This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
No they won't. At least not in big enough numbers to support a team consistently, particularly if it isn't a winner right away.They couldn't keep the Raiders. They couldn't keep the Rams. I have no idea why the NFL is so hell bent on putting a team there. I get the 2nd biggest media market angle but a half empty stadium isn't something the NFL wants on national television.
Do YOU live there GDogg? Because while the city/local governments and businesses that would be in the adjacent area and potential owners/investors want a team, the majority of football fans in the LA area DON'T. The tickets would be very expensive, the traffic as mentioned would be terrible (especially in the downtown area that some are promoting). Both the LA and OC areas have proved several times that the people who actually go to games are not interested......sure those who would profit on the business side want to keep trying to get one there. The biggest fan of getting a team back in LA area? the TV Networks because of the size of the audience and the advertising revenues.
Yes, they will. L.A. football fans still love the NFL. They just hate Georgia Frontiere.The Rams left because the owner was a ##### and they got an insanely good deal from St. Louis. The Rams were in L.A./Orange County for 49 years (up until that point, the longest of any professional franchise in L.A.).
All true although downtown >>>> Irwindale/Commerce/Pasadena or any other alternative sites proposed.
Yes, I do live L.A. And, you're wrong. The majority do want a team, but they don't want to be on the hook for paying for a stadium. I have no idea where you are getting your assertion that the majority of football fans in L.A. don't want a team.
Or carson at the home depot center.
On top of the above, Nebraska has the lowest state debt per capita in the nation, so there is a good possibility for public funding to build the stadium. You'd also make a killing on PSLs, I'm sure. Unless you've been to Nebraska for a college game, it is hard to understand the obsession Nebraskans have with football.
Most people in LA no longer have any idea who Georgia Frontiere is. They left because LA wasn't willing to support their team, if they were then there would have been better offers to keep them.LA is also filled with so many transients and transplants the it is highly unlikely that they will be swayed to give up their allegiance to their childhood teams to support a local franchise.
The Dodgers are the best argument for LA's viability to support a non-contending team. A big part of the reason they continue to gain 3 million in attendance annually is that it is still the cheapest ticket in town coupled with the fact that the Dodgers are incredibly beloved in the Latino community who seem to be incredibly dedicated baseball fans.People may accept the reality of the prices but that doesn't mean they are going to pay them. Those who can might but most will find cheaper alternatives like the Dodgers and Galaxy (who have consistently been the most profitable MLS team thanks to the support of the Latino community).
No, they didn't. That's completely false and it's a myth that fans from outside the area like to state as fact. They literally left because they wanted a new stadium and other perks and neither L.A. or Orange County were willing to do that. Look it up. It had nothing to do with the fans. Look at the language of their deal with St. Louis. It was mandated that they would build a new, publicly funded stadium for them and that the stadium would be in the top 25% of all NFL stadiums. This was a move about the facilities and a money-grab. It had nothing to do with fans or attendance.The same is true of the Raiders. The Northridge quake damaged the Coliseum. Prior to that, Al Davis was trying to get a new stadium built in various areas of L.A. to provide luxury boxes and other stadium upgrades. Nobody would do it. After the quake, the Raiders were homeless. They entered into negotiations to play games temporarily in Oakland, but Oakland turned around and agreed to make big upgrades to the O-A Coliseum, including luxury boxes, which Davis coveted. Then, they left.
I don't know where you get your notions from either. It's not like any of us has commissioned a Gallup Poll. And even if we did it's too easy to skew polls. But my experience in LA tells me the exact opposite of yours; that not enough people are interested in having a local NFL team.Price is clearly an issue and the ones who can afford it the most will be the least likely to attend if the team is not contending. You said yourself "...when there is a winner on the field."The Lakers and USC have earned the benefit of the doubt from fans but history has proven that will change in a hurry if they have a string of mediocre seasons (is USC even selling out this year?) and UCLA does not come close to selling out the Rose Bowl for anything other than the USC game.Traffic is an issue. Los Angeles has been a regional community based city for decades. You live on the West Side then you are going to do your level best to keep your social activities on the West Side and traffic is one of the primary drivers behind that reality. Ditto for the Valley, Hollywood, Venice, Culver City and every other community in LA. And people certainly aren't going to head out on the 405/101/10/5 Freeways to Irwindale or Commerce or Industry or wherever every Sunday. Downtown is the most viable stadium option because at least it has a semi-legitimate transportation hub.The NFL in LA is a bad idea, driven by the promise of media market share revenue not actual market viability.
So, you've admitted that fans in L.A. support the Dodgers, Lakers, and USC. The only other options right now are UCLA, the Clippers and the Angels (assuming you're adding in the OC). The OC fans embraced the Angels (finally) once they went to the World Series. Their attendance has been very good since then. The Clippers will never have great attendance. I shouldn't say never because I suppose it's possible, but the city/area has never embraced that team and I doubt they ever do. As for UCLA, they had outstanding attendance throughout the 80s and late 90s/early 2000s. Now, you're right. The USC game is more or less it. When they win, it will flip around.In any case, the L.A./OC area supports the Dodgers, Lakers, USC (football) and the Angels. They don't currently support (in terms of attendance) UCLA (football) and the Clippers. I'd say the city is acquitting itself pretty well.As for where I get my notions...unlike you, I live in L.A. It may be the company I keep, but most of the people I know are avid football fans. The general sentiment of football fans seems to be they'd love an NFL team. As I said above, if the team is bottom-feeder, it won't do as well. But, if the team is mediocre to above average, but entertaining (think the Saints prior to their Super Bowl team), fans will go. Not that it's indicative of the city, as a whole, by any stretch, but I have friends that have season tickets to both the Chargers and Cardinals (and one of them also has season tickets to the Chiefs on top of those two).My take is that football fans would go to the games if, for no other reason, the novelty of the NFL being back in L.A. Once that wears off, they'd still go as long as they think it's entertaining. Like you said, either of us could be wrong.Regardless, my take is that none of the above even matters. The NFL will come to L.A. once the stadium issue is taken care of. It's the facilities the owners care about.
I live in LA too, and like you, everyone I know loves the idea of having an NFL team here, even if they are fans of other teams. people thinking that LA doesn't want a team are confusing budgetary politics with what the common man wants. everything hinges on a stadium deal. the problem I see with fan support is that since there hasn't been any team here for so long, people are fans of other teams. but even with that, I think the fans would support an LA team...most fairweather or bandwagon fans would jump to the local team, especially if they were a good team or had a couple big names.another note about the Raiders not being able to sell out before they left LA. that was in large part because the Coloseum was a 100K seat venue, making it very tough to sell out when compared to a 60K or 70K seat stadium.
The "suburbs" you didn't include don't add much to the area's population. Those cities make up the vast majority of the population and the metro area ranks 55th with an estimated 1,674,498 people in 2009.The main reason that area probably couldn't support a team is that 1) it's a very transient area with a heavy military influence and 2) the established population is dedicated to the Redskins. Once you take away the transient population who likely like some other team and are not attached to the area AND the population that will stick the Redskins, you aren't left with much. Plus, Snyder would fight to the death to keep a team out of there.
Come on with that "I live in LA" junk. I lived there for 30+ years am 90 minutes away, travel there frequently, get almost exclusively LA sports radio and all my family is there. You are no more locally connected to LA than I am. And I am also sure you are quite insular in your community as are most Angelinos.We both agreed that LA will support USC, UCLA & the Lakers. And we both caveated that with "If they are winners." USC games were barren during the late 80s and 90s. UCLA games still are and between the Magic and the Kobe/Shaq teams Lakers tickets were easy to find.I already explained that the Dodgers sell because of the multiple communities they appeal to and the fact that they are the cheapest ticket in town. It's the same reason that for years the Galaxy was the only financially viable MLS franchise. The NFL can't compete with those ticket prices.And I am not sure why you don't see the logical disconnect between saying "the city/public would not finance a stadium" and "the fans would not finance a stadium." The fans are the public, if they wanted a football team they would finance it and clearly not enough of them do. They wouldn't do it for the Raiders, wouldn't do it for the Rams and won't do it for some random franchise the NFL tries to force into the market.That's why Roski keeps trying to build the stadium himself. Unfortunately for him, no NFL owner wants to move his team into a stadium owned by someone else. NFL owners want publicly financed stadiums.I am sorry you still miss your Rams (believe it or not my mother went into labor with me while at a Rams game and she didn't leave until the game was over) but that doesn't mean LA wants or is willing to financially support an NFL franchise.
No doubt the Coliseum is not a viable NFL stadium even if downtown is the most viable location for an NFL team to locate. But even the last Raiders playoff teams that played there only sold 65 thousand tickets.Even I will concede much of that had to do with the fact that we all knew Al was going to Oakland at that point.It doesn't change the fact that LA will only back a winner and only as long as they continue to win.If they put a team in LA the best option is to build a stadium with a capacity in the mid 50's at the most. Even then it probably won't sell out for a crappy team.
The Jaguars might do "better" in Orlando, but that's still not saying much. I just don't think Florida can support 3 NFL teams.Los Angeles is the only logical choice. Even if the majority of people don't care, that still leaves a potential fanbase of 6 million people (twice as many as the next largest metro area).
One problem is Orlando doesn't have a legitimate NFL stadium. They were supposed to renovate the Citrus Bowl which is a total dump but they put it on hold.
Why? Because it's not true. Up until a few years ago, I worked for years for a local politician (on the Coliseum Commission). They don't ask the public for dollars. They don't take polls. Like all politicians, they work with budgets and listen to advice from their staff (sadly, not the community). I've personally seen the inner workings of discussions on stadium renovation/building. The public? They truly have nothing to do with it.The "city/county" does not = "the fans/public." As Maik Jeaunz said above, "people thinking that LA doesn't want a team are confusing budgetary politics with what the common man wants."ETA: Yes, I do miss the Rams. I don't support them anymore, but I'll tune in to their games on occasion. My personal wishes don't factor into my views of the wishes of other sports/football fans in the area, though.
The only AFC team that the NFL would allow in Boise would be the Jets because they surely aren't going to allow anything but a green field.
The Saints have done this off and on in the past during the preseason.
Yeah. I don't think this city would put up public money for a stadium. If you could put it somewhere in Washington or Clackamas County, it might happen.
I know nothing of Oregon's prospects.
.
How did San Fran build their stadium? Was there local money.
Won't make a difference if it's the Spokane Chargers or Portland Raiders, which are two of the more likely scenarios.
Isn't Jacksonville potentially going to relocate, or are people already resigned to the idea this is the team that will move to London?
