League still wants team in Los Angeles BUT does L.A. want a team?!

[5mics]

LINK

League still wants team in Los Angeles despite gloomy Pasadena outlook
With the Rose Bowl out of the picture following action taken by the Pasadena City Council, it appears that the NFL’s possibilities for a Los Angeles-based team via expansion or relocation are down to two options: the Coliseum and Anaheim. Pasadena was not willing to continue courting the league because of dwindling support in the council, but the NFL appears undaunted, if not discouraged, by the possibility of landing a team in its biggest unfilled market.

PFW: Does this change the possibility of a team coming to Los Angeles in the next five years?

Edholm: The Pasadena situation appeared to be the best for the NFL from the outset, so it’s a blow to Neil Glat, NFL vice president for strategic planning, who is one of the men at the forefront of the league’s L.A. investigation. There has been speculation that Pasadena, which had appeared more than willing to speak to league officials about getting a deal done with a refurbished Rose Bowl, had grown increasingly leery of the league officials’ way of operating and their negotiating tactics.

The 2009 target date still exists as a realistic aim for the NFL despite the setback. Anaheim now apparently moves to the forefront of the discussions, and the talk has centered around the city building a stadium in the parking lot of Angels Stadium, home of the Los Angeles Angels baseball franchise. But don’t count out the Coliseum, which could have big-site allure and more support from L.A.’s downtown residents.

The L.A. discussions, while still ongoing, appear to be in temporary stasis, according to commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who recently indicated at the owners' meetings that the league had to deal with pressing economic issues such as extending the Collective Bargaining Agreement, settling the stadium-loan program and finding common ground between small- and large-market owners on revenue sharing — a hot-button issue right now.


*C'mon Tags, give up the fight already. L.A. doesn't want to spend the $$$ for a team like Houston did for the Texans and Arlington is doing for the Cowboys. Put ALL your resources into making sure there is NO work stoppage in 2007!!!

[JakeCamp12]

::yawn:: just what we need, more teams and more watered down football....

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by JakeCamp12

::yawn:: just what we need, more teams and more watered down football....

I don't think they will add a new team, just move an existing team. I think Saints or Vike could be likely candidates

[THUMPER]

No L.A. does NOT want a team. Not unless a team is willing to come in and build a stadium of their own without taxpayer money.

What is likely to happen is that the NFL will end up footing most of the bill for a new stadium if they want a team in L.A.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by THUMPER

No L.A. does NOT want a team. Not unless a team is willing to come in and build a stadium of their own without taxpayer money.

What is likely to happen is that the NFL will end up footing most of the bill for a new stadium if they want a team in L.A.

Your right about that. Also it is hard to feel sorry for a community who lost not 1 football team but 2 of them

[burmafrd]

The Rams left because attendence was dwindling (thought the team was not that bad). Raiders left for same reason (or AL Davis had a dream). BOttom line is there is not that much interest in Pro Football in LA- never really has been. And if UCLA ever builds itself up again to be a serious rival of USC, there will be even less interest.
Who ever goes there will have to be satisfied with being #4 at best behind the Lakers, Dodgers, and USC.

[ravidubey]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

The Rams left because attendence was dwindling (thought the team was not that bad). Raiders left for same reason (or AL Davis had a dream). BOttom line is there is not that much interest in Pro Football in LA- never really has been. And if UCLA ever builds itself up again to be a serious rival of USC, there will be even less interest.
Who ever goes there will have to be satisfied with being #4 at best behind the Lakers, Dodgers, and USC.

Hard to imagine this is true given the population base in LA and popularity of the NFL in general. I think LA dwellers have a hard time with the government footing any kind of bill for anything besides roads and public transporation.

Put the right stadium and team in the right place and the place will sell out. Who wants to go to a worn down Coliseum in the middle of thug-town? LA has money and a strong corporate presence; the NFL just has to stop approaching it half-arsed.

[THUMPER]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

The Rams left because attendence was dwindling (thought the team was not that bad). Raiders left for same reason (or AL Davis had a dream). BOttom line is there is not that much interest in Pro Football in LA- never really has been. And if UCLA ever builds itself up again to be a serious rival of USC, there will be even less interest.
Who ever goes there will have to be satisfied with being #4 at best behind the Lakers, Dodgers, and USC.

The Rams regularly sold out the Coliseum for years but when they moved to Anaheim attendance dropped. They had a huge fanbase there but it was all about the money for Georgia Frontierre. She wanted L.A. to foot the bill to upgrade the Coliseum with luxury suites so she could rake in the kind of money Dallas and other teams were making from their newer stadiums. L.A. wouldn't do it so she moved the team to Anaheim and then to St. Louis when they offered to build the Rams a brand new stadium.

The Raiders never had a huge fanbase except with the gangs. They also suffered because they couldn't sell out the Coliseum. A game is considered a sell-out when a certain percentage of the seats are sold for a game. Since the Coliseum holds over 90,000 for a football game they had to sell a lot more tickets than the Cowboys (and most other teams) did to hit tthe same percentage to sell out their stadiums which have a capacity of 65,000-75,000.

Al Davis got the city to refurbish the Coliseum but it still wasn't enough and didn't address the issue of sell-outs. Also, the Coliseum is in a pretty bad part of town and a lot of fans wouldn't go there when they could just as easily watch it on TV instead. When they couldn't sell out the games, and they were blacked out locally, they lost even more fans.

I believe the fans in L.A. would support a team but not a crappy relocation like the Saints or Cards, they would want a good team, like the Colts or Vikings or an expansion team. Which ever way it goes they are NOT going to put out the money to build a new stadium for any team and they are not likely to go to the games if they build the stadium in a lousy part of town or behind the "Orange Curtain".

Pasadena or Carson (where I lived for a while) would be OK but not the Coliseum site or out in the boondocks like Riverside or Ontario. Their best bet would have been the Hollywood Park/Forum site in Inglewood which was available a few years ago but I don't believe it is an option anymore.

Personally, I would love to see the Colts sold to new owners, move to L.A., and build a new stadium but that's just my dream. I've always liked the Colts (was a HUGE Johnny Unitas fan growing up) and feel they would fit very well in L.A. as long as Irsay is not the owner.

[5mics]

Originally Posted by THUMPER

Personally, I would love to see the Colts sold to new owners, move to L.A., and build a new stadium but that's just my dream. I've always liked the Colts (was a HUGE Johnny Unitas fan growing up) and feel they would fit very well in L.A. as long as Irsay is not the owner.

The Los Angeles Colts?! Personally, I would like to see the Saints there. The Los Angeles Saints has a nice ring to it, huh?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

The only team that could sell out in Los Angeles is the Cowboys. Whenever the Boys played there, it seemed like 3/4 of the fans were for us.