Portland Raiders?

[ctrcat]

Of all the sports the least represented thing is baseball, not football, IMO. Fair enough re: the Blazers, though.

Baseball is second fiddle to football nearly everywhere in 2014, but it's interesting that you mention this because I recently read that Portland and Montreal were trying to position themselves in the pole position when/if MLB expands and/or relocates (A's? Rays?). I found this shocking since the Carolinas have nearly 15 million people and are a baseball hotbed with no team. All speculation anyway I suppose and depends on timing, political landscape, etc.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

It will never happen. But if it did I'm sure they could create a good, passionate fan base as long as they were putting out a decent product.

Far as everything else goes, Sarlacc's right on about Portland as a sports town.

 

[Subzero717]

Los Angeles is a pipedream. That city is exactly like Kansas City except 10 times larger. It's a conglomeration of a 1000 little cities all backbiting each other.

So it's the same as KC but ten times more populous, and KC certainly has no problems supporting the Chiefs. So what's your point, exactly?

Its actually the second largest city in the country surrounded by other cities and counties for that matter and I still dont see the point.

The point I will make with LA is it has been 20 years and no one there cares. Look no further than the Chargers and duplicate that. Networks buying thousands of tickets for prime time games to avoid blackouts and half empty stadium on Sundays. Opposing fans wont show because, well, they will make Niner fans look like Candyland.

 

[Popeyejones]

The point I will make with LA is it has been 20 years and no one there cares.

???

There are currently three competing stadiums in the works for it. The city wants it, the county wants, the NFL wants it, and multiple private investors are competing over it.

I guess for me, if we're going to question the validity and viability of a team moving to L.A., the obvious question is:

Which location is the counter-hypothesis?

Basically, if we're going to brush aside L.A. which locale getting a team is more likely?

At one point I might have said the Bills moving to Toronto was AS likely, but if that does ever happen, it doesn't seem it will be happening soon (the Bills extended their lease for a decade in '12, and they just pulled the one game a year in Toronto last week).

So if not L.A., where? It either has to be somewhere else, or the belief is that no NFL team will ever move again/no teams will ever be addded.

 

[Polaris]

Los Angeles is a pipedream. That city is exactly like Kansas City except 10 times larger. It's a conglomeration of a 1000 little cities all backbiting each other.

That sounds like the Raiders lockerroom.....a perfect fit? :lol:

 

[Subzero717]

The point I will make with LA is it has been 20 years and no one there cares.

???

There are currently three competing stadiums in the works for it. The city wants it, the county wants, the NFL wants it, and multiple private investors are competing over it.

I guess for me, if we're going to question the validity and viability of a team moving to L.A., the obvious question is:

Which location is the counter-hypothesis?

Basically, if we're going to brush aside L.A. which locale getting a team is more likely?

At one point I might have said the Bills moving to Toronto was AS likely, but if that does ever happen, it doesn't seem it will be happening soon (the Bills extended their lease for a decade in '12, and they just pulled the one game a year in Toronto last week).

So if not L.A., where? It either has to be somewhere else, or the belief is that no NFL team will ever move again/no teams will ever be addded.

Well I was born and raised there and just moved from So Cal last year. There is no clammoring from the natives for a team there. Most pledge a allegience to a team already. Many that reside there are transplants. While there are 3 "competing" sites there why are/have none emerged?

The downtown next to Staples site has so many wholes in it, it seems unrealistic. Parking and lack of mass transit being one on top of many. Plus AEG wants a stake and a majority was their demand at one point.

The one out in Walnut is out in Walnut. Youd be way better off building one in Anaheim and moving the Bolts. Anyways, I havent heard anything about that being a legit option since the photo op with shovels almost 4 years ago.

The third stadium Im not really sure which thst is. The 60 acres Kronke purchased near the Forum? He claims its for an MLS team but there are already two teams there that arent drawing like Portland or Seattle could dream of. So I dont see him buying it to move one of them there pIus I do believe he owns a stake in a team already. The Rapids or Real? I do see this as the most viable if its truly for an nfl team and if he is willing with a group fund it but as stated before no one residing there is begging for it. I will say the Rams moving back is better than the Raids although there are likely more local Raid fans.

To say they have three stadiums "competing" is kind of overstating it. Also, reread what I said, "No one there cares." If you will remember the team currently residing in Houston had been awarded to LA and they couldnt get a stadium done because the people there were simply unwilling to a penny for it.

As far as a team getting back to LA it would seem inevitable but a team in London is brought uo way more often then I hear about LA being mentioned. As I also ststed look atvthe Charhers stadium. Thats what the stadium will typically look like on any given Sunday. If its the Raiders count on even less as you count on next to no families showing up and a very limited amount of opposing fans.

Everyone and anyone not a resident of LA can want it but fact is its been twenty years and nothing realistic had materialized.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^ Yeah, okay, but I'm not really sure you answered my question.

You're saying the NFL will be putting a team in London before Los Angeles? If so I guess we just disagree.

As for interest level, you have to condition that on population size. For instance, if you could double the size of the population in Jacksonville you could have the same interest level and things would be fine. So too for San Diego. Put another way, we could hypothesize that for whatever reason Los Angeles has a lower interest level in football than Jacksonville by a magnitude of 10, and even then we'd get back to Jacksonville (LA metro has 10x the population as Jack metro).

If they had a team would people in Los Angeles really be 10 times less interested in that team than people in Jacksonville are in their team? Would they even be 5 times less interested? That strikes me as very unlikely.

The part we're also not talking about is that a team's onsite profitablity is largely dependent on the robustness of the industry/size of the population of elites that surround it, as they're the ones who are bringing in the lion's share of onsite revenue through luxury boxes, etc. It's why it makes sense for the 9ers to plant themselves in the heart of Silicon Valley, why Seattle and St. Louis can be roughly the same size but Seattle is a better place to field a team (see: Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon, etc.). As for robust industry and wealthy people, Los Angeles has that in spades. The NFL knows that. Anyone who wants to move a team there knows that.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

Los Angeles is a pipedream. That city is exactly like Kansas City except 10 times larger. It's a conglomeration of a 1000 little cities all backbiting each other.

So it's the same as KC but ten times more populous, and KC certainly has no problems supporting the Chiefs. So what's your point, exactly?

I'll take a guess that the point is there exists a lack of cohesion amongst the various jurisdictions of LA. There are too many mouths to feed, too many separate interests to get the necessary stability from local governments, local businesses, etc. The Chiefs were established at a time of growth and expansion for Kansas City. It was ripe for a pro football franchise. The red tape and logistics of establishing a team and stadium in Los Angeles right now are keeping it from happening.

Wouldn't be too sure about that:

http://nfl.si.com/2014/02/05/los-angeles-nfl-stadium/

First, you asked what someone's point was, so I elucidated. Personally, I'm not sure about any of it (although I think London is more enticing to the NFL).

Second, that article does not invoke confidence for an NFL team in LA. Of the three proposals, only one of them, Farmers, seems at all possible and that one has been floating for nearly 4 years.

There was just as much private backing, government support, land purchased, etc., to lure the Kings to Seattle last year. Best laid plans and all.

Third, the fact remains that KC was a huge blank canvas primed for growth when their team arrived. LA is not. The logistics were not even a speed bump on the road to the Chiefs setting up in KC.

Finally, you've mentioned population a couple times now. If that were such a mitigating factor to the NFL, there would have been a team in LA a long time ago. Maybe even two.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^^^ Responding to your numbered points with corresponding numbers just to keep things clean.

1) For sure. Sorry if it read like I was going after you, which wasn't my intention.

2) Yeah, I was just pointing out that they're out there, and that there are competing proposals, not that all of them are viable (that there are competing proposals does speak to a level of interest and engagement though).

3) Yeah, part of the problem I suspect is that we're going back and forth on Mizzou's point and she hasn't come back to clarify what it was. As for logistics, even the city of L.A. (proper) has the size, room, and investor interest to get it done. There isn't even any need for logistical concerns with Compton, Santa Monica, etc. because L.A. can take this on by itself (if Santa Clara could do it, L.A. CERTAINLY can). As for logistics, I'd ask the same question I've been asking: which city is a more likely one than L.A.? CALIHAWK sad London, but logistically (both in the infrastructural sense and in simply having a team located there) that seems like much more of a hurdle than Los Angeles.

4) LOL. Yeah. Point taken. That said, the Raiders left L.A. because the Los Angeles Sports Commission wouldn't renovate the stadium for them, and the Rams left because St. Louis ponied up all the funds to build a brand new stadium for them, which Anaheim wouldn't do. It was a classic "if you build it" scenario. As for L.A., I also think absence has made the heart grow fonder, as the NFL, private investors and the local political landscape all seem to be in agreement that it should be happening sooner rather than later. That market is the biggest carrot possible for any team even thinking about moving (assuming of course the NFL doesn't just do it itself by expanding a putting a new team there). Basically, if there is a stadium there will be at least one team, and reading the tea leaves I think we're DEFINITELY moving in the direction of a stadium rather than away from it.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

Good points there. That bit about the carrot especially piqued my interest. Like the NBA and Seattle, I wonder if the NFL owners want to keep LA empty as long as possible, just for the leverage to get renovations/rebuilds from their respective cities. I really don't know about any of it, but I appreciate the conversation.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^^ Didn't know that's the story w/ the NBA in Seattle. If true, it both makes sense and is friggin maddening, I'm sure. (every time we get reminded that our passion is just someone else's cool and caluclated business interest it really is frustrating).

 

[Subzero717]

Now your putting twisting my words. At present there seems to be more interest in putting a team in London then there does LA by the NFL.

If your question is where would a team move, I dont know? Do I think a team in LA is inevitable? Of course it is eventually I suppose. As I stated in my other posts it will be a flop IMO. Southern Cal aint Cleveland. As I stated before the residents there could care less. Based on the fact they were awarded a franchise and it ended up in Houston further proves my point

 

[Largent80]

Well, I can add a little to this since I live in LA.

As you know Farmers Field has been on the table, planned etc and is now stalled. Not much talk about it for a while now, however from what I get people that live here want a team, but lack the passion to help get it done. People here seem to lack passion for practically everything.

If it did happen I believe people here would support it though.

Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley just launched LA Kiss, an arena team, which seems to be gathering momentum, maybe they could use their millions to the good for a stadium. I hope it gets done as I would be able to catch the Hawks locally. (Until I move back to San Diego County in a couple years).

 

[Popeyejones]

Now your putting twisting my words. At present there seems to be more interest in putting a team in London then there does LA by the NFL.

If your question is where would a team move, I dont know? Do I think a team in LA is inevitable? Of course it is eventually I suppose. As I stated in my other posts it will be a flop IMO. Southern Cal aint Cleveland. As I stated before the residents there could care less. Based on the fact they were awarded a franchise and it ended up in Houston further proves my point

Okay, sounds like we're talking past each other then.

I'm saying that if I had to put money on the next place an NFL team will be moving to, I'd put my money on L.A. and that this is also the smart bet.

You're saying that a team will end up in L.A. (sooner or later), and that when that happens it will be a flop.

While you might disagree with what I'm saying and FWIW I do disagree with what you're saying, for the most part we are nevertheless talking past each other.

Thanks for slowing that down a bit, and apologies for my role in it.

 

[Seahawks1983]

The point I will make with LA is it has been 20 years and no one there cares.

???

There are currently three competing stadiums in the works for it. The city wants it, the county wants, the NFL wants it, and multiple private investors are competing over it.

I guess for me, if we're going to question the validity and viability of a team moving to L.A., the obvious question is:

Which location is the counter-hypothesis?

Basically, if we're going to brush aside L.A. which locale getting a team is more likely?

At one point I might have said the Bills moving to Toronto was AS likely, but if that does ever happen, it doesn't seem it will be happening soon (the Bills extended their lease for a decade in '12, and they just pulled the one game a year in Toronto last week).

So if not L.A., where? It either has to be somewhere else, or the belief is that no NFL team will ever move again/no teams will ever be addded.

Well I was born and raised there and just moved from So Cal last year. There is no clammoring from the natives for a team there. Most pledge a allegience to a team already. Many that reside there are transplants. While there are 3 "competing" sites there why are/have none emerged?

The downtown next to Staples site has so many wholes in it, it seems unrealistic. Parking and lack of mass transit being one on top of many. Plus AEG wants a stake and a majority was their demand at one point.

The one out in Walnut is out in Walnut. Youd be way better off building one in Anaheim and moving the Bolts. Anyways, I havent heard anything about that being a legit option since the photo op with shovels almost 4 years ago.

The third stadium Im not really sure which thst is. The 60 acres Kronke purchased near the Forum? He claims its for an MLS team but there are already two teams there that arent drawing like Portland or Seattle could dream of. So I dont see him buying it to move one of them there pIus I do believe he owns a stake in a team already. The Rapids or Real? I do see this as the most viable if its truly for an nfl team and if he is willing with a group fund it but as stated before no one residing there is begging for it. I will say the Rams moving back is better than the Raids although there are likely more local Raid fans.

To say they have three stadiums "competing" is kind of overstating it. Also, reread what I said, "No one there cares." If you will remember the team currently residing in Houston had been awarded to LA and they couldnt get a stadium done because the people there were simply unwilling to a penny for it.

As far as a team getting back to LA it would seem inevitable but a team in London is brought uo way more often then I hear about LA being mentioned. As I also ststed look atvthe Charhers stadium. Thats what the stadium will typically look like on any given Sunday. If its the Raiders count on even less as you count on next to no families showing up and a very limited amount of opposing fans.

Everyone and anyone not a resident of LA can want it but fact is its been twenty years and nothing realistic had materialized.

FWIW, there is an MLS team in LA for sale currently. The team soon to formerly be known as Chivas USA was recently purchased by MLS. They will be sold to a new owner who can get them their own stadium. Won't be Kroenke though.

 

[Subzero717]

The point I will make with LA is it has been 20 years and no one there cares.

???

There are currently three competing stadiums in the works for it. The city wants it, the county wants, the NFL wants it, and multiple private investors are competing over it.

I guess for me, if we're going to question the validity and viability of a team moving to L.A., the obvious question is:

Which location is the counter-hypothesis?

Basically, if we're going to brush aside L.A. which locale getting a team is more likely?

At one point I might have said the Bills moving to Toronto was AS likely, but if that does ever happen, it doesn't seem it will be happening soon (the Bills extended their lease for a decade in '12, and they just pulled the one game a year in Toronto last week).

So if not L.A., where? It either has to be somewhere else, or the belief is that no NFL team will ever move again/no teams will ever be addded.

Well I was born and raised there and just moved from So Cal last year. There is no clammoring from the natives for a team there. Most pledge a allegience to a team already. Many that reside there are transplants. While there are 3 "competing" sites there why are/have none emerged?

The downtown next to Staples site has so many wholes in it, it seems unrealistic. Parking and lack of mass transit being one on top of many. Plus AEG wants a stake and a majority was their demand at one point.

The one out in Walnut is out in Walnut. Youd be way better off building one in Anaheim and moving the Bolts. Anyways, I havent heard anything about that being a legit option since the photo op with shovels almost 4 years ago.

The third stadium Im not really sure which thst is. The 60 acres Kronke purchased near the Forum? He claims its for an MLS team but there are already two teams there that arent drawing like Portland or Seattle could dream of. So I dont see him buying it to move one of them there pIus I do believe he owns a stake in a team already. The Rapids or Real? I do see this as the most viable if its truly for an nfl team and if he is willing with a group fund it but as stated before no one residing there is begging for it. I will say the Rams moving back is better than the Raids although there are likely more local Raid fans.

To say they have three stadiums "competing" is kind of overstating it. Also, reread what I said, "No one there cares." If you will remember the team currently residing in Houston had been awarded to LA and they couldnt get a stadium done because the people there were simply unwilling to a penny for it.

As far as a team getting back to LA it would seem inevitable but a team in London is brought uo way more often then I hear about LA being mentioned. As I also ststed look atvthe Charhers stadium. Thats what the stadium will typically look like on any given Sunday. If its the Raiders count on even less as you count on next to no families showing up and a very limited amount of opposing fans.

Everyone and anyone not a resident of LA can want it but fact is its been twenty years and nothing realistic had materialized.

FWIW, there is an MLS team in LA for sale currently. The team soon to formerly be known as Chivas USA was recently purchased by MLS. They will be sold to a new owner who can get them their own stadium. Won't be Kroenke though.

He owns the Rapids as I thought. Also they might as well move Chivas or just disolve them. The idea was horrible from jump street. Plus Miami is in works of getting a team. Just disolve Chivas and start the Miami team.

 

[Subzero717]

Now your putting twisting my words. At present there seems to be more interest in putting a team in London then there does LA by the NFL.

If your question is where would a team move, I dont know? Do I think a team in LA is inevitable? Of course it is eventually I suppose. As I stated in my other posts it will be a flop IMO. Southern Cal aint Cleveland. As I stated before the residents there could care less. Based on the fact they were awarded a franchise and it ended up in Houston further proves my point

Okay, sounds like we're talking past each other then.

I'm saying that if I had to put money on the next place an NFL team will be moving to, I'd put my money on L.A. and that this is also the smart bet.

You're saying that a team will end up in L.A. (sooner or later), and that when that happens it will be a flop.

While you might disagree with what I'm saying and FWIW I do disagree with what you're saying, for the most part we are nevertheless talking past each other.

Thanks for slowing that down a bit, and apologies for my role in it.

Cool. I agree.

 

[Rocket]

Portlanders are ultimately fairweather.

That kills it, it ain't never fairweather here. :th2thumbs:

Raiders? Please...

 

[Sports Hernia]

Portlanders are ultimately fairweather.

That kills it, it ain't never fairweather here. :th2thumbs:

Raiders? Please...

If the raiders to Portland thing happens, you Vancouverites better not turn to the dark side and root for greasy uncles Al's boys! I don't want to have to annex you folks out to Oregon. 8)

 

[Seahawks1983]

He owns the Rapids as I thought. Also they might as well move Chivas or just disolve them. The idea was horrible from jump street. Plus Miami is in works of getting a team. Just disolve Chivas and start the Miami team.

Chivas will be sold to an LA area owner at some point and remain in that city. MLS wants two teams in LA. Where they messed up was branding the team as Chivas lite. That will be undone next year as the team will be rebranded and renamed. They will more or less be an expansion team again, albeit more of the Baltimore Ravens variety with existing employees and infrastructure. The league won't fold the team because they have a target number of teams in the coming years with expansion (NYCFC, Orlando, Miami) and that would mess things up more.