LA relocation- St Louis, Oakland, San Diego

I haven't seen it talked about much other than slightly in the 9ers ownership thread.

Going by scenes like these: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2601 ... -san-diego

You kind of figure the Chargers are gone from San Diego.

What I don't get though is that the Raiders are supposed to share a new LA stadium with them and Kroenke had separate plans to build his own for the Rams in LA (now St Louis seem to be putting up a fight, even if the stadium looks empty).

Would one team move this year and another a season or 2 after so that they can work out stadium deals?

If the Raiders and Chargers did move and share a stadium, how does that work for the AFC West? Surely two division rivals can't share a stadium or be in the same market. Would the Rams move to the AFC West as some sort of rebirth with a new stadium et al? Surely it wouldn't be us, given our recent success in the NFC over the last 10 years.

Should know here soon, I imagine a lot of politicking going on right now behind the scenes, Vote is suppose to be in January, well the first vote, I imagine there will be several.

I hope the Chargers stay in San Diego, the Rams move to LA, and the Raiders...well, I guess I don't care about the Raiders.

There are rumors about what is truth across the spectrum.

StL fans can give you all the pro-StL side, LA fans can give you the opposite as far as Rams go. It's truely heartbreaking this week for all my loved Charger fans around here in San Diego.

Chris is correct. No matter how anyone wants to spin their side, these are the facts:


1. NFL has requested all three involved cities (SD, Oakland, StL) to present their ACTIONABLE plans with no contingencies to the NFL by Dec 30th. (StL does have an actionable plan, neither of the other two do).

2. On Jan 4th, any team wanting to move to any city can file for relocation (per the NFL rules).

3. On Jan 12-13, the 32 owners will convene together in Houston to discuss the LA situation and a vote is expected.

Note: It requires a 2/3 or 24 votes to appove a move. So, 9 votes blocks a move. Both could be less if the Bengals owner abstains as expected.


These are the only actual facts. Tons of other information available - I think one reason it hasn't been discussed here on the Hawk forum is us Rams fans are trying to be nice to each other.

btw: to the OP - bleacher report is not a good source on this topic. TMZ is probably just as accurate.

I guess we should be rooting for the Rams to move since itd be one fewer game outside the Pacific Time Zone.

St. Louis is one of my favorite cities and I'd like to see them keep their team, even though they don't seem to care about any professional team outside of the Cardinals (MLB), or at least didn't seem to when I lived there.

For the Hawks, Rams to LA is one less 10am game a year - correct.

As to StL supporting our Rams - depends on who you ask.

I would say that based on my personal experience visiting the team in StL (as you mention you have done) - that they are more into the baseball cards and not much into the Rams.

The StL fans will give a massive list of excuses and swear they will love the team if they stay and that it's not their fault.


Everyone has their personal opinion and experience.

I would say - If Rams are in LA or StL next year for 2016: I sure want them to be supported and loved. I expect it from either.

Alright here are the undeniable facts:

St. Louis has been asked to build another NFL stadium after having already done so 20 years ago.....and is still paying off that stadium......while working on getting a new $1.1 billion stadium funded.

San Diego has balked on building a stadium for 15 years.

LA has balked on building a stadium for over 25 years.

Oakland has balked probably as long as LA has.

Rams owner StanK can afford to build his own stadium anywhere.

:snack:

Rex":vlzpfyj5 said:

Alright here are the undeniable facts:

St. Louis has been asked to build another NFL stadium after having already done so 20 years ago.....and is still paying off that stadium......while working on getting a new $1.1 billion stadium funded.

San Diego has balked on building a stadium for 15 years.

LA has balked on building a stadium for over 25 years.

Oakland has balked probably as long as LA has.

Rams owner StanK can afford to build his own stadium anywhere.

Click to expand...

As I clearly stated above: StL fans will spin you their side of the facts. LA fans can as well, so can SD, etc.

The only facts are what I stated. This is Rex' spin on the StL side.

Rex":2l8ivk7b said:

Alright here are the undeniable facts:

St. Louis has been asked to build another NFL stadium after having already done so 20 years ago.....and is still paying off that stadium......while working on getting a new $1.1 billion stadium funded.

San Diego has balked on building a stadium for 15 years.

LA has balked on building a stadium for over 25 years.

Oakland has balked probably as long as LA has.

Rams owner StanK can afford to build his own stadium anywhere.

Click to expand...

C'mon Rex....

Firstly, as part of the agreement the stadium needs to be considered top 8 after 20 years - it's not even close.

That's a fact.

Also, StanK can afford to build a stadium......why would you, as a businessman, A. build your own stadium with no help from the city and B. build said stadium in a smaller market that has proven over time the Rams are not good enough for them. STL fans point to the fact that attendance was great when they were winning........that goes for any city. Unfortunately, it's ultimately a business and if losing made more money, owners would want to lose. They want to make money....winning just happens to be the way to do that. So the STL fans saying "it's not fair! the Rams have sucked for so long that's why attendance is down" - why does that matter?? It doesn't.

RedAlice":zp2lu1tg said:

For the Hawks, Rams to LA is one less 10am game a year - correct.

As to StL supporting our Rams - depends on who you ask.

I would say that based on my personal experience visiting the team in StL (as you mention you have done) - that they are more into the baseball cards and not much into the Rams.

The StL fans will give a massive list of excuses and swear they will love the team if they stay and that it's not their fault.


Everyone has their personal opinion and experience.

I would say - If Rams are in LA or StL next year for 2016: I sure want them to be supported and loved. I expect it from either.

Click to expand...

Agree with this post 1000%.

The games I've been to the past three years were 50/50 splits between home/away fans. No bueno.

Rat":cqxkb41n said:

I guess we should be rooting for the Rams to move since itd be one fewer game outside the Pacific Time Zone.

St. Louis is one of my favorite cities and I'd like to see them keep their team, even though they don't seem to care about any professional team outside of the Cardinals (MLB), or at least didn't seem to when I lived there.

Click to expand...

If the Rams stay in StL, and SD and OAK wind up sharing a stadium, I do believe one of those teams has to move to the NFC... I would assume NFCW. And as I recall the NFL said they would not make Seattle change conferences for a 3rd time. So StL could go to AFC possibly? So at least the NFCW would be all teams in the west.

Regardless, I do hope the Rams move back to LA where they belong.

Move San Diego and Oakland to LA. Have San Diego join the NFC west. Have St. Louis move into the sec since they have a ton of college talent but can't win in the nfl. Move the university if Alabama to portland and have them join the afc west. Done.

What happens when a franchise moves in terms of the fan base? Is the newly located team supported mostly by new fans or do the old ones migrate? Or is it a mix of both?

It happens very rarely in the UK. The Wimbledon football team moved to Milton Keynes but the fan base were furious and refused to support them. They created their own club as a direct result and supported them instead

retro74":10wi3om2 said:

What happens when a franchise moves in terms of the fan base? Is the newly located team supported mostly by new fans or do the old ones migrate? Or is it a mix of both?

It happens very rarely in the UK. The Wimbledon football team moved to Milton Keynes but the fan base were furious and refused to support them. They created their own club as a direct result and supported them instead

Click to expand...

It usually takes a generation for a fan base to take hold after a move. Older folks are set with their fandom and don't usually make a switch unless the new team becomes a winning team and their favorite team flounders.

The rams won shortly after they moved, so they acquired a good fan base in St Louis, but that run was so short lived that the fandom didn't hold and most fans went back to their first love.

There are still a lot of rams fans in Southern California, but a lot of fans migrated to another team because their love left them.

Fandom is a love and a team moving is like a breakup for some and a long distance relationship for others. Just win and the fans will come. Keep winning and they'll stay. The kids growing up near the new team will be fans.

As a former resident of L.A. I would like to see the Rams back there where they belong.

Largent80":eng60duq said:

As a former resident of L.A. I would like to see the Rams back there where they belong.

Click to expand...

As a former resident of San Diego, I'd like to see the Chargers stay there but it ain't gonna happen. People of that city have voted diwn new stadium funding I believe three times.

I would love to see a team move to a state that has NO team, why california keeps getting teams that fail I'll never understand.

I would rather see Portland Oregon get a team or something like that. spread it around a bit instead of letting one state get so many teams.

RedAlice":230n5xav said:

Rex":230n5xav said:

Alright here are the undeniable facts:

St. Louis has been asked to build another NFL stadium after having already done so 20 years ago.....and is still paying off that stadium......while working on getting a new $1.1 billion stadium funded.

San Diego has balked on building a stadium for 15 years.

LA has balked on building a stadium for over 25 years.

Oakland has balked probably as long as LA has.

Rams owner StanK can afford to build his own stadium anywhere.

Click to expand...

As I clearly stated above: StL fans will spin you their side of the facts. LA fans can as well, so can SD, etc.

The only facts are what I stated. This is Rex' spin on the StL side.

Click to expand...

No spin on my end. I posted facts. Undeniable FACTS.

Ramfan128":3obq80ts said:

Rex":3obq80ts said:

Alright here are the undeniable facts:

St. Louis has been asked to build another NFL stadium after having already done so 20 years ago.....and is still paying off that stadium......while working on getting a new $1.1 billion stadium funded.

San Diego has balked on building a stadium for 15 years.

LA has balked on building a stadium for over 25 years.

Oakland has balked probably as long as LA has.

Rams owner StanK can afford to build his own stadium anywhere.

Click to expand...

C'mon Rex....

Firstly, as part of the agreement the stadium needs to be considered top 8 after 20 years - it's not even close.

That's a fact.

Also, StanK can afford to build a stadium......why would you, as a businessman, A. build your own stadium with no help from the city and B. build said stadium in a smaller market that has proven over time the Rams are not good enough for them. STL fans point to the fact that attendance was great when they were winning........that goes for any city. Unfortunately, it's ultimately a business and if losing made more money, owners would want to lose. They want to make money....winning just happens to be the way to do that. So the STL fans saying "it's not fair! the Rams have sucked for so long that's why attendance is down" - why does that matter?? It doesn't.

Click to expand...

None of what you write contradicts anything that I wrote. I wrote the facts. Undeniable FACTS.