L.A. Rams, Part Deux?

[SuperHornet]

Owner buys 60 acres near Hollywood Park. Potential issues: proximity to LAX, good faith negotiations in MO, territorial issues with SD/Bay Area, perceived L.A. apathy. This move may be just an expensive ploy to put pressure on the stadium deal brokers in and around St. Louis. The article mentions the fact that the Rams having already left L.A. as a "strike" against the move, but that argument is specious at best given the return of the Raiders to Oakland.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/br ... ?track=rss

[andy7171]

Thanks for posting Case.

[dbackjon]

Thanks for posting Case.

Yup - thanks KC!

[SDHornet]

My money is still on the Chargers to be the team that moves to LA.

[SuperHornet]

My money is still on the Chargers to be the team that moves to LA.

The argument against THAT is the same as the argument against the Rams: the attitude that once a team has left a city, there's no going back. Of course, as I mentioned in the lead post, the fact the Raiders found a way to go back to their place of origin, theoretically the Chargers could as well.

That's not to say it would be a good move for the Chargers. There are very few L.A. Chargers fans left; most of the fan base is in the vicinity of San Diego County. It's a different story for the Rams if St. Louis is no longer feasible for them. They really can't go back to Cleveland, as there are likely even fewer Cleveland Rams fans than L.A. Chargers fans. There are a LOT of L.A. Rams fans left, though, so THAT move could prove feasible...IF a stadium deal can be struck. The Coliseum is too old, and the fans probably don't want to deal with the drive to the Big A. The Rose Bowl could be a good stop-gap until a new place is built. And if the dude is willing to do it with his own $$, all the better to avoid a divisive ballot measure.