New NFL Teams...

Redskins8588 · 05-25-2004, 11:39 PM

"AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. -- The National Football League would like to have a team back in Los Angeles by 2008, Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said Tuesday.

Tagliabue said league owners were pushing for a decision on a stadium site by next spring, giving the NFL the time it needs to return a franchise to the country's second largest television market by 2008.

"We're hopeful we can stick to a timeline that would have us make some decisions on a stadium project maybe a year from now in May of '05," he said.
The league, which has not had a team in the Los Angeles area since the Rams departed for St. Louis 10 years ago, has been working with groups representing sites at Carson, the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.

"Everyone has been working at this," Tagliabue said. "At some point decisions need to be made."

League owners have made no decision about expanding to a 33rd team or moving a troubled franchise to Los Angeles when and if they come to an agreement on a stadium there."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1809392

If the NFL adds a 33rd team, will they add another team to even out the conferences? If they do what city will get the team? Does the NFL really need 4 (Chargers, 49ers, Raiders, and NEW TEAM) teams located in CA?

IMO the NFL is just fine the way it is, I really don't think that there is a need for a team to be in L.A. If an owner wants to relocate to L.A. then fine but just to add a team because there has not ben a team in L.A. since the Rams is crazy. There should be a better reason than that.

SmootSmack · 05-25-2004, 11:46 PM

Well it's possible that the Chargers might move to Los Angeles

Daseal · 05-25-2004, 11:54 PM

hrm, if LA is the 2nd biggest TV audience. Who's #1?

hi-jinx · 05-26-2004, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

hrm, if LA is the 2nd biggest TV audience. Who's #1?

New york area I would think

I just don't see LA supporting a team, but that won't stop Tags from sending one there anyway. I think 1st choice would be to send a team there rather than make a new one. Four teams in 8 divisions just is too neat to screw around with.

Redskins8588 · 05-26-2004, 12:05 AM

If the Chargers move that is fine, but the article makes it sound as if they are going to add a 33rd team.

Daseal · 05-26-2004, 07:23 AM

Tags is an ex-basketball player. He thinks that since they can support 15 NBA teams in that city that football should try to edge into the market!

MTK · 05-26-2004, 08:30 AM

Funny how LA has never been a strong supporter of any NFL franchise in that city, yet the NFL is dead set on putting another team there. Kinda sucks for other cities that would be much more supportive. That #2 TV market is just too much for them to overlook I guess.

BrudLee · 05-26-2004, 08:44 AM

I think that in the new "media-savvy" NFL, the league would promote an LA-based team to national prominence, so they wouldn't rely on the fickle LA-sports fans.

LA got a bad rap, in my book. They last had a diluted product, with the Raiders and Rams both playing there. The Raiders were always looking to move, and the Rams were God-awful at the time. The fans were divided between the two, and they both deserted the city.

hi-jinx · 05-26-2004, 10:11 AM

The best idea I have heard in a while was to have one game a week in LA. This will guage the interest of the locals, without taking a team from a city that has football. Half the NFL team would lose a home game year 1 and half year 2 and their home game would be played in the Rose Bowl. You get football in LA real fast on a short term basis and generate money to build a better stadium for a future team. If no one from LA shows up to these games then you know football doesn't need to be in LA, instead of just assuming that since LA is the 2nd biggest city it would support a football team.

Skins fan 44 · 05-26-2004, 11:41 AM

You almost have to have an even number of teams in the league so why not have to LA teams so they can leave the city in a few years. They dont deserve one after going from 2 to none teams having half full stadiums. New York has never had the problem supporting 2 teams. There is just too much to do in LA other than go to a football game.

MTK · 05-26-2004, 11:52 AM

LA doesn't deserve another shot if you ask me. Their interest has already been gauged and the verdict is in, they don't care about football.

RedskinRat · 05-26-2004, 01:12 PM

Dude, they don't care about anything in this town. Any Football fans you meet are transplants or college fans that came for the Bowl game and lost their tour group.

I think that the Rams and Raiders stiffed the fans so LA won't embrace another loaner team.

Skins fan 44 · 05-26-2004, 01:39 PM

They cant even sell out for college games and UCLA is one of the best college teams in the country. Look at any major college football program and they have sellouts every home game.

sportscurmudgeon · 05-26-2004, 02:57 PM

May I suggest that the NFL does not give a royal rat's ass about having a team in LA or not having a team in LA? The league is making money hand over fist and putting a team there will change the equation almost "not at all".

Here is what the NFL is VERY interested in. It wants teams to get new stadiums with lots of luxury suites and loads of amemities and sweetheart deals from the cities/counties/states that build the stadiums. Four teams are actively seeking new cribs today: Minnesota, Indy, Nawlins and San Diego. Oakland and SF both need new stadiums but haven't satarted the full court press to get them yet. Jax plays in a sub-par facility and Dallas would like to "modernize".

Talking up the idea of having a team in LA puts some heat on the politicos in those cities to get humping on new stadium financing and groundbreaking. Already, there has been a first level agreement in San Diego over changes in the lease at Qualcomm Stadium and some discussion about where to put a new stadium. That is a MAJOR step forward from the NFL perspective over the utter deadlock there for the past 3 years.

The NFL needs LA as a hammer to pound on other cities and states more than it needs a team there...

SmootSmack · 05-26-2004, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

The NFL needs LA as a hammer to pound on other cities and states more than it needs a team there...

Good point Mudge (bet you looove that nickname). It's one of the reasons also why some people believe DC willnever get a basebal team. The owners like to have that option as a threat when things aren't going their way in their home town

05-26-2004, 08:44 AM	#8
BrudLee Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Rehoboth Beach, DE Posts: 3,494	I think that in the new "media-savvy" NFL, the league would promote an LA-based team to national prominence, so they wouldn't rely on the fickle LA-sports fans. LA got a bad rap, in my book. They last had a diluted product, with the Raiders and Rams both playing there. The Raiders were always looking to move, and the Rams were God-awful at the time. The fans were divided between the two, and they both deserted the city. __________________ There's nowhere to go but up. Or down. I guess we could stay where we are, too.

05-26-2004, 11:41 AM	#10
Skins fan 44 Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brazil, IN Age: 54 Posts: 883	You almost have to have an even number of teams in the league so why not have to LA teams so they can leave the city in a few years. They dont deserve one after going from 2 to none teams having half full stadiums. New York has never had the problem supporting 2 teams. There is just too much to do in LA other than go to a football game. __________________ HTTR!

05-26-2004, 01:39 PM	#13
Skins fan 44 Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brazil, IN Age: 54 Posts: 883	They cant even sell out for college games and UCLA is one of the best college teams in the country. Look at any major college football program and they have sellouts every home game. __________________ HTTR!

05-25-2004, 11:39 PM	#1
Redskins8588 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ridgway, PA Age: 46 Posts: 2,519	New NFL Teams... "AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. -- The National Football League would like to have a team back in Los Angeles by 2008, Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said Tuesday. Tagliabue said league owners were pushing for a decision on a stadium site by next spring, giving the NFL the time it needs to return a franchise to the country's second largest television market by 2008. "We're hopeful we can stick to a timeline that would have us make some decisions on a stadium project maybe a year from now in May of '05," he said. The league, which has not had a team in the Los Angeles area since the Rams departed for St. Louis 10 years ago, has been working with groups representing sites at Carson, the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. "Everyone has been working at this," Tagliabue said. "At some point decisions need to be made." League owners have made no decision about expanding to a 33rd team or moving a troubled franchise to Los Angeles when and if they come to an agreement on a stadium there." http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1809392 If the NFL adds a 33rd team, will they add another team to even out the conferences? If they do what city will get the team? Does the NFL really need 4 (Chargers, 49ers, Raiders, and NEW TEAM) teams located in CA? IMO the NFL is just fine the way it is, I really don't think that there is a need for a team to be in L.A. If an owner wants to relocate to L.A. then fine but just to add a team because there has not ben a team in L.A. since the Rams is crazy. There should be a better reason than that.

05-25-2004, 11:46 PM	#2
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Well it's possible that the Chargers might move to Los Angeles __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

05-25-2004, 11:54 PM	#3
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 42 Posts: 8,341	hrm, if LA is the 2nd biggest TV audience. Who's #1?

05-26-2004, 12:05 AM	#5
Redskins8588 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ridgway, PA Age: 46 Posts: 2,519	If the Chargers move that is fine, but the article makes it sound as if they are going to add a 33rd team.

05-26-2004, 07:23 AM	#6
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 42 Posts: 8,341	Tags is an ex-basketball player. He thinks that since they can support 15 NBA teams in that city that football should try to edge into the market!

05-26-2004, 08:30 AM	#7
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 52 Posts: 99,832	Funny how LA has never been a strong supporter of any NFL franchise in that city, yet the NFL is dead set on putting another team there. Kinda sucks for other cities that would be much more supportive. That #2 TV market is just too much for them to overlook I guess.

05-26-2004, 10:11 AM	#9
hi-jinx Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Memphis Age: 50 Posts: 180	The best idea I have heard in a while was to have one game a week in LA. This will guage the interest of the locals, without taking a team from a city that has football. Half the NFL team would lose a home game year 1 and half year 2 and their home game would be played in the Rose Bowl. You get football in LA real fast on a short term basis and generate money to build a better stadium for a future team. If no one from LA shows up to these games then you know football doesn't need to be in LA, instead of just assuming that since LA is the 2nd biggest city it would support a football team.

05-26-2004, 11:52 AM	#11
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 52 Posts: 99,832	LA doesn't deserve another shot if you ask me. Their interest has already been gauged and the verdict is in, they don't care about football.

05-26-2004, 01:12 PM	#12
RedskinRat Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: I'm in LA, trick! Posts: 8,700	Dude, they don't care about anything in this town. Any Football fans you meet are transplants or college fans that came for the Bowl game and lost their tour group. I think that the Rams and Raiders stiffed the fans so LA won't embrace another loaner team.

05-26-2004, 02:57 PM	#14
sportscurmudgeon Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,159	May I suggest that the NFL does not give a royal rat's ass about having a team in LA or not having a team in LA? The league is making money hand over fist and putting a team there will change the equation almost "not at all". Here is what the NFL is VERY interested in. It wants teams to get new stadiums with lots of luxury suites and loads of amemities and sweetheart deals from the cities/counties/states that build the stadiums. Four teams are actively seeking new cribs today: Minnesota, Indy, Nawlins and San Diego. Oakland and SF both need new stadiums but haven't satarted the full court press to get them yet. Jax plays in a sub-par facility and Dallas would like to "modernize". Talking up the idea of having a team in LA puts some heat on the politicos in those cities to get humping on new stadium financing and groundbreaking. Already, there has been a first level agreement in San Diego over changes in the lease at Qualcomm Stadium and some discussion about where to put a new stadium. That is a MAJOR step forward from the NFL perspective over the utter deadlock there for the past 3 years. The NFL needs LA as a hammer to pound on other cities and states more than it needs a team there...

New NFL Teams...

Locker Room Main Forum