- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NFL- Explain to me two things
Posted on 8/17/15 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 8/17/15 at 2:56 pm
1- Why in the hell do the Redskins need a new stadium already? Their current digs opened in 1997 and has been expanded and renovated a few times since then.
2- The league and owners are basically conspiring against three teams(fans) to move one of them to Los Angeles. A city in which the NFL has failed twice.
Their honey badger arse attitude when dealing with this stuff just infuriates me.
2- The league and owners are basically conspiring against three teams(fans) to move one of them to Los Angeles. A city in which the NFL has failed twice.
Their honey badger arse attitude when dealing with this stuff just infuriates me.
8
Posted on 8/17/15 at 3:12 pm to bamaphan13
quote:
Explain to me two things
Explain two things to me.
Posted on 8/17/15 at 3:13 pm to bamaphan13
quote:the rams where in LA for over 50 years
A city in which the NFL has failed twice.
Posted on 8/17/15 at 3:19 pm to bamaphan13
quote:
Why in the hell do the Redskins need a new stadium already? Their current digs opened in 1997 and has been expanded and renovated a few times since then.
It may be years before they're approved for a new stadium. It will be over 20 years old by that time, closer to 30 by the time it opens.
This post was edited on 8/17/15 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 8/17/15 at 3:20 pm to WestCoastAg
But they moved to StL because of poor fan support and lack of a new stadium.
so in 2035 are they going to pull the same stunt and threaten to move back to St Louis?
so in 2035 are they going to pull the same stunt and threaten to move back to St Louis?
Posted on 8/17/15 at 3:24 pm to bamaphan13
quote:Atlanta effect
Why in the hell do the Redskins need a new stadium already? Their current digs opened in 1997 and has been expanded and renovated a few times since then.
Posted on 8/17/15 at 3:25 pm to bamaphan13
And they were in the city for 50 years. That's not failing. That was just a shitty climate in 1993. The notion that the NFL would fail in 2015 Los Angeles is one of the most ridiculous things that gets posted on here
Posted on 8/17/15 at 3:34 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
The notion that the NFL would fail in 2015 Los Angeles is one of the most ridiculous things that gets posted on here
Bull crap.
It absolutely will fail again.
Posted on 8/17/15 at 3:40 pm to Mr.Perfect
Uhhhh how?
Posted on 8/17/15 at 3:42 pm to WestCoastAg
What does the NFL feels that it is missing by not having a franchise in L.A.?
Posted on 8/17/15 at 3:51 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:the second largest television market in the nation maybe?
What does the NFL feels that it is missing by not having a franchise in L.A.?
Posted on 8/17/15 at 3:52 pm to MontyFranklyn
Because its one of the largest television markets in the world
Posted on 8/17/15 at 4:31 pm to bamaphan13
quote:Not entirely accurate.
But they moved to StL because of poor fan support and lack of a new stadium.
The blackout rule was created while the Rams played at the Coliseum, meaning they could get 85,000 a game and still be blacked out in the country's second largest market. That's why they moved to Anaheim so at least the top half of Greater Los Angeles would be outside the blackout radius if there wasn't a sellout. Still, Anaheim was less than ideal, and ownership was even more less than ideal, so they didn't do well on the business end.
Now the blackout rule is gone. There's no reason to think that football won't work in Los Angeles at this point.
Posted on 8/17/15 at 4:32 pm to WestCoastAg
I love how people assume LA is a city that can't support pro-football. It is ridiculous to state that and use the Rams and Raiders leaving as reasoning.
First off, the Raiders were in Oakland before and if I recall correctly, Al Davis moved the team to LA without league permission thinking he could get more TV money (pay-per-view) and that they'd build him a new stadium. LA wasn't willing to build the new stadium to his liking and so in typical Davis fashion said "F U, I am taking my ball and going home".
The Rams is a different story, they were there for 49 years, and the then owner who was the wife of the previous owner (her husband) and inherited the team. She was nowhere near as business savvy and expected to have things handed to her on a platter. After poor business decisions within the team got less than expected revenue, she blamed LA, and took the team back to her home town of St. Louis where they were dying to get a team again.
I think of the Rams situation much like the Saints. A team that had some financial struggles at times, which was on the edge of moving (Saints to San Antonio), but the league and city didn't help out LA the way NOLA got helped.
In the end, people can't say the Saints couldn't thrive in New Orleans.
It's like someone saying Seattle failed with a NBA team because the SuperSonics left. Fact was the new owner lied and the city wasn't willing to put in the money at the time for a new arena. It has nothing to do with the quality of the city for hosting a team.
First off, the Raiders were in Oakland before and if I recall correctly, Al Davis moved the team to LA without league permission thinking he could get more TV money (pay-per-view) and that they'd build him a new stadium. LA wasn't willing to build the new stadium to his liking and so in typical Davis fashion said "F U, I am taking my ball and going home".
The Rams is a different story, they were there for 49 years, and the then owner who was the wife of the previous owner (her husband) and inherited the team. She was nowhere near as business savvy and expected to have things handed to her on a platter. After poor business decisions within the team got less than expected revenue, she blamed LA, and took the team back to her home town of St. Louis where they were dying to get a team again.
I think of the Rams situation much like the Saints. A team that had some financial struggles at times, which was on the edge of moving (Saints to San Antonio), but the league and city didn't help out LA the way NOLA got helped.
In the end, people can't say the Saints couldn't thrive in New Orleans.
It's like someone saying Seattle failed with a NBA team because the SuperSonics left. Fact was the new owner lied and the city wasn't willing to put in the money at the time for a new arena. It has nothing to do with the quality of the city for hosting a team.
Posted on 8/17/15 at 4:50 pm to bamaphan13
quote:
But they moved to StL because of poor fan support and lack of a new stadium. so in 2035 are they going to pull the same stunt and threaten to move back to St Louis?
Well, if they lasted another 50 years, then that wouldn't be until 2065, and I'm sure all parties would be happy with the ROI at that point.
Posted on 8/17/15 at 4:51 pm to Geauxgurt
i dont even go that far into it anymore but thank you
Posted on 8/17/15 at 6:36 pm to WestCoastAg
The tide won't turn on this until one or more cities tells their privately owned sports teams to kindly frick off. As long as cities keep ponying up, the NFL has the upper hand.
At some point it may be like the olympics, where the cost is just too high, but obviously we're not there yet.
These cities need to start building in minimum tenancy periods when they build a new stadium...so they don't all start pulling this BS on a practically new stadium. I'm guessing they didn't claim "hey, we're going to get ALMOST 20 YEARS OF USE out of this thing!" when it was being built.
As an aside, I can't believe that big arse stadium only cost $251 million.
At some point it may be like the olympics, where the cost is just too high, but obviously we're not there yet.
These cities need to start building in minimum tenancy periods when they build a new stadium...so they don't all start pulling this BS on a practically new stadium. I'm guessing they didn't claim "hey, we're going to get ALMOST 20 YEARS OF USE out of this thing!" when it was being built.
As an aside, I can't believe that big arse stadium only cost $251 million.
Posted on 8/17/15 at 7:07 pm to bamaphan13
quote:
1- Why in the hell do the Redskins need a new stadium already? Their current digs opened in 1997 and has been expanded and renovated a few times since then.
Their owner is an idiot.
Posted on 8/17/15 at 7:14 pm to bamaphan13
quote:Have you been there? If you have then you should see why
Why in the hell do the Redskins need a new stadium already? Their current digs opened in 1997 and has been expanded and renovated a few times since then.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News