The W
Views: 98918864
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
15.9.14 2003
The W - Football - Colts get new stadium deal
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 3.59
Pages: 1
(1432 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (15 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.72
Looks like they wont be the team moving to LA after all.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050430/NEWS01/504300481/1004/SPORTS


    After four months of sometimes angry debate, the General Assembly took a crucial step toward solidifying the city's NFL future Friday night by easily approving a financing plan for a new Colts stadium and expanded Indiana Convention Center.

    The vote paves the way for the start of one of the biggest public works projects in Indianapolis history and appears to end years of questions about whether the Colts are here to stay.

    "We are going to expand the Convention Center, and we are going to build a new stadium for the Indianapolis Colts to play in for 30 more years," Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson said. "This is really an extraordinary project."
Promote this thread!
Mayhem
Scrapple








Since: 25.4.03
From: Nashville, TN

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.16

That's good news. I'd have a harder accepting them as an AFC South team (more than I do now).

Now the question remains: Will L.A. EVER get another NFL team?



BABY BOY MAYHEM

Summer 2005
BOSsportsfan34
Pepperoni








Since: 2.1.03
From: MA

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.43
    Originally posted by Mayhem

    That's good news. I'd have a harder accepting them as an AFC South team (more than I do now).

    Now the question remains: Will L.A. EVER get another NFL team?


I know the Seahawks looked to move there a few years ago but that plan died out. I remember some rumors of either the Vikings or the Cards going to LA, but I haven't read or heard anything recently on that.




"Midgets are AWESOME!!!"

redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 441 days
Last activity: 441 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.59
    Originally posted by BOSsportsfan34
      Originally posted by Mayhem

      That's good news. I'd have a harder accepting them as an AFC South team (more than I do now).

      Now the question remains: Will L.A. EVER get another NFL team?


    I know the Seahawks looked to move there a few years ago but that plan died out. I remember some rumors of either the Vikings or the Cards going to LA, but I haven't read or heard anything recently on that.





Cards have a new stadium being built, so that eliminates them. The best bets would be Vikings, Saints, Chargers and Raiders(just because Al Davis is Al Davis) due to current stadium deals/deficiencies. The dark horse would be the Jets should the West Side Stadium Plan fall apart and Woody Johnson decide to stick it to New York for not building him a stadium. Very longshot, but, as long as L.A. would be the next place, a possibility.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 414 days
Last activity: 374 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    Cards have a new stadium being built, so that eliminates them. The best bets would be Vikings, Saints, Chargers and Raiders(just because Al Davis is Al Davis) due to current stadium deals/deficiencies. The dark horse would be the Jets should the West Side Stadium Plan fall apart and Woody Johnson decide to stick it to New York for not building him a stadium. Very longshot, but, as long as L.A. would be the next place, a possibility.

The Vikings and Chargers are working on new stadiums as well. I wouldn't bet against them getting their new stadia (when has a city refused at all to build a stadium?).

Best bet IMO would be New Orleans, as they have had issues with the State of Louisiana not paying them as much money as their agreement specifies (due to the economic downturn we have been in the last couple years).



NOTE: The above post makes no sense. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Crimedog
Boerewors








Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2672 days
Last activity: 2662 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by Mayhem

    That's good news. I'd have a harder accepting them as an AFC South team (more than I do now).

    Now the question remains: Will L.A. EVER get another NFL team?


Better question: So what if it doesn't? The NFL doesn't need L.A. and the teams that have been there before have never drawn well. I know, I know, No. 2 TV market, but what good does that do you if every game is blacked out?
BOSsportsfan34
Pepperoni








Since: 2.1.03
From: MA

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.43
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
      Originally posted by BOSsportsfan34
        Originally posted by Mayhem

        That's good news. I'd have a harder accepting them as an AFC South team (more than I do now).

        Now the question remains: Will L.A. EVER get another NFL team?


      I know the Seahawks looked to move there a few years ago but that plan died out. I remember some rumors of either the Vikings or the Cards going to LA, but I haven't read or heard anything recently on that.





    Cards have a new stadium being built, so that eliminates them. The best bets would be Vikings, Saints, Chargers and Raiders(just because Al Davis is Al Davis) due to current stadium deals/deficiencies. The dark horse would be the Jets should the West Side Stadium Plan fall apart and Woody Johnson decide to stick it to New York for not building him a stadium. Very longshot, but, as long as L.A. would be the next place, a possibility.


I could see the Saints moving. Hopefully if that happens the Superdome is still used for Super Bowls (I'm a big proponent of Simmons theory of having the SB just rotate between New Orleans, Miami, and San Diego).

Vikings seem to have a strong following in Minny so I think their might be a public outcry if they wish to make the LA move. CRZ would be better to comment on that since he lives in that area. And on the subject of the Chargers, I think Guru might be upset if they move, but what about the rest of the San Diego fans feelings on that possibility?

I seriously doubt the Jets would move to LA. I thought the West Side Stadium was a done deal last I heard?

The Raiders? Yeah, Davis still makes noise everytime talk of LA getting a team comes up, as he claims to still have the rights to that market. Maybe they could do this then;

"The Los Angeles Raiders of Oakland"?





(edited by BOSsportsfan34 on 1.5.05 1127)



"Midgets are AWESOME!!!"

Packman V2
Bratwurst








Since: 16.3.04
From: Albuquerque, NM

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.63
The longer LA doesn't have a team, the owners will always have a card in their back pocket...well, we want to stay in [insert city here], but we would entertain the thought of moving to Los Angeles...build us a new stadium bitches.



Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 414 days
Last activity: 374 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
    Originally posted by Packman V2
    The longer LA doesn't have a team, the owners will always have a card in their back pocket...well, we want to stay in [insert city here], but we would entertain the thought of moving to Los Angeles...build us a new stadium bitches.

Exactly. I think LA is more valuable as a threat to other cities than having a team in LA would be.



NOTE: The above post makes no sense. We apologize for the inconvenience.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.72
why is having a team there so important? do they not have the NFL on tv there? I mean, it aint like people in LA arent currently watching the games, is it?
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    why is having a team there so important?


Like Crimedog said in post #6, The Angels is the #2 TV market in the country




The Catastrophic Annihilation War Room
"You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?" --Toby, West Wing

StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.72
I understand that. But, does NOBODY watch football there because they dont have a team?

The NFL seems to be doing fine without a team sitting in a half empty stadium.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 544 days
Last activity: 159 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.71
Every NFL media guy and writer Ive read says that Paul Tagliabue is determined to get the NFL back in LA before he steps down. Take that for what you will.



"I could be wrong, but I doubt it"---Charles Barkley
ekedolphin
Scrapple








Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA

Since last post: 89 days
Last activity: 34 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.52
I was actually surprised a couple of years ago when Houston got the 32nd NFL franchise instead of Los Angeles, based on the fact that Tagliabue's mission in life, apparently, is to get an NFL team in Los Angeles.

But with the current "four teams in eight divisions" format, it doesn't seem numerically feasible to simply add a 33rd team for Los Angeles. Which means, obviously, one team would have to relocate.

But is Tagliabue allowed to manipulate things behind the scenes to try and get a team to move to L.A.? Wouldn't that be tampering, or a violation of antitrust laws, or a conflict of interests or something?



I have an idea. It starts with 's' and ends with 'litting their throats.'
--Elan, The Order of the Stick

Four-Time Wiener of the Day (5/27/02; 7/3/02; 7/30/04; 8/28/04)

The Only Five-Time (and Last) N.E.W. World Heavyweight Champion

Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!

Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 161 days
Last activity: 161 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.00
    Originally posted by Packman V2
    The longer LA doesn't have a team, the owners will always have a card in their back pocket...well, we want to stay in [insert city here], but we would entertain the thought of moving to Los Angeles...build us a new stadium bitches.


This has always been my thought on Tags' big push for LA every year. It's a great threat to any city that wants to keep their team. "Play ball, or we're leaving for LA."

As long as the cities play ball, I don't think we'll ever see a team in LA (unless they expand the league again).

-Jag




generated by sloganizer.net
Thread rated: 3.59
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: A-Train to the Cowboys
Next thread: Graphic photos from the arrest of Wisconsin's Booker Stanley
Previous thread: Doug Flutie comes home
(1432 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
It would have no impact on the seeding at this point, but San Diego is 4-1, only loss at Baltimore, not 3-2.
- redsoxnation, NFL Playoff Seedings after week 6 (2006)
Related threads: James on the Block - Manning's the MVP - There it goes - More...
The W - Football - Colts get new stadium dealRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.131 seconds.