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.
And thats why one downtown would serve purpose Farmers Field
They are two completely different projects, thats what people dont understand that they are actually working on TWO not just one, LA has the market for it, and who's to say they won't be getting two teams? And that it's gotta be one or the other? The websites + locations suggest otherwise, they would not go through all that if these weren't both serious projects.
I'm sorry, but you're just factually wrong. Anybody who's been following the story for the last few years knows that it will be hard enough for LA to land one team. LA's not getting two teams, and only one stadium will be built. These two stadiums are openly competing with one another for one team that will relocate. For proof, see pretty much every newspaper article written about this situation in the last four years. Also, common sense: no team is going to relocate to another city at the same time another team does.
Yes, they're both very serious proposals -- but only one of them will come to fruition. The other one will just be an expensive collection of architectural drawings and models.
The only other possibility is that neither of them is built b/c LA just doesn't get a team.
I'm sorry, but you're just factually wrong. Anybody who's been following the story for the last few years knows that it will be hard enough for LA to land one team. LA's not getting two teams, and only one stadium will be built. These two stadiums are openly competing with one another for one team that will relocate. For proof, see pretty much every newspaper article written about this situation in the last four years. Also, common sense: no team is going to relocate to another city at the same time another team does.
Yes, they're both very serious proposals -- but only one of them will come to fruition. The other one will just be an expensive collection of architectural drawings and models.
The only other possibility is that neither of them is built b/c LA just doesn't get a team.
its really too early to say if there will only be onle ONE or TWO teams there, but from now I believe there will be TWO teams, and I think LA holds the market for TWO teams, one for EAST LA/OC/Inland empire, and one that supports downtown LA. Who knows what will happen, I will support two teams, why not? it's the 2nd largest city in the United States! new york has two teams (giants,jets) both in new jersey, but they have the market! I'd love to see the LA bengals downtown and the LA vikings in OC/east la/inland empire area. Only time will tell, but it will do GREAT if done right!
Here's how it's going to happen. The Colts are a small market team but with a new stadium. Now that they're horrible again, their stadium is reverting to available tickets and looming blackouts. Their owner, Irsay, loves Hollywood. He wants L.A., but the NFL also wants to keep the Colts in Indy. Jacksonville isn't working well. The team doesn't draw, and Jacksonville isn't growing as well as other Southern cities.
The NFL brokers this: 1. The Colts leave for L.A. and get the L.A. franchise. 2. The Jacksonville franchise gets Indy. The team that ends up in L.A. may be even called the Jaguars but be the Colts organization, while Indy gets to keep the Colts, uniforms, colors, etc., though they are really the Jaguars.
While a few teams would prefer L.A. to their own city, I can't see Irsay letting another team jump his place in the pecking order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfside__
its really too early to say if there will only be onle ONE or TWO teams there, but from now I believe there will be TWO teams, and I think LA holds the market for TWO teams, one for EAST LA/OC/Inland empire, and one that supports downtown LA.
Again, L.A. people, only you recognize these distinctions. The rest of the country just sees everything from the Ocean to Riverside, from Ventura to San Clemente, as L.A.
Two teams left. You'll be lucky to get one. Don't start thinking teams are lining up around the country to leave good cities to split a market that failed twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by senzanome
I vote for NONE. I like watching games without blackouts. Besides, the new owners want the tax-payer to pay for the new stadium.
If the stadium is built with private money, then I will vote for getting a team.
The NFL is a vampire organization that wants taxpayer money used almost exclusively for every project. If a team spends its own capital, debt service and costs reduce the amount of money that team can contribute to the revenue-sharing pot. The NFL loves its revenue sharing, and it loves to privatize profits while socializing costs.
I don't think L.A. is the slightest bit diminished by not having a NFL team. Other cities built their entire identities around the NFL team, and it's quite pathetic to see adults being so externally controlled by something which really doesn't impact their lives, in the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by californio sur
I would be happy if any NFL team came to Los Angeles [even the Raiders but I would prefer the Rams]. I am in my teens and have never seen a local football game aside from NCAA\ college. It would be great if the NFL established a team before I graduate!!!
The NFL is much better on television. The cameras and the production truck make that sport into something it really isn't. Baseball is inherently impressive. Balls rocketing around at over 100 mph, balls going 400 ft. Lightning shots down to the third baseman.
What seems long in Football, a first down, is 30 ft. Every pitch thrown in Baseball goes 60 ft. in under a second. A 40 yard field goal looks so long and dramatic on television, but that's the same distance as a throw from home to second, and a good catcher rips one of those off in a fraction of a second on a rope. A baseball hit from one goal line to the other is only a short fly ball. Football only appears exciting because of great production techniques. Football is really a small game. A football field can fit inside any baseball park.
Last edited by GregHenry; 06-22-2012 at 06:16 AM..
for the OC/LA/Inland Empire - Los Angeles Stadium , Los Angeles Vikings - Distressed team
for downtown - Farmers Stadium , Los Angeles Bengals - Distressed team
only one of the los angeles stadium proposals will be built - it's an either/or proposition. this has been confirmed by both developers (AEG and majestic realty) in multiple interviews. that's why they're in such fierce competition with each other to build the stadium, since the loser walks away empty-handed.
if two teams end up coming to LA, they will share the same stadium, just like the giants-jets arrangement in nj.
and neither the vikings nor the bengals will be relocating to LA. the vikings just finalized plans for a new stadium, so they'll be staying in minnesota long-term. and the bengals are locked into a long-term lease in a relatively new stadium, so they're not going anywhere, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregHenry
Here's how it's going to happen. The Colts are a small market team but with a new stadium. Now that they're horrible again, their stadium is reverting to available tickets and looming blackouts. Their owner, Irsay, loves Hollywood. He wants L.A., but the NFL also wants to keep the Colts in Indy. Jacksonville isn't working well. The team doesn't draw, and Jacksonville isn't growing as well as other Southern cities.
The NFL brokers this: 1. The Colts leave for L.A. and get the L.A. franchise. 2. The Jacksonville franchise gets Indy. The team that ends up in L.A. may be even called the Jaguars but be the Colts organization, while Indy gets to keep the Colts, uniforms, colors, etc., though they are really the Jaguars.
While a few teams would prefer L.A. to their own city, I can't see Irsay letting another team jump his place in the pecking order.
this scenario is not going to happen. the colts just built a state-of-the-art, publicly-financed stadium on the backs of indianapolis taxpayers and are locked into a long-term lease with steep penalties assessed if the team were to attempt to break the lease early. so there's NO way that team will be relocating anytime soon, even in the de facto franchise swap scenario you've described.
and the jaguars aren't going anywhere in the short term, either. they're also locked into a long-term stadium lease with major financial penalties if the team tries to bolt town early. if it weren't for that lease, the jaguars would be a prime relocation candidate.
major league pro sports franchises do not relocate in this day and age due to attendance issues. it only happens nowadays due to stadium issues (i.e. unhappiness with the current facility and/or the inability to build a new stadium, often at taxpayer expense - examples include the los angeles rams, houston oilers, cleveland browns, baltimore colts, and many other franchises) or ownership issues (e.g. bankruptcy, a major scandal that forces a sale or relocation (norm green, george shinn), a desire to abandon the market for one's hometown (clay bennett), or plain old greed (bob short, al davis, georgia frontiere).
Quote:
Again, L.A. people, only you recognize these distinctions. The rest of the country just sees everything from the Ocean to Riverside, from Ventura to San Clemente, as L.A.
Two teams left. You'll be lucky to get one. Don't start thinking teams are lining up around the country to leave good cities to split a market that failed twice.
the LA market didn't "fail" twice. both the rams and raiders left due to stadium issues and greedy, carpetbagging owners who didn't care about screwing over the local LA fans as long as they got their new (or refurbished) stadium, no matter where it was located.
as it turns out, both georgia frontiere (rams owner at the time) and al davis were short-sighted, as their respective teams are experiencing stadium issues once again. as a result, both the rams and raiders are two of the three prime candidates to relocate back to LA - the other being the san diego chargers, who are no closer to building a new stadium in SD than they were ten years ago.
the colts just built a state-of-the-art, publicly-financed stadium on the backs of indianapolis taxpayers and are locked into a long-term lease with steep penalties assessed if the team were to attempt to break the lease early. so there's NO way that team will be relocating anytime soon, even in the de facto franchise swap scenario you've described.
You really need to understand how Indiana works. As long as the city and state get a team in perpetuity, those agreements are whatever the city, state and NFL wants them to be.
Indy wants to continue hosting Super Bowls. If the price for being in the rotation is to allow a switch, it'll happen. Welcome to Hoosier politics.
I agree that the Raiders or the Chargers could move without upsetting the market distribution.
Last edited by GregHenry; 06-22-2012 at 05:05 PM..
You really need to understand how Indiana works. As long as the city and state get a team in perpetuity, those agreements are whatever the city, state and NFL wants them to be.
Indy wants to continue hosting Super Bowls. If the price for being in the rotation is to allow a switch, it'll happen. Welcome to Hoosier politics.
I agree that the Raiders or the Chargers could move without upsetting the market distribution.
Yeah greg u would need to know something about Indianapolis to which you do not.
its really too early to say if there will only be onle ONE or TWO teams thereI'd love to see the LA bengals downtown
No. It's not. There will be one team or no teams. Only one stadium will get built. That's not my opinion -- those are the documented facts. The builders of the stadiums acknowledge this.
Quote:
You really need to understand how Indiana works. As long as the city and state get a team in perpetuity, those agreements are whatever the city, state and NFL wants them to be.
Indy wants to continue hosting Super Bowls. If the price for being in the rotation is to allow a switch, it'll happen. Welcome to Hoosier politics.
I agree that the Raiders or the Chargers could move without upsetting the market distribution.
You really need to understand how Indiana works. As long as the city and state get a team in perpetuity, those agreements are whatever the city, state and NFL wants them to be.
Indy wants to continue hosting Super Bowls. If the price for being in the rotation is to allow a switch, it'll happen. Welcome to Hoosier politics.
but that's not how the business of pro sports works. the colts are locked into a long-term lease at their brand new, publicly-financed stadium. as such, there is no way the franchise will be leaving indianapolis anytime soon. stating otherwise is baseless speculation.
if the irsays really wanted to move their franchise to los angeles, they wouldn't have gone through the difficult process of building a new stadium in indy. they would've simply dragged their feet with indy officials for a few more years, alternating between threats of leaving and vague hints of staying in town, until los angeles finalized its stadium plans.
and even if the colts could somehow wriggle out of their stadium lease, do you honestly think the nfl would allow them to move after all the work it did to help the team secure its stadium? the league has a lot more control over this process than you seem to acknowledge.
it would seriously undermine the league's future ability to extort cities for new taxpayer-funded stadiums if one of the teams that just built a facility is able to escape its lease after only a few years. after all, cities that are in the same predicament down the road will simply balk at any taxpayer-funded stadium demands: "why should we pay for a new facility when the colts left town only five years after they moved into lucas oil stadium?"
the nfl (and other sports leagues) always want to retain leverage in stadium negotiations with municipalities. and allowing the colts to leave negates that leverage, even if the team were to be immediately replaced, as in your scenario. keep in mind that franchise swaps (or de facto swaps as you've proposed) are highly complicated and thus exceedingly rare in pro sports.
and for what it's worth, relocating the original cleveland browns and replacing them with a new version has not gone over smoothly with everyone in cleveland. sure, the fans there are happy to have their browns back, but they're still unbelievably angry at art modell and the league for allowing the original franchise to relocate to baltimore in the first place. with this in mind, i don't think the nfl is eager to swap out the colts and immediately replace them as in your scenario. doing so could potentially damage the nfl brand in indy, which is something the league wants to avoid.
one last thing:
as mentioned earlier, the nfl will play a major role in any future franchise relocations. they're not going to allow anyone to move his team at the drop of a hat - especially a brand new member of the owners' fraternity such as shahid khan of the jacksonville jaguars. the second khan relocates out of jacksonville, his team increases in value considerably. and i'm not sure that the owners (i.e. the people who tell roger goodell what to do) will allow a newbie like khan to "buy low" like that.
also, the owners aren't going to allow jim irsay (who's generally not well-liked among fellow owners, btw) to capture the valuable los angeles market almost immediately after securing a taxpayer-funded stadium in indy. it would be like having your cake and eating it too.
Last edited by pbergen; 06-23-2012 at 05:04 PM..
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.
