What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

LA NFL Stadium Plans "Unworkable" (1 Viewer)

heidbrink

Footballguy
My link

Plans to Build Downtown LA NFL Stadium Reportedly Not Likely to Happen

By Justin Onslow(Featured Columnist) on March 5, 2013

Los Angeles may have to wait a little longer for a chance at an NFL team.

According to Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports, the NFL has all but officially eliminated AEG’s proposal for a stadium in downtown Los Angeles:

Less than six months after the L.A. city council voted unanimously to support AEG's plan, the concept is essentially dead to the NFL, according to two sources. The problems with the plan are numerous, but the most essential one is the economics.

According to Cole’s report, AEG hopes to build a football facility across from the Staples Center, but the cost of such an undertaking would be in the vicinity of $1.8 billion. The NFL believes that figure would make the numbers “unworkable,” according to the league source he quotes.

The NFL is still open to AEG’s plans to build a complex for an NFL team in Los Angeles, though. It just seems the company will have to find a way to make the project more financially sound.

Another limitation for such a project is the inadequate space in which to build a stadium in the area. According to Cole, the league has been entertaining the idea of the project for some time, but the “cramped conditions” that close to the Staples Center would make adding a football facility a difficult task.

Last September, Los Angeles city council approved a potential stadium project with a unanimous vote. Despite the city’s eagerness to bring an NFL team back to Los Angeles—and the league’s reported interest—no real progress has been made (per Cole).

In July, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sent a memo to the league outlining stipulations for relocation to Los Angeles. In the memo, he also stated his desire for any new facility in Los Angeles to be able to house two franchises (per ESPN).

Los Angeles hasn’t hosted an NFL team since 1995 when the Rams and Raiders relocated. The interest to bring back another franchise is present, but the circumstances aren’t right—at least not right now.

 

GroveDiesel

Footballguy
I doubt LA will ever get a team again. The NFL and other owners make more money using LA as leverage against their current cities than they would with a team actually in LA.

 

mr roboto

Footballguy
I doubt LA will ever get a team again. The NFL and other owners make more money using LA as leverage against their current cities than they would with a team actually in LA.
I'm having a hard time understanding this. Not doubting, but LA is a very lucrative market.
 

mr roboto

Footballguy
I doubt LA will ever get a team again. The NFL and other owners make more money using LA as leverage against their current cities than they would with a team actually in LA.
I'm having a hard time understanding this. Not doubting, but LA is a very lucrative market.
That has lost two different NFL teams thanks to lack of support for those teams...
This is what I don't get. Green Bay, Minnesota, Kansas City etc are so much smaller, yet have great fan bases. I know the Vikes were a target of the 'move to LA' threats, but that was a stadium issue, not a lack of support.
 

helix

Footballguy
I doubt LA will ever get a team again. The NFL and other owners make more money using LA as leverage against their current cities than they would with a team actually in LA.
The above statement is unfortunately proven to be true since 1995. I guarantee if the NFL thought it would make its enterprise more valuable with a team in LA, there would have been a team in LA the day after the Rams left. JAX anyone? The NFL does not have a recent history of leaving cash on the table.If I had to wager, I bet the NFL places a team in London before LA.

 

squistion

Footballguy
I doubt LA will ever get a team again. The NFL and other owners make more money using LA as leverage against their current cities than they would with a team actually in LA.
I'm having a hard time understanding this. Not doubting, but LA is a very lucrative market.
That has lost two different NFL teams thanks to lack of support for those teams...
LA will support a good team - if they build it, we will come. Under Carroll Rosenbloom, the year before they moved to Anaheim the Rams had something like 57,000 season ticket holders in the cavernous Colliseum (and most of those were families who were long time season ticket holders). Once Georgia took over, they kept fielding progressively worse teams and that killed the fan base. And, IIRC, Al Davis moved the Raiders back to Oakland for a better stadium deal more than a lack of fan support.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dgreen

Footballguy
I doubt LA will ever get a team again. The NFL and other owners make more money using LA as leverage against their current cities than they would with a team actually in LA.
"Ever" is a long time. MLB used Washington in similar fashion for years and then finally moved Montreal when they had no other options. Someday, a city will let a team walk to LA rather than finance a stadium.NFL money mostly comes from TV, right? What are TV ratings for NFL games in LA? What could they be if they had a team? I think that difference is what would determine whether it's more profitable to leverage LA against other cities or have a team in LA.
 

heidbrink

Footballguy
1.8 Billion is a pile of money that is for sure.

The story actually says Goodell wants the stadium to have capacity for TWO teams.

I'm not a resident of LA but whenenver I have visited, I get the general perception of indifference...It's a basketball town. Not saying at all that there aren't football fans there, because obviously there are, but I don't get the impression there is a clamoring in the community for the NFL in general. Just my perception, and I could be totally off base.

Besides moving a franchise there, what about a league expansion?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

cstu

Footballguy
I doubt LA will ever get a team again. The NFL and other owners make more money using LA as leverage against their current cities than they would with a team actually in LA.
They're not going to have much leverage if this falls through.
 

cstu

Footballguy
1.8 Billion is a pile of money that is for sure.The story actually says Goodell wants the stadium to have capacity for TWO teams. I'm not a resident of LA but whenenver I have visited, I get the general perception of indifference...It's a basketball town. Not saying at all that there aren't football fans there, because obviously there are, but I don't get the impression there is a clamoring in the community for the NFL in general. Just my perception, and I could be totally off base.Besides moving a franchise there, what about a league expansion?
There are millions of football fans here but they aren't clamoring for a football because there so shortage of options here. A lot of us want an NFL team but we don't want our taxes paying for the stadium. I drive to SD to see the Chargers but would buy season tickets if LA got a team. I don't think they'd have trouble selling 70k tickets at all.By saying he wants a stadium for two teams he's really saying he doesn't want a team in LA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dgreen

Footballguy
I know CA is huge, but could they really support 5 teams? That seems nuts to me.
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania combine to support 5 teams. Their combined population is about 41 million. I suppose part of Connecticut could be thrown in there, so maybe 42 million.CA population is about 38 million.
 

dgreen

Footballguy
Or, put another way, 38 million for 5 teams. That's 7.6 million per team.

The LA CSA is 18 million. SF-Oak-SJ is 7.5 million and supports 2 teams (depending on how well you think the Raiders are supported). The San Diego area has about 3 million people. That leaves another 10 million people in CA to spread their support.

 

cstu

Footballguy
I know CA is huge, but could they really support 5 teams? That seems nuts to me.
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania combine to support 5 teams. Their combined population is about 41 million. I suppose part of Connecticut could be thrown in there, so maybe 42 million.CA population is about 38 million.
There's enough population to support two teams but I'm concerned it will become like the Lakers/Clippers. One team will become the city's favorite and the other one will become an after-thought.
 

Leroy Hoard

Footballguy
I know CA is huge, but could they really support 5 teams? That seems nuts to me.
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania combine to support 5 teams. Their combined population is about 41 million. I suppose part of Connecticut could be thrown in there, so maybe 42 million.CA population is about 38 million.
There's enough population to support two teams but I'm concerned it will become like the Lakers/Clippers. One team will become the city's favorite and the other one will become an after-thought.
It could also turn into the Jets/Giants.
 

dgreen

Footballguy
I know CA is huge, but could they really support 5 teams? That seems nuts to me.
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania combine to support 5 teams. Their combined population is about 41 million. I suppose part of Connecticut could be thrown in there, so maybe 42 million.CA population is about 38 million.
There's enough population to support two teams but I'm concerned it will become like the Lakers/Clippers. One team will become the city's favorite and the other one will become an after-thought.
Is that kind of how the Giants and Jets are? Jets usually seem like an afterthought, but still do pretty well.Even if one LA team gets 75% of the fans, that still leaves over 4 million people to draw from for the afterthought team. I think it would probably work best if they didn't share a stadium and the two teams had clear geographic boundaries that they were trying to represent.
 

Don Quixote

Footballguy
I doubt LA will ever get a team again. The NFL and other owners make more money using LA as leverage against their current cities than they would with a team actually in LA.
I'm having a hard time understanding this. Not doubting, but LA is a very lucrative market.
That has lost two different NFL teams thanks to lack of support for those teams...
LA will support a good team - if they build it, we will come. Under Carroll Rosenbloom, the year before they moved to Anaheim the Rams had something like 57,000 season ticket holders in the cavernous Colliseum (and most of those were families who were long time season ticket holders). Once Georgia took over, they kept fielding progressively worse teams and that killed the fan base. And, IIRC, Al Davis moved the Raiders back to Oakland for a better stadium deal more than a lack of fan support.
I'm not from LA, but that's how I remember it. I thought Al Davis got a deal where he paid miniscule rent to Oakland (the Raiders may still be benefiting under that deal).
 

CalBear

Footballguy
I doubt LA will ever get a team again. The NFL and other owners make more money using LA as leverage against their current cities than they would with a team actually in LA.
I'm having a hard time understanding this. Not doubting, but LA is a very lucrative market.
That has lost two different NFL teams thanks to lack of support for those teams...
LA will support a good team - if they build it, we will come. Under Carroll Rosenbloom, the year before they moved to Anaheim the Rams had something like 57,000 season ticket holders in the cavernous Colliseum (and most of those were families who were long time season ticket holders). Once Georgia took over, they kept fielding progressively worse teams and that killed the fan base. And, IIRC, Al Davis moved the Raiders back to Oakland for a better stadium deal more than a lack of fan support.
I'm not from LA, but that's how I remember it. I thought Al Davis got a deal where he paid miniscule rent to Oakland (the Raiders may still be benefiting under that deal).
Oakland actually subsidizes the team due to the awful deal struck by incompetent city council members, and the awful product the Raiders have been putting on the field since they came back.One of the general issues is that NFL owners are wealthy businessmen with lots of experience negotiating huge deals, and they're working with podunk city council members and city attorneys and accountants. It's no wonder the cities get fleeced.
 

RUSF18

Footballguy
Metlife Stadium (Giants and Jets) cost $1.6 billion to complete a few years ago. A $1.8B figure to be in downtown LA doesn't seem to be that extravagant. Would obviously make more sense if they could have two teams.

 

Yenrub

Footballguy
If I was a LA resident I don’t think I would want a NFL team in the market because of TV

Now I have only been to LA during football season a handful of times but the times I have been they got whatever the best matchups were that weekend. I wouldn’t want to be forced to watch some bad team or a team I didn’t like every weekend (on free TV).

 

RUSF18

Footballguy
If I was a LA resident I don’t think I would want a NFL team in the market because of TV Now I have only been to LA during football season a handful of times but the times I have been they got whatever the best matchups were that weekend. I wouldn’t want to be forced to watch some bad team or a team I didn’t like every weekend (on free TV).
So...as an LA resident you wouldn't want to root for your local team on TV?
I think LA residents for the most part will already have pretty strong allegiances to other teams, either from growing up with the Rams/Raiders, following other teams once they left, or from being a fan of teams prior to moving to LA themselves. In other cities where less is going on, it is likely much easier for fans to adopt a new team coming to town.
 

Yenrub

Footballguy
If I was a LA resident I don’t think I would want a NFL team in the market because of TV Now I have only been to LA during football season a handful of times but the times I have been they got whatever the best matchups were that weekend. I wouldn’t want to be forced to watch some bad team or a team I didn’t like every weekend (on free TV).
So...as an LA resident you wouldn't want to root for your local team on TV?
I think LA residents for the most part will already have pretty strong allegiances to other teams, either from growing up with the Rams/Raiders, following other teams once they left, or from being a fan of teams prior to moving to LA themselves. In other cities where less is going on, it is likely much easier for fans to adopt a new team coming to town.
RUSF18 summarized my thoughts pretty wellIf I lived in LA I sure as hell wouldn’t want say the Jaguars packing their bags and moving across country and becoming my ‘local’ team and forced to watch them every weekend (sorry Jaguar fans)I think getting people to adopt a new team is a very hard thing to do. It takes a long time to convert fans. I live in Raleigh about 2 hours from Charlotte. While the Panthers are the defacto home team for this area there are probably more Redskins fans here than Panther fans worst case I would say it’s an even amount Panthers/Redskins in this area and the Panthers have been around for 20 years now. Hell the Giants are my favorite team and I haven’t lived near them in over 25 yearsI don’t hate the Panthers but I do pay for Direct TV/Dish network so that I can watch the Giants instead of them
 

cstu

Footballguy
If I was a LA resident I don’t think I would want a NFL team in the market because of TV

Now I have only been to LA during football season a handful of times but the times I have been they got whatever the best matchups were that weekend. I wouldn’t want to be forced to watch some bad team or a team I didn’t like every weekend (on free TV).
So...as an LA resident you wouldn't want to root for your local team on TV?
I think LA residents for the most part will already have pretty strong allegiances to other teams, either from growing up with the Rams/Raiders, following other teams once they left, or from being a fan of teams prior to moving to LA themselves. In other cities where less is going on, it is likely much easier for fans to adopt a new team coming to town.
I believe this is greatly exaggerated.
California is the fourth "stickiest" state in the country, meaning, it retains a greater percentage of native-born residents than the vast majority of other states. Contrary to what many people believe, California is actually not a state full of "transplants".

The states with the highest percentage of native-born residents:

Texas

North Carolina

Georgia

California

Wisconsin

States with the lowest percentage of native-born residents (that is, these are the states with the highest percentage of transplants):

Nevada

Arizona

Arkansas

Florida

Washington, DC

Is Your State Magnetic Or Sticky? : NPR

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/los-angeles/711252-angelenos-like-brittish-people-they-never-4.html#ixzz2MhWuZlZS
 

cstu

Footballguy
If I was a LA resident I don’t think I would want a NFL team in the market because of TV

Now I have only been to LA during football season a handful of times but the times I have been they got whatever the best matchups were that weekend. I wouldn’t want to be forced to watch some bad team or a team I didn’t like every weekend (on free TV).
So...as an LA resident you wouldn't want to root for your local team on TV?
I think LA residents for the most part will already have pretty strong allegiances to other teams, either from growing up with the Rams/Raiders, following other teams once they left, or from being a fan of teams prior to moving to LA themselves. In other cities where less is going on, it is likely much easier for fans to adopt a new team coming to town.
RUSF18 summarized my thoughts pretty wellIf I lived in LA I sure as hell wouldn’t want say the Jaguars packing their bags and moving across country and becoming my ‘local’ team and forced to watch them every weekend (sorry Jaguar fans)

I think getting people to adopt a new team is a very hard thing to do. It takes a long time to convert fans. I live in Raleigh about 2 hours from Charlotte. While the Panthers are the defacto home team for this area there are probably more Redskins fans here than Panther fans worst case I would say it’s an even amount Panthers/Redskins in this area and the Panthers have been around for 20 years now.

Hell the Giants are my favorite team and I haven’t lived near them in over 25 years

I don’t hate the Panthers but I do pay for Direct TV/Dish network so that I can watch the Giants instead of them
If the Jags moved here they would be a very different team. The ownership would have far more money to spend to make the team competitive. Had there been a team here, would Peyton have chosen Denver or LA?
 

cstu

Footballguy
Metlife Stadium (Giants and Jets) cost $1.6 billion to complete a few years ago. A $1.8B figure to be in downtown LA doesn't seem to be that extravagant. Would obviously make more sense if they could have two teams.
The $1.8B number is far higher the previous highest cost estimate ($1.35B). I'd like to know where the extra $500M came from.
 

helix

Footballguy
I know CA is huge, but could they really support 5 teams? That seems nuts to me.
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania combine to support 5 teams. Their combined population is about 41 million. I suppose part of Connecticut could be thrown in there, so maybe 42 million.CA population is about 38 million.
There's enough population to support two teams but I'm concerned it will become like the Lakers/Clippers. One team will become the city's favorite and the other one will become an after-thought.
Not to go terribly off topic, but the Clippers have the 6th best attendance in the NBA at an average of 19,197 per game (and the Lakers are 8th). With Blake and CP3, they are certainly not an after-thought anymore. Staples has been a game changer. The hope is that Farmer's would have the same effect as Staples.I believe if someone built a first class stadium and the team was run by a good owner, a team would thrive in LA. In the right environment, LA supports its teams. The current football facilities in LA are horrible and were horrible when the Rams and Raiders were in town (Anaheim is not LA). The Coliseum is pathetic (and dangerous at night) and the Rose Bowl is awful.

2013 Attendance

Clippers 6th

Lakers 8th

Dodgers 5th

Kings 15th

http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance

 

RUSF18

Footballguy
If I was a LA resident I don’t think I would want a NFL team in the market because of TV

Now I have only been to LA during football season a handful of times but the times I have been they got whatever the best matchups were that weekend. I wouldn’t want to be forced to watch some bad team or a team I didn’t like every weekend (on free TV).
So...as an LA resident you wouldn't want to root for your local team on TV?
I think LA residents for the most part will already have pretty strong allegiances to other teams, either from growing up with the Rams/Raiders, following other teams once they left, or from being a fan of teams prior to moving to LA themselves. In other cities where less is going on, it is likely much easier for fans to adopt a new team coming to town.
I believe this is greatly exaggerated.
California is the fourth "stickiest" state in the country, meaning, it retains a greater percentage of native-born residents than the vast majority of other states. Contrary to what many people believe, California is actually not a state full of "transplants".

The states with the highest percentage of native-born residents:

Texas

North Carolina

Georgia

California

Wisconsin

States with the lowest percentage of native-born residents (that is, these are the states with the highest percentage of transplants):

Nevada

Arizona

Arkansas

Florida

Washington, DC

Is Your State Magnetic Or Sticky? : NPR

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/los-angeles/711252-angelenos-like-brittish-people-they-never-4.html#ixzz2MhWuZlZS
That wasn't exactly the hammer to my point. But still, you have 30% of the population coming from outside the state, coupled with those other factors mentioned with the most important being that an entire generation has passed since there's been a team there, and I don't think it's too far a leap to say that many may not adopt a new LA team as their own.edit: Just to be clear, I was merely responding to this point about residents adopting new teams as their preferred team. I think franchises in LA could do very well selling tickets to people who just want to see NFL games, businesses taking clients, etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

dgreen

Footballguy
But still, you have 30% of the population coming from outside the state, coupled with those other factors mentioned with the most important being that an entire generation has passed since there's been a team there, and I don't think it's too far a leap to say that many may not adopt a new LA team as their own.edit: Just to be clear, I was merely responding to this point about residents adopting new teams as their preferred team. I think franchises in LA could do very well selling tickets to people who just want to see NFL games, businesses taking clients, etc.
A decent comp might be the Washington Nationals in MLB. Washington was without a team for 34 years. More than one generation grew up with baseball in DC. Similar to LA with San Diego, DC area residents had a team nearby in Baltimore. Some grew up as O's fans. Others grew up probably rooting for whatever team their dad liked. Others, like me, just weren't all that into baseball growing up.The Expos move to DC and become the Nationals. Attendance was pretty good at first because it was new and DC, again kind of like LA, is a city that likes to attend big events. People in DC like to be seen at places where it's cool to be seen more than they actually like baseball. As the seasons progressed and the team became absolutely awful, attendance plummeted and tv ratings were horrible. TV ratings were so bad at one point that MLB investigated whether the ridiculously low numbers (something like 9,000 viewers?) could actually be right. The only time the stadium filled was when opposing team's fans flooded the stadium.But, then came the young stars, winning, and now huge expectations. Attendance is expected to be good. They've made themselves a must-see event in DC. I think it would be easier for LA to hit it big quickly because of the ability in the NFL to turn a team around quickly. The Nats intentionally took the long route because that's how they believed it had to happen in baseball.
 

cstu

Footballguy
I know CA is huge, but could they really support 5 teams? That seems nuts to me.
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania combine to support 5 teams. Their combined population is about 41 million. I suppose part of Connecticut could be thrown in there, so maybe 42 million.CA population is about 38 million.
There's enough population to support two teams but I'm concerned it will become like the Lakers/Clippers. One team will become the city's favorite and the other one will become an after-thought.
Not to go terribly off topic, but the Clippers have the 6th best attendance in the NBA at an average of 19,197 per game (and the Lakers are 8th). With Blake and CP3, they are certainly not an after-thought anymore. Staples has been a game changer. The hope is that Farmer's would have the same effect as Staples.I believe if someone built a first class stadium and the team was run by a good owner, a team would thrive in LA. In the right environment, LA supports its teams. The current football facilities in LA are horrible and were horrible when the Rams and Raiders were in town (Anaheim is not LA). The Coliseum is pathetic (and dangerous at night) and the Rose Bowl is awful.

2013 Attendance

Clippers 6th

Lakers 8th

Dodgers 5th

Kings 15th

http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance
I was going to mention that but I feel it is short-lived. There aren't many Clippers fans as much as there are Blake Griffin fans.
 

cstu

Footballguy
If I was a LA resident I don’t think I would want a NFL team in the market because of TV

Now I have only been to LA during football season a handful of times but the times I have been they got whatever the best matchups were that weekend. I wouldn’t want to be forced to watch some bad team or a team I didn’t like every weekend (on free TV).
So...as an LA resident you wouldn't want to root for your local team on TV?
I think LA residents for the most part will already have pretty strong allegiances to other teams, either from growing up with the Rams/Raiders, following other teams once they left, or from being a fan of teams prior to moving to LA themselves. In other cities where less is going on, it is likely much easier for fans to adopt a new team coming to town.
I believe this is greatly exaggerated.
California is the fourth "stickiest" state in the country, meaning, it retains a greater percentage of native-born residents than the vast majority of other states. Contrary to what many people believe, California is actually not a state full of "transplants".

The states with the highest percentage of native-born residents:

Texas

North Carolina

Georgia

California

Wisconsin

States with the lowest percentage of native-born residents (that is, these are the states with the highest percentage of transplants):

Nevada

Arizona

Arkansas

Florida

Washington, DC

Is Your State Magnetic Or Sticky? : NPR

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/los-angeles/711252-angelenos-like-brittish-people-they-never-4.html#ixzz2MhWuZlZS
That wasn't exactly the hammer to my point. But still, you have 30% of the population coming from outside the state, coupled with those other factors mentioned with the most important being that an entire generation has passed since there's been a team there, and I don't think it's too far a leap to say that many may not adopt a new LA team as their own.edit: Just to be clear, I was merely responding to this point about residents adopting new teams as their preferred team. I think franchises in LA could do very well selling tickets to people who just want to see NFL games, businesses taking clients, etc.
People tend to root for the team in their city, even if they're fans of another team. With nearly 4M in the city of Los Angeles alone that's roughly 3M people who were born here.
 

heidbrink

Footballguy
2 teams?! :confused:
The "two teams" condition is interesting. Someone mentioned that the NFL wants to use LA as leverage. Perhaps they think this capacity would still give them that leverage going forward even after the NFL expands or moves a team there. If the NFL expands by 4 teams there would be a nice symmetry of 6 teams / 6 divisions.Where would they go?....LA Las VegasLondonTorontoMexico City?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dgreen

Footballguy
Metro areas with over 1.5 million people without an NFL team:

Los Angeles/Riverside - I could see two teams succeeding in the LA area.

Portland - The next largest metro area without a team. They've been discussed in baseball expansion/relocation in the past.

San Antonio - Probably could work. It would take a while to get Cowboys fans in the area to switch.

Sacramento - Too close to San Fran and Oakland?

Orlando - No. The three Florida teams probably won't have the NFL looking to expand in the state.

Las Vegas - Like Portand, consistently mentioned in expansion/relocation talks. But isn't there some issue with gambling and teams located in Vegas?

San Jose - Too close to San Fran and Oakland.

Columbus - Might work, but Cleveland, Cincy, and Pittsburgh would fight this hard.

Austin - A rapidly growing area with no professional teams. Like San Antonio it probably could work, but it might be tough to get locals to drop the Cowboys and support the new team.

Norfolk - I always found it a joke that they were mentioned in MLB talks. Not a very attractive area for a team and already full of Redskins and Panthers fans.

Providence - New England probably could support two teams, but I just don't see Providence being a big draw.

Milwaukee - Totally Packer country.

So, if the NFL looks to expand by 4, I'd put 2 in the LA area (but not in the same stadium), and then look to Portland and either San Antonio or Austin.

I'd never go to London or Mexico City. I'd consider Toronto.

 

heidbrink

Footballguy
London and Europe in general has to be high on the list. Mexico city's sheer population and proximity has to also be very compelling.

 

Casting Couch

Footballguy
'GroveDiesel said:
I know CA is huge, but could they really support 5 teams? That seems nuts to me.
Why the hell would we need the capacity to support TWO teams here.20 freaking years, and zero teams in this massive market?Let's start with one, Roger. :rant:
 

Shrugs

Footballguy
Well, if they don't like the downtown proposal there's still Roski's stadium in the City of Industry that he says he can do for just $800 million by building it alongside a hill to cut down on steel expenses.

 

TheFanatic

Footballguy
'heidbrink said:
'ichris said:
2 teams?! :confused:
The "two teams" condition is interesting. Someone mentioned that the NFL wants to use LA as leverage. Perhaps they think this capacity would still give them that leverage going forward even after the NFL expands or moves a team there.
This is brilliant. Put a team there and still have it as leverage. Absolutely brilliant.
 

cstu

Footballguy
'heidbrink said:
'ichris said:
2 teams?! :confused:
The "two teams" condition is interesting. Someone mentioned that the NFL wants to use LA as leverage. Perhaps they think this capacity would still give them that leverage going forward even after the NFL expands or moves a team there.
This is brilliant. Put a team there and still have it as leverage. Absolutely brilliant.
That's the only reason they want the capacity and it's BS. They haven't pulled this crap with any other city that wanted a team.
 

RUSF18

Footballguy
'heidbrink said:
'ichris said:
2 teams?! :confused:
The "two teams" condition is interesting. Someone mentioned that the NFL wants to use LA as leverage. Perhaps they think this capacity would still give them that leverage going forward even after the NFL expands or moves a team there.
This is brilliant. Put a team there and still have it as leverage. Absolutely brilliant.
That's the only reason they want the capacity and it's BS. They haven't pulled this crap with any other city that wanted a team.
What other cities that have wanted a team in the last 20 years could even be in the conversation of cities being able to support two teams?
 

TheFanatic

Footballguy
'heidbrink said:
'ichris said:
2 teams?! :confused:
The "two teams" condition is interesting. Someone mentioned that the NFL wants to use LA as leverage. Perhaps they think this capacity would still give them that leverage going forward even after the NFL expands or moves a team there.
This is brilliant. Put a team there and still have it as leverage. Absolutely brilliant.
That's the only reason they want the capacity and it's BS. They haven't pulled this crap with any other city that wanted a team.
How hard is it to make a stadium for dual use? A second home lockerroom? I have no idea. What else do they need.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top