Just another name in the list of places Davis is spitting out.
The NFL has had a long-standing opposition to having a team in a place with legalized gambling. Don’t see it happening.
Las Vegas has also seen its growth spurt come to a screeching halt. With legalized gaming becoming the norm all over the country, as popular as it is now, I question a city in an inhospitable environment as it is Las Vegas’ long term lure as an economic and population powerhouse, and lure for major league sports.
That, plus the Raider fan base isn’t likely to drive the 6++ hours each way to see their team play. And the tourist certainly aren’t there to see football. That would be a dumb move on Davis’ part.
Oakland to San Diego is about the same distance and Oakland to Las Vegas. 8 hours 20 minutes to Las Vegas . 8 hours 45 minutes to San Diego. But if the teams gave a rats ass about their fan base they would not move.
To be precise, the NFL’s opposition is to having a team in a place with legal sports books, not legalized gambling. Otherwise, it would have to move all of its teams to Utah.
This seems like it is leading to where the NFL really wants this to go: The Chargers stay in LA, Rams and Raiders in Los Angeles.
Probably see the Jaguars fulfill Goodells ridiculous wet dream of a team in London. Rumors of the Titans (unbelievable) looking to move, St Louis and San Antonio possible targets.
The rich get richer, the fans get screwed, and no one does anything about an illegal monopoly called the NFL.
Why not?
“Hey honey? You know that Vegas weekend we were talking about?”
“Yeah”
“[INSERT YOUR TEAM HERE] is playing the Vegas Raiders on XX/YY. Why not make it that weekend and we can catch the game?”
“Sure! Sounds great. I’ll check with [INSERT YOUR FAVORITE CASINO HERE]. I think they run a shuttle to/from the stadium for the games.”
Before they make LA a two-team town, maybe they first ought to make sure it’s a one-team town, knowhamean?
Agree. The city has been without a football team for a while - has anyone noticed? What void will the Rams fill from a fan’s perspective, not the NFL)?
Also, perhaps it’s not an attractive new stadium that is needed to get Angelinos to the game, but a solid public transportation system to and from the venue. If going to a Rams game is known as a quagmire, people wont go.
Whether there will be zero or one or two, or even three NFL teams in the Los Angeles area will not depend on what is good for fans but what is good for the owners. They cannot have a void in the number two media market.
retracted
retracted
My take on it is that putting two teams in LA only makes sense if one of them is the Raiders. Conversely, I think putting the Raiders in LA would only make sense if it was as a 2nd team.
Basically, the Raiders are “different” because of their fan base. There are basically two different NFL fans in LA. Raiders fans, and people who would be fans of any other team because they aren’t the raiders. (You also have dedicated Rams fans, but I think they mostly overlap with the 2nd group.) Unfortunately, the NFL apparently doesn’t understand the dynamics of team loyalties, and seems to think that fan bases are interchangeable, which is the only reason that the Chargers were approved as a 2nd team in LA, and the idea of the San Diego Raiders is being seriously floated by anyone. If the Chargers were paired with the Raiders in LA, they would almost certainly have an instant fan base, and those fans who have been pining for the return of the Rams would eventually come to grips with the fact that it won’t happen and turn into Chargers fans. However, being paired up with the Rams means that, at best, the Chargers will become the Clippers of the NFL. That’s not to say that they wouldn’t be profitable, since the Clippers managed to make a tidy profit for many years by being the NBA’s forgotten stepchild to the Lakers, but it can’t be what the NFL wants.
The Chargers are in the same division as the Raiders. That would mean internal divisional matchups in one city twice every season. Somehow, that does not scan.
Having the Rams in LA is good for Seattle: one more game on Pacific rather than Central time. Travel distance is almost halved compared to St. Louis, as well.
Of course, the Raiders could move there and have a cross-state divisional rivalry with KC.
No, there would be a realignment. Probably one of them would trade places with an NFC West team. Both of them have already told the league they’d be willing to change divisions or conferences to facilitate moving to LA.
I bought my season tickets the year after the Raiders won their last Super Bowl. Great seats. Very affordable. Plenty to chose from. That’s the problem. Nobody really cared. Nobody wanted them. The Rams had a great fan base. But the Raiders couldn’t sell more than 30,000 seats in a 100,000 seat stadium unless the Broncos were in town to sell it out.
No, wait. That was proposed before the Rams move, but it doesn’t work now, does it. 
I don’t think the Cleveland Browns were ever a “bitter rival” of the the Baltimore Colts. They never were in the same division or conference…they played each other in the 1964 NFL title game.
Maybe in the 1950s NBA the Syracuse Nationals and Philadelphia Warriors. They were in the same division until the Warriors moved to San Francisco in 1963. A year later the Nationals moved to Philadelphia and became the 76ers. I know very little about the NBA in the 1950s but “bitter rivalry” seems a stretch. Both teams won a title but were mainly second or third in the four team East division.