NFL wants Los Angeles

[camelcowboy]

NFL | League wants two teams in Los Angeles
Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:12:16 -0700
Beth Barrett and Rick Orlov, of the Los Angeles Daily News, reports the HERE (http://www.kffl.com/team/77/nfl)

NFL has brought up the idea of bringing two teams to Los Angeles and the rebuilt Memorial Coliseum. The league has asked the Coliseum Commission to think about expanding the cap on Coliseum events from 25 to 35 a year. The proposal will likely increase resistance from landmark museums in nearby Exposition Park. The source said, "When you spend a lot of money on a stadium, you want the right to bring a second team in if that makes sense. It would have a huge economic impact. It would be a better economic deal."


What the hell? LA couldn't support 1 team now they want two. So even if San Diego moves, Buffalo may not be safe.

[clumping platelets]

edited to fix link

[The_Philster]

Screw LA...they couldn't support the teams they had and besides, 32 teams is a perfect number and expanding would dilute the talent pool even further.

[G. Host]

I agree with LA not being able to support one team so getting two is stupid.

The only way LA supports a team it is all 'exclusive' seating and then like the idiots in DC area they buy them for status not to watch football.

[Mr. Pink]

By the same token Buffalo had football franchises in the past that left....Buffalo Bisons from the AAFC for example. Cleveland had 2 franchises that left--Rams and the "old" Browns. Baltimore lost the Colts. Chicago lost the Cardinals as did St Louis. Houston lost the Oilers. Dallas had the Texans. You get the gist.

Each one of these cities has an NFL franchise today after losing a football franchise in the past. So the point of they had a franchise and lost it so they don't deserve another is moot.

[L.A. Playa]

wonder where I heard this before

[The_Philster]

By the same token Buffalo had football franchises in the past that left....Buffalo Bisons from the AAFC for example. The Buffalo teams were usually league leaders in attendance
Cleveland had 2 franchises that left--Rams and the "old" Browns. Not sure what happened with the Rams, but they didn't lose the Browns to poor attendance figures
Baltimore lost the Colts.
Chicago lost the Cardinals as did St Louis. Chicago also had the Bears...it wasn't like they lost 2 teams in the same year
Houston lost the Oilers. Touche...they held a rally on the steps of City Hall to save the team...41 people showed up
Dallas had the Texans. as with Chicago, they lost 1 team of 2. The AFL franchise moved to KC because it couldn't compete in Dallas with the Cowboys

[L.A. Playa]

L.A. never lost teams due to poor attendance

[L.A. Playa]

to put all you Bills fans at ease I dont talk about it but I am well connected with people involved with bringing the NFL to Los Angeles and the Buffalo Bills are not a team talked about or being considered to be moved to Los Angeles so your team will remain in Buffalo for years to come, but there will be 2 teams in the Los Angeles/ Anaheim area by 2010

[The_Philster]

:idunno: It's been 10 years since they lost both teams but I thought that attendance wasn't very good...could be wrong...I think the Raiders should've stayed...I mean, San Fran and Oakland are separated by a bridge..why do they need 2 teams that close together? :cynic:

[L.A. Playa]

Phil, the real reason both teams left Los Angeles was that two of the greediest owners, Georgia and Al, wanted the city of Los Angeles and Ahaheim and the state of California to pay 100 % for either a new stadium and also give them money to stay in the area. The local politicians told them they are making a ton of money that they have to invest into the projects with some of their money and that they would not just hand them tax payer dollars to stay but they would partnership with them to improve and or build a new stadium with each team.

Both owners went and found cities that not only would give them what they wanted in a stadium but also paid them alot of money to move the franchises.

[STAMPY]

just move the bills to long island. they can play at the new shea stadium

[G. Host]

So the question is "Is there a city which is dumb enough to offer such a sweetheart deal that a team would be foolish to turn down such deal?" I am hoping cities learned lessons and the only reason why a team would be moved would be because the owner's ego insisted he wanted to be in a certain market.

[G. Host]

Phil, the real reason both teams left Los Angeles was that two of the greediest owners, Georgia and Al, wanted the city of Los Angeles and Ahaheim and the state of California to pay 100 % for either a new stadium and also give them money to stay in the area. .

Both stadiums were also dumps L.A. Playa.

[Mr. Pink]

By the same token Buffalo had football franchises in the past that left....Buffalo Bisons from the AAFC for example. The Buffalo teams were usually league leaders in attendance
Cleveland had 2 franchises that left--Rams and the "old" Browns. Not sure what happened with the Rams, but they didn't lose the Browns to poor attendance figures
Baltimore lost the Colts.
Chicago lost the Cardinals as did St Louis. Chicago also had the Bears...it wasn't like they lost 2 teams in the same year
Houston lost the Oilers. Touche...they held a rally on the steps of City Hall to save the team...41 people showed up
Dallas had the Texans. as with Chicago, they lost 1 team of 2. The AFL franchise moved to KC because it couldn't compete in Dallas with the Cowboys

The Rams left due to the owner wanting to take the team out to the west coast and the fact I believe, this is just coming off the top of my head and I could be off a little, about 15K people showed up to the 1945 championship game at Municipal Stadium in cleveland. Which the Cleveland Rams did win.

Like I said though, each of these cities had teams that left at one point or another and got another team. So saying they don't "deserve" a team because their original franchises left is not a very tangible or reasonable reason.

[YardRat]

Buffalo didn't 'lose' the Bisons, they just weren't included when the AAFC folded and merged with the NFL.

Big difference.

[Typ0]

The greater LA area could support 3 teams

[Night Train]

By the same token Buffalo had football franchises in the past that left....Buffalo Bisons from the AAFC for example.

They didn't leave. The AAFC dissolved. :liar: Nice try.

It was also noted back in 1949 that Buffalo led the league in attendence and should have been one of the teams the NFL absorbed.

Go ahead and stick another team destined to fail in LA. The NFL wants one there but the fans do not. As one poster mentioned above, they better make the entire stadium suites or corporate seating. Otherwise they don't stand a chance.

LA already has USC and UCLA. Those fans will not give up their tickets to watch pro football.

[The_Philster]

Like I said though, each of these cities had teams that left at one point or another and got another team. So saying they don't "deserve" a team because their original franchises left is not a very tangible or reasonable reason.
Chicago and Dallas didn't lose teams and then get more. They each just lost 1 out of the 2 they already had at the time. The Bears have been in Chicago since 1921 (moved from Decatur)...their original name was the Staleys. The Rams didn't even start play until 1937 and moved away in 1946..Bears never left
As far as Dallas, both the Texans of the AFL and the Cowboys of the NFL started play in 1960. In 1963, the AFL's Dallas Texans moved to KC and became the Chiefs. The Cowboys never left.
Word of advice...if you're gonna start spouting history to prove a point, make sure you have a few facts straight first. Dallas and Chicago never didn't get new teams after losing other teams. They each lost 1 of the 2 teams that were there but still retained a team apiece.

[L.A. Playa]

They didn't leave. The AAFC dissolved. :liar: Nice try.

It was also noted back in 1949 that Buffalo led the league in attendence and should have been one of the teams the NFL absorbed.

Go ahead and stick another team destined to fail in LA. The NFL wants one there but the fans do not. As one poster mentioned above, they better make the entire stadium suites or corporate seating. Otherwise they don't stand a chance.

LA already has USC and UCLA. Those fans will not give up their tickets to watch pro football.

I love the opinion of an "expert" on the LA situation who lives 3000 miles away from LA

[Mr. Pink]

Chicago and Dallas didn't lose teams and then get more. They each just lost 1 out of the 2 they already had at the time. The Bears have been in Chicago since 1921 (moved from Decatur)...their original name was the Staleys. The Rams didn't even start play until 1937 and moved away in 1946..Bears never left
As far as Dallas, both the Texans of the AFL and the Cowboys of the NFL started play in 1960. In 1963, the AFL's Dallas Texans moved to KC and became the Chiefs. The Cowboys never left.
Word of advice...if you're gonna start spouting history to prove a point, make sure you have a few facts straight first. Dallas and Chicago never didn't get new teams after losing other teams. They each lost 1 of the 2 teams that were there but still retained a team apiece.


Ahhh I see you missed my point...it's cool though. My point was each of these cities lost professional football teams yet have football today and can support it. So saying because LA did have football teams in the past and lost them so they can't support a team in the present/future is not something we know to be fact.

Although the main reason the NFL wants in LA is for the market, we all know this. Plus the NFL isn't going to expand again to get the market, considering then they'd most likely have to expand into another city as well to make the number of teams even. And I don't know of any other cities in the US that the NFL wants to get into.

[G. Host]

There are probably three or four potential cities for the NFL to expand to;
San Antonio (frequent target of Minnesota move threats)
Las Vegas (hard to handle due to gambling)
Orlando (have supported some professional football teams)
Portland, Oregon (have supported some professional football teams)

Which cities have tried to get team in past and lost? Memphis? As long as they have a very, very rich obsesssed NFL fan it is possible, even better if they have a company which would become instant sponsor.

[Night Train]

I love the opinion of an "expert" on the LA situation who lives 3000 miles away from LA

Checkmate. I lived in the LA area while stationed in the military. Also spent a few years in San Diego. Plus I have several cousins and friends who currently live in the LA area.
Still mad the Bills aren't moving to LA ? :lol:

[L.A. Playa]

Checkmate. I lived in the LA area while stationed in the military. Also spent a few years in San Diego. Plus I have several cousins and friends who currently live in the LA area.
Still mad the Bills aren't moving to LA ? :lol:

never was happy nor mad at the notion of the Bills moving to LA, living in LA and knowing people involved in the process of bringing football back to LA are two different things, the points you stated are totally ignorant and false so just know what you talk about before you make a post

once again though as I said glad to see an expert who lives over 3000 miles away

living here once and living here now are 2 different things

[The_Philster]

Ahhh I see you missed my point...it's cool though. My point was each of these cities lost professional football teams yet have football today and can support it. So saying because LA did have football teams in the past and lost them so they can't support a team in the present/future is not something we know to be fact.

Although the main reason the NFL wants in LA is for the market, we all know this. Plus the NFL isn't going to expand again to get the market, considering then they'd most likely have to expand into another city as well to make the number of teams even. And I don't know of any other cities in the US that the NFL wants to get into.
L.A. lost 2 teams in one year. Chicago and Dallas each lost 1 of 2. Doesn't mean they couldn't support football...but that they could only support 1 team. New York City's the only city that's been able to support more than 1 team for an extended period of time. So I really don't see your point, no. If Chicago and Dallas each lost both of their teams and got one back, I could see where you're going with this but they've each successfully supported an NFL franchise for over 45 years

[Mr. Pink]

Here's a link to NFL franchise chronology from day 1 of the existence of the NFL it was previously called the APFA.....As you can see from perusing the link A LOT of cities that support an NFL franchise now had teams that folded or moved at one point. Which is EXACTLY my point of saying LA doesn't deserve a franchise because they couldn't support the ones they already had holds ZERO credibility.
HickokSports.com - History - NFL Franchise Chronology (http://www.hickoksports.com/history/nflfranchises.shtml)

[G. Host]

Here's a link to NFL franchise chronology from day 1 of the existence of the NFL it was previously called the APFA.....As you can see from perusing the link A LOT of cities that support an NFL franchise now had teams that folded or moved at one point. Which is EXACTLY my point of saying LA doesn't deserve a franchise because they couldn't support the ones they already had holds ZERO credibility.
HickokSports.com - History - NFL Franchise Chronology (http://www.hickoksports.com/history/nflfranchises.shtml)

That site has some very annoying ads including one which tries to convince you to install some software giving priviledges to it - do not. Run site with good popup blocker.

The two Buffalo Bills franchises were unrelated and should not have been linked together. It is purely wrong to not list AFL teams until merger which is typical NFC bias.

[YardRat]

Los Angeles has lost three teams since 1960. That has to count for something.

Personally, I could care less whether or not LA has a team, as long as it isn't the Bills.

[Mr. Pink]

That site has some very annoying ads including one which tries to convince you to install some software giving priviledges to it - do not. Run site with good popup blocker.

The two Buffalo Bills franchises were unrelated and should not have been linked together. It is purely wrong to not list AFL teams until merger which is typical NFC bias.


Sorry bout the ads....didn't know it did that. If I did I woulda found a better link. The ads don't come up on my computer.

And the site is a history of the AFPA/NFL seeing the NFL was the AFPA prior to being the NFL. Which is why the AFL franchises aren't listed until they join the NFL. Much like the Browns, Colts, 49ers which joined the NFL after the AAFC folded.

[BillyT92679]

LA should get teams, due to its size alone.

But not the Bills.

The Chargers make the most sense, then the Jaguars. The Jville experiment has run its course, and there is little left to be bled out of the metro area for support. Even when they win, they never sell out Alltel Stadium. It's a college haven, the residents support FSU, the Gators, and the Canes first, then the Bucs/Fish/Falcs, and, especially since Jville is a maven for transplants, other NFL teams entirely.