The Gipper Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 Could the Oakland Raiders say Sayonara to the Bay area, and California altogether? See this article: http://www.sfgate.com/raiders/article/San-Antonio-officials-say-meeting-with-Raiders-5884613.php But other articles suggest it would never happen: http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/11/10/report-oakland-raiders-not-moving-to-san-antonio/ But, the point is, the Raiders are looking at SA. And for some to suggest that it could never happen may mean that those people may be ostriches. The Raiders left Oakland once....and without a stadium they could do it again. While LA may be a more likely location, Mark Davis is the son of Al Davis....which means unpredictabilty. Just tell the people in Baltimore who said the Colts would never move, or those in Houston who said the Oilers would never move, or those in LA who said the Rams would never move, or St. Louis who said the Cardinals would never move. And of course we here in Cleveland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted November 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 And on another relocation front: It could be possible that the Rams could move back to Los Angeles. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/20/rams-are-regarded-as-the-favorites-to-move-to-l-a/ It seems to me that the NFL is just repeating the same fucked up pattern that they employed about 20 years ago: threatening team movement to get better stadium deals. They want the taxpayers to carry all the financial burden for giving them a place to do business. I wish that the taxpayers would give me free office space for my business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted November 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 As I noted, it seems that the itch to move an NFL team comes about every 15-20 years. Here is the history of franchise movements as it affects most current teams. I am ignoring the fate of defunct teams, and some shenanigans that went on during WWII with the Steelers: 1997 Houston Oilers remove to Tennessee to eventually become Titans 1995 Raiders move back to Oakland from LA 1995 LA Rams remove to St. Louis 1988 St. Louis Cardinals remove to Phoenix/Ariz. 1984 Baltimore Colts remove to Indianapolis 1982 Oakland Raiders remove to Los Angeles 1963 Dallas Texans remove to Kansas City to become Chiefs 1961 LA Chargers remove to San Diego 1960 Chicago Cardinals remove to St. Louis 1946 Cleveland Rams remove to Los Angeles 1937 Boston Redskins remove to Washington DC 1934 Portsmouth Spartans remove to Detroit to become Lions 1921 Decatur Staleys remove to Chicago to become the Bears. So? Why does it seem that the same franchises want to move around? We are talking about Raiders, Rams moving. They have each moved twice already. Chargers too. These teams all left LA....and now they are talking about going back? Why not just expand (big money for current owners)? Bring back the LA Dons (who, fyi, actually merged with the Rams in 1950) Oh, and note: the Cleveland Browns franchise did not move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 Fuck em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark O Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 The Rams and Chargers or Rams and Raiders will be playing in LA within the next few years. I'm thinking Rams and Chargers are most likely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 The Rams and Chargers or Rams and Raiders will be playing in LA within the next few years. I'm thinking Rams and Chargers are most likely Regarding the Rams- the St Louis Metro area is certainly big enough to support an NFL franchise- but lose the Cardinals, and then the Rams? I agree the stadium isn't "state of the Art" but is that all that matters anymore? If stadium inadequacy is the only criteria the Rolling Stone Raiders are at the top of the list for moving to greener pastures. If it's lack of fan support, the Jags should have been moved out years ago. Seems they have a Browns style poison pill lease agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Italian DawgPound Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Relocating franchises is a crime. I understand the business logic in it, but it's criminal versus the fans and the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob806 Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Regarding the Rams- the St Louis Metro area is certainly big enough to support an NFL franchise- but lose the Cardinals, and then the Rams? I agree the stadium isn't "state of the Art" but is that all that matters anymore? If stadium inadequacy is the only criteria the Rolling Stone Raiders are at the top of the list for moving to greener pastures. If it's lack of fan support, the Jags should have been moved out years ago. Seems they have a Browns style poison pill lease agreement. My wife & I went on a camping journey in October, and one of our stops we were about 70 miles from St. Louis in the Ozarks. I spoke with quite a few people who were there about the proposed move of the Rams, and they said most fans around there aren't attached to the Rams at all- it's primarily a baseball town. They wouldn't want them to leave, but doubt there would be a huge outcry like there was here. I did attend the Browns-Rams game in St. Louis with my son in 2007, and that dome was very quiet. They had the Browns down 14-0, and very few were rabid in the stands. The Edward Jones Dome is more like a large movie theater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted November 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Rams in LA. Raiders in SA (Bay area would do fine with just the Niners there) St. Louis would be the town that gets fucked again. Perhaps the better bet would be to expand to LA and SA and not move teams? Put the LA Dons in the NFCW and the San Antonio Stirrups (Saddles? Stallions? Scorpions? Matadors? Steers? Gunslingers? Bulls? Silver Stars? etc. whatever in the AFC South with the DATs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 SA is a great city, but would hate to see OAK lose the Raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterWhite Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 SA is a great city, but would hate to see OAK lose the Raiders. I agree, Oakland Raiders and that fan base of ex cons is classic to me. Just move the Rams to LA, and supposedly they are supposed to look at Inglewood? Fuck, that neighborhood isn't the nicest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manzier Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 I agree, Oakland Raiders and that fan base of ex cons is classic to me. They are an iconic team and belong in Cal. Texas is not the right place for the Raiders to land. To me, that would just be weird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.