PDA

View Full Version : Los Angeles and pro football?


El Diablo
11-29-2011, 05:59 PM
The Jacksonville Jaguars have been sold and once again there is no sign a team is headed for LA (the team is not doing well and it's believed they will move). Can someone explain to me why the second (third?) largest city in the country still has no pro football franchise? Yeah, yeah, I've heard they're into the college teams out there, but that's also true of college basketball, yet LA has not one but two NBA teams (well, one and a half if you're cynical about the Clippers, and who isn't). The NFL is clearly the best run pro league; how has such a large market continued to be left in the dark? Perhaps as with the Dodgers games, they're afraid everyone will leave at halftime to beat the traffic?

angharad
11-29-2011, 06:10 PM
I believe the big issue has historically been building a stadium. The Rams moved when LA wouldn't build them a new one.

LuckyR
11-30-2011, 08:47 AM
I can't disagree with the above. The billionaires who own these teams want to have the rabble (fans) build them a brand new stadium that they can brag about to their other billionaire buddies. LA already has a bunch of unused old stadiums and a populace/government who are not as easily fooled as the other large urban areas.

ollinger
11-30-2011, 08:56 AM
Might happen, have read estimates that the day the team moves to LA, its value would increase from 750 million now to an estimated 1.25 to 1.5 billion. Hard to ignore numbers like that.

LuckyR
11-30-2011, 09:06 AM
Might happen, have read estimates that the day the team moves to LA, its value would increase from 750 million now to an estimated 1.25 to 1.5 billion. Hard to ignore numbers like that.

Sure from a monetary standpoint it makes sense to do whatever it takes to reap that $750 million benefit. But billionaires are a curious lot. Money has a different meaning for them, they aren't all that impressed with low sums like that. It means more to brag that they pulled a fast one on a bunch of idiots.

djNEiGht
11-30-2011, 09:31 AM
at one time or another, san diego was slated as the top team of several to head to la. also in the talks of teams - vikings, jax, oakland, & rams.

there have been 2 design teams really making noise to design the stadium.

The stadium is expected to be built by 2016 (?) and should a team come here by next year they will play in the colesium for the time being.

El Diablo
11-30-2011, 09:43 AM
Lucky
Let me get all of this straight: people in LA are less gullible than people in other major metropolitan areas (should we make an exception of the O.J. jury?), and billionaires scoff at doing something that would only increase their wealth by three-quarters of a billion.

Slayer_of_Kings
11-30-2011, 10:27 AM
Talk down there is that the Chargers will come back to their original home town.

LuckyR
11-30-2011, 10:28 AM
Lucky
Let me get all of this straight: people in LA are less gullible than people in other major metropolitan areas (should we make an exception of the O.J. jury?), and billionaires scoff at doing something that would only increase their wealth by three-quarters of a billion.

The rabble on average? No, not really. The more savvy echelon probably gets a bit more traction in the media there though. The Admin of the city probably has been around the block dealing with slick lawyer presentations than other areas.

As to billionaires and what serves as motivation for folks with more money than they will ever spend in their lives, what is your explanation for the current state of affairs?

GPB
11-30-2011, 11:02 AM
I wish that ESPN and the rest of the national media would quit talking about the Jaguars as possible contenders to be the first team to move.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2011
Go look for yourselves... Jacksonville has NEVER been last in the league in attendance. They get a bad rap for having some seats covered and unavailable, but that's just because the stadium is WAY oversized for the market in Jax. Look at the numbers on that link; they speak for themselves.

The new owner said he is committed to bringing Jacksonville a championship, and for now we have no reason to doubt him.

Fifth Set
11-30-2011, 12:06 PM
To the extent local voters and governments are still nervous, you can probably blame the legacy of Al Davis at least in part. He tortured LA and the SF Bay Area for decades with his BS.

Mind you, I'm not personally bitter about that at all. Davis' mistreatment of Shanahan was pivotal in my favorite team finally winning the Super Bowl. :)

I think OP's point about the NFL's perspective (or lack thereof) is valid. You would think they would demonstrate more urgency in pushing LA to get a team. It's getting kind of ridiculous.

hollywood9826
11-30-2011, 01:25 PM
LA is gonna get a team soon enough.

And the Jaguars gotta be the least known about team in football. It just seems that nobody cares or notices them.

In 2009 the Jags had all but one home game blackout becuase of not enough attendance. Thenteh team reduced capicty by 10K poeple and started giving away tickets to charity. Doesnt exactly sound like a solid football city to me.

El Diablo
11-30-2011, 01:36 PM
Lucky
an explanation for "the current state of affairs" seems a little vague to me (or is that how it's done on the west coast?). WHICH state of affairs?

r2473
11-30-2011, 02:05 PM
Lucky
an explanation for "the current state of affairs" seems a little vague to me (or is that how it's done on the west coast?). WHICH state of affairs?

Affairs are often complicated

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCxCRI2Qv6U&feature=related

To love is to suffer.
To avoid suffering, one must not love.
But then one suffers from not loving.
Therefore, to love is to suffer.
Not to love is to suffer.
To suffer is to suffer.
To be happy is to love.
To be happy, then, is to suffer, but suffering makes one unhappy.
Therefore, to be unhappy one must love,
or love to suffer,|or suffer from too much happiness...
I hope you're getting this down.

LuckyR
11-30-2011, 02:32 PM
Lucky
an explanation for "the current state of affairs" seems a little vague to me (or is that how it's done on the west coast?). WHICH state of affairs?

I apologize for being obtuse. I believe you put it as: "Can someone explain to me why the second (third?) largest city in the country still has no pro football franchise?" You know, the whole point of the thread. What is your take on the reason?

El Diablo
11-30-2011, 02:39 PM
I raised the question precisely because it made so little sense to me. I think it's a temporary state of affairs, because there is a great deal of money to be made there, perhaps slowed down a bit by the torpid economy, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a team there sometime this decade.

r2473
11-30-2011, 02:42 PM
I think it's a temporary state of affairs,

I guess everything is temporary......

"Great googly moogly, how do I use that crazy search engine thingy?"

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=last+nfl+team+in+los+angeles

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/news/story?id=6057731

Kevin T
11-30-2011, 03:04 PM
Seventeen years isn't a temporary state of affairs. We've been hearing that the NFL is coming back to LA since they left. Would the NFL like to be back in the LA market? Of course. Is it urgent? Nope. The NFL seems to be doing just fine at the moment. The other big Cali market (Bay Area) will likely see the 49ers and possibly the Raiders (if they agree to share-it's being talked about) move out to Santa Clara.

I really hope the Chargers stay put.

LuckyR
11-30-2011, 03:18 PM
I raised the question precisely because it made so little sense to me. I think it's a temporary state of affairs, because there is a great deal of money to be made there, perhaps slowed down a bit by the torpid economy, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a team there sometime this decade.


If you use the regular rules of common behavior (motivation to make $750 million being very high), I completely agree with you, it makes no sense. So clearly we have to assume there is a different set of rules (motivators) at play here than what would motivate us, as individuals.

gavna
11-30-2011, 04:59 PM
I believe the big issue has historically been building a stadium. The Rams moved when LA wouldn't build them a new one.

Yep, once a new stadium is built LA will get a team. Because of the revenue sharing in the NFL the only way owners can get major revenue is from the new stadiums with luxury suites, PSL's, naming rights......etc etc etc. it's the reason the Rams, Oilers, Browns, Cardinals all left. Houston told Bud Adams to stick it on a new playground and he took his crappy but to Nashville. Georgia wanted a new palace near downtown LA and when she didn't get what she wanted off she goes to freaking St Louis. Houston agreed to build a palace for Bob McNair and guess what Houston gets a team that was slated for LA, in fact LA was given a 6 month extention to get a stadium set and they couldn't do it.
One issue now is each time a city or county stats getting thier act together on a site Surrounding burbs start filing lawsuits and all the deals fall thru. the thought of using any of the current empty facilities is a no go for any team period.