Rams Officially Apply to Move to L.A.

[Dapperdan]

I think it is a huge mistake building a 100,000 seat stadium in LA. I can't believe they are doing that. What a waste and what a joke.

[thelakelander]

^Well, and the Bay Area. For now.

Might as well throw DC and Baltimore in there as well. Although the census may refer to them as separate MSAs, technically their downtowns are only 40 miles apart. That's a shorter drive than the trip in Jax from Baldwin to Jax Beach.

[ProjectMaximus]

So the chargers also have the option to move to LA? They've had teams before and they've all left, why does the NFL think they can support 2 teams in LA? Not even chicago has 2 teams - only NYC.

LA's MSA has 4 million more residents than Chicago's.  If Jax can support a team with less than 1.5 million residents, LA's 13.3 million should be fine with two.

While we're counting CSAs, might as well note that LA's is close to 19 million. Point still being, they can support two teams.

Regardless, I do question the strategy. One of the reasons that I thought if they moved two they'd do it simultaneously was to avoid having one team get a marketing leg-up on the other - which is exactly what's going to happen. If the Chargers move, they'll be the other team.

Well there are a ton of Chargers fans in LA already. Probably true for Raiders as well.

[thelakelander]

I think it is a huge mistake building a 100,000 seat stadium in LA. I can't believe they are doing that. What a waste and what a joke.

At least it's privately funded.

[Tacachale]

So the chargers also have the option to move to LA? They've had teams before and they've all left, why does the NFL think they can support 2 teams in LA? Not even chicago has 2 teams - only NYC.

SF Market has 2 now (Oakland is part of SF's TV Market). The issue has never been fan support, the issue was a stadium with modern revenue driving features - neither the LA Coliseum (LA Raiders) or Anaheim Stadium (LA Rams) have those - and it should be noted that the Rams are going to play in the Coliseum for at least 3 years.

Yes, teams rarely if ever move because of "support". They move because they can't get the stadium deals they want. It was the case in LA in the 90s, when the Rams' owner even blamed the stadium for losing games, and it's the case now, when we've got three cities that won't/can't cough up a billion dollars to make their teams happy. What's funny is that LA won't do it either, but the NFL is so fixated on returning to LA that it's become the one place they'll pay their own way to get into.

LA can absolutely support two (or more) NFL teams, just as New York and the Bay Area do. But a lot of teams are reluctant to that, as the "second team in" often becomes the second banana in the market. Even though they're among the most prominent teams in the country, the Jets, Mets, Angels, White Sox et al don't have the power in their own market that their big sisters. Often times smaller cities will work harder than big cities will for their second teams, hence why so many teams that were historically in bigger markets have gone to smaller ones.

[spuwho]

I think it is a huge mistake building a 100,000 seat stadium in LA. I can't believe they are doing that. What a waste and what a joke.

At least it's privately funded.

LOL.

Stadium perhaps, what about the rest?

[thelakelander]

^I was referring to the comment about the stadium.

[JeffreyS]

[KenFSU]

I think it is a huge mistake building a 100,000 seat stadium in LA. I can't believe they are doing that. What a waste and what a joke.

Semantics, but 70,000 seats will be the normal game-day configuration.

Expanded configuration, which amounts to 30,000 standing room only tickets to be used for the Super Bowl, is 100,000.

[Steve]

I think it is a huge mistake building a 100,000 seat stadium in LA. I can't believe they are doing that. What a waste and what a joke.

At least it's privately funded.

My guess once some of the details about the facility come out, it will be a facility that can seat UP TO 100k, like EverBank can seat up to 83,000 once you add temporary seats. They likely want that high of a number for a super bowl.

[Tacachale]

Now that the blackout rule has been stricken down, there's no real incentive for teams or cities to build stadiums smaller than they want, except to control demand to raise prices or to look purtier on TV.

[FlaBoy]

So the chargers also have the option to move to LA? They've had teams before and they've all left, why does the NFL think they can support 2 teams in LA? Not even chicago has 2 teams - only NYC.

SF Market has 2 now (Oakland is part of SF's TV Market). The issue has never been fan support, the issue was a stadium with modern revenue driving features - neither the LA Coliseum (LA Raiders) or Anaheim Stadium (LA Rams) have those - and it should be noted that the Rams are going to play in the Coliseum for at least 3 years.

Yes, teams rarely if ever move because of "support". They move because they can't get the stadium deals they want. It was the case in LA in the 90s, when the Rams' owner even blamed the stadium for losing games, and it's the case now, when we've got three cities that won't/can't cough up a billion dollars to make their teams happy. What's funny is that LA won't do it either, but the NFL is so fixated on returning to LA that it's become the one place they'll pay their own way to get into.

LA can absolutely support two (or more) NFL teams, just as New York and the Bay Area do. But a lot of teams are reluctant to that, as the "second team in" often becomes the second banana in the market. Even though they're among the most prominent teams in the country, the Jets, Mets, Angels, White Sox et al don't have the power in their own market that their big sisters. Often times smaller cities will work harder than big cities will for their second teams, hence why so many teams that were historically in bigger markets have gone to smaller ones.

Well, especially playing in the same building without any history in the area puts the Chargers at a disadvantage. If the Raiders went to LA, I think they would be pretty successful because they already have a fan base but not the Chargers. The Jets and Giants built up their fan bases separately to begin because the Jets/Mets played at Shea and the Giants/Yankees played at Yankee Stadium so the fan base for the Jets is in Queens and Long Island while the Giants retained most of Manhattan and the Bronx. The Giants fan base is also larger because they have been around forever.

Apparently everyone was wowed by Kroenke's plan for a stadium because it was so well thought out. An example of that is the 100,000 expandable stadium for Super Bowls, College Football Championships, and other huge events. That is called maximizing profit.

[Tacachale]

Apparently everyone was wowed by Kroenke's plan for a stadium because it was so well thought out. An example of that is the 100,000 expandable stadium for Super Bowls, College Football Championships, and other huge events. That is called maximizing profit.

What it says to me is that the league believed far more in the Kroenke plan than the Raiders/Chargers plan. They were willing to go with probably the most disruptive option in order to get it done, and were willing to risk losing out on their two-team solution.

[simms3]

I just got off the phone with a buddy/colleague in LA (in Newport south of LA) who is a lifelong Rams fan as he went to Rams games when they were in LA.  There are a lot of Rams fans in SoCal, as there are many Raiders fans.

For Oakland, the problem isn't the fan base.  The Raiders fans are some of the best in the nation, the most loyal, etc.  They are mostly concentrated in the East Bay.  Now the problem is the owner and the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda.  These 3 parties are pissing off fans and not getting any deals done to improve or rebuild the stadium and infrastructure to it (though it is already right off of a major highway and connected by BART).

The Chargers will likely announce their move to LA within a few weeks, by the SuperBowl.  They've burned too many bridges to stay in SD and they need to move.  Nobody will then be able to backfill an SD team for a long time.  The Raiders then have a few years to plan out their move, if any, to another city.

I have no faith that Mark Davis and Oakland/Alameda can put together a deal to keep them.

Unfortunately, Oakland needs the Raiders because it is the key to unlocking redevelopment potential for that depressed side of town.  Without the Raiders, that whole section of Oakland will continue to suck.  Oakland is full of incompetents.  Mark Davis has never had a lot of fans.

Inglewood, where the Rams will play, is also not the best part of LA, and it isn't along the highway, meaning fans will have to drive into and through the hood-ish area and out.  But Kroenke is ponying up to build the Shangri-La of football stadiums, so it's a bit different.

[goldy21]

Unfortunately, Oakland needs the Raiders because it is the key to unlocking redevelopment potential for that depressed side of town.  Without the Raiders, that whole section of Oakland will continue to suck.  Oakland is full of incompetents.  Mark Davis has never had a lot of fans.

I feel bad for the A's in all of this.  They have been the real victims since their fate has been tied to the Raiders for reasons I'm too lazy to spell out here.