San Dee-Ay-Go, make that Los An-Gel-Es, Super Chargers?

This...plus the fact that L.A. had two teams bolt in the same year (1995). What makes anyone think they deserve another team when they had the distinction of losing two in one year?

 

Again, you would be wrong.

 

The Vikings don't need a new stadium either. The Metrodome (which they now have complete control over with the Twins and Gophers gone) is perfectly serviceable as is, and with a moderate round of renovations (maybe $100M as opposed to the $600-$800M a new stadium would cost) could be brought up to virtually SOTA standards.

 

There are many things very wrong with California, but our citizenry's refusal to get bullied by these asshole owners warms my heart. I believe it has been more than 20 years since public funding went into a new professional sports stadium.

 

Massive extenuating circumstances there, and not a factor when it comes to a Los Angeles return. Georgia Frontiere moved to Anaheim and aggravated the hell out of any fan the Rams ever had. Once Anaheim Stadium had been effectively ruined to accommodate the NFL she bolted for a fat paycheck in St. Louis.

The Raiders, meanwhile, are owned by the craziest son of a bitch on the planet, and played in an outdated 100,000 seat stadium that guaranteed they would never, ever be on TV in LA.

And besides, "deserve" has nothing to do with it. It's the second biggest market in the country. The potential there is huge compared to most other markets. The NFL doesn't place teams in a city because the people just seem so deserving.

 

Whatever the reasons, the city couldn't find a way to keep not one but two teams. Al Davis is the only nut job who owns an NFL team.

 

STOP WRITING FACTS ABOUT WHY L.A. IS A BETTER MARKET THAN BUMFUCK NORTH FLORIDA PEOPLE!!!! FACTS ARE NOT RELEVANT IN THIS DISCUSSION!!!

 

LOUD NOISES!

 

L.A. a better market? Since 1995, the city has lost two teams. That's 15 years ago and no one has been able to muster a decent ownership group or get a stadium deal done. Could it possible that L.A. is not a good market? If it was, wouldn't the NFL have found a way to get a team there? Some NFL owners might be crazy or charlatans or crooks, but as a whole they haven't established the sport as No. 1 in the U.S. by making dumb decisions. Directly or tacitly, they have decided, since 1993, that Jacksonville, Charlotte, Oakland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, Nashville and Houston should have NFL teams and L.A. shouldn't.

Any venom anyone has about this situation should go the next owners' meetings and take it up with them.

 

Oddly enough, 5 of the 8 teams you listed also lost teams.

By the way, this is the answer in a nutshell: Los Angeles does not have a viable NFL stadium and the public will not spend a dime to build one.

Once someone comes up with a way to build a stadium without public money, Los Angeles will instantly have an NFL team.

 

Five of the eight lost teams and four got teams back (not counting Oakland, which lost its team, and got it back because of the whims of their weirdo owner). Here's a modified question: why did the NFL put teams back, or allowed franchises to move to Baltimore, Houston, St. Louis and Cleveland, yet has made no move to put a team in LA?

 

Because the threat of L.A. caused all the foof politicians in those cities to panic and open the vault for a new stadium. The building boom is about done now. Jacksonville, Minneapolis, San Diego and the Bay Area are the only places that need a stadium. Figuring public funding isn't coming in California, the effort now is about extorting the populace in Jax and Minny, and then they're going to finally empty the L.A. bullet from the chamber.