The Rams started out in Las Angeles and moved to St. Louis after the Cardinals left for Arizona. 

Then, the Raiders left Oakland for Las Angeles then a couple of years later left there and back to Oakland.

Now, the Rams leave St. Louis to head back to Las Angeles.

It don't make sense why Las Angeles gets yet another shot at a franchise when history has shown the city can not or will not support a team. I know it's a huge city with a lot of money floating around, but it's always been huge with a lot of money, I just don't see how the city will support another football team.

Maybe this time will be different though, only time will tell.

By the way, do I have the teams right. For some reason, it just doesn't seem like these teams are correct.

Let's not forget that they were actually the Cleveland Rams, until 1946.
And, that in the AFL days, the Chargers were originally the LA Chargers.

But, you are right in asking why LA deserves a team, let alone 2. Simple marketing statistics show that there are just too many other things to do in LA, than to spend NFL stadium money on teams in a city that won't fill the stadium year in, year out.

To me, it seems more of a "prestige" issue that LA be home to an NFL franchise, with them being the entertainment capital..

Being 25, it doesn't really bother me one bit. My parents on the other hand exclaim "How the hell can L.A. have another team? They don't deserve a team, the never treat their teams well and are crummy fans." Is that the truth? It is interesting that teams have been run out of there not once but twice. hrmmmm

LOS

2nd largest tv market in the US.

The Rams should have never left for St Louis. Georgia Fronteire schemed to move the team back to her native Town.

Moving the Rams back to LA was just the NFL righting a wrong. They were always supposed to the LA team. The raiders shouldn't have been there either, and I would bet that the Chargers end up staying in SD because part of the plan was to give LA to the Rams.

As far as what the raiders will do..... Oakland seems hopeless. Maybe they end up sharing the 49ers stadium.

(04-24-2016, 09:35 AM)michaelsean Wrote: LOS

This...

(04-24-2016, 12:04 PM)Beaker Wrote: 2nd largest tv market in the US.

...this...

(04-24-2016, 12:30 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The Rams should have never left for St Louis.   Georgia Fronteire schemed to move the team back to her native Town.  

...and this.  Had her husband Carol not died and his son inherited the team (as he'd intended, but he didn't execute in his will before his passing), they would have gotten their stadium deal worked out and there never would have been a St. Louis (gag) Rams to begin with.
 
I was a Rams fan as a kid and I'm glad they're back home where they spent five decades and where they belong.   

(04-24-2016, 08:08 PM)Awful Llama Wrote: B
This...


...this...


...and this.  Had her husband Carol not died and his son inherited the team (as he'd intended, but he didn't execute in his will before his passing), they would have gotten their stadium deal worked out and there never would have been a St. Louis (gag) Rams to begin with.
 
I was a Rams fan as a kid and I'm glad they're back home where they spent five decades and where they belong.   

I can't believe how many people forget what she did .....  She fired all his kids from the team.    She is easily one of the biggest low life's in professional sports.     

Anyone who feels bad for St Louis should have their head examined.... They get what they deserve getting into bed with Georgia Frontiere.     Thank heavens for Stan Kronke.   

It's also nice the NFL seems to be doing what they can to ensure the Rams are the only LA team.    SD is getting the hard sell and it's looking like the Raiders will get a chance at Vegas.    

The Rams are going back to LA for the same reason anything/everything happens:

$

That's all there is to it, right? St. Louis got the Rams after losing the Cardinals. Baltimore got the Browns/Ravens after losing the Colts, Cleveland got a super crappy version of the Browns after losing a version of the Browns that could win 2 Super Bowls (harsh), and so on and so forth.

It's not about cities and/or fans really deserving anything, is it?

(04-24-2016, 12:04 PM)Beaker Wrote: 2nd largest tv market in the US.

^this^

its all about that money with the NFL for the most part sadly... 

(04-23-2016, 08:42 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: The Rams started out in Las Angeles and moved to St. Louis after the Cardinals left for Arizona. 

Then, the Raiders left Oakland for Las Angeles then a couple of years later left there and back to Oakland.

Now, the Rams leave St. Louis to head back to Las Angeles.

It don't make sense why Las Angeles gets yet another shot at a franchise when history has shown the city can not or will not support a team. I know it's a huge city with a lot of money floating around, but it's always been huge with a lot of money, I just don't see how the city will support another football team.

Maybe this time will be different though, only time will tell.

By the way, do I have the teams right. For some reason, it just doesn't seem like these teams are correct.

(04-24-2016, 02:59 AM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: Being 25, it doesn't really bother me one bit. My parents on the other hand exclaim "How the hell can L.A. have another team? They don't deserve a team, the never treat their teams well and are crummy fans." Is that the truth? It is interesting that teams have been run out of there not once but twice. hrmmmm

Doesn't Cincy face TV blackouts on a frequent basis due to home games not selling out?  Haven't tickets been bought in large numbers by corporate or other entities to avoid blackouts on a frequent basis?  The reason the teams left is that Los Angeles is not as susceptible to the tax payer funded stadium blackmail that smaller markets are.

(04-25-2016, 03:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Doesn't Cincy face TV blackouts on a frequent basis due to home games not selling out?  Haven't tickets been bought in large numbers by corporate or other entities to avoid blackouts on a frequent basis?  The reason the teams left is that Los Angeles is not as susceptible to the tax payer funded stadium blackmail that smaller markets are.

The blackout rule doesn't exist anymore, effective with the 2015 season.  No games will be blacked out again.  When it did exist the last Bengals home game to be blacked out was the Carson Palmer homecoming game November 2012.  

The Raiders and Rams leaving LA had as much or more to do with their insane and dingbat owners, respectively, than any inability to blackmail the city.  The money was always there, it just needed to be sourced properly.  They finally got their shit together.  

(04-25-2016, 08:17 PM)Awful Llama Wrote: The Raiders and Rams leaving LA had as much or more to do with their insane and dingbat owners, respectively, than any inability to blackmail the city.  The money was always there, it just needed to be sourced properly.  They finally got their shit together.  

I won't say that at least in part it wasn't a matter of owners but that isn't the whole truth.

The stadium the teams shared was damaged by an earthquake.  It needed repairs due to a natural disaster, not exclusively to improve the value of the teams.  So it wasn't just blackmail, repairs were truly needed.  LA was also in a recession at the time.  So in a recession I can see why people wouldn't want to spend the money when 2 rich NFL teams could have split the costs.

Al that said, LA did lose 3 pro teams.  If the Rams can't sustain a fanbase by finding a way to be winners they will be looking to get out of town again in a few years, again.

Well of course it's about the money. I don't think anyone is trying to pretend it's not.

(04-25-2016, 08:17 PM)Awful Llama Wrote: The blackout rule doesn't exist anymore, effective with the 2015 season.  No games will be blacked out again.  When it did exist the last Bengals home game to be blacked out was the Carson Palmer homecoming game November 2012.  

The Raiders and Rams leaving LA had as much or more to do with their insane and dingbat owners, respectively, than any inability to blackmail the city.  The money was always there, it just needed to be sourced properly.  They finally got their shit together.  

They will wish there was a blackout rule when they get a load of those empty seats on TV in LA...  It's a Lakers city.  A franchise better be glitzy, and winning games or there will be a lot of . Angelinos haven't been clamoring for an NFL team. The league has been pushing the issue.

Second biggest market in the USA.

Personally I wouldn't have cared if they had moved to Miles City, Montana and shared the stadium with some juvenile hall football team. Miles City is where the juvenile prison is located or at least used to be out near the border of South Dakota and Nebraska.

(04-23-2016, 08:42 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: The Rams started out in Las Angeles and moved to St. Louis after the Cardinals left for Arizona. 

Then, the Raiders left Oakland for Las Angeles then a couple of years later left there and back to Oakland.

Now, the Rams leave St. Louis to head back to Las Angeles.

It don't make sense why Las Angeles gets yet another shot at a franchise when history has shown the city can not or will not support a team. I know it's a huge city with a lot of money floating around, but it's always been huge with a lot of money, I just don't see how the city will support another football team.

Maybe this time will be different though, only time will tell.

By the way, do I have the teams right. For some reason, it just doesn't seem like these teams are correct.

Sorry I'm late to the party, but I just read this thread today, and I wanted to 1) affirm that the teams are correct and 2) suggest that the reason they don't feel right is that your timline is off.  The Raiders moved to Los Angeles (1982) and back to Oakland (1994, more than just a couple of years later) before the Rams moved to St. Louis (1996). 

(05-17-2016, 02:31 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Sorry I'm late to the party, but I just read this thread today, and I wanted to 1) affirm that the teams are correct and 2) suggest that the reason they don't feel right is that your timline is off.  The Raiders moved to Los Angeles (1982) and back to Oakland (1994, more than just a couple of years later) before the Rams moved to St. Louis (1996). 

He also left out the chargers started in LA and only stayed for one season.