OT: Three teams to LA?

Three NFL Teams File For Relocation To LA

That's gotta suck for those teams' fan bases. Remember when the Pats were in danger of going to St. Louis? Ugh. Thank God Kraft kept them here.

I highly doubt all three go to LA. Keep in mind these teams have to get accepted to move over there.

IMO only one team should go to LA. I will always know them as the Los Angeles Rams.

Agree with the OP. What a farked up and insensitive way to do this. Screw the teams, screw the players, screw the fans, the blundering Wizard of Odd decides to mess up the heads of three franchises because he can't make a farking decision!

Most likely two will go. It'll really suck being the third... "Ohh yeah guys, we tried to ditch your asses but got denied... So uhh, yeah! Keep coming to our games!"

At least with Oakland and San Diego, LA is only a couple hours' drive north or south, so a big fan doesn't have to go a lot further to still see his or her team.

Ross12 said:

Most likely two will go. It'll really suck being the third... "Ohh yeah guys, we tried to ditch your asses but got denied... So uhh, yeah! Keep coming to our games!"

Click to expand...

Awkward!

I think SD and Oak would share a stadium ala Jets/Giants... and the Rams have a different stadium deal brewing in a different suburb.

So it's very possible, subject to owner approval, that all three could go. Man, that would be a marketing nightmare. Plus... would you have two teams in the same league designated as Los Angeles??

oldrover said:

I think SD and Oak would share a stadium ala Jets/Giants... and the Rams have a different stadium deal brewing in a different suburb.

So it's very possible, subject to owner approval, that all three could go. Man, that would be a marketing nightmare. Plus... would you have two teams in the same league designated as Los Angeles??

Click to expand...

No problem. The Los Angeles Losers, The Los Angeles Leave earliers, and The Los Angeles Laidbackers.

San Diego has a fan base?

If two teams move to LA, one will be St. Louis because the other two are both AFC and in the same division. The other will most likely be San Diego because LA is MUCH closer to San Diego than is SF and so it could double-dip, so to speak. Having two in the same division would be a competitive advantage as it would mean less road games (6 instead of 8) than the other teams have. That translates into less travel time, more practice time, etc.

So, IMO, you will see one of in decreasing order of probability:

1. St. Louis
2. San Diego
3. St. Louis and San Diego
4. St. Louis and Oakland
5. None
6. Oakland
7. Oakland and San Diego
8. All three

Probably should be SD or STL. Neither have many fans to speak of.

After yesterday's announcements, Andrew Luck has applied as well.

Ross12 said:

Most likely two will go. It'll really suck being the third... "Ohh yeah guys, we tried to ditch your asses but got denied... So uhh, yeah! Keep coming to our games!"

At least with Oakland and San Diego, LA is only a couple hours' drive north or south, so a big fan doesn't have to go a lot further to still see his or her team.

Click to expand...

Oakland to Los Angeles is about the same distance as from Washington DC to Atlanta. That's a huge deal for Oakland residents.

Agree that the least disruptive move would be the Chargers to LA. Distance wise, it would be like if the Pats had moved to Hartford as threatened. A lot of SD people would be peeved and some would turn off the team completely, but others would keep on following them (despite, from their point of view, the stench of LA being on the team).

Just have Spanos and Kroeke trade franchises (with valuation adjustments as needed) and then have Kroenke move the Chargers onto the stadium he builds with his own money. Then leave the Rams and Raiders where they are.

Expansion would be the best solution in theory. But I'd rather not see the league watered down further.

Lmao, maybe they can put them all their and have a reality show?


#INTEGRITY*

Deus Irae said:

San Diego has a fan base?

Click to expand...

Joey007 said:

Probably should be SD or STL. Neither have many fans to speak of.

Click to expand...

I remember, back with the Chargers were semi-respectable, we had a Chargers fan here among the regulars. Seems like he gave up a while ago.

In this age of technology, it matters less. I can watch the Patriots regardless of where they are and I suspect many of the posters here are outside Mass.

what one of those teams doesnt know is that they are moving to london.

I remember several years ago when the CFL tried to expand and placed a team in Las Vegas and someone there sang "Oh Canada" to the tune of "Oh Christmas Tree"...

SLGDEV said:

If two teams move to LA, one will be St. Louis because the other two are both AFC and in the same division. The other will most likely be San Diego because LA is MUCH closer to San Diego than is SF and so it could double-dip, so to speak. Having two in the same division would be a competitive advantage as it would mean less road games (6 instead of 8) than the other teams have. That translates into less travel time, more practice time, etc.

So, IMO, you will see one of in decreasing order of probability:

1. St. Louis
2. San Diego
3. St. Louis and San Diego
4. St. Louis and Oakland
5. None
6. Oakland
7. Oakland and San Diego
8. All three

Click to expand...

the chargers/raiders relocation proposal is a joint bid, meaning it's both or neither. so 2, 3, 4, and 6 aren't possibilities.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...roenkes-rams-to-face-chargers-raiders-in.html

interesting, the NFL will net an extra $550 million if they go with the chargers/raiders proposal:

Los Angeles relocation fee to be $550 million per team - NFL.com