Colts moving to LA ??????????

Discussion in 'MLS: General' started by Native Aztexan, Sep 12, 2002.

  1. Native Aztexan

    Jan 27, 2002
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was watching ESPN and hear that the Colts are thinking of moving to Los Angeles (Pasadena) next season beacuse the owner felt they weren't making enough revenue in a small market like Indianapolis. Then I also heard that he realize that it's a basketball town. HELLO!!!! Has the owner ever seen the movie"Hoosier"?
    Now what does this have to do with MLS. Well the Galaxy play in the Rose Bowl and hoping their new stadium will be there in time for them so they don't have to share the same stadium with a NFL team(Same could be said with Washington wanting a baseball team moving into RFK, home of D.C. United). BTW, what makes the Colts' owner think that the people of LA would want to support a NFL team. LA may have the money, BUT do they have the fans to support them. Hey they lost both Raiders and Rams to Oakland and St. Louis.
     
  2. Carson Galaxy

    Carson Galaxy Member

    Jun 14, 2001
    Downey, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Galaxy will be in their cozy new confines of Victoria Street long before the NFL season rolls around next year.

    Do us a favor Colts, stay in Indy.
     
  3. Foots

    Foots Member

    Jan 7, 2002
    Ellicott City, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Idiot owner of the Colts should never had left Baltimore in the first place.
     
  4. prk166

    prk166 BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 8, 2000
    Med City
    It wouldn't be a bad move. At worst, an unenthusiastic LA being so large to start with can't be any worse than a small, mediocre football market like Indianapolis.
     
  5. WHOLMAN2

    WHOLMAN2 New Member

    Dec 4, 2000
    Lahs Angeleez
    Yeah, whatever. Los Angelenos didn't lose the Raiders and Rams. Blame the Los Angeles City Council and the Rams ownership.
     
  6. writered21

    writered21 Member+

    Jul 14, 2001
    Middle of the Road
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Remember, it's possible the Los Angeles Colts could play in the LA Coliseum. It's not necessarily a given they'd play in the Rose Bowl.

    Ed
     
  7. snowfx2

    snowfx2 New Member

    Jul 28, 2001
    so cal
    Why on earth would the Colts want to play at the Coliseum? The RB is more modern, has luxury suites, and is in the Arroyo Seca, not South Central. Plus, the RB has hired a guy from Maryland to help them attract a team and they said that more money would be poured into the RB for improvements if necessary.
     
  8. Megatron

    Megatron New Member

    Jul 4, 2002
    Chicago
    Wow,this is news to me,the Colts moving to LA. Personally I think that would be one too many teams in California.As it they have the Chargers,Raiders and 49ers.
     
  9. GPK

    GPK BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 5, 1999
    San Diego, CA
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not really news....
     
  10. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    You may personally think that, you are personally wrong! Sheesh! LA is a megalopolis and you suggest that fans should drive many hours to another city that happens to be in the huge state?

    I'm obviuosly in a minority, but my interest in the NFL has dropped about 99% since they started playing musical chairs with teams. If a city can't support a team, it makes sense, but all these moves have been designed to steal money from the taxpayers. Losing a team in the NFL has nothing to do with fan support. Every city that loses a team will get another when the football fans convince some of the non-football fan taxpayers to put even more money in the pot. Given the huge number of football fans, it's only a matter of time in each city.

    I'd give up on MLS if they pulled this crap. I'm really surpised more people aren't angry. Where are the STL Cardinals, the Houston Oilers, the LA Rams, the Baltimore Colts Aside from LA (where it's only a matter of time), all these cities have teams, but they've pissed away their histories.
     
  11. NACIONAL

    NACIONAL New Member

    Dec 31, 2001
    Medellin, Colombia
    i thought that they were pushing for a new stadium in indianapolis... i hate that kind of thigs... nuild me a stadium or I'll ,ove... sucks...
     
  12. whirlwind

    whirlwind New Member

    Apr 4, 2000
    Plymouth, MI, USA
    You mean the Chicago Cardinals and Cleveland Rams?

    Franchises have been relocating for a long, long time.
     
  13. Arisrules

    Arisrules Member

    Feb 19, 2000
    Washington, DC
    From what I read on ESPN, they had a large article, is that Irsay has actually dropped a ton of money on the team in the hopes of improving the season ticket holders. It numbers only 36,000 even though he has kept prices down, and the fact that they have one of the top 3 quarterbacks in the NFL and an explosive offense.

    In terms of football that is weak.
     
  14. dberg077

    dberg077 Member

    Aug 24, 2002
    Dallas, TX
    About LA and their support for an NFL team

    How people forget the times when the Raiders would set attendance records for the league while they were in LA. Games against KC and Denver would always be in the high 90's (that's 90,000 fans).

    LA loved the Raiders and they left.
    LA loved the Rams and they left.

    The problem had to do more with stadium issues.
    Al Davis wanted a new stadium for the Raiders.
    No stadium, no need to stay---other teams in other cities were getting their new stadiums.

    The Lams wanted a new stadium as well. Georgia Frontieri insisted upon it. Anaheim balked. Georgia took (what seems like a better deal in St. Louis) and left. Georgia left the 2nd largest market in the US to go to the 10th or 11th. Smart business plan? Maybe it works for her, but many fans in LA/Anaheim were at a loss.
    They had good teams and good crowds--not for all games like the Raiders playing Seattle and the Lams playing New Orleans.
    If one had stayed, they eventually would have gotten a stadium deal--just can't do it in LA because the City Council is full of idiots who feel the Coliseum must be used---it was a great stadium for years--it's location is now a negative mark on it and it has been around a very long time for NFL stadiums.

    I always wondered why some deal couldn't be made with the Rose Bowl--GREAT location and a good stadium that would have received enough improvements to satisfy one of the teams I'm sure.

    In any case, it gets old hearing people knock LA football fans or LA fans in general. If you're from LA (like I am) you understand the situation. LA fans don't get to Dodger games until the 2nd inning and don't make it to Laker games until late into the 1st quarter because they are too busy battling the traffic on LA freeways. They leave early if the game is over and they have to drive an hour or more to get home--better to arrive home around 11 instead of 11:30 after a Laker game--especially if you have to work the next day.
    It's a little different than those in smaller cities who have no idea what traffic is---Even here in Dallas where a 30 min commute is the average it still pales in comparison to LA.

    So, those who knock LA, you might take the time to get to know her a little better. She is a glorious city with plenty to offer. The NFL in awarding Houston a franchise first did so mostly to give LA time to sort out its stadium issues. When LA or Anaheim eventually builds a new stadium--the fans will come and in droves. If a team plays in the Rose Bowl temporarily you can expect that team to have the largest attendance for the season they play there. 100,000 per game will be easily done as LA fans are thirsty for the game and traveling to SD or SF/OAK is not really a great option.

    Also, I would imagine Angelinos will take to the Galaxy more in their cozy confines in Carson. Expect the Galaxy to set attendance records for MLS once the NTC opens.
     
  15. Excape Goat

    Excape Goat Member+

    Mar 18, 1999
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    So they will have a LA team playing in AFC South..... so much for the realignment.
     
  16. Preston McMurry

    Preston McMurry New Member

    Jul 28, 1999
    Earth
    It would serve the people of Indianapolis right for whoring themselves to the carpet bagging Irsay's in the first place. No wonder Johnny U had heart failure: He couldn't stand the thought of them moving again ...
     
  17. GersMan

    GersMan Member

    May 11, 2000
    Indianapolis
    That's a childhood hero there. Poor joke.
     
  18. jwinters

    jwinters New Member

    Jun 26, 2000
    Brooklyn
    Considering that Indianapolis is further north than Cincinnati and Baltimore . . . .
     
  19. JohnMac

    JohnMac New Member

    Jun 6, 2001
    Salinas, CA
    That's like saying the economy is Peru is better than the one in Argentina.

    Anyway, the plan calls for a Soldier Field-like redo for either of the two old stadiums if the NFL returns.
     
  20. Lowecifer

    Lowecifer Member+

    Jan 11, 2000
    Baltimore, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    The irony of this move is that the Irsays effectively "traded" franchises with Georgia Frontiere's late husband (Carroll Rosenbloom) back in the 70's when the Rams were in LA.

    And as a kid who loved the Colts no matter how miserable they were, I can't stand the way that glorious helmet and uniform is continually dragged through the muck by those hateful Irsays.

    [​IMG]

    Son of the Devil
     
  21. snowfx2

    snowfx2 New Member

    Jul 28, 2001
    so cal
    Not for the Rose Bowl it doesn't, Pasadena has been upgrading it for the last 5 years. The plan would be to make it all seats, no bleachers, add some luxury suites, and other amenities as the RB is structurally sound while the Coliseum almost collapsed from an earthquake a few years back. The Coliseum plan does call for a Soldier Field type renovation, but L.A.'s not going to foot the bill for that renovation and I doubt Irsay would either. Also, Mayor Hahn doesn't want to go back to the Coliseum and the NFL has said so to. Plus, the whole area would have to be redone, the area has hurt USC's attendance for a long time now. L.A. was going to give $100 million in bonds for the downtown stadium with Anschutz and Co. funding the other $300 million or so. and that project isn't entirely dead, if L.A. can somehow get rid of the Coliseum people on the city council, then downtown will be built.
     
  22. skeeinfree

    skeeinfree New Member

    Aug 11, 2000
    Southern California
    not too far

    san diego isnt really that far away...
     
  23. jwinters

    jwinters New Member

    Jun 26, 2000
    Brooklyn
    Re: not too far

    124 miles, per Rand McNally. Farther than Philadelphia is from New York.
     
  24. Khansingh

    Khansingh New Member

    Jan 8, 2002
    The Luton Palace
    Re: Re: not too far

    Considering how much they drive in Los Angeles, it shouldn't be such a haul for them. The Los Angeles Colts, hmm? I thought I heard that the NFL had some kind of by-law that the nicknames were effectively state property. Ever since the Browns moved to Baltimore.
     
  25. JohnMac

    JohnMac New Member

    Jun 6, 2001
    Salinas, CA
    SC's less than stellar football teams has hurt its attendance. If they win then the faithful will return.

    The problem with the downtown stadium is the County and the Coliseum Commission have threatened a suite over it. Its frustrating for all but there is no way that the area can support two huge stadiums, the county isn't going to be left out and the Commission isn't going to roll over.

    As for the Rose Bowl, last interview I read with the guy they've brought in detailed a much more extensive plan then you outlined. They have to because you have to be 4'8" tall and have a bladder the size of Montana to reasonable enjoy a game at the Rose Bowl.
     

Share This Page