Alphabet Man
Team Captain
NFL to discuss a potential LA franchise
i think the Rose Bowl or the Collesium would be a suitable home for the team
i think the Rose Bowl or the Collesium would be a suitable home for the team
NFL Relocations and League Expansion
- Thread starter Alphabet Man
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Re: NFL in LA again?
We already have 2 professional American Football teams in LA....
USC and UCLA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We already have 2 professional American Football teams in LA....
USC and UCLA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Aug 6, 2000
- 3,546
- 50
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- GB Packers, STL Cards, PHI Flyers
Re: NFL in LA again?
ba dump bump.
It makes sense to have an NFL team back in the nation's largest TV market, but it may have to come at the expense of an existing franchise. In my opinion, the league is too big already as it is at 32 teams.
ba dump bump.
It makes sense to have an NFL team back in the nation's largest TV market, but it may have to come at the expense of an existing franchise. In my opinion, the league is too big already as it is at 32 teams.
Woodson
Former AE commish
- Mar 20, 2001
- 30,752
- 11,763
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Steelers, NY Mets, Villa and SUFC
Re: NFL in LA again? Super Bowls !!
Too many disruptions for a team to be back in LA. IMHO. Not enough passion either. They had two for a good while and while the Raiders were the stronger force the heart was always in Oakland and the LA Rams just went from good to bad and the empty seats in the stadium told the owners to move. Anyone could see the logic to that. On the flipside, a neutral venue for a Super Bowl gets my approval and LA has fitting venues.
Stealth bomber said:
Too many disruptions for a team to be back in LA. IMHO. Not enough passion either. They had two for a good while and while the Raiders were the stronger force the heart was always in Oakland and the LA Rams just went from good to bad and the empty seats in the stadium told the owners to move. Anyone could see the logic to that. On the flipside, a neutral venue for a Super Bowl gets my approval and LA has fitting venues.
Re: NFL in LA again?
The way the divisions are aligned is also, mathematiclaly very good at the moment with 32 teams comprised of 8 divisons each of 4 teams.
33 teams really throws that out. But,With 17 million people (nearly the population of Australia) it really should be a two-team market like New York and like Los Angeles was in the past.
Many owners and the NFL would consider and NFL presence in Los Angeles is a must. However, I've heard they'd likely face a court fight from the Oakland Raiders owner, who still claims he has territorial rights in Los Angeles.
Stealth bomber said:
The way the divisions are aligned is also, mathematiclaly very good at the moment with 32 teams comprised of 8 divisons each of 4 teams.
33 teams really throws that out. But,With 17 million people (nearly the population of Australia) it really should be a two-team market like New York and like Los Angeles was in the past.
Many owners and the NFL would consider and NFL presence in Los Angeles is a must. However, I've heard they'd likely face a court fight from the Oakland Raiders owner, who still claims he has territorial rights in Los Angeles.
- Oct 12, 2003
- 8,391
- 1,423
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- NUFC, Green Bay
Re: NFL in LA again?
I think the only way we get a team in LA is if a team relocates
BTW did anyone meet ricky williams while he was in OZ???
I think the only way we get a team in LA is if a team relocates
BTW did anyone meet ricky williams while he was in OZ???
Alphabet Man
Team Captain
- Thread starter
- #9
New teams for NFL...
ok, the only topic i'll post like this...
where should the next NFL franchise be located?
i say Los Angeles is an obvious place.... but i think Hawaii will get one, maybe called Hawaii Waves (like my RFL fantasy team) love that name...
maybe NY Jets should move somewhere else, they play in Giants Stadium etc. why not move to another city all together? i would if i were the NY Jets boss
ok, the only topic i'll post like this...
where should the next NFL franchise be located?
i say Los Angeles is an obvious place.... but i think Hawaii will get one, maybe called Hawaii Waves (like my RFL fantasy team) love that name...
maybe NY Jets should move somewhere else, they play in Giants Stadium etc. why not move to another city all together? i would if i were the NY Jets boss
Re: New teams for NFL...
LA will have a team in say 4 years. After that im not too sure of where else would have a team. If Hawaii was to get a team, which I see as highly unlikely, it would be massive for the island. Can't see the NY Jets moving, considering they are building a new stadium IIRC.
I think an overhaul of Arizona is needed as well!
LA will have a team in say 4 years. After that im not too sure of where else would have a team. If Hawaii was to get a team, which I see as highly unlikely, it would be massive for the island. Can't see the NY Jets moving, considering they are building a new stadium IIRC.
I think an overhaul of Arizona is needed as well!
Portia
#DrewBlood
30k Posts
10k Posts
TheBrownDog
Port Adelaide - Jesse Palmer Player Sponsor 2017
Podcaster
Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016
Port Adelaide - Brendon AhChee Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
- Oct 7, 2001
- 50,502
- 24,862
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Muckbuckle Dolmens
Re: New teams for NFL...
Portland, Oregon.
Those poor saps all currently support Seattle or the 49ers. How depressing.
If necessary/viable, they could be the Pacific <whatevers>, play out of Portland with two or three home games in Hawaii.
Portland, Oregon.
Those poor saps all currently support Seattle or the 49ers. How depressing.
If necessary/viable, they could be the Pacific <whatevers>, play out of Portland with two or three home games in Hawaii.
- Oct 12, 2003
- 8,391
- 1,423
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- NUFC, Green Bay
Re: New teams for NFL...
I heard that the saints are going to be sold then relocated to LA. Interesting.
Benson wife is now telling him what to do
I heard that the saints are going to be sold then relocated to LA. Interesting.
Benson wife is now telling him what to do
Alphabet Man
Team Captain
- Thread starter
- #13
Re: New teams for NFL...
i heard that too, but ithought he wanted a new stadium or he'd move....
i heard that too, but ithought he wanted a new stadium or he'd move....
- Oct 17, 2003
- 10,792
- 4
- Other Teams
- Banned
- #14
Re: New teams for NFL...
the saints relcoated AGAIN! crazy stuff
the saints relcoated AGAIN! crazy stuff
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
Re: New teams for NFL...
The Saints have always been in NO. The current agreement the team has with the city has a clause that needs to be exercised by Benson (the owner) by Feb next year. He wants a new stadium, the city is almost broke and has refused to negotiate until Jan at the earliest.
The Saints would be an easy option to relocate as the NFL probably wouldn't need to realign conferences. However, it wouldn't surprise me if the move is made they move the Saints into the NFC West to bring both the 49'ers and Rams to town. The Cardinals could easily move into the NFC South.
Everything looks to be heading in that direction atm.
Again??Ted Pellitts said:
The Saints have always been in NO. The current agreement the team has with the city has a clause that needs to be exercised by Benson (the owner) by Feb next year. He wants a new stadium, the city is almost broke and has refused to negotiate until Jan at the earliest.
The Saints would be an easy option to relocate as the NFL probably wouldn't need to realign conferences. However, it wouldn't surprise me if the move is made they move the Saints into the NFC West to bring both the 49'ers and Rams to town. The Cardinals could easily move into the NFC South.
Everything looks to be heading in that direction atm.
- Banned
- #16
Re: New teams for NFL...
NY Jets move to another city??? you've got to be kidding. New York can easily sustain, and does easily sustain 2 football teams.
City Hall is proposing a new football stadium in Manhattan or the Bronx to get the New York Jets back to New York. Both the New York Jets and New York Giants play out of East Rutherford New Jersey.
The obvious choice for the next NFL franchise is probably Anaheim. The NFL has tried and failed in LA before, but it does seem crazy not to have a professional team in the second biggest city in the country. But i think Anaheim is still the better option.
MattMorris said:
NY Jets move to another city??? you've got to be kidding. New York can easily sustain, and does easily sustain 2 football teams.
City Hall is proposing a new football stadium in Manhattan or the Bronx to get the New York Jets back to New York. Both the New York Jets and New York Giants play out of East Rutherford New Jersey.
The obvious choice for the next NFL franchise is probably Anaheim. The NFL has tried and failed in LA before, but it does seem crazy not to have a professional team in the second biggest city in the country. But i think Anaheim is still the better option.
Alphabet Man
Team Captain
- Thread starter
- #17
Re: New teams for NFL...
THe ARU overlooked Australia's second largest city so....
that stadium would only get built if the city gets the 2012 Olympic Games...which the people of NY don't want (strange, i know)
THe ARU overlooked Australia's second largest city so....
that stadium would only get built if the city gets the 2012 Olympic Games...which the people of NY don't want (strange, i know)
Alphabet Man
Team Captain
- Thread starter
- #19
Re: New teams for NFL...
i suppose it is...
i suppose it is...
fuey
Statistically Impossible
Battle for Los Angeles?
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/3609634
Looks like the race is on to move to Los Angeles.
Minnesota have been looking to omve for the last... 3 years maybe...
I hope they don't, just wouldn't be the same rivalry. And it wouldn't be the NFC North anymore...
As for the Saints, their owner is looking to get out as well, the article said at the end of the 2005 season possibly.
I don't like seeing any team move, mainly because its based around money. If a franchise is losing money, it's usually because they haven't had success, and moving to a different city with the same players and staff isn't going to change much.
As a Packer fan, I know it will never happen to us, but I feel for the fans in those cities that love their team.
Thoughts?
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/3609634
Looks like the race is on to move to Los Angeles.
Minnesota have been looking to omve for the last... 3 years maybe...
I hope they don't, just wouldn't be the same rivalry. And it wouldn't be the NFC North anymore...
As for the Saints, their owner is looking to get out as well, the article said at the end of the 2005 season possibly.
I don't like seeing any team move, mainly because its based around money. If a franchise is losing money, it's usually because they haven't had success, and moving to a different city with the same players and staff isn't going to change much.
As a Packer fan, I know it will never happen to us, but I feel for the fans in those cities that love their team.
Thoughts?
Lenny Briscoe
All Australian
Re: Battle for Los Angeles?
nfl needs a franchise in la. i think that if an existing team was to move it is between the chargers or saints. hopefully the saints because they are such an inept franchise. but i personally would avour an expansion tema. i hate seeing teams move like the oilers, or the browns even though they're back, even the rams and cardinals.
nfl needs a franchise in la. i think that if an existing team was to move it is between the chargers or saints. hopefully the saints because they are such an inept franchise. but i personally would avour an expansion tema. i hate seeing teams move like the oilers, or the browns even though they're back, even the rams and cardinals.
mcgarnacle
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,815
- 4,213
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Re: Battle for Los Angeles?
the rams were an LA franchise for nearly 50 years. the lack of a decent stadium prompted their move but, St Louis is a good market for them - a football town. if nt for the stadium issue, the raiders would have stayed as well. i'm sure they'd prefer to call LA home than have to share the SF Bay area with the 49ers again.
the saints draw poor crowds because it is a poor organisation. moving it to LA will not solve the problem.jls-roos said:
the rams were an LA franchise for nearly 50 years. the lack of a decent stadium prompted their move but, St Louis is a good market for them - a football town. if nt for the stadium issue, the raiders would have stayed as well. i'm sure they'd prefer to call LA home than have to share the SF Bay area with the 49ers again.
Re: Battle for Los Angeles?
But Oakland are as far attached from San Francisco as Redfern is to Darling Point. San Francisco = foo foo shi shi, finesse, skill, people turning up to games in designer clothes and dress leather jackets, perfect passing quarterbacks, fleet footed wide receivers. Oakland= people without teeth, murderors, bikie gang members, hoods, working class grit, tough tight ends and running backs, junkyard football. I can tell you from experience, Oakland is a damn messy neighbourhood, even if it is only 16 miles from "the City" over the Bay Bridge or on the BART.
Los Angeles is a bigger more plastic version of Sydney. Fake people with pink poodles eating diet Mexican and goat's milkshakes because they are better for the image. A working class battler-type franchise like the Raiders would never have worked in such an image-obsessed city as LA. Oakland is home for the team, and always should be.
But PLEASE don't just move a franchise without changing the name. If they want a team in LA, please start from scratch. It is complete joke that the Baltimore Colts are in Indianapolis, the LA Rams are now in St Louis, the St Louis Cardinals are in Phoenix, the Cleveland Browns are really actualy the Baltomore Ravens, even though a new Cleveland Browns was started in their absence. The Houston Oilers became the Tennessee Titans. And Tampa Bay Buccaneers will soon become Manchester United no doubt.
JF
mcgarnacle said:
But Oakland are as far attached from San Francisco as Redfern is to Darling Point. San Francisco = foo foo shi shi, finesse, skill, people turning up to games in designer clothes and dress leather jackets, perfect passing quarterbacks, fleet footed wide receivers. Oakland= people without teeth, murderors, bikie gang members, hoods, working class grit, tough tight ends and running backs, junkyard football. I can tell you from experience, Oakland is a damn messy neighbourhood, even if it is only 16 miles from "the City" over the Bay Bridge or on the BART.
Los Angeles is a bigger more plastic version of Sydney. Fake people with pink poodles eating diet Mexican and goat's milkshakes because they are better for the image. A working class battler-type franchise like the Raiders would never have worked in such an image-obsessed city as LA. Oakland is home for the team, and always should be.
But PLEASE don't just move a franchise without changing the name. If they want a team in LA, please start from scratch. It is complete joke that the Baltimore Colts are in Indianapolis, the LA Rams are now in St Louis, the St Louis Cardinals are in Phoenix, the Cleveland Browns are really actualy the Baltomore Ravens, even though a new Cleveland Browns was started in their absence. The Houston Oilers became the Tennessee Titans.
And Tampa Bay Buccaneers will soon become Manchester United no doubt. JF
mcgarnacle
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,815
- 4,213
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Re: Battle for Los Angeles?
btw, although passionate, i'm starting to see an underlying theme with regard to the teams you support.
fair point but, i think LA football fans are pleading for a team to grace the ciy again & the raiders have history in the city. the demise of football in LA was purely due to game-day accommodation. the org's didn't want to fund the stadium on their own, and at the time the city didn't want to pay for it either.JF_Bay_22_SCG said:
btw, although passionate, i'm starting to see an underlying theme with regard to the teams you support.
would believe the Rams began life in Cleveland?? & the Cardinals spent time in Chicago?? did you also know the Chargers had a brief stint in LA, and the Chiefs were called the Dallas Texans? certainly does get confusing. however, the NFL would be happy with the current 32-member setup. Don't forget, these org's are businesses and companies in the true sense of the word. NFL cannot flick one if it is still a going concern.JF_Bay_22_SCG said:But PLEASE don't just move a franchise without changing the name. If they want a team in LA, please start from scratch. It is complete joke that the Baltimore Colts are in Indianapolis, the LA Rams are now in St Louis, the St Louis Cardinals are in Phoenix, the Cleveland Browns are really actualy the Baltomore Ravens, even though a new Cleveland Browns was started in their absence. The Houston Oilers became the Tennessee Titans.
JF
