The NFL returns to Los Angeles

The 2016 season will feature the Los Angeles Rams for the first time in 21 years.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-chargers-rams-20160113-story.html

The San Diego Chargers have been given the option to join them in a shared stadium in Inglewood. The Raiders applied to move back to Los Angeles but will remain in Oakland for now.

S.D. wrote:

The 2016 season will feature the Los Angeles Rams for the first time in 21 years.  

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-chargers-rams-20160113-story.html

The San Diego Chargers have been given the option to join them in a shared stadium in Inglewood.  The Raiders applied to move back to Los Angeles but will remain in Oakland for now.  

This is where they always belonged, no matter how fickle L.A residents may be. I would like to say it's shocking that the #2 market for the N.F.L. has been without a team for 20+ years, but it is L.A. The Chargers need to get something hammered out and stay in San Diego, but I have a feeling they will be joining the Rams soon.

On a related note, good riddance Kroenke and your decade of losing.

On a positive side I have a new team to hate, the "LA Rams".  They sucked here for 17 of the last 20 years and Stan wonders why the attendance sucked. 

Good luck LA Rams; may you suck just as badly as you did here since 2003.  And I will laugh my ass off when you do.

I can't believe I now have a team I hate worse than New England.  But I do...

What's even funnier to me?

This news is pre-empting the final State of The Union Address from Obama here.  That cracks me up. 

I'll refrain from further editorial or political comments.

I, for one, am glad.

Have fun enjoying mediocre or worse football.  Lord knows, we got used to it here in STL.  We got excited when it looked like this team might finish at .500. 

Have fun with that crap LA-ites.   Now I can root for my Arizona Cardinals like I always wanted to.

I completely understand why you're pissed. I remember when the Baltimore Colts snuck out of town in the middle of the night on their way to Indianapolis. I remember in the 90s when the owner of the Seahawks moved the team to Los Angeles overnight...only to be bought out by Paul Allen almost immediately and they were back in Seattle for the start of the season. Team relocation always plays havoc with fans.

Hell, I'm sure back in the 90s there were a lot of pissed off Angelinos when the Rams moved to St. Louis.

and yeah...I don't expect the change of venue to altar their usual 7-9 average record.

I think what pisses me off most is Kroenke whining about the lack of fan support.

I don't care what sport it is or what city it's in, if you put a product on the field that finishes below .500 for 12 straight years, no city will turn out to support it.

tohostudios wrote:

I think what pisses me off most is Kroenke whining about the lack of fan support.

I don't care what sport it is or what city it's in, if you put a product on the field that finishes below .500 for 12 straight years, no city will turn out to support it.

Could be worse, you could live in Cleveland.

It will be interesting to see how this develops next for the Chargers and Raiders.

The Chargers have a year to make a deal to share the Inglewood stadium with the Rams. I think that's what will end up happening. If they do decide to relocate to Los Angeles and join the Rams in the new stadium the NFL has to find them a temporary venue to play in. Possibilities include the Rose Bowl and Dodgers Stadium. The Rams will be playing in the old Memorial Colloseum for the next 3 seasons (where USC plays) while waiting for the new venue to be constructed in Inglewood.

If the Chargers decide not to share the stadium with the Rams then the Raiders will have another shot to relocate, they will also be given a year to reach a deal with the Rams.

S.D. wrote:

It will be interesting to see how this develops next for the Chargers and Raiders.  

The Chargers have a year to make a deal to share the Inglewood stadium with the Rams.  I think that's what will end up happening.  If they do decide to relocate to Los Angeles and join the Rams in the new stadium the NFL has to find them a temporary venue to play in.  Possibilities include the Rose Bowl and Dodgers Stadium.  The Rams will be playing in the old Memorial Colloseum for the next 3 seasons (where USC plays) while waiting for the new venue to be constructed in Inglewood.  

If the Chargers decide not to share the stadium with the Rams then the Raiders will have another shot to relocate, they will also be given a year to reach a deal with the Rams.  

The Raiders saga has been going on for years and funny enough has only died down since the death of Al Davis, though there's always been that threat to move back to L.A. I thought the renovations they did in Oakland should have been enough to keep them in the bay area. It's a good stadium for football, but a bad one for baseball. The capacity is too large for Oakland A's games and the foul ground is beyond ridiculous. Regarding San Diego, they already lost one team to L.A in that of the Clippers way back in the day. San Diego is too big of a market to only have one sports franchise.

Honestly, there was pretty vocal opposition here about the Raiders coming back to Los Angeles. Supposedly it was the primary reason the owners decided not to back the Carson stadium plan...because the Raiders were tied in with it.

I have a feeling that everyone behind the scenes is hoping that the Chargers make the deal with the Rams so they don't have to worry about the Raiders having another opportunity to move back to Los Angeles.

*one funny aside* - All these teams supposedly moving because they want shiny new stadiums...and they get to play in a 100,000 seat outdoor stadium built in 1923 for the next 3 years.

LA is also getting a new football, eh, I mean soccer team with the Los Angeles Football Club in 2017 I believe. That will make a pair of football, soccer, basketball, baseball, and if you count the Ducks, hockey teams in the LA area soon. It's unbelievable we haven't had a football team in over 20 years. I'm glad we can move forward now with this.

Never liked the Raiders. Oakland can keep 'em!

All (tough guy) image, no substance...

Gregg Williams is the leagues biggest douche. He will fit right in in El Lay.

I'm a Raiders die-hard. Started with them in 80 and followed them ever since. If they moved to San Antonio, I'd still be a fan, but I'd like them to stay in Oakland.

I hope the Rams switch back to their 1980s style uniform colors.

Although it doesn't really matter to me either way, it's cool to be saying the Los Angeles Rams again.

Todd Gurly might run even better in those colors...who wouldn't! I love that era's look.

Boy are people here pissed!  Kroenke better never show his face here again.

I feel bad for St. Louis. They lost the Cards, now the Rams. The area is certainly sports-savvy and will support a well run team. Maybe the St. Louis Raiders!?! Woo!

I support laundry, not a city, so I don't care where the Raiders set up shop, although for posterity I do prefer Oakland.

007 wrote:

Although it doesn't really matter to me either way, it's cool to be saying the Los Angeles Rams again.

Agreed. I never got used to the concept of "St. Louis Rams", I started really paying attention to football around 1979 and the teams from that era are what have always felt correct to me. I also remember the Baltimore Colts, Houston Oilers and St. Louis Cardinals.

I'm going back to following the Arizona Cardinals.  I started following the St Louis Cardinals in the NFL when I became a rabid Cardinals baseball fan.  Since I lived in PA at the time, I really didn't care when they move to AZ; I just kept following them.  But the Rams came here the same year I did so I adopted them. 

Well, screw that.  I want them to suck hard for the next several years and we'll see how well LA supports the same crappy product we had here.  Go Cards!

S.D. wrote:

007 wrote:

Although it doesn't really matter to me either way, it's cool to be saying the Los Angeles Rams again.

Agreed.  I never got used to the concept of "St. Louis Rams", I started really paying attention to football around 1979 and the teams from that era are what have always felt correct to me.  I also remember the Baltimore Colts, Houston Oilers and St. Louis Cardinals.  

I feel the same way. St. Louis got the Rams, but it just seemed odd. I think it's better when a city loses a team, it's at least allowed to keep the colors/logo/name. The Supersonics retained everything before that a-hole owner moved them to Oklahoma City. Regarding the Rams, I remember that '79 team fairly well; Vince Ferragamo, Wendell Tyler, Jack & Jim Youngblood, etc...

I wished the city of Houston would have kept the colors and retained the name Oilers. Bud Adams (the late owner) made sure that all the records transferred right over to the Nashville franchise and the NFL actually retired the colors and nickname of the team. I wish the Texans would revert back, but they're probably happy with their new identity.

Our local news is now reporting that there was some backdoor maneuvering between Kroenke and Jerry Jones to get Jones to help "twist arms".  So suddenly they went from a 20-12 vote to the final 30-2 vote.  More fuel to the fire of hatred I already had for the Cowboys.