RTFirefly:
My vague recollection (not necessarily reliable!) is that L.A. wouldn’t let itself get extorted into coughing up the dough for a new stadium, so the NFL pulled up stakes.
But what’s undeniable is that ever since, the NFL has found the existence of an L.A. without an NFL franchise to be a convenient tool to keep the other cities in line, i.e. “give us the new stadium of our dreams, or we’ll move your team to L.A.”
I agree. L.A. is far more collectively valuable to the league in its current state than it would be for the area to actually have a franchise.
RTFirefly:
But what’s undeniable is that ever since, the NFL has found the existence of an L.A. without an NFL franchise to be a convenient tool to keep the other cities in line, i.e. “give us the new stadium of our dreams, or we’ll move your team to L.A.”
I thought it was the owners, not the actual league itself, that’d have that kind of leverage.
“Dear City, I need a $900 million stadium or I’m moving. Sincerely, Owner.”
XT
February 4, 2015, 7:39pm
43
I’d say Tokyo is the largest city without an NFL franchise. After that, you have Jakarta and Delhi, I think. Not sure what the largest city after that is…
I would like to point out that according to the NFL, Toronto is a part of the Buffalo market.
Velocity:
I thought it was the owners, not the actual league itself, that’d have that kind of leverage.
“Dear City, I need a $900 million stadium or I’m moving. Sincerely, Owner.”
The league is the owners, though, and the league itself pushes for new stadiums at the same time individual owners do - new stadiums often end up with a Super Bowl in the first few years of operation.
Enginerd:
The league is the owners, though, and the league itself pushes for new stadiums at the same time individual owners do - new stadiums often end up with a Super Bowl in the first few years of operation.
Clearly sending less than subtle messages to cities planning rebellion against the Great New Stadium Caper.
