The Rams are returning to Los Angeles

Seriously though, I’m disappointed to see this. I grew up halfway between Chicago and St. Louis, so I’m both a Cardinals fan and a Bears fan (which gets a weird looks living in Chicago). I always considered the Rams my second team, as long as they weren’t in competition with the Bears. I’ve only been to the Edward Jones dome once, but it was nice to know I could go there every few years to watch a cheap Bears game. (It didn’t hurt that my future in-laws had season tickets).

But I have no interest in the L.A. Rams. I would love for another team to come to St. Louis. the Chargers have always been my favorite AFC team for some reason, so as hilariously ironic as it would be, I would love the St. Louis Chargers.

I have been a Rams fan since I was four years old, I wouldn’t care if they moved to pittsburgh,I would still be a fan.

Or even better, let cities buy and run the teams themselves. That way, they can build new stadiums when it needs doing, rather than when an owner threatens to bolt.

It’s been working for Green Bay all these years. But I’m sure the NFL has a rule against team ownership by government entities, with Green Bay grandfathered in. Wouldn’t be surprised if MLB, the NBA, etc. had similar rules, only without the need to grandfather anyone in.

I really hope that San Diego does not get coned into spending a lot of money on a new stadium. I am not sure what the feeling here is for the ballot measure to fund a new stadium is. But it is not 1999 anymore the state and city are not riding an economic boom and the Chargers just had a terrible season unlike the Padres making it to the world series just before we voted for Petco Park.

I don’t know why they don’t just move the Raiders to the new Levi’s stadium down the road in Santa Clara, and share the venue with the 49ers. No metro area needs 2 multi-million dollar stadiums, and the fan base is already there. At least the stadium would be filled each and every weekend of the NFL season, and not sit empty for half of it. To me, it would be less a waste of money if it were used more.

Here is a good take on the Rams situation via the Field of Schemes page. You can check there for the latest swindle perpetrated by your favorite sports teams in all major sports (and some minor ones).

I think the 49ers need to be willing to share their facility and there is no evidence they’d want to.

I’m a Falcons fan living in SoCal and I could care less about a football team in the LA area. Going to sporting events is what turned me OFF going to sporting events. It’s so much better watching the games on tv.

I was here when the Raiders and the Rams left I don’t recall any outrage. I think most people were too busy laughing at the Oakland buying into that “personal seat license” scam.

The Packers aren’t owned by Green Bay. They’re owned by shareholders.

Well, the first sentence is true. The second, not so much, given that the shareholders have few of the normal incidents of ownership: pre Wikipedia, a share of Packer stock “does not include an equity interest, does not pay dividends, can not be traded, has no securities-law protection, and brings no season ticket purchase privileges. All shareholders receive are voting rights, an invitation to the corporation’s annual meeting, and an opportunity to purchase exclusive shareholder-only merchandise.[4] Shares of stock cannot be resold, except back to the team for a fraction of the original price.” And shareholders can’t profit if the team is sold.

The Packers aren’t owned by the city of Green Bay, though they’re often described as “owned by the people of Green Bay”, or “community owned”, which probably contributes to that confusion.

They’re a publicly owned, not-for-profit corporation. The team has sold stock a number of times over the decades, and there are currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 360,000 shareholders. I own one share of Packers stock, which I bought in 1997 (that stock sale was done to help raise funds for the first renovation of Lambeau Field).

The Packers set up rules about transfer / sale of the shares, to prevent the possibility of someone buying up large numbers of shares, to gain control of (and potentially move) the team. You can will your shares to a family member, but if you want to sell them, the Packers have the right of first refusal. Also, there are bylaws that mandate that profits from a sale of the team would go to charity.

And, yes, the Packers’ ownership structure is grandfathered in by the NFL; current NFL rules state that each team can have no more than 32 owners, and that there must be one majority owner, who holds at least a 30% stake in the franchise.

Given the ubiquitousness (sp?) of the NFL on TV and the fact that, to be honest, it’s more fun to watch on TV than in person, I’m not sure you really have to be close to a team to root for them anyway.

My fiancee’s family are all avid NFL fans, and they live in Ottawa, which is a hell of a drive from any NFL team. My fiancee is a fan of the Niners and anyone playing against the Broncos, my mother in law supports the Chiefs, and my father in law is a passionate Dolphins fan because I guess he was alive in 1972. I support the Seahawks because our kids’ school calls its teams “Seahawks,” though I have a soft spot for the Niners because my best friend lives in the Bay Area. Being in Ottawa really doesn’t affectour fandom at all. I have friends locally (Toronto) who are maniacs about the Steelers, Browns, Cowboys, Seahawks, even the Bengals, any team you care to mention. They can see the team of their choice every Sunday without fail and don’t get raped to pay for some billionaire’s stadium.

I’m trying to figure out why the new stadium will have a retractable roof.

L.A. has made great strides in recent decades with air pollution, and they don’t want the Rams stinking up the place. :smiley:

I think it’s because Kroenke wants to be able to host indoor things in the stadium, such as the NCAA Final Four.

{Heavy sigh…}

As an LA resident, I have always advocated that we could use 3 teams, at least. Each with their own stadium. With the vast physical size of the metropolitan area, and population across the region, the multiple teams could be strategically distributed out to attract the various population centers. Something like one in the San Fernando valley, one in Anaheim, and one out east toward Riverside.

But nooooooooooooooooo, instead we’re going to build a stadium/entertainment complex one half a mile from the airport. As if LA isn’t already world famous for it’s traffic gridlock. Now everyone will have to add 2 hours on to their commute to get to the airport.

Thanks Obama.

Hey, we need to be prepared for El Nino years. You don’t really expect Southern Californians to attend a game in the rain, do you? We also need a good large enclosed shelter when the Big One finally hits. (Assuming the stadium stays standing)

Anyway, it’s actually not retractable. The current design is for a covered stadium, with open sides under the transparent roof to allow breezes. As mentioned above, it’s so the stadium can also be used for indoor events such as NCAA Final Four, conventions and “awards shows” (although how many awards shows would attract a live audience of 70,000?)

Also, since the stadium will be in the approach path for LAX, maybe the roof is needed to deaden airplane noise. I know there is already some FAA concern that any reflective materials could mess up LAX’s radar system.

I seam to recall that Jerry World (i.e. AT&T Stadium) recently hosted the Country Music Association awards. Then again, it might be a bit easer to attract 70,000 to a country music awards show in Texas than LA.

I thought Oakland staying definitely wasn’t a done deal. They still can move to LA if the Chargers don’t (not likely), but they also weren’t not working well with the city and could still leave to San Antonio or St. Louis.

(redacted)

The Raiders do have rights to the LA market if the Chargers decline to move (though most observes consider that very unlikely.) However, the Chargers (as I recall) have until the end of next season to exercise the option. Even though the Raider’s lease to the Coliseum is year-to-year, I think they would still need league approval to move to another market. So it looks like the Raiders will remain in Oakland at least through 2016.