The Chargers, Rams and Raiders all file to relocate to Los Angeles

[Mr.Marion]

If you remember the RAIDERS and RAMS were LA teams at one point.
It looks like LA is finally getting a team. I think the Chargers are the front runners.

I know Hector is a Raiders fan.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25438233/chargers-raiders-and-rams-file-for-relocation-to-los-angeles

[Hector]

When the Raiders first moved (let's not forget, they won two Superbowls in Oakland, 76 and 80) to Los Angeles in 1982...I switched alliances to the 49ers. When the Raiders came back to Oakland...I now had two teams to root for, lol.

If they go back to LA...I have no idea if I'm going to still follow them, I don't know, tough call.

Oakland is on the brink of losing all its pro sport franchises. The A's are also looking at outside options. The Golden State Warriors are moving 10-12 miles away to San Francisco (Warriors have always been identified more with the entire Bay Area than just Oakland though).

I know Davis Jr wants to stay in Oakland...but the city just can't pay for the bill...it's going to take a miracle for them to stay in Oakland.

I'm not bitter about it, I understand the economic circumstances...the obstacles.

No hate, if the leave, they leave...I'll still have the Niners...although if any of you are familiar with the Bay Area, they play in Santa Clara, 44 miles from San Francisco. They should be called the Santa Clara 49ers, lol...

[Hector]

I think the Chargers are the front runners.

Yeah, due to geographical proximity, I think the Chargers will go first...

[TrekStar]

The Rams should have never left L.A. in the first place, that was ridiculous, they should go back especially
if they are trying too.

the Chargers were in Los Angeles for one season 1960 AFL first season then went to San Diego, the Raiders
going to Los Angeles never seemed right, they are Oakland and should stay there, the Chargers/Raiders
sharing the same stadium as the Los Angeles teams seems weird, but I know the Giants/Jets share a complex
even if it's not in New York, that's another story.

[Mr.Marion]

The Rams should have never left L.A. in the first place, that was ridiculous, they should go back especially
if they are trying too.

the Chargers were in Los Angeles for one season 1960 AFL first season then went to San Diego, the Raiders
going to Los Angeles never seemed right, they are Oakland and should stay there

I think its a bargaining ploy to get a new stadium in St Louis. Nothing gets the wallets out faster than saying, we are going to move. Business wise it would cost too much for them, there is a very steep relocation fee.

Whether or not Oakland moves to LA has more to do with fan demand and improving the value of the franchise long term than team history or what looks better on a T-shirt.

[toys2cool]

Dam i'd hate to see the Chargers move

[EmergencyIan]

This wasn't unexpected. However, it will be interesting to see which teams do move. I think that the Chargers go to L.A. For sure. The Rams and Raiders don't seem like as much of a sure bet, but I think, at least, one of those franchises will relocate to Los Angeles by the beginning of next season.

- Ian

[Spawn67]

Have you guys seen this video of the new stadium. Looks amazing if they do it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMmrsjnbCSk

[Spawn67]

Im really surprised the Jaguars are staying in jacksonville that has to be one of the worst franchises in current Nfl history. I did here a rumour about them going to london but I don't see how that would pan out.

[Spawn67]

So I guess the Rams it is.

[rykerw1701]

Rams it is. They always seemed like the should be the LA Rams to me, but I'm old school, and not a fan of that franchise anyway. I suspect the Chargers will follow, which I hate. I think the reasoning might be the Raiders can share with 49ers and still be called the Oakland Raiders. Plus San Diego is close to LA, so they shared much of the same market anyway.

All this coming from a Bills fan who had pretty much resigned himself to the team moving. And continues to resign himself to the team losing.

[EmergencyIan]

Looks like the Chargers owner will be either going into a partnership with the Rams owner or leasing from him.

- Ian

[jwyblejr]

Rumor has it the Raiders could go to St. Louis. Why,is beyond me.

[rykerw1701]

Rumor has it the Raiders could go to St. Louis. Why,is beyond me.

I read San Antonio today. Never been there, but it has to be better than Oakland. Still, not a very Raider-y place.

[Hector]

I read San Antonio today. Never been there, but it has to be better than Oakland. Still, not a very Raider-y place.

I've been to both, I'd take Oakland. San Antonio has more historical buildings and all...but it's too bloody hot in the summer...and too bloody cold in the winter. Oakland weather beats it all year round. Oakland is a much greener city, you see, it has redwoods, San Antonio has shrubs, lol. Oakland is more diverse as well (that means more cuisines to choose from, lol). Can't beat being next to the Pacific Ocean either. Oakland does have the higher crime ghetto, but just don't hang out there, lol. I guess I'm just being biased, San Antonio is a cool city. Oakland is part of the metropolitan Bay Area, the 6th largest TV market in the U.S. San Antonio has the 37th largest market in the country. I fail to see how the Raiders would improve revenue in San Antonio. There's a reason why the Golden State Warriors are worth more than the San Antonio Spurs, despite the Spurs being historically the much more successful team of the two.

Compare TV markets between the two:

http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets

The problem is not attendance in Oakland or ratings...the problem is that Davis wants Oakland to pick up at least half the stadium built tab...and to provide him with land.

Still, if San Antonio builds a team for them, I suppose.

But why St. Louis? 21st largest TV market. That one doesn't make any sense whatsoever...as the Rams themselves couldn't wait to leave there...