NFL To LA Positive Progress

NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:42 pm

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d ... nfirm=true

Go figure the new stadium's construction will be funded completely privately though of course even any privately-funded venue requires public support and public operating investment.

Apparently a full eight NFL teams are on the radar to make this move.

It will be interesting to see what will be reported on the matter on www.fieldofschemes.com later.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:32 pm

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010 ... san-diego/

Great article that discusses comments from Roger Goodell and some of the truth behind the NFL and its heavy capability to obtain public financing consistently in the country that also references the current situations in LA, San Diego, and San Francisco.

Basically the NFL gets public money down here similarly to the degree the NHL and all of junior hockey do up there from what I have read on this forum on other threads.

Also see www.fieldofschemes.com for some more details and updates.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Massdestruction » Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:15 pm

Darn I was hoping the Argonauts would move there


L.Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrgo--------s
All-Star
 
Posts: 4281
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:32 pm

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:29 am

Massdestruction wrote:Darn I was hoping the Argonauts would move there


L.Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrgo--------s


But then the CFL would have fewer teams and they'd have to be replaced ...as much as I sympathise with your wish otherwise.

We need CFL expansion not consolidation you know!
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Massdestruction » Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:32 am

they would remain in the CFL. Get IT L.Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgo-----s
All-Star
 
Posts: 4281
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:32 pm

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:06 pm

Massdestruction wrote:they would remain in the CFL. Get IT L.Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgo-----s


Yes of course but then on their way out or back to Canada I mean ...won't work in LA no question in my mind...sorry not to be specific my bad. :oops:
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by GernB » Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:26 pm

Paolo X wrote:http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/27/goodell-improves-odds-for-san-diego/

Basically the NFL gets public money down here similarly to the degree the NHL and all of junior hockey do up there from what I have read on this forum on other threads.

Also see http://www.fieldofschemes.com for some more details and updates.


Actually Canada invests relatively little money in NHL arenas. Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver were all financed privately. Calgary's Saddledome was built with municipal, provincial and federal $$ for the 1988 winter Olympics (but opened in 1982) and Edmonton's Rexall Place was built by that city in 1974. Both were renovated in the early 1990s, financed by a federal infrastructure program.
Veteran
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:05 am
Location: Lethbridge AB

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:30 pm

GernB wrote:
Paolo X wrote:http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/27/goodell-improves-odds-for-san-diego/

Basically the NFL gets public money down here similarly to the degree the NHL and all of junior hockey do up there from what I have read on this forum on other threads.

Also see http://www.fieldofschemes.com for some more details and updates.


Actually Canada invests relatively little money in NHL arenas. Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver were all financed privately. Calgary's Saddledome was built with municipal, provincial and federal $$ for the 1988 winter Olympics (but opened in 1982) and Edmonton's Rexall Place was built by that city in 1974. Both were renovated in the early 1990s, financed by a federal infrastructure program.


Great point thanks though do all those other NHL teams also pay for ALL OPERATING costs out of private funds as in for all law enforcement and emergency employee time and so forth too?

I have seen more often than not than even in that regard such and other operational items are PUBLICLY subsidised as well and usually more than was budgeted before construction too.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:32 pm

http://gridironfans.com/forums/latest-n ... t-get.html

Decades ago the Lakers, but in 2012 the Vikings to LA?
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:06 am

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_16419165

Genuinely good article to update this looming expansion or transfer of a team.

I think it would be easy for the NFL to just add two franchises to increase the TOTAL number of games with the same number at 16/season all the same instead of lengthening the season by two games for the existing number of teams.

The NFL and its owners are just trying to be cheap at the collective expense of the players financially (less $/game in the end) and in terms of their health during and after pro football by promoting this business of lengthening the season to 18 games.

If anything leave things they way they are, add two teams, and shorten that stupid pre-season to perhaps three games.

The owners will still be rolling it in big time -- they are just immensely greedy but to be fair so are some of the players especially all those unproven rookie high draft picks.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Earl » Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:22 pm

I've heard season ticket sales in the NFL are, for the third year in a row, lower than the previous year so I'm thinking they won't add new teams too soon perhaps.
Anywhere is the centre of the world - Black Elk
User avatar
Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 29110
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:55 am

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:14 am

Earl wrote:I've heard season ticket sales in the NFL are, for the third year in a row, lower than the previous year so I'm thinking they won't add new teams too soon perhaps.


Normally that would make sense, but here we are dealing with the establishment NFL notwithstanding the likely lockout next season Earl. They are rich and can afford to dream for the sake of expansion.

Goodell has talked openly repeatedly, whether wish list or just plain media propaganda, about ADDING teams in LA and in London England. We can laugh on the latter one perhaps, but the view of the common fan will have no bearing on any such decisions to be made for sake of those places.

In my opinion the real question is not IF teams will be playing in either place sometime 2015 or later, but rather will the NFL keep it's tidy 32-team structure and merely have two teams move from their markets or expand to 34.

Though there has been plenty of talk and reason for the Vikings, Bills, and Jaguars to move, but the NFL overall is reluctant and might end up subsidising also those teams on at least a short-term basis due to "regional" strategy.

The only team with no real strong cause in my opinion is Jacksonville, but they might be saved on the basis that merely the league will not have an odd-numbered total number of teams. Or perhaps if London does not work out despite all those wishes from New York (do they realise they will be competing in great part with also the global and wealthy English Premiere League?!), indeed this would be the easiest team to just shift to LA.

Goodell has commented that without a team in MN, there is a huge tract of land that remains without NFL access with the next nearest markets Kansas City and Green Bay.

Also with regard to Buffalo, the fact that also many Canadian fans attend those games with Canada a growth market too is of strategic importance as well. The folks attending those games without the Bills there would be left with Pittsburgh as the nearest market, and that's not going to happen one way or the other IMHO.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by rpaege » Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:23 pm

Earl wrote:I've heard season ticket sales in the NFL are, for the third year in a row, lower than the previous year so I'm thinking they won't add new teams too soon perhaps.



For four of the last seven home games the Raiders have drawn less than 40,000. This most recent game in which they blew out Seattle 33-3 they drew only ~35,800.

If this keeps up there will be a team in L.A. before long, and it'll be the Raiders (again).
ImageImage
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 4813
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: United States

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by Paolo X » Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:11 am

rpaege wrote:
Earl wrote:I've heard season ticket sales in the NFL are, for the third year in a row, lower than the previous year so I'm thinking they won't add new teams too soon perhaps.



For four of the last seven home games the Raiders have drawn less than 40,000. This most recent game in which they blew out Seattle 33-3 they drew only ~35,800.

If this keeps up there will be a team in L.A. before long, and it'll be the Raiders (again).


So Rpaege what's the local word from Al? He is of course the Raiders down to we've heard much of the play-calling as he still thinks Cliff Branch is on the field. :roll:
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: NFL To LA Positive Progress

by rpaege » Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:37 pm

That's the word. Though he clearly likes Tom Cable, and apparently the players do too. The word these days on the Raiders is all fun, but business when it's called for.

Al will always be Al. If a player or coach can't take his meddling they best move on. I doubt that 4th and 1 pass gamble to the FB thirty yards up field was Al's idea. Even if it was, all the bad calls cancel out one good one :x

If the Raiders beat the Chiefs this week I think you'll see a lot of people who had given up them jump back on bandwagon, including ME.
ImageImage
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 4813
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: United States

Next

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests