land without a stadium is easier to move on from).

  25. Please correct me if I’m wrong] but when the Raiders and Browns moved there was no agreement in place requiring owners to approve the move. Therefore, if blocked Kroenke ‘ law suit would be weaker than AL Davis’.

  26. Ultimately this is probably the right decision. If the NFL moves 2 teams, they risk the city embracing one and neglecting the other, and having to move that franchise again shortly after.

  27. coachbeck says:
    Sep 23, 2015 10:00 AM
    Raiders should go to San Antonio, Portland, or anywhere they can work something out. Oakland obviously doesn’t want them.


    I have been saying this for years.

    Doesn’t necessarily have to be the Raiders, but if the NFL want’s to expand…

    Football always works in Texas, and San Antonio is the 2nd largest city, and a solid 3 hours from Houston which is the next closest city with a team.

    The Portland area is one of the fastest growing areas in the USA. I read somewhere that is 2014 the majority of people who moved out their state went to Oregon. You would instantly have a natural rivalry with Seattle.

    I also have wondered if OKC, Alabama, or Nebraska could support a team. I know college teams doing well is one thing, but people love football in those areas.

    Of course everyone knows putting a team in Vegas makes sense but the NFL will never allow that since they pretend that gambling doesn’t exist anyway.

  28. “Can you imagine the BSPN broadcasters talking and hoping for an NYC vs LA Super Bowl every season? Ugh.”

    Wouldn’t happen. The Super Bowl isn’t like the World Series or Stanley Cup finals. People are gonna watch, no matter what.

  29. As a Ravens fan I really don’t have a horse in this race so I have not been following very closely. But if the NFL really wants LA to have a team or teams, why has expansion been ruled out? Why does an existing franchise have to move?

    Just curious

  30. Washington, DC was without a baseball team for 20 years. When they finally got one, the city and suburbs supported them. So maybe, “Absence makes the heart grow fonder.”

  31. I still think a 17 game season, with LA being a primary site for each team’s one neutral site game per year should be a part of the conversation, even if it is not the best answer in the end.

  32. For some reason, this site dismissed the St. Louis Stadium efforts, as they are closing to have the land locked up and financing in place. It would be hard for the NFL to allow the Rams to move, based on relocation guidelines. Also the support, noted by many of the LA Committee on the support of those guidelines, also helps St. Louis in keeping the Rams in market.

  33. kenrobinson12 says:
    Sep 23, 2015 10:49 AM
    One thing has changed since the Rams/Raiders left Los Angeles. The blackout rules are not longer the threat they were. Now when no one goes to a game it will still be televised in the LA market, unlike before.
    That’s a great point I hadn’t considered. I believe the blackout restrictions slowed growth of the NFL for decades. I grew up going to Patriots games in the 80’s; they pretty much only sold one when we played Marino.

    What did this do? It prevented anyone from giving a damn about the team for *years* because it wasn’t on TV and it was out of sight, out of mind.

    I’d be surprised if the same thing wasn’t a major factor in (especially) the Rams not getting the traction they needed there.

    I still wish they would move the Jaguars. The 17 fans they have could just root for Tampa Bay instead. Talk about a state that doesn’t need 3 teams.

  34. “The shift comes from the league’s intense desire to get it right in L.A.”

    Is someone other than Goodell going to call the shots on this one?

  35. The NFL owners would be reluctant to fight the move because it would set a precedent that could eventually limit their own ability to move in the future. That limit could adversely affect their team value to potential buyers. They also have a very weak legal position as well and I doubt if the owners want to have the NFL suffer another legal defeat.

  36. As I have said since Day One when Mr. Fabiani announced the half-baked Carson scheme.

    The Chargers are not going to LA. They will get a stadium deal done in San Diego, where they belong.

  37. San Diego has a pretty sweet stadium deal offered to the Chargers, the team is just ignoring it. It would give a ton of public money to the Chargers (requiring the team to contribute less than half of what they would have to in LA), as well as give them control of several new revenue streams like concessions and parking. It’s actually one of the best stadium deals I’ve ever read, the Chargers are just hellbent on becoming the least popular professional team in LA.

  38. Ask Goodell what he thinks should be done, and then do the opposite. He’s had the reverse Midas Touch for years: UTILIZE IT.

  39. Could/would Chicago support another team? Reason I say this is they support 2 baseball teams (like NY and LA). Since both the Raiders and Chargers are AFC teams, they would slot in nicely with the Bears.

  40. Could this talk about moving a team to LA be the same ruse used to force cities to give public money for stadiums. If the NFL wanted back in that market they would have already been there. Once they go, what leverage do they have to secure public money in the future?

  41. They really can’t block anything, but it would be weird for the Raiders and Chargers (both AFC West teams) to be in L.A. at the same time.

    One would have to flip to the NFC West, and then you would need someone from the NFC West to go to or back to the AFC West. Why should any of them want to make a move?

    I don’t see how the Chargers could get the votes to keep a former L.A. team out of moving back to L.A. because of San Diego’s supposed claim on L.A., and again teams can violate such a vote and move anyways (and win big lawsuits too).

  42. IMHO the RAIDERS are getting desperate enough that they might move to LA without a vote OR an approval.

  43. The Bay Area will not fund any new stadium plain and simple. It has nothing to do with not wanting the Raiders and such. Im glad they took that stand, you want a new stadium, BUILD IT YOURSELF! There are plenty of companies here in the Bay Area that the Raiders can tap into and get the financing. Apple, Google, Facebook, Wells Fargo, Visa, Gilead, Intel, Adobe, Oracle, Yahoo, Ebay, and many more.

  44. smokehouse56 says:
    Sep 23, 2015 10:18 AM
    There is a reason why the LA Rams moved to St. Louis in 1995. That reason is still there.
    Carrol Rosenbloom died and the team past to his gold digger widow, Georgia Frontiere. She mismanaged the team and then moved it to her home city of St Louis. The Rams had a bad stadium situation in LA and were moved to Anaheim and that was a mistake. LA will sell out every game if they get a team and good stadium. I’ll never understand why Jacksonville got an expansion team over LA. Of course, that’s London’s game since the Jags play a game there every year because it makes sense money wise.

  45. Respectfully disagree.

    It’s pretty obvious that Oakland would rather keep the A’s than the RAIDERS.

  46. Clark Hunt and his brother, Mike, have the vision and experience that will be indispensable to the NFL.

  47. smokehouse56 says:
    Sep 23, 2015 10:18 AM
    There is a reason why the LA Rams moved to St. Louis in 1995. That reason is still there.

    nope.. that reason died about 8 years ago..

  48. deezenucks says:
    Sep 23, 2015 10:47 AM

    I love that the jags aren’t even in this conversation anymore. Thanks Moustache man!


    That’s because they will end up in St. Louis – following a 2 year failure in London.

  49. LA Rams, San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders. This lineup always made sense. If the Chargers or Raiders want to move, pick another Western city (San Antonio, Salt Lake, Portland, Las Vegas are all available)

  50. If the Chargers stay in San Diego and LA gets a team, the bolts will lose 20% of its season ticket holders. But they won’t have to tarp their upper level like Oakland because the visiting teams fans won’t fear for their lives.

  51. Here we go, media is starting to backtrack. There will be two teams in LA! There will be two teams in LA! As early as this fall! No, next fall! We hear this every year. Now its one team. I’m sure next summer (and the next, and the next), we’ll be hearing about which two teams are going to move to LA. Its amazing anyone even takes these reports seriously anymore.

  52. Rams to LA (or thereabouts) and the Raiders end up in St. Louis. It just makes sense. OR Raiders end up sharing with 49ers for now. Even more sense. Given that video of 9ers fans beating up Vikings fans, those teams fan bases are similar.

  53. The fans supported the Rams in Los Angeles in the past. It was the owner who wanted a new stadium with the help of tax money. When she didn’t get it she got a free stadium in St. Louis and moved the team.

  54. One would have to flip to the NFC West, and then you would need someone from the NFC West to go to or back to the AFC West. Why should any of them want to make a move?

    Exactly would love to see the St.Louis Rams flip to the AFC West. Rams vs Chiefs in state rivalry

  55. Appently, there absolutely, positively has to be a team in LA. Makes sense to only put one team there. If they move 2 teams to LA, one of them will end up being the 2nd class citizen and playing in front of 12,000 people.

  56. Rams, Raiders and Chargers. If these teams were any good and soundly managed, they would be sitting at home in new shiny stadiums. Now, all they want is handouts. Just say no NFL, let them rot in their own stew.

  57. kane337 says:
    Sep 23, 2015 1:22 PM
    The fans supported the Rams in Los Angeles in the past. It was the owner who wanted a new stadium with the help of tax money. When she didn’t get it she got a free stadium in St. Louis and moved the team.

    I believe she was also tired of playing second fiddle to the Lakers, who have dominated LA sports since at at least the “showtime” days of the 1980s. Even if she did get a new stadium, playing second fiddle to the Lakers probably didn’t interest her. Plus, she was from Missouri and I believe wanted to go home anyway.

  58. The Rams need to be the one to move, or the Jags or Bills. There are too many teams in the Midwest, East and South and not enough in the West.

  59. Doesn’t matter to me if the Raiders move or not I’m centrally located and it’s the same for me either way. But I don’t see how owners can vote for a Rams move when the City is offering the best package to keep their team? Isn’t that one of the main things to get move approval to be able to demonstrate the city is not cooperating or willing to chip in money/land or both to help keep their respective team.

    Your going to tell St Louis that your allowing Rams to move even though they have done everything possible to keep them? Doesn’t seem right to me,.

  60. “Although it would be a lot easier to build a stadium with private money if 20 games per year are played there,”

    Each team would get 8 home games, where are you getting 20?

  61. I don’t know why people keep thinking that St. Louis would want the Raiders, of all teams. Not sure we like the NFL *that* much.

  62. Speaking as an NFL fan, I’m looking forward to seeing the Rams next year. I’m very, very happy our city didn’t give in the the NFL demands for tax subsidies. I do wonder if two teams is too much. The NFL here is not huge the way it is in other cities. It’s just a different culture.

    Since we have great weather during football season, everything from mountains to beaches, and being a world class arts creating capital of the world, we can do about a thousand things other than watching an NFL game.

    I like watching games, but if it costs too much, or traffic is too much to deal with, I can easily just do something else just as entertaining. So like the rest of LA citizens we’re OK with the NFL coming back but we’re not going to go out of our way for it. Why bother?

  63. “Although it would be a lot easier to build a stadium with private money if 20 games per year are played there,”

    “Each team would get 8 home games, where are you getting 20?”

    2 preseason home games+8 regular season home games x2 =20 games.

  64. With that committee of owners, the RAIDERS are sure to get the shaft.

    Mara, Rooney and Hunt have hated the Raiders/Al Davis for multiple generations and bobby kraft is well on his way.

    I anticipate the Raiders staying in oakland and being forced to host NFL teams at the worst stadium in professional sports.

    Disappointing, but not surprising.

    Go Raiders

  65. inozwetrust says:
    Sep 23, 2015 11:13 AM
    As a Ravens fan I really don’t have a horse in this race so I have not been following very closely. But if the NFL really wants LA to have a team or teams, why has expansion been ruled out? Why does an existing franchise have to move?

    Just curious
    I think the eight 4-team divisions makes for such an even schedule that expanding would make the schedule even clunkier than the LA committee’s name. You would have to expand by 4 teams and revert to 3 division with 6 teams each, or some other convoluted scenario. Remember how hard it was to figure out who was playing who during those years between the new Browns and the Texans? Clunky.

  66. If the Rams move to LA, you lose the St. Louis market without really gaining one. LA is already used to following different teams.
    I would love to see the Rams leave St. Louis and with St. Louis’ current stadium proposal another team could have an awesome place to play with loyal fan support. Kronke then could suck the $$$ out of LA fans and put a horrible product on the field for a few years until he kills that market.
    This will be one of the biggest black eyes on Goodell’s legacy. Not that he needs another.

  67. 1) San Diego has a viable (ie, funded) stadium plan on the boards. According to NFL bylaws the Chargers cannot move, especially from their 8th largest market, after 54 years.
    2) Oakland has zero prospects ($) to build a new park for the Raiders, who have no place to play till the Inglewood park is finished for the 2018 season, so will stay in place until they move to LA then.
    3) St Louis has lost its public funding and is requiring the NFL to cough up $450 mill to build their new project. That’s 800 mill out of the needed $998 mill. Since the plan is no longer viable and it will take at least a year for the public money, which across Missouri is not very popular, to become feasible again, the Rams are free to move to LA in January and play in the Coliseum until Inglewood opens in 2018.

    No great mystery as to the NFL’s thinking!!

  68. Anyone with their finger on the pulse of Los Angeles sports knows that the only team that’s wanted in LA by the PEOPLE of LA is the Rams, and the Rams in Inglewood. They don’t want the Raiders who are a disaster, and they have said over and over that they damn sure won’t drag their families down to Carson to watch a the Raiders implode weekly, and then worry about getting shot or stabbed both inside the stadium, or getting gas on the drive home.

    What’s even crazier is that it doesn’t matter to the NFL what the fans want or who can sell tickets. This is about one thing and one thing only. TV money… The Rams will find this themselves and won’t ask the owners for a dime, while simultaneously increasing the cash flow to all 32 teams by increasing revenue from TV – who you betting on?

  69. I don’t like sports team moving to the highest bidder. Rams left LA to St Louis the Colts leave Baltimore to Indy. Then the Browns move from Cleveland to Baltimore and become the Ravens. The Houston Oilers move to Tennessee and become the Titans.

    Then the NFL expands and awards Houston and Cleveland teams, the “new and improved” Browns and the Texans. Here in New England we almost lost the Pats before Kraft purchased the team back in the early 1990’s to St Louis.

    Have I missed any? It is not right to the fan base that supports these teams in good years and bad to lose a team b/c the owners don’t want to spend their money on new stadiums that they profit from. The Packers will never move b/c the fans own them.

  70. The Rams need to be the one to move, or the Jags or Bills. There are too many teams in the Midwest, East and South and not enough in the West.
    Their are 8 teams in the West counting the Broncos.
    Broncos, Cardinals, 49’ers, Seahags, Cowboys, Texans, Raiders and Chargers. With 32 teams in the NFL that is exactly one forth.

  71. L.A. Raiders, done deal, take that to the bank….

    Raiders leaving California would be like the Cowboys leaving Texas… aint gonna happen….

  72. Makes me laugh the comments about no one caring in LA and how they never support their teams.. Spoken from people who never lived there
    1 . Dodgers have been top 5 in attendance EVERY YEAR
    2. Rams had great attendance.. They left because the owner died and his wife took the sweetheart deal..
    3. Raiders left because Davis always looked to greener grass..

    Those who say LA is the worst Sports town have never been to Tampa..

  73. Rams probably have the best chance of moving to LA. The Chargers are angry at the city of San Diego, but they cannot move to LA without the Raiders joining them. That means 1 team or 3 teams in LA, and there is no way the NFL owners would agree to having 3 teams in LA. 2 maximum but not 3. The NFL will probably like to see the Rams return, and delay any further moves to LA (1 more team max) for a decade or more so that the Rams can re-establish themselves with the city and the fans.

  74. Anyone who says LA wont support a team forgets they had the Rams for 50 years! It’s like you know nothing about football!

  75. TO ALL WHO SAY LA WONT WORK… OR IS Raiders City…


    in the mid 1940s to late 1940s the RAMS Moved from Cleveland TO LOS ANGELES

    BEFORE THE RAIDERS WERE THOUGHT OF!!!! For 35 years the Rams Called Los Angeless THEIR HOME

    Raiders were in LA for 12 thats 24 YEARS LESS THAN THE RAMS

    The Rams HAVE A LOYAL FANBASE even after 20 years… Thousands of fans i am 1 of them who now live in New Orleans (grew up in SoCal)

    the Rams Fanbase has set Attendance records 1 of which STILL STANDS To this Day As a Regular Season GAME

    the history the Rams have in Los Angeles is far deeper that you may care to know, but there are 3 to 5 generations of Families that have seen the Rams in Person many have had season tickets AT THE LA COLISEUM

    so lets do a list of teams that DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE RAMS IN LOS ANGELES

    Kansas City
    Stl/AZ Cardinals
    Denver Broncos
    Dallas Cowboys
    Huston/tennessee Oilers/titans
    Dallas Texans (AFL)
    Buffalo Bills
    New Orleans Saints
    NY Jets

    and the ABOVE is just NFL
    how about Baseball

    California/anahiem Angels
    Seattle Marniers
    San Diego Padres

    i can name more
    i know how about the NBA teams or NHL, or now MLS teams… want to go College teams….

    the LA Fanbase grew up WITH THE RAMS they and those of us No longer in los angeles WANT THE RAMS BACK IN LOS ANGELES we know what team worked and works now for los angeles

    MULTIPLE Booster clubs sit in bars or resteraunts watching the rams games TOGETHER as fans.. with groups as large as 500 or more at times and places

    some of the LA Rams fans find ways to goto AWAY Games and yes this season in STL

    i bet none of you above or below would want your taxpayer money going to a private billionaire who owned a team like any of the above…


    the Fanbase is Built in for the Rams… the Raiders history is very very dark and mean AND NOT WELCOMED BACK

    the Fans will show up for the RAMS

  76. @craigbhill St.Louis has NOT lost its funding,infact it has acquired 90%of the land required for the new stadium and a BOA vote will take place by next week for the city’s portion of the financing.Have fun w/the Chargers😎

  77. NFL did a study, turns out LA is Raider country. It is what it is. You have to put butts in seats for it to work. Best chance……Raiders

  78. How can you put 2 AFC teams from the same division in the same stadium ? L.A. can’t support 1 team never mind 2 !! They wouldn’t know who to cheer for and would most likely love a TIE there so fickle out there. Add another soccer team and make them happy. Football is a unknown sport to them.

  79. Just goes to show you that NO MATTER how many hoops the NFL tells you to jump through—AND YOU DO, they will still abandon a city because the team owner greed. I was a season ticket holder with the St. Cardinal football team way back when. When Bill Bidwell threatened to move because they wouldn’t build him a football stadium, we didn’t–he did. This time around not only have they built a stadium dedicated to just football in 1995, Kronke decided it wasn’t good enough and demanded a new one at the public’s expense no less. They have set up and found a way to do that at the public’s expense but THAT DOESN’T MATTER rich guy wants LA, rich guy gets LA. ONLY REASON WHY, in 5 years when he sells the team, he gets all the gold. Greed over all else.

  80. @ mark Yale Rams are not an LA team nor a California team and their”history” here is not so affectionately remembered by all. Yeah some of us locals still remember them And they were a lousy team. There are some Rams fans here in LA but they are a minority. You can also find the same number of Eagles, Vikings, Packers and followers or fans of all the other NFL teams here. The Raiders have the largest following here and would be the best team to move.

  81. Once again, St. Louis has not lost his public funding and should have the financial package together within the next few weeks. A new stadium will be built to house the St. Louis Rams.

    St. Louis is not just a baseball town, it is a Sports Town.

  82. Right, St L is not just a baseball town. It’s a hockey town too.
    One of several reasons the Rams didn’t draw enough in Anaheim is Anaheim sportswse is the St Louis of Southern California. Anaheim supports baseball very well and hockey pretty well, but like St Loo is not very high on pro basketball and not supportive enough of pro football. Accept it, St L, you can’t be big on everything. You lost the ’34 Gunners, the ’87 Cardinals and currently are slated to lose the ’16 Rams. The stadium project is far from up to NFL snuff becuse the funding is going to pieces, no matter what you think you know but say it inaccurately anyway.
    The legislature as of Aug 25 has zero-budgeted the new debt the bonds for the old park would have created for the new one. The two most powerful members of every legislature on Earth, the bydget writers, who control who gets what, the power of the purse, have stated to Guv Nixon the only way they’d bring back the bond debt that would go to the new park is if the proponents of the park would agree to either a vote in the leigslature, which they would lose, or a vote by the people in a referedum, which they would lose overwhelmingly because the rest of the state, a vast majority, doesn’t like to keep spending tax money on St Louis’ football stadiums every 20 years. Finally, the legislators running the state budget insist on a written promise by any NFL owner they’d put their team in the new park BEFORE funding from the state would be put back in the budget. This can not be just wished away with comments like “We’ll have the money next week!” THOSE ARE THE GROUND RULES TO GET THE MONEY PUT BACK INTO THE BUDGET, PERIOD END, AND THEY ARE NOT HAPPENING “NEXT WEEK” AND THEY ARE NOT HAPPENING AT ALL.
    Likewise the St L Board of Aldermen are stirring for a vote on the plan, which is doomed by the fact those who wanted the vote want to kill public funding of the project, and those who want the stadium didn’t want the vote exactly for that reason. That will eliminate public funding by the city. So your public funding well is going dry right before your eyes, and no amount of “everything will go well next week” is going to get any of it back.
    The NFL knows this just as much as proponents of the park don’t know it, or dispute it, or know it and ignore it waiting for Jesus or some other phantom to magically plunk it on the table and keep the project viable. Reality just does not work that way. Go ahead and believe what you want, but the NFL doesn’t operate on fantasy dreams, but on the cold hard cash of public funding, which is fast going byebye, along with the Rams.
    Sorry!! Reality bites.

  83. Rams sold out The Ed for ten plus years. Attendence only declined when the product on the field did first. St. Louis has shown it is a great Sports Town.

    Nothing wrong with contigency funding on the new St. Louis Stadium, as they will not build nor fund until the commitment is made by the NFL and the Rams. Why build a stadium if there is no one to play in it…Based on the LA Committee, more and more looks like they are in favor of the Rams staying and playing in the new stadium.

    It will happen. We are not dealing in fantasy.

  84. Rams sold 100,000 seats in the Coliseum and where did that get them when they stopped drawing? St Louis. As it will be again because St Louis isn’t only not selling out now, but leaving swathes of empty seats before a competitive team playing relatively decent football! Stop with the “we don’t go because they stink” excuse!! Ever heard that what goes around comes around, or does that magically not apply to St Louis, considering its history of losing teams? Not just the ’34 Gunners and the ’87 Cardinals, but the AL Browns and the NBA Hawks. That the Rams are finished in St Louis should not be an alien concept to anyone who knows sports history there!
    You seem to grasp the fact that the public funding will not even be considered again until an NFL owner FIRST commits to playing in the new St L park, but then you seem to deny what you just wrote by invoking the “LA Committee”, which will not stop the movement of the Rams for the lack of the owner’s committment or the lack of the funding; why do you think it’s called the “LA Committee” and not the “Stay in St Louis committee”? The “LA Committee” is setting up spinning the Rams to LA as gracefully as they will be able. Get an owner to commit and restore the lost funding, which wishing, hoping and expecting will not accomplish.
    Take a deep breath and understand the only thing you can count on in life is Change. The Rams will be playing in LA again next year.

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.