http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-los-angeles-owners-meeting-h...
A 21-year odyssey came to an end Tuesday when National Football League owners voted to allow the St. Louis Rams to move to Los Angeles for the 2016 season and gave the San Diego Chargers an option to join the Rams in Inglewood.
Their home will ultimately be on site of the old Hollywood Park racetrack in Inglewood in what will be the league's biggest stadium, a low-slung, glass-roofed football palace with a projected opening in 2019 and a price tag that could approach $3 billion.
The NFL finally got their wish and have one possibly two teams in the LA market. Feel bad for St. Louis and San Diego.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Ugh. Thank Goodness the vote finally passed. However I feel like the fireworks haven't even started. Going to be some bickering until the teams are well past moved.
Was really hoping it would be either the Rams or Raiders, but I really don't think LA has the sort of sports environment that could justify two NFL teams.
Worked pretty well with the NBA and MLB.
And NHL...
For the MLB, the Angels were a wildly popular PCL team before becoming an MLB expansion team. The fanbase was well established. The Dodgers were an extremely successful team, and won a pennant their second year in LA, making it very easy for people to get behind the team. Furthermore, they're in different leagues, and the difference is more substantive between AL and NL than between the NFL conferences (the DH rule is a real sticking point for some people). Finally, the Angels are technically in Anaheim, and the difference in locale between downtown LA and Orange County does matter.
For the NBA, the Lakers moved to LA in 1961 because of money issues, were the first team on the West Coast, and found basically instant success behind Elgin Baylor and Jerry West. The Clippers moved there 25 years later because Don Sterling wanted his shiny new toy closer to home. They were largely the little brother in town, and had very little success until rather recently, and conveniently, the Lakers have been in decline during the same period. Also, it's worth noting that rumors have been picking up about Ballmer looking into moving the Clippers to Seattle.
The NHL is another less than great example, considering the Kings are downtown and the Ducks are in Anaheim, the Kings have been there since the 60s and the Ducks came along in 1993, and the Ducks only really exist because Disney has more money than God.
So of all your counterpoints, the only one that closely compares to two teams coming in in a short timespan is the MLB, and there's enough differences there that I think my point is still valid. Time will tell, but I really hope the Chargers and Raiders stay put.
I'm not a fan of teams holding cities and their elected leaders hostage to get new stadiums and then keep any money the stadium makes for themselves. There are only a handful of teams that we think will never move and only one we know will never move for any reason, Green Bay.
Yeah, the "Los Angeles Green Bay Packers" just wouldn't work. Or the "Green Bay Packers at LA." Nope.
Well that and the fact that the team is owned by regular people.
You trying to say that the fine folks up in Green Bay take pride in their community and wouldn't want to all up and move to LA? /s
Inglewood.....always up to no good.
If it didn't work 20 years ago, why would it work now, Rams?
Has it really been 20 years already?
Sadly, horribly, inexplicably, yes.
I have a deep seated despise for the StL Cardinals, if the Rams move I would think more people would attend Cards games giving them more cap space. So I hope it's the Chargers and the Rams serve as a revenue drain on that sesspool that is StL
This guy.
I like this guy.
No way were the Rams staying after Kroenke burned every bridge and salted the Earth in the explanation on why they needed to leave StL, calling it a 2 sport town at best with economic depression to the point where any potential owner looking to bring a franchise there has already failed just by considering it. Even still, feel bad for Rams fans as it sucks to get something you like ripped away. They had great crowds back during the Kurt Warner years but they have been so bad for so long it eventually wears.
Sounds like San Diego will likely err on staying and take a $100M payout from the league to help fund a new stadium there.
Also looks like if the Chargers choose to stay in San Diego, the Raiders will then be given the option to move in as the second team in LA.
If that happens, it can be like the 80s and 90s again!....except with some other changes of course
And I have a six pack of Crystal Pepsi in my fridge right now. It really is the 90s all over again.
Skins won a super bowl in the 90's
Crystal Pepsi was tasty
Hokies went to an NC and won a sugar bowl in the 90's
My music collection and most current video game systems (i never got past the n64) would be cool in the 90's
I'm ok with all this
Bring back the 90's!
My sense from reading the Post-Dispatch and talking to people was that the city of STL was generally balking at the idea of providing public money for a new stadium. It was going to be super expensive, we obviously have other problems that need to be addressed, and the dome is a sufficient venue for football.
Then the letter Kroenke wrote to other owners and league executives came out, and the gloves were off. He criticized the support the team receives from the area, he used arbitrary economic data against us, and he made the case that it was bad business to have a team in St. Louis. This is in addition to already extorting the city of St. Louis and surrounding areas out of hundreds of millions of dollars by using LA as leverage while never showing any vested interest in the team's residency in St. Louis, or the city of St. Louis itself. He never took the time to engage in the community or be a part of the Rams' footprint here, despite being born and raised in Missouri. Then he bemoans the position of the Rams among the other STL sports, even going as far as saying that the city could not support three professional sports teams. Also all along, he and the COO Kevin Demoff conducted one or two interviews giving absolute "NOs" to any question of making this move. This letter was really the final nail in the coffin, and this past week, the city has completely turned on Kroenke and his
teambusiness.Tonight I get the general sense that people are disappointed that they are leaving; not because they wanted the Rams to stay on the conditions that Kroenke dictated, but because we were in such an inferior and vulnerable position to be dictated to in the first place. The people of St. Louis had practically no say in the Rams staying or leaving despite being the ones to pay for tickets and jerseys and parking for the past 20 years. The Rams were loved here, despite 9 straight seasons under .500. St. Louis and its residents were the collateral Kroenke put up when he began the process of moving to LA; we are the ones to take on all the negatives of such a move.
In the end I think STL will be better for not having to sit underneath that huge debt for a new stadium. I also think "LA Rams" is a historically great entity, and I hope Kroenke's sliminess doesn't screw it up. The residual resentment toward Kroenke in this city though is well earned. I just hope we can move on sooner rather than later.
+1 and well said. Ever since I saw the piece on HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver about how rediculous the NFL owner can basically hold the host city economically hostage; I've personally soured on the professional league. I'll watch a game if there are any Hokies on the squad if I can, but I'm not going out of my way to do so.
Not a fan. Live four miles from the stadium site in Inglewood. LA is not a football town. Fear it's gonna be similar to situation in SD. 40k plus visitor fans.
There is one major difference in SD and LA - 10 million more people in LA. Even if the level of apathy is the same, the sheer number of people should fill up the stadium for the Rams. However, I think the Chargers are doomed to fail in LA.
Sorry for confusion, just read my comment back. I'm not concerned with the stadium selling out. It will, but my point with SD was that visitor fans will overwhelm the LA fans. Went down to SD this year for MNF vs Chicago. Sold out, or close to it, but 40k plus Bears fans of that.
There's one thing I still don't understand about this whole thing. The Rams used to be in LA and found a reason to leave. What has changed that suddenly makes LA a super desirable spot again?
~3 billion for a new stadium from the taxpayers!
Not this time.
From what I understand, the entire stadium and development will be privately financed. Hard to turn down an opportunity when the owner is paying for the whole thing.
The biggest positive I can think of out of this deal is that I no longer have to correct myself when I refer to the "LA ...um...St. Louis Rams". Now if we can just get the Cardinals to move back to St. Louis and the Colts move back to Baltimore, I think it would go a long way toward clearing up how I talk about NFL teams. Oh, and change the Texans name to the Oilers and change their colors to baby blue and red, while you're at it.
So many people in Houston would back the name change, but unfortunately, Tennessee still owns the Oilers name, even though they don't use it.
How did the Cleveland Browns get their name back from Baltimore? Is it simply that Baltimore relinquished the rights to the name, but Tennessee hasn't?
Yes, it was part of the deal when Modell moved to Baltimore. The NFL promised one of the new expansion teams would set up shop in Cleveland, and that they would retain the name, rights, and records of the Browns team, and the Ravens would be set up as a whole new team
Can we also have Jerry Glanville come back to the sidelines too?
EDIT - was supposed to be a reply to the above comment. Fail.