Chargers see no wealth bump from moving to LA (San Diego: best, money)

[malcorub16]

Cities are wising up to the greedy NFL. Enough with the corporate welfare, especially in California where we are already over taxed.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

The Rams belong in Los Angeles. They were the Los Angeles Rams for 50+ years before moving to St. Louis.

But if you want to get technical, it was the Los Angeles Rams of Anaheim.

[JohnSoCal]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

But if you want to get technical, it was the Los Angeles Rams of Anaheim.

You are only partially correct. They were the Los Angeles Rams until 1980 playing their home games at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

In 1980 they moved their home field to Anaheim becoming the Los Angeles Rams of Anaheim.

[TacoSoup]

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

You are only partially correct. They were the Los Angeles Rams until 1980 playing their home games at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

In 1980 they moved their home field to Anaheim becoming the Los Angeles Rams of Anaheim.

If you want to get technical they were the Cleveland Rams first. I don’t ever recall them being the Los Angeles Rams of Anaheim while playing there. I think LuvSouthOC was making fun of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Last year I called our old football team the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles.

Regardless, I find it funny that there’s as much Rams advertising on products, if not more, than the Chargers in the local grocery stores. So much for keeping their fan base while moving.

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

You are only partially correct. They were the Los Angeles Rams until 1980 playing their home games at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

In 1980 they moved their home field to Anaheim becoming the Los Angeles Rams of Anaheim.

And what prompted them to move out to St Louis after being in Anaheim? I know the sightlines at the Big A were kinda weird for football configuration.

[malcorub16]

I've read that LA might have actually have been more beneficial to the NFL as a bargaining chip than with an actual franchise.

How many cities were rattled into financing a stadium with the "we'll move to LA if you don't" card? SD seems to be the first city to tell its franchise to take a hike and Oakland will be the second. Even St Louis was offering millions upon millions of dollars to get the Rams to stay despite still being in debt with their current stadium but it was the Rams owner's choice not to stay in his own hometown of SL?

Having an NFL team is nice but it doesn't make a city great. Look to Buffalo, Jacksonville and Cleveland as examples.

[JohnSoCal]

Originally Posted by TacoSoup

If you want to get technical they were the Cleveland Rams first. I don’t ever recall them being the Los Angeles Rams of Anaheim while playing there. I think LuvSouthOC was making fun of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Last year I called our old football team the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles.

Regardless, I find it funny that there’s as much Rams advertising on products, if not more, than the Chargers in the local grocery stores. So much for keeping their fan base while moving.

As an Angels fan, I hate calling them the Lo s Angeles Angels. First they were the California Angels and then the Anaheim Angels. They should have stopped there. Lo s Angeles has the Dodgers.

[TacoSoup]

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

As an Angels fan, I hate calling them the Lo s Angeles Angels. First they were the California Angels and then the Anaheim Angels. They should have stopped there. Lo s Angeles has the Dodgers.

It was well before my time, but they were the Los Angeles Angels originally. I got tons of old baseball cards from the early 1960’s with LA Angels on them. I do agree with you though.

[cruitr]

Originally Posted by malcorub16

How many cities were rattled into financing a stadium with the "we'll move to LA if you don't" card? SD seems to be the first city to tell its franchise to take a hike and Oakland will be the second. Even St Louis was offering millions upon millions of dollars to get the Rams to stay despite still being in debt with their current stadium but it was the Rams owner's choice not to stay in his own hometown of SL?

Having an NFL team is nice but it doesn't make a city great. Look to Buffalo, Jacksonville and Cleveland as examples.

In the 80s, the Cardinals (Bill Bidwell) threatened to leave St Louis if we didn't build him a new stadium. We didn't build it and the Cardinals literally left town in the middle of the nite. Destination: Phoenix. Everyone was surprised they kept the Cardinals name. There isn't a Cardinal (the bird) within 100 miles of Phoenix.

St Louisans are used to NFL departures. But twice doesn't make it any less painful. I know several bar owners who closed up when the Rams left St Louis. People stay home and watch TV on their 60" flat-screens.

An NFL team doesn't make the city but living in an NFL city is a lot more fun. Maybe not $2B worth of fun.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

As an Angels fan, I hate calling them the Lo s Angeles Angels. First they were the California Angels and then the Anaheim Angels. They should have stopped there. Lo s Angeles has the Dodgers.

I agree, there are the Dodgers too. We call them the Anaheim Angels around here. The LA Angels of A thing is more for public consumption in LA County (on tv, e.g. KTLA etc.) and not for Greater LA. No one here calls them the LA Angels, but it's not like anyone is offended by it either.