I read the Rams are leading in early voting 20-12, so they need 4 votes. Something tells me the owners will end up siding with the Rams under the stipulation that they try to do a deal with the Chargers or Raiders. Edit: As I type that word is the Rams won with the Chargers having the option to join them.
There we go. Rams approved to relocate to Los Angeles: https://t.co/JirE1vxKry pic.twitter.com/I3xrlDGtD6— NFL (@NFL) January 13, 2016
Have to think it's going to be worse for LAFC launching betwixt the return of the NFL to LA and a world class stadium. Unless. The acrimony between the NFL and AEG might prevent any kind of partnership, if LAFC were smart (and they seem to be) they'll be on the phone to Kroneke right now. Though how would that work with Kroneke's owning of Volorado?
A few years ago I was against having the NFL in LA. I didn't want more competition for my Galaxy but now I'm cool with it. Hopefully the Galaxy plays this right and gets something positive out of this.
I sorta wonder if this is a opportunity for us to use the NFL stadium for big matches. Any infrastructure they build to get people to the stadium can only help us right? (its not next door but its not dtown LA either)
I don't think the Galaxy will want to play there. The new stadium in Inglewood will have artificial turf. It will also seat 70240 so a lot less then the Rose Bowl for big matches.
It is supposed to be turf but that may well change if the Chargers come as well. They really want grass. the 70K seats are just that. Seats. There is apparently going to be another 30k in suites and SRO. Jerry World here in TX can fit 105K and the Rams new digs are going to be to capable of exceeding that according to their relocation application.
Turf in L.A. is just greed. Its cheaper to maintain. By the time the place is ready, we'll be out of this drought. If the Raiders coming back meant they had to play on turf... I don't know if I'd want that...
Well Mark Davis is desperate and will play wherever the big boys tell him to. If the Rams going home means turf then so be it. I am just happy as hell they are returning to LA.
I would be surprised if LAG or any other project that rents out the Inglewood Even More Fabulous Forum would get ANY of the suite revenue. We are talking one of the world's great tightwads owning that thing and he's not into sharing.
Let's worry about selling out big matches on a consistent basis before pulling a San Jose. Personally the thought of playing a soccer game in a football stadium gives me the willies. Irrational perhaps, but pre-SSS MLS wasn’t for the faint of heart.
Agree if "big games" means real league matchups. But if "big games" means our annual fleece the eurosnob extravaganza, then the decision depends on the economics. My bet is that it will cost a lot less to rent the Rose Bowl than to rent the Inglewood Monument to Affluenza. So, if we do these at all, lets walk away with the biggest paycheck.
I wasn't aware that the Galaxy was actually the decision make for these games. I thought in most cases (e.g last year's Barca game at the Rose Bowl), that the Galaxy were just the designated opponent and primary paid an appearance fee with the Euro club taking half or more of the proceeds.
Not all of them, but yes, my understanding is that in many of these games we just pocketed some money for being the local opponent...
Rams COO Kevin Demoff said on the Beast today that they are still in the process of deciding on grass or turf. They trying to find ways to get grass and turf will be the obvious fallback. They also say they have take 45k season ticket deposits in 48hrs. Pretty damn impressive.