Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

When La gets a team should that team leave it's colors/records with old city?


Rdskns2000

Recommended Posts

I think LA will get a relocated team, maybe even 2, within the next 2-4 years.

The relocating possibilities:

Vikings, Chargers, Raiders, 49ers, Jaguars, Bills-after Ralph Wilson dies.

Either teams with stadium issues or teams that could be for sale soon, the latter 2,

Should the relocated team leave the old name, records, colors behind and start anew? Or just bring the relocate name and records with them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine that if its not an expansion, but in fact a relocation, then it will be for financial reasons. For example, the Jaguars. Its just an area that really can't support an NFL team.

In that case, I think you leave the colors and name behind, but can take the records. Because its the same team, just moved to a new city. Might even have the same owner.

The only reason I think the colors/name should stay is because I think when you move, you need to create a new identity, even if you do keep the records, etc. of the "old" team. Like the Oilers becoming the Titans in Tennessee.

I also think that not only should the colors/name be left behind....they should also be permanently "locked". For instance, the Houston Texans should never have been able to call themselves the Oilers, even though it was a city that used to have the team.

But, it really depends. Some teams have a history in LA, and it might be appropriate to keep the name/colors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer:

I think in case of the Raiders and 49ers there's too much history to vacate those names. LA has had the Raiders before ahd I could see them embrace the 49ers. Also, old 49er fans can still drive down to see their team.

Since the Chargers started out in LA, no need to change name.

I do think if the Vikings move, then more so for the Vikings fans; they should have their records/colors stay in Minnesota and the history books. LA would get the physical team but start with a new name and fresh record.

Same for the Bills as the Vikings. The team will be sold once Wilson dies and no gaurantee team is sold to someone who keeps the team in Buffalo. If that happens, the team records/colors deserve to stay in Buffalo and be retired. LA gets physical team and new name and starts new.

Jaguars should do what the Oilers did. Allow the new city to create a new name but keep the records. Sorry Jags Fans, but this team has had problems selling out from almost the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the NFL will let a colts debacle happen again.

They already set precedent with the Browns becoming the Ravens.

That was a special case. As for the Colts moving, it was only remarkable because they snuck out in the middle of the night. If any team was crying for relocation it was the Colts. They were averaging about 25K in attendance and had been for a while. The only NFL team that was really jobbed by relocation was the Browns. They supported the team but the mayor of Cleveland decided to stick it to Modell after giving sweetheart deals to the Indians and Cavs.

In any other case the records move with the team and rightly so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a team by team thing. I say no to the Raiders (for obvious reasons), no to the Chargers (hey it's all Southern California) and no to the Jags (a. football has never mattered there. not really. b. Jacksonville will never, ever get another team so it's not like the records would do them any good.)

I also think it would be an absolute travesty if the Vikings, 49ers or Bills ever leave their current cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a team by team thing. I say no to the Raiders (for obvious reasons), no to the Chargers (hey it's all Southern California) and no to the Jags (a. football has never mattered there. not really. b. Jacksonville will never, ever get another team so it's not like the records would do them any good.)

I also think it would be an absolute travesty if the Vikings, 49ers or Bills ever leave their current cities.

Jacksonville should've never been given a team. If Minny does give them a new stadium, then bye, bye Vikings and their lease is up in 2011. Heck, I think I read somewhere that the stadium may not be ready for the 2011 season. San Fran still doesn't have a new stadium lined up yet, though with Jim Haraugh as coach; maybe things turn around. Buffalo could end up in Toronto if local buyers aren't found after Wilson dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope L.A. doesn't get a team. The NFL is fine without them. If the NFL thought L.A. was so important why didn't they award the Texans expansion to L.A.? However if ANY team had to go to L.A. I think the Chargers should go. Easiest transition for the league.

This. San Diego is good enough for the likes of them.

If they do get a team, though, it'll probably be Jacksonville. At the same time, I do believe the colors and records should stay there. I say that only because I have to wonder what I would think proper if (and by that, I mean hypothetically because it will never happen) the Redskins left town. I'd fully expect the city of Washington to fight like hell to keep the name, colors, records, and everything else that has anything to do with the Redskins, in D.C. I'm sure Jags fan, where ever they are, would want the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a special case. As for the Colts moving, it was only remarkable because they snuck out in the middle of the night. If any team was crying for relocation it was the Colts. They were averaging about 25K in attendance and had been for a while. The only NFL team that was really jobbed by relocation was the Browns. They supported the team but the mayor of Cleveland decided to stick it to Modell after giving sweetheart deals to the Indians and Cavs.

In any other case the records move with the team and rightly so.

I only agree that the colts move at the time was unremarkable only because of the litigation and the midnight deal to split town. Key words "at the time". Now, you better believe that the NFL wishes that Johnny Unitas Raymond Berry Art Donovan John Mackey Jim Parker and all the other Baltimore greats were still connected to the city of Baltimore. It's a disgrace when you go to the Hall of Fame and see their stuff with Indianapolis. The NFL knows this, and probably will never let it happen again. If they are smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i cannot believe that the league is even considering this. it has been tried twice (or more?) before, and failed each time.

give a team to a city that has never had one. oh, and don't make it some unrealistically huge stadium - give them a chance to fill it, or at least not suffer tv blackouts due to attendance. let the place reflect some local flavor, too.

i vote Portland. call the team the Pioneers, with a mascot kinda like Davey Crockett. as long as local microbrews are available in the stadium, you'll have yourself a diehard fanbase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ I don't foresee a market like Portland ever getting an NFL franchise. To me, that might actually be a worse idea than Jacksonsville.

I'm all for LA getting another chance. Its pretty crazy that, what, the 2nd largest market doesn't even have an NFL franchise? I really think it would thrive this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L.A. has swung and missed at least twice in supporting an NFL franchise, right? Raiders...gone. Rams...gone. They were a big media market then, and they failed. What has changed about the city or the league that L.A. should get another shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L.A. has swung and missed at least twice in supporting an NFL franchise, right? Raiders...gone. Rams...gone. They were a big media market then, and they failed. What has changed about the city or the league that L.A. should get another shot?

Both LA teams failed because of stadium issues not due to fan support. The LA Coliseum is a 100,000 seat monstrosity in the middle of the ghetto with no amentities or luxury suites. You could draw 80,000 fans and a) lose money while B) facing blackouts. Anaheim Stadium was gerry-rigged into being an NFL stadium, but the Rams were essentially renters for 14 years in a market that was never really theirs. (It can take two hours to get from LA to Anaheim. This would be the equivalent of the Redskins moving to Towson, Maryland).

An LA team with a modern downtown stadium seating 70,000 would instantly be one of the three or four most profitiable teams in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both LA teams failed because of stadium issues not due to fan support ... An LA team with a modern downtown stadium seating 70' date='000 would instantly be one of the three or four most profitiable teams in the league.[/quote']

just because the stadiums contributed to the failure doesn't mean that fan apathy did NOT contribute. LA belongs to the Lakers and, to a lesser extent, USC football. i don't see some mediocre (in the short term, at least) pro football team changing that.

^^ I don't foresee a market like Portland ever getting an NFL franchise. To me, that might actually be a worse idea than Jacksonsville.

i'm not sure what you mean by "a market like Portland" because, even as a former resident, i don't know much about the market conditions. my apologies if you've actually done the market analysis. it does have a TON of potential corporate sponsors in the area, though - most notably Nike, who is always looking to expand their football operations.

I'm all for LA getting another chance. Its pretty crazy that, what, the 2nd largest market doesn't even have an NFL franchise?

crazy? absolutely, but there are reasons. it's been tried twice and failed.

I really think it would thrive this time.

why *this* time and not the other two times it failed? what has changed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just because the stadiums contributed to the failure doesn't mean that fan apathy did NOT contribute. LA belongs to the Lakers and, to a lesser extent, USC football. i don't see some mediocre (in the short term, at least) pro football team changing that.

And a city of 10 million can ONLY support one professional sports team. The "failures" of the Rams and Raiders were because of stadiums and *******s for owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L.A. has swung and missed at least twice in supporting an NFL franchise, right? Raiders...gone. Rams...gone. They were a big media market then, and they failed. What has changed about the city or the league that L.A. should get another shot?

The Rams were there for almost 50 years and the Raiders for over a decade. That's not exactly failures And Al Davis is a nutcase, and Georgia Frontierre wasn't the greatest owner ever. Plus the Coliseum was hard to sell out.

They'd need a smaller stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does L.A. even have a "downtown"? I thought there was no there there.

There's a downtown. It just sort of goes on aimlessly. There's no real "center" to LA. but what I mean by "downtown" is something within LA itself and near a real neighborhood. Not out in Orange County. Not in South Central.

The AEG stadium would be bext to the Staples Center, the conevntion center and the Nokia Theater in the "downtown" area.

The City of Industry site, I think, would have all the problems of the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of teams moving around. If a owner wants to go to another city/state, then they should have to sell the current franchise and start over with a new team. They did their market research when they became owners. In most cases, the quality of play is the problem, not the local market for a team. Nonetheless, the USA market is well-saturated with NFL teams. Eventually, they will have to get Canada and possibly European franchises for expansion. Mexico would be good if they can get rid of the drug cartels and corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my best friends works for Casey Wasserman, who is spearheading the effort to bring a team to LA.

He says it's definitely going to happen and soon. The Chargers could be playing in LA as soon as 2013. Heck, Farmers Insurance has already purchased the naming rights of the stadium for some huge amount of money. I'm sure the uniforms will change at least slightly so so they can sell tons of new jerseys.

Personally I would prefer the Rams, but I'll just be happy to have football in my adopted city. I think a team will do great here, especially if the stadium is downtown. I'll get tickets for sure. Nothing beats tailgating in 75 degree weather.

The stadium will be privately funded and state of the art. Retractable roof, HD monitors all over the place, etc... Apparently they've done studies where they've shown that the stadium would pay for itself in ten years even if a team didn't come here. Because of Super Bowls, concerts, Final Four, etc..

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 09:42 PM ----------

There's a downtown. It just sort of goes on aimlessly. There's no real "center" to LA. but what I mean by "downtown" is something within LA itself and near a real neighborhood. Not out in Orange County. Not in South Central.

The AEG stadium would be bext to the Staples Center' date=' the conevntion center and the Nokia Theater in the "downtown" area.

The City of Industry site, I think, would have all the problems of the past.[/quote']

Yes. Couldn't agree more.

Downtown LA is changing so fast. Everytime I go to a Laker game it seems like something new has been built nearby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...