PDA

View Full Version : OK, which NFL franchise is moving to LA???


Koolaid Time
04-17-2008, 09:02 AM
Edward P. Roski Jr., a part owner of the Kings and Lakers who has spent several years trying to lure the NFL back to the Los Angeles area, believes his latest concept for a stadium could help finally land a team.

The Los Angeles Times reported on its Web site that Roski has scheduled a news conference at Staples Center to make a "major announcement" concerning the league and L.A.

On Thursday, Roski will unveil his idea for a stadium in the City of Industry, near the southern intersection of the 57 and 60 freeways some 20 miles east of Los Angeles, said John Semcken, vice president of Majestic Realty, Roski's real estate company.

The stadium would be surrounded by a high-end shopping mall, and located on a vacant property which Roski already owns.

"We've spent the last year designing a football stadium that is ideally suited for the Southern California marketplace that will be a part of a major entertainment, retail and office development," Semcken told The Associated Press.

"We want to take all of the uncertainty out of this stadium situation."

If a team committed to moving to Los Angeles, "we could begin construction in the final quarter of this year and have it ready for play for the first exhibition game in 2011," Semcken said.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8042930?MSNHPHMA

Ed Roski has the money to do the deal. I don't know how much money the Governator would have to kick in, but Roski can pull the load if he has to.

So who will move to LA??

HOU-TEX
04-17-2008, 09:49 AM
Jaguars

Kaiser Toro
04-17-2008, 09:50 AM
Ain't happening in this economic climate and by the time we come out of it the CBA will be close to being up. I doubt the owners want the potential of the 2nd largest market being on the table for discussions with the player's union.

Moreover, I am not sure the Governator wants to get bogged down in any public financing debates.

TexanSam
04-17-2008, 10:09 AM
Who's got the oldest stadium in the league?

Green Bay but obviously they aren't moving. I would say Buffalo has the best chance of moving, but I had heard that if they moved to a different city it would probably be Toronto.

Maybe Al Davis is moving to LA again.

Errant Hothy
04-17-2008, 10:23 AM
Nobody. KT nailed all the reasons.

Double Barrel
04-17-2008, 11:13 AM
Bud sure likes the smell of that LA money!

DBCooper
04-17-2008, 12:18 PM
Bud sure likes the smell of that LA money!

I would laugh for days if that happened.

BigBull17
04-17-2008, 12:23 PM
J Ville or Tenn would be cool, since we would be in the division with LA for a little bit. The leauge would love to get a team like Indy there, but good luck.

chicagotexan2
04-17-2008, 12:23 PM
"IF" any team moved I'd say it's the Jags. Before I would have said the Sainst, but the Jags seem like the most likely.

Ole Miss Texan
04-17-2008, 12:26 PM
Hypothetically if a team were to move to LA, what would this do to the divisions? Would they most likely get shaken up?

I think a team like Oakland would stay in the same division, but what if the Jaguars moved... or Buffalo?

Overalls
04-17-2008, 12:34 PM
Bud sure likes the smell of that LA money!

Bud has already shown that he cares absolutely nothing about the fans that support him and even the ICOU admit that Lousianna Field is a dump. I have seen thread after thread from the ICOU downing different aspects of their stadium.

Ole Miss Texan
04-17-2008, 12:52 PM
Okay, this got me to thinking about the diff. divisions and how I'd match them up... of course this is assuming no team moves to L.A. and that they probably will never change them. This is just more geographically "correct" i guess.

AFC North
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Indianapolis Colts
Pittsburgh Steelers
AFC East
Buffalo Bills
New England Patriots
New York Giants
New York Jets
AFC South
Dallas Cowboys
Houston Texans
New Orleans Saints
Tenessee Titans
AFC West
Oakland Raiders
San Diego Chargers
San Francisco 49'ers
Seattle Seahawks

NFC North
Chicago Bears
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Minnesota Vikings
NFC East
Baltimore Ravens
Carolina Panthers
Philadelphia Eagles
Washington Redskins
NFC South
Atlanta Falcons
Jacksonville Jaguars
Miami Dolphins
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
NFC West
Arizona Cardinals
Denver Broncos
Kansas City Chiefs
St. Louis Rams

From first glance the AFC looks really tough, the NFC really easy (but what's new? :)

The Pencil Neck
04-17-2008, 12:56 PM
Okay, this got me to thinking about the diff. divisions and how I'd match them up... of course this is assuming no team moves to L.A. and that they probably will never change them. This is just more geographically "correct" i guess.

AFC North
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Indianapolis Colts
Pittsburgh Steelers
AFC East
Buffalo Bills
New England Patriots
New York Giants
New York Jets
AFC South
Dallas Cowboys
Houston Texans
New Orleans Saints
Tenessee Titans
AFC West
Oakland Raiders
San Diego Chargers
San Francisco 49'ers
Seattle Seahawks

NFC North
Chicago Bears
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Minnesota Vikings
NFC East
Baltimore Ravens
Carolina Panthers
Philadelphia Eagles
Washington Redskins
NFC South
Atlanta Falcons
Jacksonville Jaguars
Miami Dolphins
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
NFC West
Arizona Cardinals
Denver Broncos
Kansas City Chiefs
St. Louis Rams

From first glance the AFC looks really tough, the NFC really easy (but what's new? :)


When they re-aligned, they wanted to keep certain old rivalries in place. That's why the Cowboys, Giants, Skins, and Iggles are all in the same division. Dallas has been playing against those guys since 1960 and there was a lot of history. It was easy to move the Cards out of there because they'd mostly just been a punching bag for the other teams, the Cards had moved, and there wasn't any sense of rivalry.

EDIT: They also wanted to preserve the conferences as much as possible.

Scooter
04-17-2008, 02:54 PM
Moreover, I am not sure the Governator wants to get bogged down in any public financing debates.

"The stadium would be surrounded by a high-end shopping mall, and located on a vacant property which Roski already owns."

this is what stood out to me and lead me to believe that roski owns most or atleast a decent portion of the surrounding area (just a guess). if that is the case, roski know's his land value and revenue would grow exponentially therefor be willing to front most of the bill. the governator would be seeing dollar signs if i'm correct.

then again i've paid zero attention to what LA and it's individual financers are trying to do (nor do i intend to) so i'm not qualified to guess at the reasoning.

TEXANS84
04-17-2008, 03:54 PM
Bills

El Tejano
04-17-2008, 03:59 PM
"IF" any team moved I'd say it's the Jags. Before I would have said the Sainst, but the Jags seem like the most likely.
I still think the Saints will and the NFL would ablige because that's the way little Reggie wants it.

Hervoyel
04-17-2008, 03:59 PM
Nobody, won't happen. L.A. is worth more to the league without a team than it ever could be with a team. We'll be hearing about "Somebody" being the most likely team to relocate to L.A. for the rest of our lives and nobody will ever actually make the move and that's exactly as it should be. Fans in L.A. don't deserve a football team because they don't really give a crap about it.

Ole Miss Texan
04-17-2008, 04:00 PM
Bills

They would change their name to the "Los Angeles Dollar-Bills"

El Tejano
04-17-2008, 04:07 PM
We'll be hearing about "Somebody" being the most likely team to relocate to L.A. for the rest of our lives and nobody will ever actually make the move and that's exactly as it should be. Fans in L.A. don't deserve a football team because they don't really give a crap about it.

C'mon, remember how we acted with the Oilers? Remember how we felt when football left?

Mr teX
04-17-2008, 04:24 PM
Nobody, won't happen. L.A. is worth more to the league without a team than it ever could be with a team. We'll be hearing about "Somebody" being the most likely team to relocate to L.A. for the rest of our lives and nobody will ever actually make the move and that's exactly as it should be. Fans in L.A. don't deserve a football team because they don't really give a crap about it.

Well then, Goodell should send the tities over there just for bud making him look at his awful mug.

Double Barrel
04-17-2008, 05:42 PM
Nobody, won't happen. L.A. is worth more to the league without a team than it ever could be with a team. We'll be hearing about "Somebody" being the most likely team to relocate to L.A. for the rest of our lives and nobody will ever actually make the move and that's exactly as it should be. Fans in L.A. don't deserve a football team because they don't really give a crap about it.

That's exactly why it makes sense for Bud to move. He only cares about $$$, not the fans, so he'd fit right in with a town that only cares about $$$ and not the team (unless they're winning, of course).

My dream is that he'd do another name change - more $$$ from new gear - but keep the Oilers/Titans records (of course).

Spled
04-17-2008, 06:13 PM
2 words - Al Davis.

GuerillaBlack
04-17-2008, 06:16 PM
Edward P. Roski Jr., a part owner of the Kings and Lakers who has spent several years trying to lure the NFL back to the Los Angeles area, believes his latest concept for a stadium could help finally land a team.

The Los Angeles Times reported on its Web site that Roski has scheduled a news conference at Staples Center to make a "major announcement" concerning the league and L.A.

On Thursday, Roski will unveil his idea for a stadium in the City of Industry, near the southern intersection of the 57 and 60 freeways some 20 miles east of Los Angeles, said John Semcken, vice president of Majestic Realty, Roski's real estate company.

The stadium would be surrounded by a high-end shopping mall, and located on a vacant property which Roski already owns.

"We've spent the last year designing a football stadium that is ideally suited for the Southern California marketplace that will be a part of a major entertainment, retail and office development," Semcken told The Associated Press.

"We want to take all of the uncertainty out of this stadium situation."

If a team committed to moving to Los Angeles, "we could begin construction in the final quarter of this year and have it ready for play for the first exhibition game in 2011," Semcken said.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8042930?MSNHPHMA

Ed Roski has the money to do the deal. I don't know how much money the Governator would have to kick in, but Roski can pull the load if he has to.

So who will move to LA??
Who the hell would want to be down there in Industry?

I see Jacksonville because of the extremely small market, San Diego, or The Raiders return to LA.

kastofsna
04-17-2008, 06:30 PM
move all of them there, save on gas for traveling.

aj.
04-17-2008, 07:19 PM
Minnesota is in the most precarious position stadium-wise. Their lease is running out soon, their stadium blows, and the state govt. has been circle jerking with Ziggy for a while up there.

Buffalo seems to have a regional solution with Toronto so they may be safe depending what happens when Wilson is gone.. Not sure about the stability or desires of Jax's ownership - they are certainly in one of the worst markets in the league.

Eliminating a cap would certainly change the financial landscape but the league is taking on enormous G3 debt with the Dallas and NY projects so another billion dollar venture in LA is definitely another huge burden cashwise on the league. But if they can create another huge moneymaker situation that lives in the right area of the ROI chart then anything can happen...

If a prospective owner can get it done w/o any public or local tax increases (big if, and one of the primary prohibiting factors so far), there is a way. LA had the Rams for nearly 50 years so the tradition begs, even though it's lost a generation, but the absence of a team in that market is nothing short of ridiculous.

jgl35
04-17-2008, 08:12 PM
I want to pick a darkhorse here, the Rams. A.J. is right. Out there for a long time. Good pub. in home team comes home. The owner just died, so all is forgiven for her moving in the first place. St. Louis is down in population big time and the Jones Dome isn't all that new.

Big baseball city anyway. Rams are number two there.

However, I personally don't think anyone moves anytime soon.

Dread-Head
04-17-2008, 08:18 PM
Unfortunately the Cowgirls are building a new stadium so it won't be them. Pitty the "LA Cowboys" just sounds so FAAAAAABULOUS!!!

aj.
04-17-2008, 08:27 PM
http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/stadium

Not so subtle purple seats in the LA stadium model. It's pretty obvious they're courting the Vikes. If you look at the timelines, the LA stadium readiness coincides with the expiration of the Vikings lease.

I want to pick a darkhorse here, the Rams. A.J. is right. Out there for a long time. Good pub. in home team comes home. .

I didn't say the Rams would be moving back to LA (why would they?). I said the Vikings are the most likely to move to LA because of their inability to get their stadium issues resolved. Where they play now is Texas Stadium (inside) with a plastic roof in a terrible location.

TexansSeminole
04-17-2008, 08:33 PM
http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/stadium

Not so subtle purple seats in the LA stadium model. It's pretty obvious they're courting the Vikes. If you look at the timelines, the LA stadium readiness coincides with the expiration of the Vikings lease.



I didn't say the Rams would be moving back to LA (why would they?). I said the Vikings are the most likely to move to LA.

Nice, rep for posting this.

I noticed there is no money estimate to the construction of the stadium.

Nice idea on how they plan to build it.

GuerillaBlack
04-17-2008, 10:01 PM
Pretty nice design though. I hope they land a team. Adrian Peterson (if he keeps up) will be big in Los Angeles. As would MJD of the Jaguars if they move.

Ole Miss Texan
04-17-2008, 10:04 PM
Nice, rep for posting this.

I noticed there is no money estimate to the construction of the stadium.

Nice idea on how they plan to build it.

Thought I read somewhere it'd cost apprx $800 million. It supposedly would be built on the side of a mountain/hill saving apprx $400million. Forgot where I read, could have been a link in this thread or on foxsports.net

TEXANRED
04-17-2008, 10:22 PM
I would say San Diego makes the move. A Cali based team that has had stadium problems the last few years. No divisional realignments needed and the cost of the move would be cheaper for all involved to go up the street.

It would almost be like the Cowboys moving to San Antonio.

TexansSeminole
04-17-2008, 10:33 PM
I know this is a bit off topic...but why is Jacksonville such a bad market for NFL teams? If you look at sheer size of the city (in land area) the city is one of the biggest in the US.

mexican_texan
04-17-2008, 10:37 PM
I know this is a bit off topic...but why is Jacksonville such a bad market for NFL teams? If you look at sheer size of the city (in land area) the city is one of the biggest in the US.
Jacksonville has a small market. They put a black tarp over seats so they can sell out more often.

infantrycak
04-17-2008, 10:41 PM
I know this is a bit off topic...but why is Jacksonville such a bad market for NFL teams? If you look at sheer size of the city (in land area) the city is one of the biggest in the US.

When was the last time you sat down at a game and had a piece of land in the seat next to you?

The Pencil Neck
04-17-2008, 10:46 PM
When was the last time you sat down at a game and had a piece of land in the seat next to you?

I've been to a few games in Dallas and the people next to me were definitely in the IQ range of dirt...

:texan:

GuerillaBlack
04-17-2008, 11:00 PM
Jacksonville has a small market. They put a black tarp over seats so they can sell out more often.

Yep.

Jacksonville is a market that is barely over one million. They put tarps over the seats, but still can't sellout their stadium for a playoff team. Pathetic I must say. Jacksonville is not big enough for the NFL, and Florida is a saturated state. Just as an example, the entire state of Florida has 19 million people. Los Angeles (along with Oxnard and the Inland Empire) has 18 million people. Add in San Diego, and Southern California has more people than the State of New York. They need a team.

Koolaid Time
04-17-2008, 11:49 PM
I see one big problem with this.. just crunchiing the numbers in today's NFL economy, it doesn't pay to be a Team Owner paying rent to a Stadium "Landlord" who pockets the money from parking, luxury boxes, concessions, etc, on top of the rent paid by the football team.

That's one of the reasons Adams left Houston. McLane controlled all the revenue streams from the Dome aside from tickets. Bud wanted the money.

The only way for Roski to justify spending $800-$900 million for a stadium, and still make money, is for him to buy a team as well... and move it to LA.

Isn't it NFL policy now NOT to move a team until the expiration of the stadium lease??

TexanSam
04-17-2008, 11:54 PM
I hope the Jaguars don't move to LA from a rivalry standpoint. I think the Jags-Texans rivalry is going to continue to grow into a healthy one. If they moved, then the only real rival we would have is the Titans.

Overalls
04-18-2008, 07:52 AM
I am not in favor of any team ever moving unless it is the ICOU.

:fans:

SheTexan
04-18-2008, 08:18 AM
It's insane for the state of California to have FOUR NFL teams! JMO!

DBCooper
04-18-2008, 08:40 AM
I hope the Jaguars don't move to LA from a rivalry standpoint. I think the Jags-Texans rivalry is going to continue to grow into a healthy one. If they moved, then the only real rival we would have is the Titans.

I doubt there would be any re-alignment, no matter who moves to LA.

We'd still get to beat up on the Jags.

Ole Miss Texan
04-18-2008, 10:29 AM
It's insane for the state of California to have FOUR NFL teams! JMO!

I think I agree with SheTexan. Of all teams, I think Oakland makes the most sense from a fan standpoint and seeing how Al Davis won't be around forever.

San Francisco doesn't need two teams either! That'd be like San Antonio, Dallas and Fort Worth all having NFL teams and Houston not.

Second Honeymoon
04-18-2008, 06:07 PM
It's insane for the state of California to have FOUR NFL teams! JMO!

Couldn't agree more. I am sure the NFL is just waiting for Al Davis to kick the bucket and then have the franchise move to LA without all the courtroom drama. Davis is undefeated v. the NFL in the big court cases and the NFL doesn't need that drama right now. The NFL has done fine without LA having a team for a while now but ultimately there needs to be a team in LA, and I don't want a 33rd team. 32 is perfect.

gwallaia
04-18-2008, 07:13 PM
It's insane for the state of California to have FOUR NFL teams! JMO!

I think it's insane for the state of Tennessee to have ONE NFL team.

GuerillaBlack
04-18-2008, 07:19 PM
It's insane for the state of California to have FOUR NFL teams! JMO!

California has almost 40 million people. That is pretty darn big. Four teams is not much. There was an article last year by Forbes, that stated that Southern California alone could support seven NFL teams (disposable income, population stats, etc.).

kastofsna
04-19-2008, 03:31 AM
if florida can have 3 teams then california could easily have 4.

mancunian
04-19-2008, 06:45 AM
Hypothetically if a team were to move to LA, what would this do to the divisions? Would they most likely get shaken up?

I think a team like Oakland would stay in the same division, but what if the Jaguars moved... or Buffalo?

If the Jags moved the simplest thing would be that they swap divisions with the Rams.

If it was the Bills then that causes a few more headaches.

edo783
04-19-2008, 09:23 AM
if florida can have 3 teams then california could easily have 4.

While that statement is certainly true, if CA gets its 4 teams, then FL is likely sitting at just 2.:)

Second Honeymoon
04-20-2008, 04:35 PM
if florida can have 3 teams then california could easily have 4.

one of those teams doesnt belong....and its the jags. their community can't and doesn't support their team enough to merit a team in that city. its already been proven over the past decade. even with a competitive team, they fail to sell out their stadium and are in danger of local TV blackout just about every week.

I couldn't believe that they got a team in the first place but decided to adopt a 'wait and see' approach to NFL in JVille. Well we have all seen that it isn't going to work especially with the state of our economy. Move the Jags to LA and keep em in the AFC South if you want. Roadie to LA for a Texans divisional game would be pretty damn sweet....helluva lot better than Jacksonville, Fla.

...or they could just wait Al Davis out and ultimately get the Raiders in LA once the stadium is built....and then maybe move JVille and/or perhaps Buffalo to another market that is growing (Austin, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Portland, Toronto)

My personal opinion is to build a huge stadium in the New Braunfels area right between Austin and SA. NB is already an entertainment/vacation area with lots of hotels and tax money. There is already a huge parking lot for Schlitterbahn. Just build the stadium near the water park because their big season is pretty much over once the NFL starts. You make both SA and Austin happy and name the team the Texas Pride, Revolution, or Outlaws or something like that. Austin and SA could support the hell out of an NFL team. They already help support the Cowboys and Texans. Jerrah and McNair may not like the idea but there is plenty of money to go around, and in the long run could make more money in the long run with a more healthy franchise in the league instead of JVille/Buffalo.

Second Honeymoon
04-20-2008, 04:38 PM
If the Jags moved the simplest thing would be that they swap divisions with the Rams.

If it was the Bills then that causes a few more headaches.

no doubt. plus the Rams have no veto power/leverage because they have already moved cities. The Chiefs and Bills retain that leverage/veto power so any move of those teams will be a tough pill to swallow for the NFL. I also think it would help continue to foster a rivalry between the sports cities of St.Louis and Houston. Indy-STL could become a nice rivalry too leaving us with our real division rival, the Bud Adams Titans.

GuerillaBlack
04-20-2008, 05:26 PM
About the SA/Austin thing, having it in New Braunfels, away from the freeway near Schlitterbahn is a bad idea. I would centralize it more, and have it between San Marcos and New Braunfels and close to I-35.

With the stadium, new hotels and developments will follow. You don't want it oo far away from both places. Having a regional name like "Texas Warriors" or something like that would be the best idea. Hell, I actually made a team on Madden called that, and the uniform colors were Red, Black, and Gray. Looked nice.

I have a question for those in Austin/SA. If a team were to move to your area, what would your support for the Texans do?

Kaiser Toro
04-20-2008, 06:31 PM
Austin/SA makes sense until you peel back the onion, a Texas onion:
- The University of Texas operates like a professional team for the area, can the economy support the Spurs, NFL and UT Football
- Where is the corporate money going to come from after SW Bell and Dell?
- Public transportation
- Funding for the Stadium
- How does the SA-Austin corridor share the Profits and Losses.

By the way I heard a rumor from two different places that Michael Dell was snooping in on the Dolphins a couple of months ago as a buyer. That stake has since been bought. Once again, it was a rumor.

GuerillaBlack
04-20-2008, 06:58 PM
I'll start by saying, SW Bell does not exist ;).

Austin/SA makes sense until you peel back the onion, a Texas onion:
- The University of Texas operates like a professional team for the area, can the economy support the Spurs, NFL and UT Football

Easily, considering how fast the place is growing. They are bound to be NFL fans moving into Austin-SA. Over the past year, both metro areas grew by about 110,000 (together). That is still tens of thousands shy of Houston and DFW, but that would put the Austin-SA region at fifth in the US for total growth over the past year.

- Where is the corporate money going to come from after SW Bell and Dell?

Outside of AT&T in San Antonio, you have companies like USAA, Tesero, Clear Channel, H-E-B, and Valero headquartered there. That is plenty of corporate sponshorship right there. In Austin, you have Dell (like you said), Whole Foods, Freescale, and the boatload of high-tech companies with big operations in Austin (IBM being the largest, others include Google, eBay, Intel, Cisco, Apple, and Samsung).

- Public transportation

There actually is a commuter rail plan in the works between Austin and San Antonio. Here is a map:

http://asarail.org/images/map-service-area.jpg

http://asarail.org/

I am sure a temporary station could be built for the stadium, wherever it is (just like they have for the Patriots in Foxboro, or Panthers in Charlotte).

- Funding for the Stadium

That will happen. It will be a regional kind of thing if the stadium was to be built between both cities.

- How does the SA-Austin corridor share the Profits and Losses.

It will probably be like the new stadium for the Cowboys. The City of Arlington is getting all of the benefits with the new developments/tax money coming in around the stadium. I think wherever the stadium for Austin/SA would be, that city or town would reap the most benefits. Not sure what Austin and SA would get outside of merchandise sales in their respective cities.

By the way I heard a rumor from two different places that Michael Dell was snooping in on the Dolphins a couple of months ago as a buyer. That stake has since been bought. Once again, it was a rumor.

I didn't hear about that rumor. He should try for Jacksonville next.

ObsiWan
04-20-2008, 09:31 PM
Move the Rams back to L.A. St. Louis people can have the Cards back ...or go back to cheering for the Chiefs like they used to.

and while we're at it...
Move the Colts back to Baltimore where they belong
Let the Ravens play in Indy if they just have to have a team.
Let the Chargers play some games in AZ so the new stadium won't go to waste.
:)

BSofA04
04-20-2008, 10:10 PM
Although this won't happen because SA would refuse to "share" an NFL franchise with Austin, the corporate pressence along with an avid football fanbase would make any team viable in San Antonio. As cute as it sounds to put a stadium between New Braunfels and San Marcos, that's nothing more than a pipe dream. Something in me see's a major issue with asking major corporations in SA to put money in a franchise that isn't exactly in the city.

Plus SA would throw a major fit for sharing a franchise in a city that is reffered to as "Nashville South" (awesome phrase coined by those Tack fans). Austinites and San Antonians arn't exactly two peas in a pod. But if a team were to move here to SA, it would have more than enough support despite the delusional Cowboy fanatics.

For what it's worth, getting a new stadium wouldn't be an issue.

GuerillaBlack
04-20-2008, 10:18 PM
And another thing, Austin and San Antonio may be relatively close to each other, but they are world's apart. You get completely different vibes in both cities. SA just feels more "NFL" than Austin, which feels more "college/university".

ObsiWan
04-21-2008, 12:11 AM
Next thing you know...you'll be saying you want Bud back too.

If that gave me the rights to claim the days of Earl and Bum....

As things stand right now, legal NFL history-wise, Earl, Bum, McNair, Moon, Dr. Doom, Eddie George, Munchak, Matthews, Luv Ya Blue, even Sid Gillman and George Webster, all belong to Nashville now.

...somehow, that still seems just wrong. Putting up with Bud (I mean, how much longer can he have?) would be a small price to pay to return those records back to Houston where they belong. Geez, how long can you folks hold a grudge?

Ryan
04-21-2008, 12:12 AM
I heard Bob McNair enjoys the weather in LA! ;)

WesmanTexanfan
04-21-2008, 12:19 AM
Dolphins

Hervoyel
04-21-2008, 12:38 AM
if florida can have 3 teams then california could easily have 4.


Who said Florida should truly rate 3 teams. Jacksonville to L.A. makes more sense then Jacksonville to Jacksonville in my book. How that town scored an NFL team remains a mystery to most fans around the league (as is Nashville. Only Bud Adams could be stupid enough to move an NFL team into Nashville Tennessee).

That they will eventually move somewhere else is a forgone conclusion to fans in 30 of the 31 other cities. Nashville probably thinks they'll have the Titans past the current lease so they're cool with Jacksonville keeping the Jags. It makes perfect sense to them.

Hervoyel
04-21-2008, 12:53 AM
Move the Rams back to L.A. St. Louis people can have the Cards back ...or go back to cheering for the Chiefs like they used to.

and while we're at it...
Move the Colts back to Baltimore where they belong
Let the Ravens play in Indy if they just have to have a team.
Let the Chargers play some games in AZ so the new stadium won't go to waste.
:)


Everybody is pretty much happy where they are so I'd be fine with simply swapping out some names and records. It's easy enough to do. No owners move, no teams move. Just names and such.

The Ravens become the Colts putting the Baltimore Colts back on the map. Instantly the league gets "more right" simply by doing that. The Ravens name/logo goes into the "pool" on hold.

The Colts in Indy get to pick a new name (like they should have been made to do when Irsay moved them) and if they wish they can pick one from the pool

Then the Rams in St. Louis become the Cardinals. The Rams name goes to the city of Los Angeles for use on a new franchise should they find themselves fortunate enough to catch a whiff of another team.

In Phoenix they get to pick a new name/logo as they should have done when the Cardinals moved there.

In Nashville the Oilers name goes back to the city of Houston where it should have stayed from the beginning. If Bob McNair wishes to do so he can change the Texans name to Oilers and proceed. Since he does not want to do that the name stays out of circulation but with Houston. Tennessee of course keeps Titans. Titans does not go back to New York because the New York "Titans" existed for a very short period of time. The "Hervoyel" system places great emphasis on history and if you ain't got any then you take what you're given and shut up. In this case it works out quite well.

In Buffalo the Bills do not get to play games in Toronto and will not be moving there following the death of their current owner. The "national" in "National Football League" stands for the United States of America and so there will be no regular season games played on foreign soil and no teams in Canada or Mexico. That idea gets put down permanently.

That pretty much fixes everything I think. If Jacksonville can't get it done without putting out tarps then it looks like L.A. gets a team and if they do then they can call it the Rams if they want. Jaguars stays in Jacksonville where it's likely to never be used again.

bigfan77801
04-21-2008, 01:23 AM
We have a winner.

The Pencil Neck
04-21-2008, 02:11 AM
Everybody is pretty much happy where they are so I'd be fine with simply swapping out some names and records. It's easy enough to do. No owners move, no teams move. Just names and such.

The Ravens become the Colts putting the Baltimore Colts back on the map. Instantly the league gets "more right" simply by doing that. The Ravens name/logo goes into the "pool" on hold.

The Colts in Indy get to pick a new name (like they should have been made to do when Irsay moved them) and if they wish they can pick one from the pool

Then the Rams in St. Louis become the Cardinals. The Rams name goes to the city of Los Angeles for use on a new franchise should they find themselves fortunate enough to catch a whiff of another team.

In Phoenix they get to pick a new name/logo as they should have done when the Cardinals moved there.

In Nashville the Oilers name goes back to the city of Houston where it should have stayed from the beginning. If Bob McNair wishes to do so he can change the Texans name to Oilers and proceed. Since he does not want to do that the name stays out of circulation but with Houston. Tennessee of course keeps Titans. Titans does not go back to New York because the New York "Titans" existed for a very short period of time. The "Hervoyel" system places great emphasis on history and if you ain't got any then you take what you're given and shut up. In this case it works out quite well.

In Buffalo the Bills do not get to play games in Toronto and will not be moving there following the death of their current owner. The "national" in "National Football League" stands for the United States of America and so there will be no regular season games played on foreign soil and no teams in Canada or Mexico. That idea gets put down permanently.

That pretty much fixes everything I think. If Jacksonville can't get it done without putting out tarps then it looks like L.A. gets a team and if they do then they can call it the Rams if they want. Jaguars stays in Jacksonville where it's likely to never be used again.

What about Texans? Does that go back to Dallas? I mean, they were in a couple of Championships and existed for... what... 3 years?... before they moved to KC.

kastofsna
04-21-2008, 02:25 AM
Dolphins
about as likely as the Packers leaving Green Bay.

Hervoyel
04-21-2008, 10:52 AM
What about Texans? Does that go back to Dallas? I mean, they were in a couple of Championships and existed for... what... 3 years?... before they moved to KC.

You would think that might be the case but "Dallas" has the Cowboys who have played there more years and in more championships than the Dallas Texans ever did and so they are entirely "Cowboys" and not at all "Texans" (we all knew this of course).

Kansas City of course has no claim to "Texans" even though the Chiefs were the original Texans. This is because the "Texans" never played in KC and even if they had (as with the "Tennessee Oilers") they would have been the Chiefs far longer. Similarly Houston now has a greater claim to "Texans" than Dallas because we've been the Texans for 6 years and they were the Texans for only 3 years.

Houston actually has a clear historical claim now to two names and in my system Bob would have to pick one and retire the other forever (apart from "throwback" events). In my scenario the Texans would have the right to use Oiler throwback stuff and Tennessee would not). I treat all carpetbagger teams as expansion franchises. Places like Indianapolis, Nashville, and Phoenix keep teams in my book but have no claim to any NFL history prior to their getting a carpetbagger team from a despicable piece of dung blackmailing owner.

Also, in the event that the Raiders were moved to fill the void in Los Angeles then "Raiders" would stay in Oakland (where it would probably never be used again) and the Raiders become the Rams. That was implied in my first post but not clarified completely. No Los Angelas Raiders ever again.

Texan_Bill
04-21-2008, 11:06 AM
You would think that might be the case but "Dallas" has the Cowboys who have played there more years and in more championships than the Dallas Texans ever did and so they are entirely "Cowboys" and not at all "Texans" (we all knew this of course).

Kansas City of course has no claim to "Texans" even though the Chiefs were the original Texans. This is because the "Texans" never played in KC and even if they had (as with the "Tennessee Oilers") they would have been the Chiefs far longer. Similarly Houston now has a greater claim to "Texans" than Dallas because we've been the Texans for 6 years and they were the Texans for only 3 years.

Houston actually has a clear historical claim now to two names and in my system Bob would have to pick one and retire the other forever (apart from "throwback" events). In my scenario the Texans would have the right to use Oiler throwback stuff and Tennessee would not). I treat all carpetbagger teams as expansion franchises. Places like Indianapolis, Nashville, and Phoenix keep teams in my book but have no claim to any NFL history prior to their getting a carpetbagger team from a despicable piece of dung blackmailing owner.

Also, in the event that the Raiders were moved to fill the void in Los Angeles then "Raiders" would stay in Oakland (where it would probably never be used again) and the Raiders become the Rams. That was implied in my first post but not clarified completely. No Los Angelas Raiders ever again.

Don't forget that Houston has used the name 'Texans' twice (Current and the old WFL)


http://www.angelfire.com/tn/pkholling03/wfl/wfl_logo_texans_1974.gif

ChildressTitanMan
04-21-2008, 11:24 AM
I honestly believe that hurricane Katrina stopped Benson from moving the Saints to LA.

Rumours that Benson was readying for a move were rife before the hurricane happened. As awful as Katrina was for everyone involved,The Saints became a rallying point for the city to get behind & regroup.

Benson wouldn't dare move after the disaster.

Tedc
04-21-2008, 11:42 AM
Don't forget that Houston has used the name 'Texans' twice (Current and the old WFL)


http://www.angelfire.com/tn/pkholling03/wfl/wfl_logo_texans_1974.gif

So did Dullass.

Texan_Bill
04-21-2008, 11:46 AM
So did Dullass.

I was responding to Hervs comments about the (Houston Texans - current) being around longer than the Dallas Texans (KC Chefs). I just simply added that we have actually used the name twice.

cuppacoffee
04-21-2008, 11:50 AM
Don't forget that Houston has used the name 'Texans' twice (Current and the old WFL)


http://www.angelfire.com/tn/pkholling03/wfl/wfl_logo_texans_1974.gif


Texans...Very original.:rolleyes:


Opening myself up to be tarred and feathered :gun:, but I think the Gamblers had a better name and logo than our current team.

Sharper unis also.

They had a better QB than our current team....:throwball:

But thats just one mans opinion.

:coffee:

gwallaia
04-21-2008, 11:51 AM
I honestly believe that hurricane Katrina stopped Benson from moving the Saints to LA.

Rumours that Benson was readying for a move were rife before the hurricane happened. As awful as Katrina was for everyone involved,The Saints became a rallying point for the city to get behind & regroup.

Benson wouldn't dare move after the disaster.

I have suspected the same thing.

Hervoyel
04-21-2008, 12:15 PM
I honestly believe that hurricane Katrina stopped Benson from moving the Saints to LA.

Rumours that Benson was readying for a move were rife before the hurricane happened. As awful as Katrina was for everyone involved,The Saints became a rallying point for the city to get behind & regroup.

Benson wouldn't dare move after the disaster.

Indeed and in Hervoyels world they would then become the Rams and "Saints" would be retired and become the property of the city of New Orleans. This would spare us the silliness of another variation of the "Utah Jazz". See, my system keeps regionally meaningful names from being dragged across the country and used in areas where they have no meaning.

Tennessee Oilers comes to mind. That should never have happened but then it's not like Bud would have had the foresight to have renamed the team at the point in time it moved even if he'd been so inclined.

I look forward to the NFL someday scheduling a game between the Maine 49er's and the Berkley Steelers. This is what will happen unless the league puts me in charge right away to head off this dark senseless future. I offer my services to them for the mere price of season tickets for life <watches phone and waits for it to ring>.

Texan_Bill
04-21-2008, 12:35 PM
Texans...Very original.:rolleyes:


Opening myself up to be tarred and feathered :gun:, but I think the Gamblers had a better name and logo than our current team.

Sharper unis also.

They had a better QB than our current team....:throwball:

But thats just one mans opinion.

:coffee:

While agree with the Gamblers having better unis than the WFL Houston Texans (Shreveport Steamers), your also talking early 70's v. mid 80's.

As far as QB's go, I think your statement is quite obvious considering the Gamblers QB is in Canton as a HOFer.

Texan_Bill
04-21-2008, 12:39 PM
Tennessee Oilers comes to mind. That should never have happened but then it's not like Bud would have had the foresight to have renamed the team at the point in time it moved even if he'd been so inclined.


But wait Herv... Didn't Jed Clampett find oil in Tennessee?!?

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews17/a%20BEVERLY%20HILLBILLIES%20dvd%20review/title%20BEVERLY%20HILLBILLIES%20dvd%20review.jpg

WesmanTexanfan
04-21-2008, 12:40 PM
They could have this team...

http://images.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2005/05/27/longest_yard/story.jpg

DBCooper
04-21-2008, 01:00 PM
Geez, how long can you folks hold a grudge?

Right now I'm at 12 years, 5 months, and 6 days.

I can keep this up a little longer.

Texan_Bill
04-21-2008, 01:35 PM
Right now I'm at 12 years, 5 months, and 6 days.

I can keep this up a little longer.

:thinking: Ummmm I'll take a stab at that, November 16th, 1995????

I can go longer as well.

Second Honeymoon
04-21-2008, 02:03 PM
I honestly believe that hurricane Katrina stopped Benson from moving the Saints to LA.

Rumours that Benson was readying for a move were rife before the hurricane happened. As awful as Katrina was for everyone involved,The Saints became a rallying point for the city to get behind & regroup.

Benson wouldn't dare move after the disaster.

screw new orleans. that city smells like a urinal, is a crime haven for scumbags and drug dealers, and post-Katrina NOLA doesnt deserve a NFL team. they need to have their citizens come back to their city and leave Houston. take their people back and help stop the crime wave

however, it does deserve a team more than JVille......which aint saying much.

Dallas_Texan
04-21-2008, 03:23 PM
Bills

I have absolutely no credibility, but I would guess the Bills too. I was just in Buffalo, and I have to say it was a truely bleak city. I apologize if I'm insulting anyone, I don't intend to, but the city seemed to be complete economic peril. Imagine and entire city that looks like Fifth Ward. Every other house was vacant, entire industrial compounds empty except for one little store. It was like that all over the city. As I said though...I have no credibility pertaining to this, I just remember all of us on the trip saying "How can they possibly support and NFL team here?". Maybe the answer is they can't.

Second Honeymoon
04-21-2008, 03:33 PM
I have absolutely no credibility, but I would guess the Bills too. I was just in Buffalo, and I have to say it was a truely bleak city. I apologize if I'm insulting anyone, I don't intend to, but the city seemed to be complete economic peril. Imagine and entire city that looks like Fifth Ward. Every other house was vacant, entire industrial compounds empty except for one little store. It was like that all over the city. As I said though...I have no credibility pertaining to this, I just remember all of us on the trip saying "How can they possibly support and NFL team here?". Maybe the answer is they can't.

oh yeah, look at what McGahee said about the city. its obviously not an attractive place to play or live for most young athletes so I think the move to Toronto would be a very positive move and still allow Buffalo fans a relatively convenient way to watch their Bills. Having a team isn't a birthright its a privilige.

Bring a team to Austin/San Antonio area....put em in the AFC South

Texan_Bill
04-21-2008, 03:35 PM
oh yeah, look at what McGahee said about the city. its obviously not an attractive place to play or live for most young athletes so I think the move to Toronto would be a very positive move and still allow Buffalo fans a relatively convenient way to watch their Bills. Having a team isn't a birthright its a privilige.

Bring a team to Austin/San Antonio area....put em in the AFC South

Those young players won't be too attracted to those taxes in Toronto... :thisbig:

Hervoyel
04-21-2008, 03:50 PM
oh yeah, look at what McGahee said about the city. its obviously not an attractive place to play or live for most young athletes so I think the move to Toronto would be a very positive move and still allow Buffalo fans a relatively convenient way to watch their Bills. Having a team isn't a birthright its a privilege.

Bring a team to Austin/San Antonio area....put em in the AFC South


Must truly suck to live in a place where the economy is in decline and no matter how much you support your team they're gone as soon as they can. I don't think the fans who support the Bills think they've been given some kind of birthright. I think they probably do the best they can and I will never look at some fans losing their team and tell them that it's a positive move that they have to drive to the next town over to see their team.

It's not a "privilege" to have a team. It's just a monetary decision the team makes. They don't care about you or your community or how much you care about them anymore than any other business. They're just in the business of creating the illusion that they do. You can love them unconditionally for your entire life and they'll break your heart for a dollar. That's what's going to happen to Buffalo fans. It's pretty lousy if you ask me.

TexanSam
04-21-2008, 03:53 PM
If the Bills move, I think it's going to be Toronto. At least, that's what I remember reading online and hearing on the radio. The Bills also have a home-game in Toronto this year.

How did Buffalo get an NFL team to begin with?

gwallaia
04-21-2008, 04:06 PM
They don't care about you or your community or how much you care about them anymore than any other business.

But NFL players go to schools and teach children to read by reading children's books to them. They also go out with the camera crews and help nail up a few boards on Habitat for Humanity houses. The NFL cares.

texanhead08
04-21-2008, 04:27 PM
I can hold a grudge against Bud Adams till they pour dirt on me. The crap he pulled was the weakest move in the history of pr sports next to the colts moving in the middle of the night. It amazes me that there are losers in this town that cheer for that team. That shows just how stupid people can be.

GuerillaBlack
04-21-2008, 04:33 PM
If the Bills move, I think it's going to be Toronto. At least, that's what I remember reading online and hearing on the radio. The Bills also have a home-game in Toronto this year.

How did Buffalo get an NFL team to begin with?
Buffalo was actually a somewhat growing city when they got the Bills. It has been on the decline for the past thirty years now though (like Pittsburgh). Imagine Houston losing about 2,000 people or more a year for thirty years.

Over the past 30 years, Buffalo has lost over 200,000 people. Pittsburgh, another example, has lost nearly 500,000. Houston has gained one million people since 2000 (talking metro areas here).

Double Barrel
04-21-2008, 04:47 PM
Geez, how long can you folks hold a grudge?

1) Until my last dying breath

or

2) I poop on Bud's grave

:howdy: seriously

It's not a "privilege" to have a team. It's just a monetary decision the team makes. They don't care about you or your community or how much you care about them anymore than any other business. They're just in the business of creating the illusion that they do. You can love them unconditionally for your entire life and they'll break your heart for a dollar.

QFT.

Fanatic passion for the team means absolutely nothing but $$$ to these owners, including Bob McNair.

cuppacoffee
04-22-2008, 11:03 AM
Buffalo was actually a somewhat growing city when they got the Bills. It has been on the decline for the past thirty years now though (like Pittsburgh). Imagine Houston losing about 2,000 people or more a year for thirty years.

Over the past 30 years, Buffalo has lost over 200,000 people. Pittsburgh, another example, has lost nearly 500,000. Houston has gained one million people since 2000 (talking metro areas here).


OK by me if I can pick the 2,000....:D


Previously residents of NaOrlens



:coffee:

Texan_Bill
04-22-2008, 11:21 AM
Imagine Houston losing about 2,000 people or more a year for thirty years.



*sigh* Traffic would still suck...

Tedc
04-23-2008, 06:51 AM
I was responding to Hervs comments about the (Houston Texans - current) being around longer than the Dallas Texans (KC Chefs). I just simply added that we have actually used the name twice.


Understood.

Just don't let the people is Dullass tell you that the Dallas Texans don't count because they were an AFL and not and not an NFL team. In 1952 Dallas had an NFL team (Dallas Texans) and they are forever going to be remembered as the last NFL team to go "belly up"!

http://www.profootballhof.com/history/decades/1950s/dallas_texans.jsp

aj.
04-23-2008, 08:10 AM
When someone mentions the '52 Dallas Texans to me, I recall the origins of the Baltimore Colts with guys like Art Donovan and Gino Marchetti.

Not that any of us were around back then - or that many even cared about the NFL in those days - but it is a meaningful part of the history, more in terms of what the Colts and the league would become later that decade than the fact that the Dallas venture failed.

As popular as the Southwest Conference was in Texas back in those days, I'm not suprised people didn't give this 'NFL thing' a second look.

WWJD
04-23-2008, 08:50 AM
Understood.

Just don't let the people is Dullass tell you that the Dallas Texans don't count because they were an AFL and not and not an NFL team. In 1952 Dallas had an NFL team (Dallas Texans) and they are forever going to be remembered as the last NFL team to go "belly up"!

http://www.profootballhof.com/history/decades/1950s/dallas_texans.jsp

Lived in Dallas for decades and in all that time I NEVER ever heard one person mention anything about the Dallas Texans. They don't care.

adam
04-23-2008, 09:52 AM
I have a question for those in Austin/SA. If a team were to move to your area, what would your support for the Texans do?

I was born and raised in Houston. My loyalties would remain the same. In fact, I would prefer not to have a team in the Austin area. I would then be paying money out of my pocket to finance competition for my team. No thanks.

GuerillaBlack
04-23-2008, 04:42 PM
OK by me if I can pick the 2,000....:D


Previously residents of NaOrlens



:coffee:

Those New Orleans residents have almost all gone back. A lot of the middle-class ones have stayed, and the poorer ones have blended in with the Houston population.

Wolf
04-24-2008, 04:05 PM
He welcomes the plan by developer Edward P. Roski Jr. to build a 75,000-seat stadium in Los Angeles to help lure back the NFL, which hasnít had a team there since 1994. He noted, however, the league has no plans to expand and no current franchise seems in enough trouble to seek relocation.


http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Agqy2xV.q6PmvlH6M0w1bEcyNbgF?slug=ap-goodell-spygate&prov=ap&type=lgns

Showtime100
04-24-2008, 04:32 PM
I have a question for those in Austin/SA. If a team were to move to your area, what would your support for the Texans do?

I think my 25 years in Austin qualifies me to answer this. I'm like Adam, I'm a Houston Texan, period. I grew up in Houston, still think of myself as a Houstonian, not a "Houstonite" like Austin still thinks we're called. I will always pull for Houston teams, even ones in the sports I don't care for. 90% of the dreams I have are centered in Houston.

The only fun part would be to wear my Texan warmups, shirts...etc after Houston whips 'em. I don't post this for the rah-rah effect in fact I feel ca little corny typing this, it's just a question custom made for me to express how I feel about my hometown. :thisbig: