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.
In post #49 spikeboy 25 makes a good point regarding the Chargers. Los Angeles only had the Chargers for the 1960 season, moving to San Diego the year after. Barron Hilton probably should have picked San Diego over L.A. if he would have done it all over again. Balboa Stadium at that time in San Diego held nearly 30,000. In their first season the Charger's crowds ranged from 9,928 (week 13 against Denver) to 17,724 (week 1, against the Dallas Texans). While those figures are obviously pretty puny, even for the league's first season, they were actually in the middle of the pack attendance wise. There were several clubs who DIDN'T do that well attendance wise, like Denver, Oakland, and New York.
With the Los Angeles Rams, in the last few years before they moved to St. Louis, they WERE a lousy club, for a few years anyway. Won loss records:
1994-Won 4, lost 12
1993-Won 5, lost 11
1992-Won 6, lost 10
1991-Won 3, lost 13
1990-Won 5, lost 11
5 consecutive years of losing seasons. THEN you have:
1989-Won 11, lost 5
1988-Won 10, lost 6
1987-Won 6, lost 9
1986-Won 10, lost 6
1985-Won 11, lost 5 won their division
1984-Won 10, lost 6
1983-Won 9, lost 7
1982-Won 2, lost 7 strike season
1981-Won 6, lost 10
1980-Won 11, lost 5
1979-Won 9, lost 7 went to Super Bowl
Were the Rams a lousy team? Yea, for the last few years while they were in California. But there a lot of teams with similar streaks than that who got behind their teams instead, embraced them, and supported them. And still have them. I don't follow the Rams that closely and do not have a solid explanation for the tailspin, obviously ownership enters into the picture involving problems with the club. The 49ers have been called the team of the 80's. Sadly the Rams came up short in that decade.
Georgia Frontiere moved the Rams because of pure greed and the irresistible lure of a generous corporate welfare package. The first few years in St. Louis the Rams didn't pay a penny of rent. St. Louis is also Georgia's hometown, and they named a library at a grade school after her.
The Raiders, because of an erratic owner, moved back to Oakland on short notice. John Shaw, Rams President, stated on a local radio show that if they had known that the Raiders were going to leave, they (the Rams) would have stayed in the area and relocated back to the Coliseum.
Ironically, Georgia had always wanted to move the Rams back to the Coliseum. She, like everyone else, felt that her late husband, Carroll Rosenbloom, had made a huge mistake in moving the team to Anaheim after the 1979 season. That assessment turned out to be right. The Rams in Anaheim was like a woman wearing an evening gown to a square dance. It also ruined what was then a perfectly good baseball stadium.
Ed Roski, the developer of the proposed new stadium in the City of Industry, wants to own a significant percentage of any team that plays there.
Bills owner Ralph Wilson has stated repeatedly that he's not interested in moving the Bills. I believe him. Buffalo has been a great market for many years.
I don't think that the Spanos family has put any part of the Chargers up for sale. From all appearances, it seems that the Charger ownership is trying to find a new stadium in the San Diego area. San Diego has already lost 2 NBA teams. To lose the Chargers would be both a total black eye
and an embarrassment to "America's Finest City." As it is, the NHL won't touch San Diego, which at one time was a red-hot minor league hockey market.
I do believe that the NFL now realizes that expanding to Jacksonville was a mistake. I don't think that the Jags are long for J-ville, but where they could wind up is anybody's guess.
There's been several posts supporting San Antonio, but I have to wonder: How long has the Alamodome been up and how come nobody's moved there? Just what did the taxpaying citizens of San Antone pay for?
5) Vikings - Talks of relocation seem more and more unlikely as plans to build a new stadium in downtown Minneapolis are still open as well as other options in the suburbs. The team's strong attendance makes this unlikely as well.
The attendance up there, although better than in Jacksonville, isn't all that great. They had to get an extension from the NFL to sellout the stadium for last year's playoff game and to avoid the local tv blackout. If Wilf doesn't get his new stadium he'll move the team and St. Louis will switch over the the NFC North. I don't think it'll happen, but it wouldn't surprise me either.
There's been several posts supporting San Antonio, but I have to wonder: How long has the Alamodome been up and how come nobody's moved there? Just what did the taxpaying citizens of San Antone pay for?
I believe back in the late 1980's the mayor said that it would bring jobs, conventions, trade shows, etc. He believed then that the NFL would eventually go into San Antonio. The sales tax increase passed and the dome opened in 1993. The NFL, however, went with Charlotte and Jacksonville in the next league expansion. SA didn't make the first cut, if I remember correctly.
In the last several months there was a study of markets to see if their GDP could support expansion by one major league team. SA was off by $4 billion, which could be reached in a few years with current growth trends, I believe.
To LA fans, I understand they want the Rams back. However, if St. Louis stole the Rams, then LA stole the Dodgers. You give back the Dodgers, we'll give back the Rams. Also, send the Giants back to New York. Send the Orioles back to St. Louis (they were the Browns). You see my point? You can't cry about the Rams being stolen when you took the Dodgers away from Brooklyn, where they had been 70 years.
And don't tell me the Rams are not supported here. They've won 6 games in 3 years, and their lowest attendance by percentage was last year (1-15 record) when their average attendance was 85%. The previous two seasons the Rams had even better attendance than that.
I'm glad the Rams appear to be staying in St. Louis, since Shahid Khan bought them (though he has yet to be approved).
St. Louis Rams' new owner offers hope - STLtoday.com (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/berniemiklasz/story/38BE72D45CAB2D2A862576C800145703?OpenDocument - broken link)
To LA fans, I understand they want the Rams back. However, if St. Louis stole the Rams, then LA stole the Dodgers. You give back the Dodgers, we'll give back the Rams. Also, send the Giants back to New York. Send the Orioles back to St. Louis (they were the Browns). You see my point? You can't cry about the Rams being stolen when you took the Dodgers away from Brooklyn, where they had been 70 years.
And don't tell me the Rams are not supported here. They've won 6 games in 3 years, and their lowest attendance by percentage was last year (1-15 record) when their average attendance was 85%. The previous two seasons the Rams had even better attendance than that.
I STILL say that if L.A. gets a team before San Antonio does, it won't last that long....
San Antonio will NEVER have an NFL team.
Dallas Cowboys and Houston Texans got that market locked down.
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.
