04-25-2016, 03:12 PM
(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.
