The Rams,Chargers and Raiders file for relocation

#4
#4
I see only two moving. The most likely are the Raiders and Chargers. If LA takes one, it'll be the Chargers.
 
#6
#6
I hope the Raiders stay in Oakland... Just cause I like the name Oakland Raiders more than LA Raiders. Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7
#7
While I doubt all 3 are given the green light to move, I wouldn't be shocked either. But as I said in another thread, St. Louis is actually serious about building a stadium and the NFL frowns on teams leaving markets that are actively working to meet needs. The problem there is the owner doesn't even hide the fact he wants them in Los Angeles.

San Diego made some hail mary type attempt at a proposal and Oakland isn't doing anything. My guess is the Chargers and Raiders are as good as gone and the Rams stay put. Which is funny because personally I'd like to see the Chargers and Raiders stay and the Rams to go back to LA. Even though it's been 22 years, "St. Louis Rams" still doesn't sound right to me.

If the Rams do go I'm wondering if the NFL will try to work out some Cleveland type agreement since they have a real stadium plan in place. Maybe the NFL sort of promises them a future expansion team. Then again the NFL wants a team in London, which I still don't understand how that's going to work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10
#10
It makes a lot of sense for the Chargers and Raiders to pair up in LA. And the Rams have a new stadium built in STL.
 
#11
#11
While I doubt all 3 are given the green light to move, I wouldn't be shocked either. But as I said in another thread, St. Louis is actually serious about building a stadium and the NFL frowns on teams leaving markets that are actively working to meet needs. The problem there is the owner doesn't even hide the fact he wants them in Los Angeles.

San Diego made some hail mary type attempt at a proposal and Oakland isn't doing anything. My guess is the Chargers and Raiders are as good as gone and the Rams stay put. Which is funny because personally I'd like to see the Chargers and Raiders stay and the Rams to go back to LA. Even though it's been 22 years, "St. Louis Rams" still doesn't sound right to me.

If the Rams do go I'm wondering if the NFL will try to work out some Cleveland type agreement since they have a real stadium plan in place. Maybe the NFL sort of promises them a future expansion team. Then again the NFL wants a team in London, which I still don't understand how that's going to work.

The Rams started off in LA. I'm not sure why St Louis should get to keep the team history.

Not to mention the Cleveland deal came because of how messy that move was and how long that franchise had been in that city. This move isn't nearly as messy.
 
#12
#12
The Rams started off in LA. I'm not sure why St Louis should get to keep the team history.

Not to mention the Cleveland deal came because of how messy that move was and how long that franchise had been in that city. This move isn't nearly as messy.

Actually the Rams started in Cleveland
 
#13
#13
The Rams started off in LA. I'm not sure why St Louis should get to keep the team history.

Not to mention the Cleveland deal came because of how messy that move was and how long that franchise had been in that city. This move isn't nearly as messy.

I don't mean keep the team history, I just mean they get a future team.

Although you could argue they deserve the team history since they had their biggest success in St. Louis. And I'm not sure I agree it's that less messy. The city is showing they are willing to work and the owner is basically giving them the finger. The NFL really frowns on that. This isn't the same situation as San Diego and Oakland, who hasn't given their teams anything of substance.
 
Last edited:
#14
#14
St. Louis is fighting for its team and Kroenke is being a little **** about it. I don't see the NFL letting the Rams move.
 
#21
#21
Stadium > fanbase in today's pro sports world.

True, but make no mistake, Qualcomm Stadium is a dump. I truly don't blame Spanos for wanting out of there if the city isn't going to work with them. Not to mention they're a hop, skip, and jump away from LA as it is.

And even though they already have a strong contingent of fans in LA, the Raiders is the fan base I'd feel the worst for. Oakland fans are absolutely rabid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
Rams make the least sense. Hope the NFL tells them to **** off

Well, I mean they were in LA previously (the team was there from 1946-1994), the rest of the teams they play in division are on the west coast or much further west (Seattle, San Francisco and Arizona), they went to another ...not to mention it's where most of the franchise's all-stars played their careers (Eric Dickerson, Deacon Jones, among the 13 others).

(The last one really doesn't have any real effect on this, just noting it.)



So in some ways they make sense, though I can't say I'm a huge proponent of the move either.
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
Have they said where the team(s) would play until a stadium is ready?

Possibly still in the stadiums they're in.

The Oilers move to Nashville was announced at the end of the 1995 season (so pretty much 1996), but the team didn't make it to Tennessee until the 1997 season (I think it was originally supposed to be the 1998 season per the original announcement...presuming the messy attendance that last year made the owner change his mind and have the team try to ideally play two years in Memphis rather than just one).

PRO FOOTBALL - N.F.L. Owners Approve Move To Nashville By the Oilers - NYTimes.com



After the Cardinals left St. Louis, they went straight to playing at Sun Devil Stadium until 2005.



It might just depend on how long of a lease the moving team still has with their current stadium as to where they play. Though if attendance drops too drastically before the actual start of play at the new stadium, it might be safe to presume something like they just play at the L.A. Coliseum or Rose Bowl on those initial Sundays
 
Last edited:

VN Store



Back
Top