Portland Raiders?

[Subzero717]

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.

I dont know what the draw is like in LA. Lets call it what it is. Its in Carson. Anyway I dont think they draw like Portland or Seattle. Who does. Do they really need two teams?

I thought the original branding of Chivas USA was high risk high reward. If it worked it would have been brilliant in that market. Unforunatly it didnt take. I think it would be wiser to move the team to SD but what do I know. I just think the largest population of soccer fans in LA dont follow MLS and dont need two teams. Other west cities in the US could use a team rather than two in LA.

 

[lucky49]

i wish the raiders would get out of the bay. doubt this happens though

 

[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.

I dont know what the draw is like in LA. Lets call it what it is. Its in Carson. Anyway I dont think they draw like Portland or Seattle. Who does. Do they really need two teams?

I thought the original branding of Chivas USA was high risk high reward. If it worked it would have been brilliant in that market. Unforunatly it didnt take. I think it would be wiser to move the team to SD but what do I know. I just think the largest population of soccer fans in LA dont follow MLS and dont need two teams. Other west cities in the US could use a team rather than two in LA.

The Galaxy draw really well, one of the top 5 or so attended teams in MLS. A non racist organization elsewhere in the LA area could probably do the same, there are millions of people in the area who are unwilling to drive to Carson. When the team is sold, their final home won't be in Carson. It's more likely they end up closer to downtown LA or somewhere in Orange County, though I wouldn't count out San Diego.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I've always said if Phil Knight ever got serious about owning a pro team, he could pull it off.

Unfortunately for Husky fans, he's just fine with giving the god forsaken Oregon football program billions of his dollars.

 

[Seahawks1983]

I've always said if Phil Knight ever got serious about owning a pro team, he could pull it off.

Unfortunately for Husky fans, he's just fine with giving the god forsaken Oregon football program billions of his dollars.

It's pretty much fans of all Pac 12 teams not called USC or Stanford at this point, not just UW fans.

 

[Subzero717]

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.

I dont know what the draw is like in LA. Lets call it what it is. Its in Carson. Anyway I dont think they draw like Portland or Seattle. Who does. Do they really need two teams?

I thought the original branding of Chivas USA was high risk high reward. If it worked it would have been brilliant in that market. Unforunatly it didnt take. I think it would be wiser to move the team to SD but what do I know. I just think the largest population of soccer fans in LA dont follow MLS and dont need two teams. Other west cities in the US could use a team rather than two in LA.

The Galaxy draw really well, one of the top 5 or so attended teams in MLS. A non racist organization elsewhere in the LA area could probably do the same, there are millions of people in the area who are unwilling to drive to Carson. When the team is sold, their final home won't be in Carson. It's more likely they end up closer to downtown LA or somewhere in Orange County, though I wouldn't count out San Diego.

I was thinking them or San Antonio, Phoenix? I wouldnt call them racist. It was a matketing ploy that the target audience wasnt into. I think if and when they ever do build a football stasium they will end up their. They being Galaxy.

Its funny when they say Carson or the Industry site of the proposed football stadium that what they always say 10-15 minutes to downtown. Okay???? The football stadium is 10 minutes from dowtown and 15 to disneyland. Try to get from downtown LA to Disneyland in less than a half an hour and let me know how the works out.

The Carson site also exludes any San Fernando and Ventura population you could capture.

 

[sc85sis]

Money, politics and location/traffic are the issues with bringing the NFL back to Los Angeles, as far as I can tell. Farmers Field seemed to have the most traction, but I'm still not convinced it wouldn't be a nightmare in terms of parking and traffic. It also seems to have stalled since Tim Leiweke left AEG.

 

[Subzero717]

Money, politics and location/traffic are the issues with bringing the NFL back to Los Angeles, as far as I can tell. Farmers Field seemed to have the most traction, but I'm still not convinced it wouldn't be a nightmare in terms of parking and traffic. It also seems to have stalled since Tim Leiweke left AEG.

I dont think it was ever that close. Clink figured parking out and while not LA its in a heavy congested area. Games are played on Sundays so I dont see traffic being a major issue. It would affect Monday and Thursday games but I hardly think that would keep the NFL out. Besides its LA. Traffic is part of the package. I dont think it was ever really that close.

If Kroenke is going to use the land in Ingelwood for a stadium I think thats plausible. Still a ton of hurdles. I just hope he realizes that unless he puts a championship team on the field every year its going to look like EJD. SC attendance dropped by 30,000 in two-three seasons. Thats what So Cal is.

 

[Largent80]

Staples Center is right where the freeways all split off and come together, it is almost always a mess, and Chavez Ravine is off of that split only a few miles up the 110. It can take over an hour to get from the 10/110 split to Dodger stadium. Traffic is a major concern building a stadium there (near Staples), but if they do and you want to attend a game, better leave real early.

 

[candyman4881]

Great discussion here - I know it has spiraled into an LA discussion, however I will add my 2 cents. As a Rams fan in St Louis, I have tried to keep myself up to date as much as possible about the goings on in LA, and if I should actually be concerned about the Rams moving to St Louis. At this point, I am about 80-20 they stay, however I am still keeping my eyes open.

I realize that I am an outsider looking at the LA market, however most everything I see/hear/read is that there is not much of an appetite to move a team back to LA. I believe that the NFL enjoys having the LA market open for 2 reasons:
A. To broadcast the best possible games for the 2nd largest TV market (and largest without an NFL team)
B. The biggest reason, to use as leverage to get better stadiums in their current market.

Look how many teams used the LA threat to get new stadiums deals - your own Seahawks, Colts, Vikings, 49ers, Falcons, Panthers, Bills, just to name a few - now the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders are in the same boat, and soon to be Dolphins and Bucs will probably use the same leverage to get stadium deals done.

The days of 100% public financing, such as the Dome in St Louis, are over, however each stadium built since 2000 had some type of public financing, with the exception of Metlife Stadium, and the contribution is almost split at 50% public/50% private. Is LA/City of Industry/Inglewood willing to kick in $500 - $750 mil in order for a stadium to be built? If the answer is yes, then a team will move sooner than later, however if the answer is no, it may be a while. I realize that team value and revenues may be greater in LA than lets say St Louis, however construction costs/relocation fees (could be up to $500 mil)/maintenance of a stadium costs are dramatically more in LA than in a market like St Louis. For a league like the NFL where approximately 70% of revenue is shared, that is a lot to invest in a new market with not a lot in return.

I do see an expansion team coming to LA in the early 2020s when the new TV deals need to be done, however at this time, the NFL does not need LA - since 1995, the NFL had revenues of around $2 billion (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/faculty/ ... AN-NFL.pdf) to close to $10 billion last year.