NFL To LA Positive Progress

[url=] ... nfirm=true[/url]

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 later.

[url=] ... san-diego/[/url]

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 for some more details and updates.

Darn I was hoping the Argonauts would move there


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!

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:

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.

[url=] ... t-get.html[/url]

Decades ago the Lakers, but in 2012 the Vikings to LA?

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.

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.

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:

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.

Rpaege I don't blame you in this instance for being a fair weather fan of the Raiders, as awful as they have been for years, as I would be hard on the case of such fans of other teams. :lol:

You've all gone through more than enough pain out there, but hey so much of it goes right up to Al Davis who used to be a hero of sorts to me for the rebel he is but recently just plain is acting like's he senile.

But why change quarterbacks out there now after these last two games? Will this be another great Raiders move to sink again their own smooth sailing ship?

For the benefit of newcomers to this thread and those unfamiliar with the legacy of the Silver and Black, you don't know the passion they have out there until you have seen some of their fans and heard the best football song of all, "The Autumn Wind," as narrated by the legendary John Facenda in this classic clip.

Make sure there's no glass around you or valuable furniture, as after hearing this you might be tempted to do some serious pillage as well! :lol: :rockin:
[url=] ... bring.html[/url]

Consider just how lucrative this deal is in any economic times let alone in this lingering Great Recession!

Now it's anyone's guess which team will budge to go to LA by the 2015 season. I don't think NFL expansion is in the cards despite all the talk.

Also I have to wonder if like in the 1980s if two teams can be supported down there again too considering the other competing proposal. To the victor of the two LA proposals will go some serious spoils.

One thing for sure, for the money the NFL has it has to be considered a weakness of the league not to have a team in LA or be able to play a Super Bowl in the prestigious state of California in a state of the art facility and both the Chargers Stadium and Rose Bowl are not that from my understanding, compared with the newer stadiums around the league. That is just weird to me considering how much money the league has but then I guess it’s more individual owners rather than the league itself that has the money, I don’t know.

Here are a two articles in the last few days with great feedback on the subjects of "San Diego Chargers Forever" or "LA Chargers 201?"

The discussion is also relevant to some degree to other areas in North America courting teams for a move via various state, provincial, and/or municipal incentives.

The first story from San Diego points out why, after reports surfaced for some reason in Toronto, the situation is unlikely to happen any time soon within the State of California. I point out in addition that the State itself has vested interest to pull another team from another market rather than to facilitate a move within the state, and I expect all sorts of hi-jinks in state government out there in the event such an attempt to proceed is carried further forward.

By great contrast the second tale via LA offers reasons why a move is more likely to happen by 2012.

I would not doubt both writers have some sort of skin in this massive game with the respective interests as well beyond being homers too. ... time-soon/ [url=,0,7255799.column] ... 799.column[/url]

Here's an economists perspective on why it might never happen.

[url=] ... le1870265/[/url]

The last line of the article is brand new information to me and completely surprising.