I think the owners of the other markets really don't want a team in LA. There's been nothing but lip service for 10 years. Why? Because it will cut revenue from their pockets and raise the bar on player salaries having a "rich" market join the league. But, the idea of having "away" games in LA is very appealing. They get the ticket revenue and increased ad revenue if they play there. The owners have to vote to allow a new and potentially stronger competitor. What's the incentive for them t to that? NONE. Am I right?
I thought the stadium proposal was in Inglewood, near Hollywood Park and the old Forum? Is that dead? T
San Diego, St Louis and Raiders have all been mentioned, although what's true and what is an attempt to negotiate with/extort their current cities is unclear...T
rams were in l.a. originally then left for s.l. raiders moved to l.a. then moved back to oakland. doubt if l.a. wants them back.
TV is the big money maker, and that's split evenly as I understand it. If two teams are in the second largest market, then can NFL argue that it should get more scratch in next TV contract? If so, that means teams, & this players, split a larger pie, assuming two teams in L.A. translates into more people watching. Ditto for merchandise, if more is sold, as is the gate, both of which are also split among all teams and this players. So, if a team or two makes the pie bigger than in the place(s) they replace, I'm guessing it'll happen...T
No, it won't cut revenue, it will increase it. LA is the 2nd largest TV market. There will be more TV revenue on the next contract and the revenue is shared by all the teams. Player salaries and fixed in total by the salary cap. It's not like baseball. There are no "rich" teams in football. However, there are "rich" owners. The hold up has been the jockeying for who gets the LA market. And then of course you have the most incompetent commissioner ever in any professional sport who is not helping. Several owners want it. No doubt there is serious backroom maneuvering over who gets it.
Remind me why Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson want to (or have left) California? TAXES Did you know that every single player in every sport that comes to LA to play a game has to pay California taxes per game? I mean visiting team players - they are taxed. You leave California by trade or free agency you immediately get a pay raise.
If SF can move to Santa Clara, Jets and Giants can move to New Jersey...not a stretch to think SD can move to lnglewood. STL has a dome but awful weather. I dont feel safe in downtown STL at night. OAK has nice weather but have lived in the shadow of SF...now SF is easier to get to for upscale fans in Silicone Valley. I have not felt safe in Oakland for years...day or night. STL enticed LA with a domed stadium HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED by the STL taxpayers. As soon as the contract expired they want to leave faster than you can say Arizona Cardinals. I am guessing that these teams owners believe that the LA franchise tag will improve the market value of their team and they will make much more money over time. Its all about the Benjamins!
