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.
NFL plans 1 team for Los Angeles? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter newteech
- Start date
Facenda's Voice
Footballguy
The entertainment dollar is spread too thin in LA. Even with the large population, there is simply too many options. If a team isn't top dog, forget about filling the stadium.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
15 million people and you think we wouldn't fill up a stadium for new teams?
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Hate to say it but SD moving north looks more and more likely.
Quez
Footballguy
The only reason I say no to the Jags is because I live in FL, but if I didn't I would agree on them moving. The city just isn't big enough for a pro franchise (population/ economy, not physical size as it is the biggest)The only reason the Saints didn't move is because the NFL didn't want to look bad. Katrina actually saved the Saints because IMO they would have been gone. I don't understand why they didn't pull a Cleveland on them and promise them a team in 5-10 years. At least that would buy them time to see if another franchise doesn't pan out.agreed
Move the Jags... its pathetic that a traditionally successful franchise has such a pathetic fanbase.
Buffalo is still a possibility.
TheFanatic
Footballguy
Bang up job filling the stadium when the Rams were there. And it's not like the weather played a roll like it should in Buffalo or Green Bay where the fans come out in droves when it's 10 below and snowing....
the hairy scotsman
Footballguy
If they put two teams there they will instantly doom the whole mess to failure...again. LA couldn't/wouldn't support one team when they had the Rams, then the Raiders. Splitting the market is absolutely the worst and stupidest thing they could do.Idiots.
Last edited by a moderator:
psychobillies
Footballguy
Yeah right, because we all know had badly the Saints wanted to get the hell out of that agreement that gives them 25 million a year plus all concessions. All independent estimates that I have heard peg the Saints as one of the top revenue earners in the league in spite of the market size and poor product.SD, Buffalo, and JAX are all more likely to be in LA.The only reason I say no to the Jags is because I live in FL, but if I didn't I would agree on them moving. The city just isn't big enough for a pro franchise (population/ economy, not physical size as it is the biggest)The only reason the Saints didn't move is because the NFL didn't want to look bad. Katrina actually saved the Saints because IMO they would have been gone. I don't understand why they didn't pull a Cleveland on them and promise them a team in 5-10 years. At least that would buy them time to see if another franchise doesn't pan out.agreed
Buffalo is still a possibility.
cstu
Footballguy
Ok, I'll clear this up again.The Rams had a hard time selling out the biggest stadium in the NFL (100K) and Rozelle's black out rule caused the team not to be seen on local TV. When the owner died, his wife Georgia Frontiere took control of the team and moved it to Anaheim in 1980 to a smaller stadium not subject to the blackout rule. The Raiders moved to LA in 1982 and ate away from the Rams fans in LA since they became the "local" team. During all of this the Lakers and Dodgers were winning titles.Bang up job filling the stadium when the Rams were there. And it's not like the weather played a roll like it should in Buffalo or Green Bay where the fans come out in droves when it's 10 below and snowing....
Despite this, the Rams did well in Anaheim during the 80's. However, in there was a recession in Orange County in the early 90's and the team stopped selling out causing blackouts, which resulted in furthur lack of interest in the team. The Rams tried getting a new stadium so that they could increase their revenue, but neither Anaheim or LA wanted to spend the money. That's when the Rams were lured away by St. Louis with their new stadium.
cstu
Footballguy
Benson has to pay $81 million to break the lease, which isn't a lot considering what he has to continue paying the city and that he will have trouble generating the type of revenue he did in the past. There's no way that NO can afford to build the stadium that Benson wants and he will find someone that will, either in San Antonio or LA.Yeah right, because we all know had badly the Saints wanted to get the hell out of that agreement that gives them 25 million a year plus all concessions. All independent estimates that I have heard peg the Saints as one of the top revenue earners in the league in spite of the market size and poor product.SD, Buffalo, and JAX are all more likely to be in LA.The only reason I say no to the Jags is because I live in FL, but if I didn't I would agree on them moving. The city just isn't big enough for a pro franchise (population/ economy, not physical size as it is the biggest)The only reason the Saints didn't move is because the NFL didn't want to look bad. Katrina actually saved the Saints because IMO they would have been gone. I don't understand why they didn't pull a Cleveland on them and promise them a team in 5-10 years. At least that would buy them time to see if another franchise doesn't pan out.agreed
Buffalo is still a possibility.
Facenda's Voice
Footballguy
...and all is better now? Key word "all". I still contend there is just too much to do in LA (which is a good thing generally), which is the "real" reason I think LA wouldn't fill a stadium of a winning team, let alone a losing one.Ok, I'll clear this up again.The Rams had a hard time selling out the biggest stadium in the NFL (100K) and Rozelle's black out rule caused the team not to be seen on local TV. When the owner died, his wife Georgia Frontiere took control of the team and moved it to Anaheim in 1980 to a smaller stadium not subject to the blackout rule. The Raiders moved to LA in 1982 and ate away from the Rams fans in LA since they became the "local" team. During all of this the Lakers and Dodgers were winning titles.Bang up job filling the stadium when the Rams were there. And it's not like the weather played a roll like it should in Buffalo or Green Bay where the fans come out in droves when it's 10 below and snowing....
Despite this, the Rams did well in Anaheim during the 80's. However, in there was a recession in Orange County in the early 90's and the team stopped selling out causing blackouts, which resulted in furthur lack of interest in the team. The Rams tried getting a new stadium so that they could increase their revenue, but neither Anaheim or LA wanted to spend the money. That's when the Rams were lured away by St. Louis with their new stadium.
Last edited by a moderator:
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Yep the former mayor was very corrupt. there will not be a new stadium in the city limits of San Diego.
Last edited by a moderator:
psychobillies
Footballguy
$81 million is a check that nobody wants to write. What does Benson have to keep paying the city for? Why won't they be able to generate the same types of revenue that they have before?Benson has to pay $81 million to break the lease, which isn't a lot considering what he has to continue paying the city and that he will have trouble generating the type of revenue he did in the past. There's no way that NO can afford to build the stadium that Benson wants and he will find someone that will, either in San Antonio or LA.Yeah right, because we all know had badly the Saints wanted to get the hell out of that agreement that gives them 25 million a year plus all concessions. All independent estimates that I have heard peg the Saints as one of the top revenue earners in the league in spite of the market size and poor product.SD, Buffalo, and JAX are all more likely to be in LA.The only reason I say no to the Jags is because I live in FL, but if I didn't I would agree on them moving. The city just isn't big enough for a pro franchise (population/ economy, not physical size as it is the biggest)The only reason the Saints didn't move is because the NFL didn't want to look bad. Katrina actually saved the Saints because IMO they would have been gone. I don't understand why they didn't pull a Cleveland on them and promise them a team in 5-10 years. At least that would buy them time to see if another franchise doesn't pan out.agreed
Buffalo is still a possibility.
cstu
Footballguy
I wrote that wrong since I meant that Benson has had trouble getting the full $25 million from the city that he was due as a subsidy. I'm not sure how that has been worked out so maybe he will end up getting it.As far as revenue, the Saints were unhappy with revenue from the Superdome before Katrina and were threatening to move if they didn't get a new stadium with better seating arrangements and luxury boxes. At this point the luxury boxes are almost a non-factor considering the economy of NO wouldn't be able to make them profitable.$81 million is a check that nobody wants to write. What does Benson have to keep paying the city for? Why won't they be able to generate the same types of revenue that they have before?Benson has to pay $81 million to break the lease, which isn't a lot considering what he has to continue paying the city and that he will have trouble generating the type of revenue he did in the past. There's no way that NO can afford to build the stadium that Benson wants and he will find someone that will, either in San Antonio or LA.Yeah right, because we all know had badly the Saints wanted to get the hell out of that agreement that gives them 25 million a year plus all concessions. All independent estimates that I have heard peg the Saints as one of the top revenue earners in the league in spite of the market size and poor product.SD, Buffalo, and JAX are all more likely to be in LA.The only reason I say no to the Jags is because I live in FL, but if I didn't I would agree on them moving. The city just isn't big enough for a pro franchise (population/ economy, not physical size as it is the biggest)The only reason the Saints didn't move is because the NFL didn't want to look bad. Katrina actually saved the Saints because IMO they would have been gone. I don't understand why they didn't pull a Cleveland on them and promise them a team in 5-10 years. At least that would buy them time to see if another franchise doesn't pan out.agreed
Buffalo is still a possibility.
According to Forbes, the Saints ranked 20th in revenue in both 2003 and 2004 with $157M and $175M.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Revenues_1.html
psychobillies
Footballguy
$81 million is a check that nobody wants to write. What does Benson have to keep paying the city for? Why won't they be able to generate the same types of revenue that they have before?
I wrote that wrong since I meant that Benson has had trouble getting the full $25 million from the city that he was due as a subsidy. I'm not sure how that has been worked out so maybe he will end up getting it.
As far as revenue, the Saints were unhappy with revenue from the Superdome before Katrina and were threatening to move if they didn't get a new stadium with better seating arrangements and luxury boxes. At this point the luxury boxes are almost a non-factor considering the economy of NO wouldn't be able to make them profitable.
According to Forbes, the Saints ranked 20th in revenue in both 2003 and 2004 with $157M and $175M.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Revenues_1.html
Really there is no telling how the post Katrina economy will affect the Saints. Harrah's Casino in downtown N.O. just recorded it's most profitable month ever. Mardi Gras was Huge, and this years Jazz fest is predicted to be one of the biggest ever. Most everything downtown is up and running at a good pace.
I think all of the billions of dollars being pumped into the city is helping. If I'm not mistaken, I think the NFL has gotten some of their national sponsors to help kick in and make sure the luxury boxes would get sold.
I wrote that wrong since I meant that Benson has had trouble getting the full $25 million from the city that he was due as a subsidy. I'm not sure how that has been worked out so maybe he will end up getting it.
As far as revenue, the Saints were unhappy with revenue from the Superdome before Katrina and were threatening to move if they didn't get a new stadium with better seating arrangements and luxury boxes. At this point the luxury boxes are almost a non-factor considering the economy of NO wouldn't be able to make them profitable.
According to Forbes, the Saints ranked 20th in revenue in both 2003 and 2004 with $157M and $175M.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Revenues_1.html
Really there is no telling how the post Katrina economy will affect the Saints. Harrah's Casino in downtown N.O. just recorded it's most profitable month ever. Mardi Gras was Huge, and this years Jazz fest is predicted to be one of the biggest ever. Most everything downtown is up and running at a good pace.
I think all of the billions of dollars being pumped into the city is helping. If I'm not mistaken, I think the NFL has gotten some of their national sponsors to help kick in and make sure the luxury boxes would get sold.
anborn
Footballguy
I have no doubt things seem like a good pace, hell anything would be a good pace compared to the devestation that has been since the hurricane. But is it back up to pre-katrina pace? I seriously doubt it. The Saints were having trouble before the disaster, katrina just sealed the deal :(
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
Warden Samuel Norton: Do you enjoy working in the laundry?
Andy Dufresne: No sir, not especially.
Andy Dufresne: No sir, not especially.
Bojang0301
Omar4Heisman
Great quote but I'm afraid I'm :whoosh:
psychobillies
Footballguy
What I'm saying is that in some ways the economy is better than before. I don't think it's accurate to say that the Saints were having trouble before Katrina as far as selling out the Dome. What we were having problems with was finding a way to build a 500 million dollar stadium. That's not to say that it wasn't going to happen or that it won't happen in the future.
TheFanatic
Footballguy
Sure cleared that up for me. What it shows is that if times are tough people from LA won't go see the team play and then they don't sell out and then they aren't on TV and then people lose even more interest. Well, guess what? The economy goes in cycles. There will be good times in which you no doubt will gladly support a team. And then times will get tough and you will stop going to games. And then the team will be looking for a new home. Boo-freakin-hoo. Get over it. You can't support a team.Ok, I'll clear this up again.The Rams had a hard time selling out the biggest stadium in the NFL (100K) and Rozelle's black out rule caused the team not to be seen on local TV. When the owner died, his wife Georgia Frontiere took control of the team and moved it to Anaheim in 1980 to a smaller stadium not subject to the blackout rule. The Raiders moved to LA in 1982 and ate away from the Rams fans in LA since they became the "local" team. During all of this the Lakers and Dodgers were winning titles.Bang up job filling the stadium when the Rams were there. And it's not like the weather played a roll like it should in Buffalo or Green Bay where the fans come out in droves when it's 10 below and snowing....
Despite this, the Rams did well in Anaheim during the 80's. However, in there was a recession in Orange County in the early 90's and the team stopped selling out causing blackouts, which resulted in furthur lack of interest in the team. The Rams tried getting a new stadium so that they could increase their revenue, but neither Anaheim or LA wanted to spend the money. That's when the Rams were lured away by St. Louis with their new stadium.
Facenda's Voice
Footballguy
I couldn't have said it better myself.Sure cleared that up for me. What it shows is that if times are tough people from LA won't go see the team play and then they don't sell out and then they aren't on TV and then people lose even more interest. Well, guess what? The economy goes in cycles. There will be good times in which you no doubt will gladly support a team. And then times will get tough and you will stop going to games. And then the team will be looking for a new home. Boo-freakin-hoo. Get over it. You can't support a team.Ok, I'll clear this up again.The Rams had a hard time selling out the biggest stadium in the NFL (100K) and Rozelle's black out rule caused the team not to be seen on local TV. When the owner died, his wife Georgia Frontiere took control of the team and moved it to Anaheim in 1980 to a smaller stadium not subject to the blackout rule. The Raiders moved to LA in 1982 and ate away from the Rams fans in LA since they became the "local" team. During all of this the Lakers and Dodgers were winning titles.Bang up job filling the stadium when the Rams were there. And it's not like the weather played a roll like it should in Buffalo or Green Bay where the fans come out in droves when it's 10 below and snowing....
Despite this, the Rams did well in Anaheim during the 80's. However, in there was a recession in Orange County in the early 90's and the team stopped selling out causing blackouts, which resulted in furthur lack of interest in the team. The Rams tried getting a new stadium so that they could increase their revenue, but neither Anaheim or LA wanted to spend the money. That's when the Rams were lured away by St. Louis with their new stadium.
cstu
Footballguy
I do think that if there's a stable team here that enough fans will support it. Even the Clippers sold tickets so the issue isn't loyalty of fans. You just can't move a team across town (which can be a 1-2 hour drive in traffic) and move another team into the old stadium and expect to maintain a big fan base. Think of the Packers moving to Milwaukee and the Vikings moving into Lambeau.Sure cleared that up for me. What it shows is that if times are tough people from LA won't go see the team play and then they don't sell out and then they aren't on TV and then people lose even more interest. Well, guess what? The economy goes in cycles. There will be good times in which you no doubt will gladly support a team. And then times will get tough and you will stop going to games. And then the team will be looking for a new home. Boo-freakin-hoo. Get over it. You can't support a team.Ok, I'll clear this up again.The Rams had a hard time selling out the biggest stadium in the NFL (100K) and Rozelle's black out rule caused the team not to be seen on local TV. When the owner died, his wife Georgia Frontiere took control of the team and moved it to Anaheim in 1980 to a smaller stadium not subject to the blackout rule. The Raiders moved to LA in 1982 and ate away from the Rams fans in LA since they became the "local" team. During all of this the Lakers and Dodgers were winning titles.Bang up job filling the stadium when the Rams were there. And it's not like the weather played a roll like it should in Buffalo or Green Bay where the fans come out in droves when it's 10 below and snowing....
Despite this, the Rams did well in Anaheim during the 80's. However, in there was a recession in Orange County in the early 90's and the team stopped selling out causing blackouts, which resulted in furthur lack of interest in the team. The Rams tried getting a new stadium so that they could increase their revenue, but neither Anaheim or LA wanted to spend the money. That's when the Rams were lured away by St. Louis with their new stadium.
cstu
Footballguy
They only made $7.8M on $157M revenues in 2003.http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?...ry&passKeyword=
guderian
Footballguy
Maybe they paid out a bunch in bonuses that year. If you average the two years together they would still be the 16th most profitable team in the NFL despite the fact that they had some pretty mediocre football during those years while they fans operated under constant threats that they were going to leave unless they built a new stadium. The Saints rank in the top 3 in attendance per win over their history. No way does Los Angeles support a mediocre team the way NO has.
kevthegrad
Footballguy
Toronto needs a team. MASSIVE market and makes NFL international, you know they would love that.
psychobillies
Footballguy
What in the hell are you talking about?Yeah Nawlins is such a lovely place who would want to move, all those classy people n all
And GDB diluting a league that's already watered down w/too many teams as it is.
Los angeles doesnt deserve a team, PERIOD. the fact that their stadium held 100,000 is bogus, NJ has 2 teams in the NY market that sell out the 70,000 seat meadowlands every week with another 30,000 on the J-E-T-S and Giants waiting list. thats 170,000 fans right there. SF/Oakland hosts 2 teams as well and Baltimore/Washington do fine as Well. All this BooHooing by LA fans is Selective and Revisionist thinking. the Chargers and Rams did ok in the 60's but they Stopped supporting the teams and couldn't even win an expansion team a few years back because the Support just wasnt there.As long as they feel they are entitled to a team, they dont deserve one. hell look at the Dodgers attendance, show up in the 4th inning Leave in the 8th inning ......with a beachball no less.
Los angeles doesnt deserve a team, PERIOD.
Los angeles doesnt deserve a team, PERIOD.
Last edited by a moderator:
T
trader jake
Guest
move one of the many teams mentioned, but DO NOT add 2 new teams
leave a good perfect thing be...at exactly 32 teams
leave a good perfect thing be...at exactly 32 teams
Last edited:
