KCRag Forum

Raiders go to San Diego while the Chargers and Rams share a stadium, probably the Rams proposed stadium.

Rams and Chargers to LA, Raiders stay, eventually Jacksonville goes to London and possibly the Raiders move to Mexico City.

I don't get the whole LA appeal. I mean look at what SF is drawing after a stadium that is a few years old. I think you will see the same thing in LA after 3-4 years.

I don't get the appeal of LA either, but SF does a good job of supporting their franchises for the most part. The picture looks bad, but I'm pretty sure that game will still be listed as a sellout. Hard to blame people for not supporting a losing team at the end of a season. If the Chiefs were 5-10 and playing at home against a 7-8 Chargers team, the crowds would be similar.

There were several Chiefs games this year where the attendance looked pretty sparse.

The NFL is all about TV sets. While I don't think we will be seeing games played in "TV Studios" any time soon stadium sizes are trending downward. Most stadiums are in the 65,000 range now. The Raiders/Chargers stadium is proposed at 65k seats. They want a crowd there, but more importantly they want people at home in LA to have a team to root for. You are seeing the same trend in Baseball stadiums.

Sports have long been about selling merchandise, games, and such. Look at the entire Madden franchise.

Sure, LA would bring more game money than St. Louis from higher ticket prices but it also brings WAY more licensing money than St. Louis ever could. 3 million vs 13 million people is a big deal.

Whoever moves there, they'll sell millions of shirts, jerseys, etc in the first few years.

"Rams and Chargers to LA, Raiders stay, eventually Jacksonville goes to London and possibly the Raiders move to Mexico City."

I don't see a team moving to London. The long travel to the States and back would prohibit that, for both the London team and the teams in the division, plus the time difference. One game a year makes it special.
Mexico City would be a long time coming and the stadium in Oakland is on its last legs especially since the local governments don't have the funds to maintain let alone improve.
All three teams move. San Diego does have a stadium approved but the Chargers do not like the location.

The PDF file supporting the Rams moving to LA has been published. It is full of insults to St. Louis.

"San Diego And Oakland Are Substantially Stronger Markets Than The St. Louis Market" - page 20
"Compared to all other U.S. cities, St. Louis is struggling." - page 21
"...St. Louis had the lowest rate of population growth of any major U.S. city from 2008 to 2014..." - page 22
"St. Louis Is Not A Three Professional Team Market" - page 23

http://m.stltoday.com/rams-nfl-relocati ... touch=true

Who's more popular among their fellow owners, Kronke, Spanos or Davis? What happens if neither proposal gets enough votes? Does Kronke sell the Rams if he's left outta LA?

aknowledgeableperson wrote:"Rams and Chargers to LA, Raiders stay, eventually Jacksonville goes to London and possibly the Raiders move to Mexico City."

I don't see a team moving to London. The long travel to the States and back would prohibit that, for both the London team and the teams in the division, plus the time difference. One game a year makes it special.
Mexico City would be a long time coming and the stadium in Oakland is on its last legs especially since the local governments don't have the funds to maintain let alone improve.
All three teams move. San Diego does have a stadium approved but the Chargers do not like the location.

I used to think it was completely impractical to have a team in London as well, but they've talked about ways to mitigate travel issues, etc. This includes building a league practice facility in NY for west coast teams to use in advance of a London trip. The west coast teams would play an east coast game before London, and then probably a bye week after London. It seems like a lot of work to put a team in a place with no American Football history, but they have money to burn.

shinatoo wrote:The NFL is all about TV sets. While I don't think we will be seeing games played in "TV Studios" any time soon stadium sizes are trending downward. Most stadiums are in the 65,000 range now. The Raiders/Chargers stadium is proposed at 65k seats. They want a crowd there, but more importantly they want people at home in LA to have a team to root for. You are seeing the same trend in Baseball stadiums.

But LA is just full of transplants and people who don't care about football, you probably would have more Packer and Cowboy fans cheering at these games than the LA team. Even long established sunbelt teams like Miami do fairly poorly in its own market.

San Diego to Boston or Seattle to Miami is about the same distance as new york or boston to london. I don't think the logistics would be that hard but I think the London team would have to play a couple Thursday night games on the Road. Plus these guys are flying in nice planes first class, its not like they are some minor league baseball team having to drive 8 hrs by bus.

brewcrew1000 wrote:

shinatoo wrote:The NFL is all about TV sets. While I don't think we will be seeing games played in "TV Studios" any time soon stadium sizes are trending downward. Most stadiums are in the 65,000 range now. The Raiders/Chargers stadium is proposed at 65k seats. They want a crowd there, but more importantly they want people at home in LA to have a team to root for. You are seeing the same trend in Baseball stadiums.

But LA is just full of transplants and people who don't care about football, you probably would have more Packer and Cowboy fans cheering at these games than the LA team. Even long established sunbelt teams like Miami do fairly poorly in its own market.

Transplants or not, ad revenues from 13 million potential viewers is too much to pass up. If only 25% of the people in the LA metro pay attention that is more viewers than if 100% in the St. Louis market watched. My guess is one team moves to LA, and San Diego and St. Louis have teams. I don't know what combo that will be, but my guess is Chargers stay put, Rams back to LA and Raiders to STL. STL is becoming more of a Raiders type city anyway. Both San Diego and St. Louis have legitimate Stadium plans and the NFL rarely move teams from cities that fund modern stadiums.

brewcrew1000 wrote:

shinatoo wrote:The NFL is all about TV sets. While I don't think we will be seeing games played in "TV Studios" any time soon stadium sizes are trending downward. Most stadiums are in the 65,000 range now. The Raiders/Chargers stadium is proposed at 65k seats. They want a crowd there, but more importantly they want people at home in LA to have a team to root for. You are seeing the same trend in Baseball stadiums.

But LA is just full of transplants and people who don't care about football, you probably would have more Packer and Cowboy fans cheering at these games than the LA team. Even long established sunbelt teams like Miami do fairly poorly in its own market.

Including the Riverside/Inland Empire market with LA and you've got a population of nearly 20 million - just a portion of that would be equal to or more than all of the Rams fans in the St Louis market.

brewcrew1000 wrote:

shinatoo wrote:The NFL is all about TV sets. While I don't think we will be seeing games played in "TV Studios" any time soon stadium sizes are trending downward. Most stadiums are in the 65,000 range now. The Raiders/Chargers stadium is proposed at 65k seats. They want a crowd there, but more importantly they want people at home in LA to have a team to root for. You are seeing the same trend in Baseball stadiums.

But LA is just full of transplants and people who don't care about football, you probably would have more Packer and Cowboy fans cheering at these games than the LA team. Even long established sunbelt teams like Miami do fairly poorly in its own market.

they don't care if the seats are empty, all the suites will be full, they also don't care about the Lakers or Dodgers when they're losers

shinatoo wrote:

brewcrew1000 wrote:

shinatoo wrote:The NFL is all about TV sets. While I don't think we will be seeing games played in "TV Studios" any time soon stadium sizes are trending downward. Most stadiums are in the 65,000 range now. The Raiders/Chargers stadium is proposed at 65k seats. They want a crowd there, but more importantly they want people at home in LA to have a team to root for. You are seeing the same trend in Baseball stadiums.

But LA is just full of transplants and people who don't care about football, you probably would have more Packer and Cowboy fans cheering at these games than the LA team. Even long established sunbelt teams like Miami do fairly poorly in its own market.

Transplants or not, ad revenues from 13 million potential viewers is too much to pass up. If only 25% of the people in the LA metro pay attention that is more viewers than if 100% in the St. Louis market watched. My guess is one team moves to LA, and San Diego and St. Louis have teams. I don't know what combo that will be, but my guess is Chargers stay put, Rams back to LA and Raiders to STL. STL is becoming more of a Raiders type city anyway. Both San Diego and St. Louis have legitimate Stadium plans and the NFL rarely move teams from cities that fund modern stadiums.

no one seems to be care about losing divisional rivalries that will happen if the Chargers/Raiders plan gets approved and one is forced to go to the NFC due to TV issues

Does Clark Hunt vote the Raiders/Chargers plan or does he vote for the Kronke plan to keep the AFC West in place without realignment? What happens if neither plan gets enough votes?

There will be at least one team in LA next season. The owners will stay until an agreement is reached.
San Diego still has a team, except that it is the Raiders. St. Louis loses a team but Missouri still has a team. Oakland loses a team but the area still has a team. So it will be two LA teams - Rams, Chargers. No realignment needed.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:There will be at least one team in LA next season. The owners will stay until an agreement is reached.
San Diego still has a team, except that it is the Raiders. St. Louis loses a team but Missouri still has a team. Oakland loses a team but the area still has a team. So it will be two LA teams - Rams, Chargers. No realignment needed.

there can't 2 AFC West teams in LA, one will have to to the NFC if it's Raiders/Chargers due to TV issues

Hawaii,Orlando,San Antonio,San Jose,Vas Vegas,Totonto.

Really gonna miss the Governor's Cup...