Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Remember when I said the NFL has no team in LA to bully NFL cities to fund stadiums..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cahill
    replied
    You really overestimate how much of LA cares about NFL football. The Browns left Cleveland and look how they reacted. The Rams and Raiders both left LA and nobody cared. UCLA and USC games had higher attendance than the Raiders when they were there. Sure, you could sustain a team there and make a profit but why go to LA when you can get the same end result in another city with an already established fanbase. I think the NFL will continue to use the city as a bargaining chip like it does now.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoFanBoy
    replied
    Originally posted by InElwayWeTrust View Post
    Alright let's try this again....

    I'M NOT SAYING L.A. SHOULDN'T HAVE A TEAM.

    I'M SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD MOVE A TEAM THAT'S ALREADY IN CALI THERE, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY STRUGGLE FILLING THEIR STADIUMS. IF A STATE HAS 3 TEAMS, AND 2 OF THEM ARE GETTING BLACKED OUT EVERY OTHER WEEK, YOU SHOULDN'T ADD A 4TH.
    Exactly.

    Originally posted by roushmartin6 View Post
    Forget L.A. i'm surprised Vegas doesn't have a team
    I'm surprised too. The only things Vegas has is a Triple-A baseball team, and their college teams.

    I also think we shouldn't completely worry about L.A Getting an NFL team because their current sports teams are already very popular. The Dodgers are popular, along with the Lakers and Clippers. The Lakers aren't as good as they were in the past, but they're still one of the most popular franchises in sports. The Clippers are really good though.

    To add to that, the Kings just won the Stanley Cup last year. An NFL team may not be up to par in that city. I guess unless the Raiders move there or something.

    Leave a comment:


  • thenewera44
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncosDivision View Post
    Oh, pop.

    I was just wondering since you said this:



    But it's all good then. Carry on
    I actually could not get the numbers of the world cities. I mean I am sure there are more populated cities. Perhaps Mexico Cito, or Rio de janeiro oe something.

    However, as far as sheer numbers, that is a giant pool of people and trust me, the NFL wants to be in there. Just so long as all opportunities to use it as leverage to bully current NFL cities to build stadiums through tax subsidies.

    It is just about done, and that is why we have been hearing more and more about moving teams there.

    The Rams could quite possibly be moving back there.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncosDivision
    replied
    Originally posted by thenewera44 View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rts_franchises

    Based on population.

    Top 3 cities in the country. (no not the world)

    1. New York City 22,085,649
    2. Los Angeles 17,877,006
    3. Chicago 9,686,021
    Oh, pop.

    I was just wondering since you said this:

    Originally posted by thenewera44 View Post
    Again, they used LA to bully cities to build new stadiums with tax subsidies. The vacant city (second largerst market in the world) provided significant leverage.
    But it's all good then. Carry on

    Leave a comment:


  • thenewera44
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncosDivision View Post
    Second largest market in the world based on what? and are we talking Los Angeles/OC or California as a whole?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rts_franchises

    Based on population.

    Top 3 cities in the country. (no not the world)

    1. New York City 22,085,649
    2. Los Angeles 17,877,006
    3. Chicago 9,686,021

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncosDivision
    replied
    Second largest market in the world based on what? and are we talking Los Angeles/OC or California as a whole?

    Leave a comment:


  • thenewera44
    replied
    Originally posted by bronx_2003 View Post
    They have always supported the NBA and the MLB, but they failed both times the NFL gave them a team.

    TBH As a fan of the game I'm not really bothered about the money side, I just hate to see teams given to places that show such indifference and such a lack of passion and support towards the NFL.

    When you look at cities like Denver, KC, GB, N.O, etc............ its just a complete joke to give a football team to LA
    Again, they used LA to bully cities to build new stadiums with tax subsidies. The vacant city (second largerst market in the world) provided significant leverage.

    Now, the NFL will count on the fact that the city has not had a team, and they will use mass promotions to sell a team. The Rams were once a big draw, and in the early 90s their attendance dropped significantly.

    Leave a comment:


  • bronx_2003
    replied
    Originally posted by thenewera44 View Post
    Here are the numbers for MLB attendance in 2012.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...012-misc.shtml

    Both LA teams are in the top 10. Only team in MLB that has two teams from the same city in the top 10. One Chicago team and only one NY team in the top 10.


    In the NBA. LA only city in the NBA with two teams with top 10 attendance, and both Lakers and Clippers in the TOP 5 for percentage.

    http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/...12/sort/allPct


    This does not even take into account the cable deals that the NBA and MLB teams have in that market.
    They have always supported the NBA and the MLB, but they failed both times the NFL gave them a team.

    TBH As a fan of the game I'm not really bothered about the money side, I just hate to see teams given to places that show such indifference and such a lack of passion and support towards the NFL.

    When you look at cities like Denver, KC, GB, N.O, etc............ its just a complete joke to give a football team to LA

    Leave a comment:


  • thenewera44
    replied
    Here are the numbers for MLB attendance in 2012.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...012-misc.shtml

    Both LA teams are in the top 10. Only team in MLB that has two teams from the same city in the top 10. One Chicago team and only one NY team in the top 10.


    In the NBA. LA only city in the NBA with two teams with top 10 attendance, and both Lakers and Clippers in the TOP 5 for percentage.

    http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/...12/sort/allPct


    This does not even take into account the cable deals that the NBA and MLB teams have in that market.

    Leave a comment:


  • bronx_2003
    replied
    I would hate LA getting a team, there's far more deserving places.

    The Chargers struggle to sell out, even when they were winning, and the excuse we got was there's soooooo much to do in Southern Cal.... which I think is a BS excuse, but one team struggles with support there, why give them another.

    LA is a Lakers city, they have failed to support 2 teams, why give them another ?

    They could probably make good money with an LA team with Marketing and TV, etc.............. but its the same problem I have with Goodell talking about expanding teams in the playoffs to 16.

    Do you want to make more money short term and risk damaging the sport in terms of quality and interest ?

    Leave a comment:


  • thenewera44
    replied
    Originally posted by InElwayWeTrust View Post
    Alright let's try this again....

    I'M NOT SAYING L.A. SHOULDN'T HAVE A TEAM.

    I'M SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD MOVE A TEAM THAT'S ALREADY IN CALI THERE, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY STRUGGLE FILLING THEIR STADIUMS. IF A STATE HAS 3 TEAMS, AND 2 OF THEM ARE GETTING BLACKED OUT EVERY OTHER WEEK, YOU SHOULDN'T ADD A 4TH.
    The state, and the city of LA are two totally different things. One, the two teams in northern California are in Northern California. Virtually totally irrelevant to the second biggest market in the world that is LA.

    San Diego is "within that region" but then again it is far enough away where it not a part of the LA market.

    They never really had problems drawing there for the NFL teams. Want to know the real reason the Rams when to St Louis?

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...itration-fees/

    The agreement that lured the Rams from Los Angeles to St. Louis in 1995 includes a provision that guarantees the Rams a first-tier NFL stadium by 2015. The procedure for getting there includes an arbitration process, which the Rams won earlier this year.

    There’s another term of the agreement that now will benefit the Rams. The party that prevails in the arbitration is entitled to reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.

    According to the St. Louis Business Journal, the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission owes the Rams $2.01 million, with $1.85 million coming from attorneys fees and $159,150 attributed to costs.

    The Rams had asked for $3.42 million, and the CVC had argued that the expenses should not exceed $787,398.

    Typically, parties to litigation bear their own legal expenses. In this case, with the parties expressly agreeing that the loser in arbitration will pay the winner’s fees, the Rams have won on both counts.

    The bigger victory, of course, comes from the fact that, if the CVC doesn’t provide the upgrades to the Edward Jones Dome that the arbitrators have determined to be appropriate and necessary, the Rams will be able to leave the venue after the 2014 season.



    Read the bold faced part. Are the Rams going to back to LA?



    The bottom line is after Baltimore agreed to pay for a new stadium to Modell, the owners became.....indignant. There was a plan set forth to leverage deals for each franchise.

    Some franchises could not really make that bluff. A few of them. The Cowboys were not going to leave Dallas. Guess who paid for the stadium? Yeah, Jerry Jones did out of his pocket. Other franchises that could not use that bluff to move to LA? NY and NY. Guess who paid for their stadium. They did out of their own pockets. Guess who got the Super Bowl. In a cold climate for the first time ever. You got it.....New York.


    Funny to me how they actually play in NJ.


    The point is this is about money. Big money. When it comes to big money the owners certainly team up in order to maximize profit and create revenue streams.


    They are 32 billionaires. We have any idea how much power 32 billionaires have when they team up? You do not think they have influence over actual public policy?


    Of course they do.

    Leave a comment:


  • roushmartin6
    replied
    Forget L.A. i'm surprised Vegas doesn't have a team

    Leave a comment:


  • InElwayWeTrust
    replied
    Originally posted by thenewera44 View Post
    It is the second biggest market in the world, and the NFL is about done using it as a bully stick. It is now time to move on to the next phase, which is bringing a team or teams to LA. It will happen.

    People think it is a bad sports town, and that is far from the truth. I can show you the attendance rankings in the other sports and how they rank. Including the college football teams.

    Again, it has been a plan to establish leverage to bully cities to pass legislation to fund new stadiums on behalf of tax subsidies.

    We can blame Baltimore for doing that for Modell. One thing among owners. They have giant egos, and he was not going to have a deal like that with out them attempting to get something similar.
    Alright let's try this again....

    I'M NOT SAYING L.A. SHOULDN'T HAVE A TEAM.

    I'M SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD MOVE A TEAM THAT'S ALREADY IN CALI THERE, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY STRUGGLE FILLING THEIR STADIUMS. IF A STATE HAS 3 TEAMS, AND 2 OF THEM ARE GETTING BLACKED OUT EVERY OTHER WEEK, YOU SHOULDN'T ADD A 4TH.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncosDivision
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlie Brown View Post
    It is a bad NFL team town. They have a history of not supporting their NFL teams. Sure, they attend Clippers games. But NFL? No, instead if they want to see an NFL team, they can get in their car and drive less than 100 miles and go watch the Chargers.
    Fixed that for you.

    We should probably just leave a * in there as it's subject to change.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by thenewera44 View Post
    It is the second biggest market in the world, and the NFL is about done using it as a bully stick. It is now time to move on to the next phase, which is bringing a team or teams to LA. It will happen.
    The "market" that is LA is the same market that is the surrounding area. California isn't made up of little islands. California is made up of several large cities. In the instance of LA and San Diego, the distance between the two is roughly 100 miles. There are other NFL teams in the cities of San Francisco and Oakland. So, Oakland has an NFL team, San Francisco has an NFL team and San Diego has an NFL team.

    When LA had a team, they never supported it and those teams moved on to other more desirable places. Other more desirable places that LA NFL teams moved to were Oakland, San Diego, and Saint Louis. There is no need for LA to have a team no matter how much the wealthy people in LA claim they want a team, they never support it. The people of LA support other teams. There is no need for four NFL teams to be in the same state. The same for Florida, they do not need another NFL team. Both states have plenty of teams.

    People think it is a bad sports town, and that is far from the truth. I can show you the attendance rankings in the other sports and how they rank. Including the college football teams.
    It is a bad NFL team town. They have a history of not supporting their NFL teams. Sure, they attend Lakers games. But NFL? No, instead if they want to see an NFL team, they can get in their car and drive less than 100 miles and go watch the Chargers.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X