Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't realize the Columbus Crew was threatening to leave for Austin. I wonder why, is it attendance or a stadium situation? I thought they had a soccer only stadium that was nice from what I'd read, but who knows? At least Columbus will still have the Blue Jackets of the NHL if they leave, so not the end of the world. But that'd be a disappointing development, if that occurred.
I feel bad for Saint Louis. IMO, I think that city could totally support more than 2 pro teams. Hopefully someday they get another chance at an NFL team, since they put up a realistic and decent proposal to the NFL, unlike San Diego and especially Oakland. Which IMO, did virtually nothing to try to keep their team, so in a way I'm not surprised the Raiders are now eventually going to move to Las Vegas by either 2019 or 2020. Depending on what happens with their 2019 year option, since their contract to play in the Coliseum is only definitely guaranteed through 2018.
So taxpayers are supposed to pay for a privately owned building?
Makes sense. NBA does seem to be in more cities where they are the only game in town.
NFL the only ones I can think of are GB and JAX.
In MLB only San Diego?
NHL (only US cities): Raleigh and Columbus?
The Green Bay Packers certainly represent Green Bay, but they are the de facto Milwaukee/ Wisconsin team.
I think you are correct with MLB only in San Diego at this point. However, Oakland will soon be in the same situation, with the Raiders moving to Vegas, and the Warriors moving to San Francisco.
So taxpayers are supposed to pay for a privately owned building?
I didn't say that, please don't misinterpret my words into something I wasn't saying. There's a difference, I'm saying that THEORETICALLY that it's possible that a city like Saint Louis could support a new NFL team if they wanted to. And there was a legit new stadium proposal to try to keep the Rams in Saint Louis, only that it's owner already bought land in Inglewood, CA for a new stadium, and was hellbent to move there.
I'm totally supportive if anything if a city didn't want to impose additional taxes to finance a stadium's construction, like what San Diego's voters chose to do in rejecting those taxes to fund a Chargers stadium. Never mind those taxes to my knowledge that would've been imposed to fund a new Chargers stadium, would've mainly been imposed on visitors to San Diego.
As for what I said about the Oakland Raiders, it still is true that the city's mayoral administration did nothing other than offer land for a new stadium to the Raiders, but didn't do anything to come up with a stadium proposal for the Raiders. So in a way, I'm not surprised they chose to move to Vegas. Hopefully the A's do decide to stay in Oakland, but who knows what'll happen there? I'm rooting for the A's to get a new stadium in Oakland, since they've LONG needed a new one.
Atlanta does have a MLB team. They are called the Atlanta Braves.
I was being sarcastic, as the last 4 years the Braves have hardly played at a big league level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
