Chargers and Raiders might share stadium in LA...

[Marvin49]

"Gee ivotuk, thanks for the link."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl ... tml#page=1

Cool looking stadium.

However, imaho, the Chargers are bluffing to leverage a new stadium in San Diego while the Raiders are trying to figure out what they're going to do in Oakland.

Marc Davis will never move, he already saw what a screw up it was when his dad moved there. So he's trying to get leverage for something, he probably has no idea what, but it seems like a good idea if the Chargers are doing it.

Meanwhile, the Rams want to move to LA, and as we have seen in the past, LA can barely support 1 NFL team. If they're going to get on board with the NFL again, a team that still has fans there from the previous franchise (LA Rams) is probably the best bet for fan support.

I doubt the Chargers would get much fan support if they moved to LA to compete against the Rams, and the Raiders, with their knuckle-dragging fans would be absolutely screwed.

So that's my prediction

Stadium cracks me up....looks like a rounder Levis. Suite stack with most seats on one side and plaza openings in the corners.

OOPS: Looks like only open on one end...just like the original design on Levis when they were building it on the Naval Shipyard.

Tell me this doesn't look like its just a rounder version of Levis.







Original Layout for Levis...open end faced downtown SF.





Either peeps thought the suite stack was a great idea or there are some designers in common.

 

[Msfann]

If we have to change conferences again because of one of these bullshit teams changing cities... Naw, I don't even buy it. They wouldn't make us change again, especially now that we're elite. Make another bullshit team do it. Arizona or something.

This!

 

[sc85sis]

Oakland's new mayor, Libby Schaaf, is adamant about not using public funds for a stadium, which is probably why the Raiders are looking at other options.

Schaaf also said while keeping both the A’s and the Raiders in town is one of her priorities, she “draws a line in the sand” at using public funds to build a stadium. The Raiders’ lease at the Coliseum expires this year.
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/11/07/lib ... on-housing

 

[Marvin49]

Oakland's new mayor, Libby Schaaf, is adamant about not using public funds for a stadium, which is probably why the Raiders are looking at other options.

Schaaf also said while keeping both the A’s and the Raiders in town is one of her priorities, she “draws a line in the sand” at using public funds to build a stadium. The Raiders’ lease at the Coliseum expires this year.
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/11/07/lib ... on-housing

...and THAT is why it's so damn hard to get a pro football stadium built in California. Higher costs, less (or no) Public Money. There is a reason Levis is the first built in like 50 years.

The public money issue seems to be much less a problem in other states.

 

[Popeyejones]

If the Rams stay in STL it makes sense to move them to the AFCW for geographic reasons. And also they can have an annual rivalry with the Chiefs.

Good point, and agreed.

I guess on the other side of it I could see the NFL not wanting to move the rams into a new division or conference because even if the LA market gets taken by the Raiders and Chargers, the Rams probably aren't long for St. Louis anyway.

The prospect of moving the Rams' division or conference twice in ten years or whatever probably isn't something the NFL looks favorably upon.

Where would they go? With 2 teams in LA, that option is off the table. I suppose they could move to San Diego, but that doesn't seem likely. If SD won't build a stadium for the Chargers, I doubt they will build one for the Rams.

I think you'd be looking for 1) a top 10 metropolitan area (St. Louis is 25) that 2) has a recent history of trying to attract an NFL team or 3) has a history of supporting an NFL team.

That gives you the seventh and eight largest metro areas in North America: Toronto and Houston.

I think Toronto would be more likely because they were already damn close to getting the Bills, it's a huge city that's flush with capital, they'd probably be able to attract a large Canadian fanbase from across the country simply by being in Canada, and the Rams could remain the Rams (if/when Houston gets a team it will likely be the Oilers again, and the Rams are too storied of a franchise to simply rebrand).

Toronto would also put the Rams within puddle jumper flight time (90 minutes or less) from 9 other NFL teams (Vikings, Packers, Bengals, Steelers, Eagles, Giants, Jets, Patriots, and Bills). It's the NFL's way of expanding their market without doing something stupid like putting a team in Europe.

 

[Threedee]

God I hate the AFC. Haven't Seattle teams faced enough abuse the past decade between XL and the Sonics move?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This seems like another "build us our own stadiums or we're gonna move!" stunt, than a plausible option.

LA is a horrible sports town, with horrible public officials that have done nothing but gridlock that city into the stone age.

If I would have told you that it'd be almost 20 years later and LA still wouldn't have an NFL team, would you have believed me then?

This reeks of both the Spanos and Davis family trying to blackmail their cities into new stadiums.

 

[Seahawks1983]

If the Rams stay in STL it makes sense to move them to the AFCW for geographic reasons. And also they can have an annual rivalry with the Chiefs.

Good point, and agreed.

I guess on the other side of it I could see the NFL not wanting to move the rams into a new division or conference because even if the LA market gets taken by the Raiders and Chargers, the Rams probably aren't long for St. Louis anyway.

The prospect of moving the Rams' division or conference twice in ten years or whatever probably isn't something the NFL looks favorably upon.

Where would they go? With 2 teams in LA, that option is off the table. I suppose they could move to San Diego, but that doesn't seem likely. If SD won't build a stadium for the Chargers, I doubt they will build one for the Rams.

I think you'd be looking for 1) a top 10 metropolitan area (St. Louis is 25) that 2) has a recent history of trying to attract an NFL team or 3) has a history of supporting an NFL team.

That gives you the seventh and eight largest metro areas in North America: Toronto and Houston.

I think Toronto would be more likely because they were already damn close to getting the Bills, it's a huge city that's flush with capital, they'd probably be able to attract a large Canadian fanbase from across the country simply by being in Canada, and the Rams could remain the Rams (if/when Houston gets a team it will likely be the Oilers again, and the Rams are too storied of a franchise to simply rebrand).

Toronto would also put the Rams within puddle jumper flight time (90 minutes or less) from 9 other NFL teams (Vikings, Packers, Bengals, Steelers, Eagles, Giants, Jets, Patriots, and Bills). It's the NFL's way of expanding their market without doing something stupid like putting a team in Europe.

Toronto is definitely a good option, especially given the current state of the Argos and the CFL as a whole.

I can't picture Houston getting a second team, especially before San Antonio gets one. They just built Reliant Stadium - I doubt the Texans will share and I doubt Houston will build a 2nd stadium.

 

[Seahawks1983]

This seems like another "build us our own stadiums or we're gonna move!" stunt, than a plausible option.

LA is a horrible sports town, with horrible public officials that have done nothing but gridlock that city into the stone age.

If I would have told you that it'd be almost 20 years later and LA still wouldn't have an NFL team, would you have believed me then?

This reeks of both the Spanos and Davis family trying to blackmail their cities into new stadiums.

Los Angeles suffers from the problem of being a city of transplants and a city with tons of stuff to do, but it is a much better sports town than people give it credit for.

2 MLB teams that are very well supported (Dodgers were first in attendance last year, the Angels 5th)
2 NBA teams, including one that is NBA royalty
2 NHL teams that are well supported, especially given the lack of hockey culture in Southern California
1 MLS team that is among the best attended in the league
2 major NCAAFB teams that draw 60k+ a game

 

[IndyHawk]

Personally it wouldn't be that bad to move back to the old AFC West. We have the history there, and we could be the only team in the history of the league to eventually win the Super Bowl as NFC and AFC. We're already the only team in the league ever to play in both an AFC and an NFC Championship game.

We started as an NFC team and agreed to move to AFC temporarily but that was longer than intended.We won't move back again as we did our part..I wouldn't want to anyway,we are where we belong..3 Super Bowls should tell anyone
who has this fantasy about the AFC to forget that..

 

[seahawkfreak]

Personally it wouldn't be that bad to move back to the old AFC West. We have the history there, and we could be the only team in the history of the league to eventually win the Super Bowl as NFC and AFC. We're already the only team in the league ever to play in both an AFC and an NFC Championship game.

No thank you. Those teams had no respect for our franchise and in the 90's for good reason. We've spent the past 14 years establishing good rivalries in the NFC West. So as far as I'm concerned the AFC West can piss off and don't involve us in their "shity teams" debacle.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This seems like another "build us our own stadiums or we're gonna move!" stunt, than a plausible option.

LA is a horrible sports town, with horrible public officials that have done nothing but gridlock that city into the stone age.

If I would have told you that it'd be almost 20 years later and LA still wouldn't have an NFL team, would you have believed me then?

This reeks of both the Spanos and Davis family trying to blackmail their cities into new stadiums.

Los Angeles suffers from the problem of being a city of transplants and a city with tons of stuff to do, but it is a much better sports town than people give it credit for.

2 MLB teams that are very well supported (Dodgers were first in attendance last year, the Angels 5th)
2 NBA teams, including one that is NBA royalty
2 NHL teams that are well supported, especially given the lack of hockey culture in Southern California
1 MLS team that is among the best attended in the league
2 major NCAAFB teams that draw 60k+ a game

I meant public officials and govt supported horrible, not fans horrible...........which is what needs to happen for this behemoth of a publicly funded stadium to happen, and is why the NFL still isn't back.

Seattle is bad, but LA has to be the worst city for local/city/county and state government dysfunction.

 

[Seahawks1983]

This seems like another "build us our own stadiums or we're gonna move!" stunt, than a plausible option.

LA is a horrible sports town, with horrible public officials that have done nothing but gridlock that city into the stone age.

If I would have told you that it'd be almost 20 years later and LA still wouldn't have an NFL team, would you have believed me then?

This reeks of both the Spanos and Davis family trying to blackmail their cities into new stadiums.

Los Angeles suffers from the problem of being a city of transplants and a city with tons of stuff to do, but it is a much better sports town than people give it credit for.

2 MLB teams that are very well supported (Dodgers were first in attendance last year, the Angels 5th)
2 NBA teams, including one that is NBA royalty
2 NHL teams that are well supported, especially given the lack of hockey culture in Southern California
1 MLS team that is among the best attended in the league
2 major NCAAFB teams that draw 60k+ a game

I meant public officials and govt supported horrible, not fans horrible...........which is what needs to happen for this behemoth of a publicly funded stadium to happen, and is why the NFL still isn't back.

Seattle is bad, but LA has to be the worst city for local/city/county and state government dysfunction.

Gotcha. Well, to that point, this joint stadium proposal is a privately financed venture. So the only hurdles with public officials will center around land use codes.

 

[Boycie]

Where would they go? With 2 teams in LA, that option is off the table. I suppose they could move to San Diego, but that doesn't seem likely. If SD won't build a stadium for the Chargers, I doubt they will build one for the Rams.[/quote]

I think you'd be looking for 1) a top 10 metropolitan area (St. Louis is 25) that 2) has a recent history of trying to attract an NFL team or 3) has a history of supporting an NFL team.

That gives you the seventh and eight largest metro areas in North America: Toronto and Houston.

I think Toronto would be more likely because they were already damn close to getting the Bills, it's a huge city that's flush with capital, they'd probably be able to attract a large Canadian fanbase from across the country simply by being in Canada, and the Rams could remain the Rams (if/when Houston gets a team it will likely be the Oilers again, and the Rams are too storied of a franchise to simply rebrand).

Toronto would also put the Rams within puddle jumper flight time (90 minutes or less) from 9 other NFL teams (Vikings, Packers, Bengals, Steelers, Eagles, Giants, Jets, Patriots, and Bills). It's the NFL's way of expanding their market without doing something stupid like putting a team in Europe.[/quote]


Toronto is definitely a good option, especially given the current state of the Argos and the CFL as a whole.

I can't picture Houston getting a second team, especially before San Antonio gets one. They just built Reliant Stadium - I doubt the Texans will share and I doubt Houston will build a 2nd stadium.[/quote]

Well if the games that were played in Toronto over the years is a litmus test, then it could be a big failure. They were giving tickets away over the last year to fill up the stadium. I don't know if it was because the cost of the tickets made it prohibitive, or if there just wasn't the interest.

 

[SeatownJay]

Here's how I think it shakes out. Rams & Chargers move to L.A., Raiders move to San Antonio.

 

[Popeyejones]

This seems like another "build us our own stadiums or we're gonna move!" stunt, than a plausible option.

LA is a horrible sports town, with horrible public officials that have done nothing but gridlock that city into the stone age.

If I would have told you that it'd be almost 20 years later and LA still wouldn't have an NFL team, would you have believed me then?

This reeks of both the Spanos and Davis family trying to blackmail their cities into new stadiums.

Los Angeles suffers from the problem of being a city of transplants and a city with tons of stuff to do, but it is a much better sports town than people give it credit for.

2 MLB teams that are very well supported (Dodgers were first in attendance last year, the Angels 5th)
2 NBA teams, including one that is NBA royalty
2 NHL teams that are well supported, especially given the lack of hockey culture in Southern California
1 MLS team that is among the best attended in the league
2 major NCAAFB teams that draw 60k+ a game

I meant public officials and govt supported horrible, not fans horrible...........which is what needs to happen for this behemoth of a publicly funded stadium to happen, and is why the NFL still isn't back.

Seattle is bad, but LA has to be the worst city for local/city/county and state government dysfunction.

Perhaps, but L.A.'s unwillingness to publicly finance a football stadium is an example of effective governance, not poor governance.

 

[candyman4881]

As a Rams fan in STL, I am cautiously optimistic the Rams may stay in St. Louis, especially with the stadium proposal the city/state is currently working on, and has NFL input as well. I realize I am biased, however it appears St. Louis is closer on track than San Diego (read the dialogue between the Chargers and the city of San Diego, and also the folks on Chargers message boards on how betrayed they feel - it's not pretty) and Oakland (who are choosing between the As and the Raiders apparently). Jason LaCanfora wrote a good piece on this whole saga - http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jas ... r-chargers

Any public financing requires a 2/3 vote in California, and the Chargers attorney Mark Fabiani has basically laid down the gauntlet with the city of San Diego. I feel for the long term San Diego fans, however a move 120 miles away is not a dramatic move such as across the country.

The NFL has two options for LA:
- dual use facility which solves the two worst stadiums in the NFL and gets back into LA in Carson and continue to work with St Louis on the stadium plan

- single use facility in Inglewood for the Rams, and hope San Diego and/or Oakland steps up - one could move into Kroenke's stadium but what does the other team do?

There are a lot more questions than answers at this point, but the March owners meetings could provide some clarity.

My dream scenario is Kroenke sells the team to a St. Louis group and buys the Broncos (Pat Bowlen's health is not good), and the Rams move to the AFC West and start an instant rivalry with the Chiefs, and the LA Rams fans will still get to see the Rams once a year - I realize this is probably unrealistic

 

[chris98251]

Thinking about it, the teams in the AFC would vote down anything considering a Seahawks move back to the AFC, were too good now, Patriots, Steelers, Broncos and Chargers and Ravens do not want another team that can derail them from the Super Bowl birth. When we moved the first time we were not considered a good team, we were not bad but had yet to show dominance, the NFC West thought they were getting a easy two win to their record at the time.

Why either the Rams or the Raiders move would make more sense, but I doubt that really happens because of the long long history both teams have in those conferences.

That brings up the teams newer to the league, Jags, Texans, Panthers, Browns are newer but that history excludes them as well. Some sort of arrangement to shift one of the three teams and move conferences. Now this all depends on if the Raiders move to S.A. Raiders Chargers will not share a stadium and be in the same conference, I doubt that happens and think it is more smoke then fire. Rams Chargers on the other hand is more feasible, Rams owner has money and wants a stadium, has put effort into it, Chargers are just blowing air or they would have made things happen already. A agreement between the two works best for both teams if there is a move. Raiders will be odd man out.

Or Raiders Rams make a deal and Chargers complain and the NFL moves them to St Louis as a consolation prize and helps get a stadium deal done there.

 

[drdiags]

Personally it wouldn't be that bad to move back to the old AFC West. We have the history there, and we could be the only team in the history of the league to eventually win the Super Bowl as NFC and AFC. We're already the only team in the league ever to play in both an AFC and an NFC Championship game.

Baltimore Colts played the Jets in the Superbowl (as well as their Dallas, Saints and Bears Superbowls) but I guess it wasn't called the NFC back then, it was one of the last NFL vs AFL games (The last one was the Chiefs/Vikings?). So I am not sure if the distinction of probably winning the AFC and NFC championship is that much of milestone.

SIDENOTE: Not sure how you can consider the Browns as one of the new teams. Yeah I know the old Browns moved to Baltimore, but the Browns history remains in Cleveland. I guess it is splitting hairs but I did think the Browns history stayed with Cleveland and the Ravens history starts from the time Modell re-located them to Baltimore.

It does get murky, since the Colts in Indy still have the Baltimore Colts records. I guess this is like the Thunder/Sonics debates.

Never-mind, I have totally confused myself on whether to consider the Browns a new or old Franchise.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

I meant public officials and govt supported horrible, not fans horrible...........which is what needs to happen for this behemoth of a publicly funded stadium to happen, and is why the NFL still isn't back.

Seattle is bad, but LA has to be the worst city for local/city/county and state government dysfunction.

I guess what you call dysfunction I see has a rare instance of government functioning perfectly. I find it very odd that the same political spectrum that thinks it's evil to socialize healthcare thinks it's perfectly find for taxpayers who couldn't give a damn about football to have to pay for a football stadium so billionaires can make more billions.