L.A football team

[MikeO]

NFL Network Friday did a little roundtable on what is going to happen with the NFL in L.A. It was interesting. First things first....it's gonna happen. An NFL team is going to be in L.A. in the near future. But, there really are only 3 scenerio's.

1) Oakland moves back. Pretty much when Al Davis left Oakland the first time, L.A. promised him a new stadium. They lied, he never got his new stadium. Oakland then promised Al a new stadium, so he went back to Oakland, they lied and he has never gotten it. If a shovel hits dirt in L.A., Al will pack up and leave and be back in L.A.

2) San Diego is going to L.A. If the city of San Diego refuses to build the Chargers their own new stadium, then they will leave. The stadium they are in is horrible and they have to get out of it soon to keep the franchise viable. Don't be shocked if they try to undercut Al in Oakland to try and get to L.A. first. It might be a race.

3) Broncos-Rams trade owners. Don't laugh, this is legit.  Stan Kroneke who owns the Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche, Colorado Rapids, and Colorado Mammoth bought the St.Louis Rams late last August. Problem is Kroneke is a Denver guy at heart. He would LOVE to have the NFL team in Denver. Pat Bowlen likes money, lots and lots and lots of money. So, how this would work is the Rams and Broncos would trade owners. Kroneke takes over the Broncos. Pat Bowlen becomes the Rams owner and then moves the team BACK to L.A. With then a 3rd team (maybe San Diego or Minnesota) moving to St.Louis. Because the only way this works is if St.Louis doesn't get left out in the cold. Sound far fetched....YES! BUT, this plan has already been run by Roger Goodell and the NFL big-wigs and they have no problem with it at all as long as a 3rd team then goes to St.Louis. And if need be it can and will be done if it means getting football back in L.A.

[StL FinFan]

Kroneke is not the only owner of the Rams, but is the majority(60%) owner.  He had to divest in the Nuggets and Avalanche in order to make the purchase, so technically, his son Josh runs them now and he has until the end of 2014 to give up majority ownership of those teams.  It was Georgia Frontiere's wish that the Rams stay in St. Louis, which is why her children did not consider offers from potential owners who did not wish to keep the team here.  Playing musical teams sounds pretty far fetched to me.  Why the hell anyone would want a worse team than they already own is beyond me.

[MikeO]

Kroneke is not the only owner of the Rams, but is the majority(60%) owner.  He had to divest in the Nuggets and Avalanche in order to make the purchase, so technically, his son Josh runs them now and he has until the end of 2014 to give up majority ownership of those teams.  It was Georgia Frontiere's wish that the Rams stay in St. Louis, which is why her children did not consider offers from potential owners who did not wish to keep the team here.  Playing musical teams sounds pretty far fetched to me.  Why the hell anyone would want a worse team than they already own is beyond me.

As they said last night on NFL Network its NOT the NFL's 1st choice, but it is an option.

They need LA to work this time. Putting in an old school/established owner like Bowlen is smart. Not to mention Bowlen wants to make more $$$$ as an owner and LA is gonna be a huge money franchise when it gets going. So he is more than willing to go there. Kroneke to Denver is a perfect fit for obvious reasons. As long as St.Louis isn't left out in the cold, and a team moves there....everyone involved would be happy.

NFL is happy (team in LA, no team out of St.Louis)
Kroenke is in Denver
Bowlen is in LA making more money

It works!

[StL FinFan]

Stan Kroenke lives in Columbia, Missouri.  His son went to and played basketball for the University of Missouri.  He has tried to bring a NBA team to St. Louis.  Trust me.  I live here.   I hear about this stuff every day.  It may be an option but it won't happen.

[Landshark]

NFL Network Friday did a little roundtable on what is going to happen with the NFL in L.A. It was interesting. First things first....it's gonna happen. An NFL team is going to be in L.A. in the near future. But, there really are only 3 scenerio's.

1) Oakland moves back. Pretty much when Al Davis left Oakland the first time, L.A. promised him a new stadium. They lied, he never got his new stadium. Oakland then promised Al a new stadium, so he went back to Oakland, they lied and he has never gotten it. If a shovel hits dirt in L.A., Al will pack up and leave and be back in L.A.

2) San Diego is going to L.A. If the city of San Diego refuses to build the Chargers their own new stadium, then they will leave. The stadium they are in is horrible and they have to get out of it soon to keep the franchise viable. Don't be shocked if they try to undercut Al in Oakland to try and get to L.A. first. It might be a race.

3) Broncos-Rams trade owners. Don't laugh, this is legit.  Stan Kroneke who owns the Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche, Colorado Rapids, and Colorado Mammoth bought the St.Louis Rams late last August. Problem is Kroneke is a Denver guy at heart. He would LOVE to have the NFL team in Denver. Pat Bowlen likes money, lots and lots and lots of money. So, how this would work is the Rams and Broncos would trade owners. Kroneke takes over the Broncos. Pat Bowlen becomes the Rams owner and then moves the team BACK to L.A. With then a 3rd team (maybe San Diego or Minnesota) moving to St.Louis. Because the only way this works is if St.Louis doesn't get left out in the cold. Sound far fetched....YES! BUT, this plan has already been run by Roger Goodell and the NFL big-wigs and they have no problem with it at all as long as a 3rd team then goes to St.Louis. And if need be it can and will be done if it means getting football back in L.A.

I'd have to agree with options 1 and 2 but not 3. Option 3 would be the Jacksonville Jaguars moving to L.A.  They get absolutely no fan support whatsoever in Jacksonville.  I was at the Dolphins-Jaguars game in 2009, and there was about 30% Dolphins fans there and the place still wasn't sold out.  They have to put tarps over the upper level corners just to make it look good. 

[MikeO]

^^that was discussed. Jax can't move. Their lease with the stadium and the city of Jax is iron-clad and isn't up till late in this decade making it impossible for them to move. No matter how few people go to the games

[Landshark]

^^that was discussed. Jax can't move. Their lease with the stadium and the city of Jax is iron-clad and isn't up till late in this decade making it impossible for them to move. No matter how few people go to the games

Not necessarily.  If they purchase the stadium in L.A. then they can move.  Florida law says if you're buying property, you can break your lease.

[StL FinFan]

They could get out of it, it would just cost them a shit ton of money.

[MikeO]

Not necessarily.  If they purchase the stadium in L.A. then they can move.  Florida law says if you're buying property, you can break your lease.

But you need 24 NFL owners to approve a move. It's not like when Modell moved out of Cleveland and Al moved back and forth between LA and Oakland. The NFL has changed since those days. You can't just pack up and leave. Those days are gone

And Jax owners can't pay that kind of money. They don't have it

[Spider-Dan]

Why would the NFL care about having a team in STL more than in MIN or SD?

I find it hard to believe that any owner is going to stand in the way of another owner moving unless that move is encroaching on one of their markets (e.g. Sacramento moving to Anaheim).

[MikeO]

Why would the NFL care about having a team in STL more than in MIN or SD?

I find it hard to believe that any owner is going to stand in the way of another owner moving unless that move is encroaching on one of their markets (e.g. Sacramento moving to Anaheim).

Stadium situation in St.Louis is better than BOTH SD or Minny. That's why! You reward the city's that take care of their NFL teams. St.Louis has, Minny and SD hasn't.

And the old school owners don't like teams moving for really no reason. Plus just like in real estate, location location location. Some owners don't want another team moving into their "region" of the country. Not to mention you have the re-alignment thing depending on who's moving where. So, if team X moves from "A" to "B"....it might mean YOUR team is now moving to another division

[Spider-Dan]

Minnesota is working on a new stadium now... is the NFL going to pull the team from out under them?

The "old school owners" didn't seem to have a problem with the Colts, Cardinals, "Ravens", or Rams moving (they actually did have a problem with the Raiders, but Al Davis fought that and won).  And realignment is not a serious threat... the league has realigned exactly once since the merger.  If they didn't have a problem with Carolina, Atlanta, and New Orleans being in the "NFC West," I doubt they'll have a problem with L.A. being in the NFC North.

The only real obstacle I see here is SD objecting to an LA team, which is unlikely for two reasons:

1) SD claiming the LA market is like Philly claiming the NY market; it's not reasonable to claim the separate media market of a larger city
2) SD would be in the running to move to LA

[masterfins]

The Los Angeles Bills???

[MikeO]

The Los Angeles Bills???

If the Bills did go to LA.... I would think you would then see Indy moved back to the AFC East where they were for years. See KC moved to the South possibly, and LA in the AFC West.

[Spider-Dan]

Why do people think teams would be moved to different divisions?  They have only realigned twice ever.

They didn't realign when Baltimore became Indianapolis.  They didn't realign when St. Louis became Phoenix.  They didn't realign when Cleveland became Baltimore.  They didn't realign when LA became St. Louis.  They didn't realign when Houston became Tennessee.  They intentionally placed Carolina in the NFC West and Jacksonville in the AFC Central.  Why would they move a bunch of teams around just because one team relocates?