- 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
re: NFL- Explain to me two things
Posted on 8/17/15 at 3:52 pm to MontyFranklyn
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 4:32 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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News