Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 98
   
Posts: 2218/2221
EXP: 9613033
For next: 41354
Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL
Since last post: 2913 days
Last activity: 2453 days
|  #1 Posted on 13.1.16 1002.45
Reposted on: 13.1.23 1002.47 | Anyone remember that the Raiders, Rams and Chargers had each called Los Angeles home before?
The Rams are the NBA Kings of the NFL. Cleveland-LA-St. Louis-LA.
***and, only the Packers, Cowboys, Bills, Steelers, Broncos, Eagles and 49ers are left from 1960 that have never changed location or team name.
(edited by Eddie Famous on 13.1.16 0810) | Promote this thread! |             | lotjx
Scrapple
Level: 130
Posts: 4369/4785
EXP: 25585254
For next: 145392
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 1974 days
Last activity: 1812 days
| #2 Posted on 13.1.16 1017.08
Reposted on: 13.1.23 1019.32 | I feel bad for the St. Louis fanbase that welcomed that team, won a Super Bowl and now left in the dust thanks to their new owner being asshole. I also feel bad for the people in LA who enjoyed the earliest form of Redzone and have no desire to have this shitty team come in to fuck up their TV watching. Raiders are always going to be screwed over by the NFL even if Al Davis is dead.
I am not sure what Chargers fan is going to drive to LA to watch their team. I also think the NFL is endangering of having another stadium where no one is at. The worse part is that it houses two teams. While the NFL wants the LA market, I think they are gong to find out that the LA market will do what it always does with football, ignore it.
| StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 161
Posts: 6683/7105
EXP: 54029774
For next: 83459
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 1230 days
Last activity: 1230 days
| #3 Posted on 13.1.16 1202.30
Reposted on: 13.1.23 1211.57 | Been following this story, since it's all the locals have been talking about for a few years now, and the narrative that everybody is saying (greedy owner, city tried so hard, etc) is leaving out the very first thing that happened to Kroenke when he bought the Rams. The people who operate the Dome told him that THEY would be better off if the Rams relocated because they would be able to schedule more events in the Dome and attached convention center.
The first offer for improvements to the Dome, to fulfill the lease requirements, was the document the Chiefs were given by the people that run Arrowhead Stadium, with the Chiefs letterhead still attached.
The city showed no effort to do anything until a year ago, and while Kroeke is an asshole and a greedy businessman, the NFL is to blame as much as the city of St Louis. They want an LA team, and they were going to get an LA team, regardless.
They violated their own relocation terms and conditions, lied to the people negotiating on the city's behalf, and did nothing to try to make anything possible.
The bottom line is, Oakland is right where they want to be, with the NFL paying for part of their new building, whenever and wherever it gets built. | thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 153
Posts: 5699/6203
EXP: 44871786
For next: 451721
Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL
Since last post: 1239 days
Last activity: 620 days
| #4 Posted on 13.1.16 1247.57
Reposted on: 13.1.23 1247.57 |
Oakland is right where they want to be
I'm not sure where that is! Their perennially strange owner was acting like they might play games in some place other than Oakland next year anyway, perhaps traveling the earth as an eternal road team. Obviously, his dad would be suing the league today if Al was still running the team, I don't have great faith in that working out well with his son. | StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 161
Posts: 6686/7105
EXP: 54029774
For next: 83459
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 1230 days
Last activity: 1230 days
| #5 Posted on 13.1.16 1449.31
Reposted on: 13.1.23 1457.12 | | He has no lease, he's not obligated to stay there. Just because they didn't approve his move to LA, doesn't mean he can't move elsewhere. I hear Birmingham is a good place for football, but I'd suspect he's got designs on the AlamoDome. | lotjx
Scrapple
Level: 130
Posts: 4370/4785
EXP: 25585254
For next: 145392
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 1974 days
Last activity: 1812 days
| #6 Posted on 13.1.16 1544.49
Reposted on: 13.1.23 1559.01 | Originally posted by StaggerLee
He has no lease, he's not obligated to stay there. Just because they didn't approve his move to LA, doesn't mean he can't move elsewhere. I hear Birmingham is a good place for football, but I'd suspect he's got designs on the AlamoDome. [/quote
No one goes to the Alamo Dome. Its a dump.
| Whitebacon
Banger
Level: 105
Posts: 2498/2569
EXP: 11936151
For next: 326149
Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA
Since last post: 126 days
Last activity: 1 hour
| | ICQ: |  |
| |
| #7 Posted on 14.1.16 0159.41
Reposted on: 14.1.23 0212.08 | Originally posted by lotjx
Originally posted by StaggerLee
He has no lease, he's not obligated to stay there. Just because they didn't approve his move to LA, doesn't mean he can't move elsewhere. I hear Birmingham is a good place for football, but I'd suspect he's got designs on the AlamoDome. [/quote
No one goes to the Alamo Dome. Its a dump.
Have you ever been to the Oakland Coliseum? They were catching water dripping from the ceilings in the bathrooms in extra-large souvenir cups.
| supersalvadoran
Sujuk
Level: 67
Posts: 986/996
EXP: 2477979
For next: 114907
Since: 10.1.08
From: westbury, new york
Since last post: 3042 days
Last activity: 2008 days
| #8 Posted on 14.1.16 0354.45
Reposted on: 14.1.23 0354.45 | Originally posted by Eddie Famous
Anyone remember that the Raiders, Rams and Chargers had each called Los Angeles home before?
Which is why I keep asking myself, if it didn't work before, what exactly has changed for LA to have a permanent team this time? I mean, I can see sold out crowds for the first couple of seasons. But unless the Rams find a way to become the greatest show on turf once again, I wouldn't be surprised if in 5 to 10 years they aren't even close to relevant in LA as USC, the Dodgers, or the Lakers.
| EddieBurkett
Banger
Level: 103
Posts: 2409/2493
EXP: 11416926
For next: 54519
Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart
Since last post: 120 days
Last activity: 7 hours
| #9 Posted on 14.1.16 0645.07
Reposted on: 14.1.23 0645.23 | Originally posted by supersalvadoran
Which is why I keep asking myself, if it didn't work before, what exactly has changed for LA to have a permanent team this time? I mean, I can see sold out crowds for the first couple of seasons. But unless the Rams find a way to become the greatest show on turf once again, I wouldn't be surprised if in 5 to 10 years they aren't even close to relevant in LA as USC, the Dodgers, or the Lakers.
Nothing has changed. Its just that time has passed. There's too much money in the potential of LA franchises for everyone to pass up, even if the interest that would sustain a franchise long term isn't there. Its like a guy, who went out with a hot girl, and then they broke up because the relationship was terrible. Then several years later, he starts thinking about how hot she was, and they hook up and fall back into a relationship, only for him to remember how terrible it was and have to break up with her again.
That said, I'd be fine with an arrangement where the Rams just move back and forth between STL and LA every 20 years. Build a stadium in LA, when that needs to be replaced, have one built in STL and move there. When that needs to be replaced, get one built over the old one in LA, and repeat. We could just call them the STLA Rams and be done with it. | Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 162
Posts: 6922/7062
EXP: 54429368
For next: 862027
Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario
Since last post: 2219 days
Last activity: 1788 days
|  #10 Posted on 16.1.16 0318.19
Reposted on: 16.1.23 0324.03 | Originally posted by EddieBurkett
That said, I'd be fine with an arrangement where the Rams just move back and forth between STL and LA every 20 years. Build a stadium in LA, when that needs to be replaced, have one built in STL and move there. When that needs to be replaced, get one built over the old one in LA, and repeat. We could just call them the STLA Rams and be done with it.
Going by their records over the last decade, the LAST Rams would be more appropriate. Zinger! | supersalvadoran
Sujuk
Level: 67
Posts: 988/996
EXP: 2477979
For next: 114907
Since: 10.1.08
From: westbury, new york
Since last post: 3042 days
Last activity: 2008 days
| #11 Posted on 20.1.16 0419.48
Reposted on: 20.1.23 0422.08 | Originally posted by EddieBurkett
That said, I'd be fine with an arrangement where the Rams just move back and forth between STL and LA every 20 years. Build a stadium in LA, when that needs to be replaced, have one built in STL and move there. When that needs to be replaced, get one built over the old one in LA, and repeat. We could just call them the STLA Rams and be done with it.
That sounds more like a Raiders thing than a Rams thing (Oak to LA back to Oak and possibly back to LA again). Really, when you think about it, the Raiders remind me of that episode of 'Three's Company' where Jack tries to have two dates at the same time. I could see them playing a season where they bounce back and forth between the two cities, trying to figure out which place is the better one to have a relationship with. | | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
