U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-17-2009, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
5,847 posts, read 11,020,104 times
Reputation: 3829

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by STLCardsBlues1989 View Post
I doubt the Rams move. The Rams have 88% attendance this year despite being terrible. And Chip and Lucia have to sell the team by 2014 to avoid a big inheritance tax. So the Rams don't have to be sold immediately.
Which is about the time the LA stadium is projected to be complete.

Now they are talking about 2 teams. (and there are numerous teams on the list)

News & Press on Los Angeles Stadium
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-17-2009, 05:18 PM
 
4,925 posts, read 9,779,253 times
Reputation: 3268
Besides you not liking it, why shouldn't a team be able to move? They are privately owned businesses, and they are in business to make money. If they can make more elsewhee, move power to them.

LA CAN support a team...but they don't. They certainly have the population to do so. LA hasn't been able to keep a team...the Rams, the Raiders...too many other distractions, I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2009, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Miami/ Washington DC
4,836 posts, read 10,187,465 times
Reputation: 2512
It is a business what do you expect its all about money. If a team is doing poorly in an area they should be able to move. If the city does not want to give a stadium to a team they should be able to move etc.. Its about money.

LA will have a team in 5-10 years. The other cities you mentioned never will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2009, 08:09 AM
 
Location: MichOhioigan
1,546 posts, read 2,536,734 times
Reputation: 1459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwo85 View Post
Hey L.A. Take the DETROIT LIONS! In return, give us Hollywood.
LOL! Great idea.
I'll help 'em pack!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2009, 08:14 AM
 
Location: NYC
1,158 posts, read 3,208,720 times
Reputation: 1080
The Dodgers lead the league in overall attendance in 2009. The Angels weren't too far behind at #5 overall. If the LA area can give this much support to two different franchises who each have 81 home games a year, I see no reason why that same region couldn't support one franchise with 8 home games per year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2009, 09:09 AM
 
2,231 posts, read 5,423,811 times
Reputation: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt345 View Post
The Dodgers lead the league in overall attendance in 2009. The Angels weren't too far behind at #5 overall. If the LA area can give this much support to two different franchises who each have 81 home games a year, I see no reason why that same region couldn't support one franchise with 8 home games per year.
Good point. If the "active lifestyle" of the people of LA keep them from watching football on Sunday, how come it doesn't keep them from watching baseball 3 times a week?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2009, 09:39 AM
 
1,012 posts, read 2,246,063 times
Reputation: 454
NFL franchises are a business and should be allowed to move if it benefits the franchise. Its called capitalism. Personally, I think some teams would be better off relocating. The Lions should leave Detroit. Jacksonville and Buffalo seem too small to have a team to begin with. And Oakland is way to close to san fran to have a team. Green Bay will never move, because it is literally owned by the city of G.B. I think San Antonio, TX or Las Vegas deserves a chance at landing an NFL franchise. But nonetheless, Los Angeles will probably get another franchise; I would like 2 see the deplorable Lions or mediocre AZ Cards relocate there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2009, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
5,847 posts, read 11,020,104 times
Reputation: 3829
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt345 View Post
The Dodgers lead the league in overall attendance in 2009. The Angels weren't too far behind at #5 overall. If the LA area can give this much support to two different franchises who each have 81 home games a year, I see no reason why that same region couldn't support one franchise with 8 home games per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace View Post
Good point. If the "active lifestyle" of the people of LA keep them from watching football on Sunday, how come it doesn't keep them from watching baseball 3 times a week?


Because Football is not cheap and going to a game is a full day event. Kind of like going to Disneyland.

Because baseball is still relatively inexpensive. The average joe can spend a few hours with his family and/or friends at a nice ball park on a warm weekday evening.

Because of the longer season and schedule with more games, Baseball also has more media exposure. More fans are aware of the players, and many players spend a lot of time in community events. This creates a certain brand loyalty.

It also helps that both the Angels and Dodgers have consistently put out a good product.

But I can't say that in all my years in CA that I have ever seen anyone watching a REGULAR SEASON baseball game on TV. This is generally the same for LA Football.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2009, 09:49 AM
 
3,234 posts, read 7,630,288 times
Reputation: 2694
Quote:
Originally Posted by krock1dk View Post
NFL franchises are a business and should be allowed to move if it benefits the franchise. Its called capitalism. Personally, I think some teams would be better off relocating. The Lions should leave Detroit. Jacksonville and Buffalo seem too small to have a team to begin with. And Oakland is way to close to san fran to have a team. Green Bay will never move, because it is literally owned by the city of G.B. I think San Antonio, TX or Las Vegas deserves a chance at landing an NFL franchise. But nonetheless, Los Angeles will probably get another franchise; I would like 2 see the deplorable Lions or mediocre AZ Cards relocate there.
yes but places like Buffalo and Oakland have die hard fans that support their teams, making them money. Jacksonville is a different story with many blacked out games.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2009, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
2,498 posts, read 10,289,503 times
Reputation: 1598
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace View Post
Good point. If the "active lifestyle" of the people of LA keep them from watching football on Sunday, how come it doesn't keep them from watching baseball 3 times a week?
There were a variety of reasons that contributed to the low attendance of past L.A. teams besides just us all having our heads in the clouds and being too busy for football (which is a major factor).

Here are a few other issues:
1. The Raiders became synonymous with gang culture and the ghetto. The late 80's early 1990's were a BAD time in L.A. history, especially South Central where the Coliseum is located and the Raiders played. Not very many people that could actually afford tickets wanted to head over to South Central to support "the gang team," especially after the 1992 L.A. Rodney King Riots occured in the area.

2. No luxury boxes. The Coliseum dates back to the 1920's. It is VERY VERY old. Football teams make a signifigant amount of their profits off those luxury boxes and club seats. The Coliseum had promised to renovate the stadium to insert luxury boxes, but in 1994 the Northridge Earthquake damaged the stadium slightly and the state required the money for luxury seats to be diverted to earthquake repair and upgrade. The lack of boxes really made Al Davis fed up.

3. Competition from USC and UCLA. USC and UCLA both have strong support in Southern California and there are many alumni in the area from these two universities. USC has average attendance around 85,000 and UCLA has average attendance around 70,000 so these two teams draw as much if not more than an NFL team does.

4. Angelenos only support teams that win or are doing pretty well. Otherwise they figure there is no other reason to be loyal to them. Look at the Clippers. They can't win and are NEVER on TV here in L.A. because the Lakers dominate. Clipper attendance is low, because honestly it is a lot more fun to be a Laker fan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top