Page 1 of 1
The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:17 pm
by Bob Juch
The Rams have been approved to move.
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:49 pm
by BackInTex
Fools. I'm not sure who, but once a team abandons a market, they should not be allowed to return, either by the league or the market.
LA has proven over and over to be a terrible NFL market or owners have told LA over and over, "screw you, you lousy pukes". The Rams told them that. Why would they want them back?
I know. Money. But still. Shows the NFL does not care for its fans.
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:24 pm
by Jim Everett
We're baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!!!!!!
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:36 pm
by SpacemanSpiff
Jim Everett wrote:We're baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!!!!!!
Again. This is the second time the Rams have moved to LA.
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:20 pm
by SportsFan68
BackInTex wrote:Fools. I'm not sure who, but once a team abandons a market, they should not be allowed to return, either by the league or the market.
LA has proven over and over to be a terrible NFL market or owners have told LA over and over, "screw you, you lousy pukes". The Rams told them that. Why would they want them back?
I know. Money. But still. Shows the NFL does not care for its fans.
I agree. The NFL (as in owners and administrators) takes us for granted. I really think the coaches and players are sincere when they talk about how much they appreciate us, but I think the NFL looks at us and just sees dollar signs, as in how much they can extract from us.
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:52 pm
by Bob78164
BackInTex wrote:Fools. I'm not sure who, but once a team abandons a market, they should not be allowed to return, either by the league or the market.
LA has proven over and over to be a terrible NFL market or owners have told LA over and over, "screw you, you lousy pukes". The Rams told them that. Why would they want them back?
I know. Money. But still. Shows the NFL does not care for its fans.
Why shouldn't we take them back? They're not getting any public money. That's been the sticking point for years and they've finally met our price. --Bob
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:18 am
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote:Why shouldn't we take them back? They're not getting any public money. That's been the sticking point for years and they've finally met our price. --Bob
Because they cheated on you. For money. And they will do it again.
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:01 am
by SpacemanSpiff
I heard something interesting last night -- and our resident USC man Uly can confirm this -- and now that the dominos have started to fall, the legalities (and lack of a new stadium right now) might limit the options of the other players from Oakland and San Diego.
It looks like the terms of the lease with USC at the LA Coliseum only permits one football subtenant, which right now looks like the Rams.
So, until they build a new stadium -- or lease the Rose Bowl stadium (not sure if that's available or not) -- the other teams can't come to LA.
And, given that the Oakland lease is technically up, and the Chargers have been given a one-year extension with Qualcomm, they're kind of all dressed up with no place to go.
Stick around, this might get interesting.
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:42 am
by Bob78164
SpacemanSpiff wrote:I heard something interesting last night -- and our resident USC man Uly can confirm this -- and now that the dominos have started to fall, the legalities (and lack of a new stadium right now) might limit the options of the other players from Oakland and San Diego.
It looks like the terms of the lease with USC at the LA Coliseum only permits one football subtenant, which right now looks like the Rams.
So, until they build a new stadium -- or lease the Rose Bowl stadium (not sure if that's available or not) -- the other teams can't come to LA.
And, given that the Oakland lease is technically up, and the Chargers have been given a one-year extension with Qualcomm, they're kind of all dressed up with no place to go.
Stick around, this might get interesting.
The Rose Bowl declined to respond to the NFL's request for proposals. I don't think they're interested. Unless they're just playing hard to get. Very, very, hard to get. --Bob
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:24 pm
by SpacemanSpiff
Bob78164 wrote:SpacemanSpiff wrote:I heard something interesting last night -- and our resident USC man Uly can confirm this -- and now that the dominos have started to fall, the legalities (and lack of a new stadium right now) might limit the options of the other players from Oakland and San Diego.
It looks like the terms of the lease with USC at the LA Coliseum only permits one football subtenant, which right now looks like the Rams.
So, until they build a new stadium -- or lease the Rose Bowl stadium (not sure if that's available or not) -- the other teams can't come to LA.
And, given that the Oakland lease is technically up, and the Chargers have been given a one-year extension with Qualcomm, they're kind of all dressed up with no place to go.
Stick around, this might get interesting.
The Rose Bowl declined to respond to the NFL's request for proposals. I don't think they're interested. Unless they're just playing hard to get. Very, very, hard to get. --Bob
And, of course, the NFL folks thought of all of the contingencies. Besides the "one-year extension" for Qualcomm that the league granted for the Chargers, they immediately said that if the Oakland Coliseum doesn't fall in line, they'll move the Raiders to San Antonio.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/raiders-c ... 46098.html
And it looks like San Antonio is the new Los Angeles, according to this writer:
http://www.expressnews.com/sports/colum ... 753948.php
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:05 pm
by elwoodblues
I have heard one theory that this will be a good move for the league because the millions of people in the L.A. area will have to buy Sunday Ticket so they won't have to watch the Rams.
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:15 pm
by SpacemanSpiff
elwoodblues wrote:I have heard one theory that this will be a good move for the league because the millions of people in the L.A. area will have to buy Sunday Ticket so they won't have to watch the Rams.
I'm not sure how the blackout rules go anymore (not the telecasting of the home games, but the blackout of other games the afternoon that the local team has a home game so that only one game gets telecast on Sunday, other than the national Sunday Night game), but I recall that a lot of the Los Angeles football fans were happy the Raiders and Rams moved out so they could actually get more than one game on most Sunday afternoons.
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:48 pm
by Bob Juch
SpacemanSpiff wrote:I heard something interesting last night -- and our resident USC man Uly can confirm this -- and now that the dominos have started to fall, the legalities (and lack of a new stadium right now) might limit the options of the other players from Oakland and San Diego.
It looks like the terms of the lease with USC at the LA Coliseum only permits one football subtenant, which right now looks like the Rams.
So, until they build a new stadium -- or lease the Rose Bowl stadium (not sure if that's available or not) -- the other teams can't come to LA.
And, given that the Oakland lease is technically up, and the Chargers have been given a one-year extension with Qualcomm, they're kind of all dressed up with no place to go.
Stick around, this might get interesting.
Since L.A. has a history of not supporting their team, who would the Raiders or Chargers even think of moving there?
I pointed out where the new stadium was supposed to have built many years ago as we were driving back home on I-10.
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:53 pm
by SpacemanSpiff
Bob Juch wrote:Since L.A. has a history of not supporting their team, who would the Raiders or Chargers even think of moving there?
I pointed out where the new stadium was supposed to have built many years ago as we were driving back home on I-10.
This is more of the same "we'll move to LA unless you build us a new stadium" gambit. I'm sure either the Raiders or the Bolts would be happy to stay put if they could get a publicly-funded stadium where they'd not only get a sweetheart deal on tix sold, but all of the parking and concession revenues, rights to more dates for events during the year where they can have their own events, etc.
Of course, with this new NFL stadium in LA, the Chargers and Raiders likely won't get such a sweet deal, kind of like what the Jets used to get at the Meadowlands.
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:57 pm
by ToLiveIsToFly
Bob Juch wrote:SpacemanSpiff wrote:I heard something interesting last night -- and our resident USC man Uly can confirm this -- and now that the dominos have started to fall, the legalities (and lack of a new stadium right now) might limit the options of the other players from Oakland and San Diego.
It looks like the terms of the lease with USC at the LA Coliseum only permits one football subtenant, which right now looks like the Rams.
So, until they build a new stadium -- or lease the Rose Bowl stadium (not sure if that's available or not) -- the other teams can't come to LA.
And, given that the Oakland lease is technically up, and the Chargers have been given a one-year extension with Qualcomm, they're kind of all dressed up with no place to go.
Stick around, this might get interesting.
Since L.A. has a history of not supporting their team, who would the Raiders or Chargers even think of moving there?
I pointed out where the new stadium was supposed to have built many years ago as we were driving back home on I-10.
What's LA's history of not supporting their team? Genuinely curious. Hope you're not equating refusing to spend taxpayer money on a stadium with not supporting a team.
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:22 pm
by Bob78164
ToLiveIsToFly wrote:Bob Juch wrote:Since L.A. has a history of not supporting their team, who would the Raiders or Chargers even think of moving there?
I pointed out where the new stadium was supposed to have built many years ago as we were driving back home on I-10.
What's LA's history of not supporting their team? Genuinely curious. Hope you're not equating refusing to spend taxpayer money on a stadium with not supporting a team.
The city supports good teams. Los Angeles still supports the Dodgers, even though most of the city can't watch their games on television. The Clippers are getting significant traction now that they're starting to win. --Bob
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:00 pm
by ulysses5019
SpacemanSpiff wrote:I heard something interesting last night -- and our resident USC man Uly can confirm this -- and now that the dominos have started to fall, the legalities (and lack of a new stadium right now) might limit the options of the other players from Oakland and San Diego.
It looks like the terms of the lease with USC at the LA Coliseum only permits one football subtenant, which right now looks like the Rams.
So, until they build a new stadium -- or lease the Rose Bowl stadium (not sure if that's available or not) -- the other teams can't come to LA.
And, given that the Oakland lease is technically up, and the Chargers have been given a one-year extension with Qualcomm, they're kind of all dressed up with no place to go.
Stick around, this might get interesting.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl ... story.html
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:04 am
by Spock
Bob78164 wrote:ToLiveIsToFly wrote:Bob Juch wrote:Since L.A. has a history of not supporting their team, who would the Raiders or Chargers even think of moving there?
I pointed out where the new stadium was supposed to have built many years ago as we were driving back home on I-10.
What's LA's history of not supporting their team? Genuinely curious. Hope you're not equating refusing to spend taxpayer money on a stadium with not supporting a team.
The city supports good teams. Los Angeles still supports the Dodgers, even though most of the city can't watch their games on television. The Clippers are getting significant traction now that they're starting to win. --Bob
In Spock College V1-(1985 to 1991) my sports minded roommates often made the comments to the effect that if you live in LA-you might like the Clippers, but you love the Lakers.
Now my sports fanatic son doesn't give a rip about the Lakers-He only cares about the Clippers and dismisses the Lakers out of hand.
Re: The Los Angeles Rams
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:10 pm
by SpacemanSpiff
A modest bump because of a potential problem with the move.
Or, to be more correct, with the new stadium and its location.
Enter the FAA
Never thought they'd have a hand in the re-re-relocation of the Cleveland Rams, but they have voiced a problem with the new stadium. Actually, they voiced it a few months ago, but it didn't matter much until it became more of a reality.
http://crankyflier.com/2016/01/19/los-a ... e-stadium/
Turns out the new stadium is two miles due east of the airport runways.
You might think the FAA would balk at this project because of terrorism concerns, but that’s the Department of Homeland Security’s job. The FAA is concerned for another reason.
"…the FAA preliminarily determined the structure could have an effect on radars that track aircraft inbound to LAX. Specifically, the height of the structure could create false aircraft images or unstable images on controllers’ radarscopes."
This report came out back in November, but it wasn’t really an issue until the Rams were approved to move. Now something has to be done.
The radar equipment at LAX is needed to show radar returns for arriving aircraft (most of the time, that’s how aircraft arrive, runways don’t change except at night and on rare bad weather days). And apparently the height of the stadium can mess with those radar images. Whether this is a “planes will crash” real type of problem or a “cell phones mess with airplanes” fake type of problem is unclear.