Here is my conspiracy theory about MLS and Philadelphia: I think the NFL likes to have the Los Angeles market without a team so they can use it as a threat to cities whose teams aren't ponying up for new stadiums. The teams can say, "Give us a new stadium or we're moving to LA." I think MLS is doing the same thing with Philadelphia. They want all their teams to have an sss or there is the unstated, veiled threat of moving them to Philadelphia. As far as I know, no team has actually made this threat, but people understand that Philadelphia is the obvious choice for a team, either by expansion or relocation, and so as long as they keep us without a team, there is this possibility that other teams will move here unless the league gets what it wants from municipalities. This is all unsubstantiated, by the way, just my opinion.
First of all, watch it with the phrasing of that last sentence... you sound too much like one of the guys who cannot be named and goes trolling around the USMNT and women's forums. Just kidding, sort of. Anyway, I disagree. I think the veiled threat cities are Houston and Seattle, and I think Philly doesn't fit because there's not even a prospective owner or anything close at the moment. At least Houston we know would be run by Club America and Seattle there are people who have expressed some interest in the past.
I don't know, I always considered Rochester the threat city, since they have a strong fanbase, a SSS, and a possible investor (Rhinos' owner).
Yes, but there are actually soccer fans here unlike L.A. which has no football fans. Having watched the snow bowl between the raiders and teh Pats a few years ago in a bar on sunset blvd. It is safe to say that the NFL is just blowing hot air. There were Pats fans 4/1 in that bar to raiders fans. WTF? how could that even be? It is true that L.A. is just a melting pot of relocators but holy ******** that was a pitiful evening for the riaders fans to be totally drowned out by pats fans. I don't see this to be the situation in Phila. I think it is more substantiated threat...but what the hell do I know, there doesn't seem to be anyone stepping up here...
Not only do people from all over tend to collect in Los Angeles, people from Boston tend to disperse all over. Even before the massive bandwagon effect of last year's World Series run, the Red Sox were one of the three best road attendence teams along with the Yankees and Cubs. Houston isn't the generic LA/San Antonio boogeyman for MLS in general; it's the boogeyman for San Jose in particular. And with the way Seattle's bid for this season rather publicly fell apart, I'm not sure how much bite they have left in their systems right now.
First of all, let me say that I hate American Rules Football. I've watched maybe 40 seconds of the Super Bowl the last 15 years. But come on, dude. LA's NFL ratings are still quite good. In fact, my friends who are into football, say that there is a distinct advantage to following NFL in LA: you ALWAYS get the best games, not forced to watch your local team play a last place team. According to the standards that you provide (LA fans being outnumbered in their own city), then the Dodgers and Angels are failures in their own stadia sometimes. Why would an Angelino go to a sports bar to watch a game? Atmosphere? Maybe. Why would a Pats fan go? To be around a feeling of being at home. I believe that that is the motivating factor.
To be fair, I was in a bar in Santa Monica. My dad and I were the only two Pats fans with about 80 Raiders fans, and a few drunk Eagles fans straggling behind.
So, tell me. How can LA fans develop a communal bond w/ a franchise when there is no franchise? In case you couldn't tell, I was referring to LA over the last 10 years, post-Rams/Raiders.
He could tell; that was part of the point. LA football fans seem just fine getting coverage of other teams. They don't care about not having a team in LA so long as they get to watch others on TV. It's Tags that wants a team there more than anyone else.
Yea seriously, I live in LA and although everyone here wants a football team, no one is dying because we don't have one. Many people here are fans of the Raiders but A LOT of people just watch tripleheaders on Sundays. Plus, we have an AWESOME college football team and another decent one. Seriously, at the USC games, the students and alumni are outnumbered by A LOT by casual football fans who made the switch to college in the last 10 years. The LA County has a great record of getting what they want in sports but not having to pay for it. The ENTIRE 1984 Olympics, Dodger Stadium, Great Western Forum, Staples Center, and Home Depot Center were privately financed. If the city of Los Angeles is patient and plays its cards right, it'll have a state of the art, $1.5 billion stadium in the next 10 years, none of which would be paid by the city or its citizens.
...and yet Philly keeps popping up on expansion lists. IMO, one of the stronger points of your theory.
Well, if they had supported the teams better, then maybe you would still have a team. Don't worry though, once Ralph Wilson dies, I am sure the NFL will basically force the Bills to move there. So keep your 'spenders tight.
It's a lot more complicated than that. Building and financing a roughly one billion dollar stadium in an expensive real estate market has much more to do about it. Honestly, what can an average Joe do other than write to politicians and hope for the best? NFL is not in LA for the simple reason that there isn't an economically viable stadium in a late capitalist, big-money sports environment. It has absolutely nothing to do w/ the fans or lack thereof. Again, BS. Anaheim Stadium and the LA Coliseum were the problem, not the fans. A municipally-owned, cookie-cutter stadium (well, at least converted into one) w/o sufficient revenue streams to bring in monies needed to compete in NFL was the reason for the Rams leaving. Ditto for the Raiders.
As I said before, LA citizens and politicians strike down ANY plan for paying for stadiums. Every sports venue in the last 50 years, except for the $7 million LA Sports Arena, has been privately financed.
So in essence what youa re saying, is that until L.A. has a $1,000,000,000 stadium no one will go to a game? That's sounds pretty silly to me. As I recall, there were decent attendance rates for the Rams and Raiders. Clicky, clicky I think a decent stadium could be built somewhere for slightly less than that amount of money. BTW, the Bills have bitch slapped most teams in attendance over this 20 year period, especialy since 50 people still live in Buffalo.
Have you seen these new stadiums lately? They're like frickin malls combined with hotels. All the concessions and luxury boxes one can imagine. That's why stadiums are now pushing $1 billion. And remember, the Colisseum was owned by the city, and had no luxury boxes, something the NFL found unacceptable.
You gotta love someone from LA who admits they hate football trying to argue with people from Philadelphia about football.
Living in Phila, yes I have a pretty damn good idea what a new football stadium looks like. And I have to say the Linc is stunning.(600 mil) BUT, this is not to say that L.A. could have a nice stadium too without spending that much money. If tax payers are expected to pick up the entire tab then yes you may never have a team. But, if there is simply a contribution by the city then yes, it's doable IMO. (there's 10 million fvcking people) So is it really that the tax payers are simply refusing a tax hike in order to afford a new stadium? I have to believe that there is more to it than that. I am sure the NFL has analyzed the L.A. situation numerous times and if they really wanted a team there, then there probably would have been one. see Houston texans. Right now the NFL has 32 teams and it very unlikely they will be expanding anytime soon. therefore the LA situation will only be tougher as they have to attract an owner who is already settled in their current market...so, back to the MLS in Phila...
Yes, LA taxpayers are that stubborn. As I mentioned before, they have paid for about 1% of the stadium projects in the LA county the last 50 years. They paid 0% for the 1984 Olympics, it was 100% privately financed. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have Anaheim, who I believe paid for Angel Stadium and Arrowhead Pond with 100% public money. They could be suckered into paying a lot for an NFL stadium.