Is it possible for Los Angeles to get the Atlanta Falcons? (Auburn: college, live)

[AcidSnake]

Quite honestly I have a mixed view on this whole situation.

I could get with your logic if Atlanta had absolutely no other choice. I can get with the logic in light of the fact that Georgia offers abatements and other tax-relief type of breaks to corporations all the time, Kia and NCR being the prime examples.

But on the other hand, I'll bet that there are other NFL teams that would easily jump ship to play at our Dome.

To not make even the slightest effort to seek any other offers is to admit that our capitalistic system in this country is nothing more than a rigged crony corporatist lie.

If our city, state, and nation had ever believed that competition is indeed King, then it would behoove our fair city to at least feel out the NFL market and see what Atlanta's football market is truly worth.

Why pay to keep an NFL team here if we can actually pay less or maybe even nothing for another?

That to me is a wise move and simply good business.

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

It would be a shame to lose the Falcons, however, it is a business and businesses do relocate in search of better business environments. This particular business generates millions upon millions for the local economy. The cost of the new stadium must be weighed against that economic benefit. Further, additional revenues that a new stadium may generate - over that generated by the current stadium - must also be analyzed. My gut tells me that $300 mm from a bond offering - repaid by tourists and visitors through the hotel/motel tax - is likely a wise move.

[Big L]

Have you seen the Jaguars lately? I would much rather watch the Falcons at the Dome (or the new stadium if built) than to have to half-heartedly watch the Jaguars stink up the place.

I can understand people having an issue with a new stadium. However, you don't replace a good team with a not-so-good team or an expansion team if you can help it. Charlotte found that out the hard way when they played hardball with the Hornets and ended up getting the Bobcats through expansion. The Hornets were a pretty consistent team when they left Charlotte. The Bobcats have been pretty craptacular over the years.

People have already put posts on here about Atlanta being a city of transplants who root for their home teams rather than the local teams. If the transplants don't support the Falcons (who have been here since 1966), what do you think they will do with the Jaguars if they move or an expansion team if one is created?

Wise decisions will need to be made on both sides, but Atlanta may be shooting themselves in the foot if they allow the Falcons to leave town.

[urbanologist]

LA doesn't deserve a team Birmingham has a better fan base that takes football more seriously. It's also a good way for Alabama and Auburn fans to come together to root for the same team. Birmingham could build a nice stadium. It's only a few hours away. Move it to B'Ham.

[Big L]

Originally Posted by urbanologist

LA doesn't deserve a team Birmingham has a better fan base that takes football more seriously. It's also a good way for Alabama and Auburn fans to come together to root for the same team. Birmingham could build a nice stadium. It's only a few hours away. Move it to B'Ham.

Support for college football doesn't always translate to the pros. There is a reason why Birmingham has only had teams in the WFL, USFL, and XFL. Just as some people here root for UGA and Tech first and the Falcons (or another NFL team) second, the same thing would happen in Birmingham. On top of that, Birmingham is currently the 40th largest television market (Atlanta is currently the 8th largest). I don't think they are high on the NFL's radar right now.

[AcidSnake]

All I'm saying is Atlanta should at least entertain the notion of having another NFL team. And maybe the Jaguars don't play very well as you say.

But if the best argument for keeping the Falcons is that they are "pretty consistent"...then quite frankly if I was Arthur Blank I would try to get HALF the cost of the new stadium paid for by taxpayers, if not most or all of it.

Because it's pretty obvious that the fanatical Falcon boosters do not have the business acumen necessary to negotiate from a position of strength.

Originally Posted by Big L

Have you seen the Jaguars lately? I would much rather watch the Falcons at the Dome (or the new stadium if built) than to have to half-heartedly watch the Jaguars stink up the place.

I can understand people having an issue with a new stadium. However, you don't replace a good team with a not-so-good team or an expansion team if you can help it. Charlotte found that out the hard way when they played hardball with the Hornets and ended up getting the Bobcats through expansion. The Hornets were a pretty consistent team when they left Charlotte. The Bobcats have been pretty craptacular over the years.

People have already put posts on here about Atlanta being a city of transplants who root for their home teams rather than the local teams. If the transplants don't support the Falcons (who have been here since 1966), what do you think they will do with the Jaguars if they move or an expansion team if one is created?

Wise decisions will need to be made on both sides, but Atlanta may be shooting themselves in the foot if they allow the Falcons to leave town.

[urbanologist]

Originally Posted by Big L

Support for college football doesn't always translate to the pros. There is a reason why Birmingham has only had teams in the WFL, USFL, and XFL. Just as some people here root for UGA and Tech first and the Falcons (or another NFL team) second, the same thing would happen in Birmingham. On top of that, Birmingham is currently the 40th largest television market (Atlanta is currently the 8th largest). I don't think they are high on the NFL's radar right now.

Bare in mind Birmingham and Atlanta were the same size back in the 50's not that it matters today.

[ChefRamsey]

Originally Posted by Columbus1984

Never in a million years. This is just a scare tactic to push for a stadium. Falcons are going nowhere.

I pray that you're right. I pray and pray and pray and pray.

[urbanologist]

What's wrong with the Georgia Dome anyway? It's a nice stadium not that old.

[Big L]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

All I'm saying is Atlanta should at least entertain the notion of having another NFL team. And maybe the Jaguars don't play very well as you say.

But if the best argument for keeping the Falcons is that they are "pretty consistent"...then quite frankly if I was Arthur Blank I would try to get HALF the cost of the new stadium paid for by taxpayers, if not most or all of it.

Because it's pretty obvious that the fanatical Falcon boosters do not have the business acumen necessary to negotiate from a position of strength.

That's not the "best" argument, but it applies here. If you have a consistent team that sells out the stadium and has built a fanbase over the years, you don't let that go only to start over again with a mediocre team or an expansion team. I can understand leverage from a business standpoint, but you have to keep in mind that there is a human element in play as well. Even though some fans may stick around, you can't honestly expect people that grew up watching Bartkowski, Sanders, Nobis, Van Note, etc. to suddenly get on board with the Jaguars or another team just because they are here. There are people in St. Louis that still wish the Cardinals didn't move to Arizona even though the Rams are there. There are people in Baltimore that still wish that the Colts didn't move even though the Ravens are there. Hell, my father was born and raised in Los Angeles and hasn't claimed a "team" since the Rams left town almost 20 years ago.

Business sense may tell you to utilize another team as possible leverage. However, common sense would tell you that your consumer base may not be on board if you attempt to replace a 47-year-old, homegrown franchise. Keep in mind that out of the big three pro sports here, the Falcons are the only team that has been in Atlanta its entire existence (the Braves moved from Milwaukee and the Hawks moved from St. Louis). The team still has a legacy even without having a ring, so thinking that you could just swap that out and still have consistent sellouts in the Dome is rather foolish and short-sighted.

[AcidSnake]

Originally Posted by Big L

That's not the "best" argument, but it applies here. If you have a consistent team that sells out the stadium and has built a fanbase over the years, you don't let that go only to start over again with a mediocre team or an expansion team. I can understand leverage from a business standpoint, but you have to keep in mind that there is a human element in play as well. Even though some fans may stick around, you can't honestly expect people that grew up watching Bartkowski, Sanders, Nobis, Van Note, etc. to suddenly get on board with the Jaguars or another team just because they are here. There are people in St. Louis that still wish the Cardinals didn't move to Arizona even though the Rams are there. There are people in Baltimore that still wish that the Colts didn't move even though the Ravens are there. Hell, my father was born and raised in Los Angeles and hasn't claimed a "team" since the Rams left town almost 20 years ago.

I can understand the sentiment behind the Falcons, but this is a post-1996 Olympics Era now. The old fan base that grew up with the Falcons is gone pretty much, and now the Falcons are forced to compete with a professional sports fan base that have no long-time connections to Atlanta.

Also, I would add that people who love football will come regardless of who is playing. And if the ownership can manage to put together a decent roster of players that can actually win, I'm pretty sure that the few Falcons fans who are left who grew up in Atlanta will grow to love their new team.

In America, everyone loves a winner regardless of the uniform that's being worn.

Originally Posted by Big L

Business sense may tell you to utilize another team as possible leverage. However, common sense would tell you that your consumer base may not be on board if you attempt to replace a 47-year-old, homegrown franchise. Keep in mind that out of the big three pro sports here, the Falcons are the only team that has been in Atlanta its entire existence (the Braves moved from Milwaukee and the Hawks moved from St. Louis). The team still has a legacy even without having a ring, so thinking that you could just swap that out and still have consistent sellouts in the Dome is rather foolish and short-sighted.

Oh come now, that's assuming that the customer base is large enough to put up a fuss, or that the diehard professional sports football fans have other choices. Pre-1996 Olympics, your logic would've made sense. But post-1996 Olympics? It's on shaky ground, I'd say.

Too many people with different desires have moved here that go against your presupposition that the traditional Falcon customer is numerous enough to fight any potential changes.

Atlanta tears old things down and put new stuff up all the time. Yeah, the old-timers may yell and raise sand about the changes. But eventually the people who like the new stuff regardless of the change will come around in time and support the new.

Also, look at how the radio station V-103 changed its format around when it was bought out in the late 1990s by a larger corporation. The old-timers fuss and moan, and yet even as V-103 ceded a little to the old-timers the radio station still pushed through major changes anyways and is still a popular radio station today.

I would imagine that this phenomena will be the same with a new Atlanta NFL team. I think you are speaking more with your emotions and sentiments rather than with cold hard logic on this one, but it's understandable. I have longstanding ties to Atlanta and the Falcons myself.

But change does happen, and that, my fellow Atlantan, is inevitable.