CC/OT - Our pal Rapoport saying a Raiders move to LA is looking very possible

Submitted by Raskolnikov on

I suppose if we discredit his Harbaugh stuff, we should discredit this. But, I figured it was worth a mention.

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/542686130852741120

The Oakland #Raiders have a much better chance of moving to Los Angeles this year than I realized. That possibility is very legitimate.

Heinous Wagner

December 10th, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^

if the Raiders move to LA (or San Antonio or Poughkeepsie) and Sarah insists on staying in the Bay area, what's left? Cal? San Jose State? These decisions are tough on couples and families, no matter what the profession or the pay. Been there, done that. My unsolicited advice: consent to a move back to Michigan, hubby wins two national titles and pockets a few million more, the kids get to spend more QT with the grandfolks. And then move back to the Bay. Go for the win-win. 

superstringer

December 10th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^

If they move to London, they will get fewer free agents than Buffalo.  So few players will willing go there to play -- the timechange/stress for half your games (away) will be brutal, esp. trips to the west coast.  Players who went there for games pretty overwhelming say they wouldn't want to play for a home team there.

jmblue

December 10th, 2014 at 1:27 PM ^

Edinburgh is way too small to support an NFL franchise.  London is the only UK city that could possibly pull it off, and that's still very questionable.  Other NFL franchises in Europe would have to be in places like Paris, Rome, Madrid, etc - huge cities that have enough U.S. ex-pats to possibly keep the team afloat until locals get into the sport (if they ever do).

It's just not a very functional idea.

 

DrewGOBLUE

December 10th, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^

Are there even enough fans of American Football in England to support a franchise there? Since the NFL started playing a game in London each year, I was never sure if the people in attendance were primarily local residents or fans traveling from the US. Regardless, it just seems too far away.

OTOH, I've thought for a while the MLB should establish a team in Santo Domingo. It's not too far away, and the DR is beyond obsessed with baseball.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

jmblue

December 10th, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^

I've read about these NFL games in London.  The crowds are said to be about a 50-50 split between U.S. ex-pats/European fans and they come from all over Europe.  (U.S. servicemen in Germany like to make the trip, apparently.)  The novelty of occasional games there can fill up the stadium, but it seems questionable whether these same people would plunk down four figures for a PSD to see a single, London-based franchise all season.  

As for MLB in the DR, it's simply way too poor to support a franchise, and the language barrier  wouldn't help.

 

 

MGoCombs

December 10th, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^

It is pretty crazy, but there's reasons, primarily poor transportation (maybe inefficient the better word) and transient population. I live in San Diego, where transportation is less of an issue, but many people who live here brought their home teams with them. Even when the Chargers are good, support is adequate at best. However, it's been 20 years since a team was in LA. More people have roots there now, and many are still Raiders or Rams fans from their tenure there. You could argue, depending on the location, that transportation has improved as well. I think there are clearly "enough" fans in LA to support an NFL team, but the question remains, will they care enough to change from their legacy teams, and will they care enough to combat traffic and travel times to attend games? I truly don't know.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

LSAClassOf2000

December 10th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^

Depending on which of the proposed sites were to be used, if the move were in fact to happen, it could very well be the Los Angeles Raiders Of Inglewood. One of the proposals would apparently put the team across the street from the Forum. The Los Angeles Times also talked about another proposal to make any football team that moves there the other occupant of Chavez Ravine and be right next door to the Dodgers. 

JHendo

December 10th, 2014 at 11:33 AM ^

Wasn't the reason for the move back to Oakland in the 90's revolving around the blackout rule and the fact games were going to be blacked out because they couldn't fill the Coliseum?  With that rule pretty much gone and the potential for some other smaller stadium that can more easily be filled, it may just work this time...

Baughlieve

December 10th, 2014 at 3:14 PM ^

The timing of [his job change], Grubman confirmed, correlates to the expiring leases in St. Louis and Oakland, the stadium projects in L.A.—and the fact that the league has achieved long-term labor and TV deals that allow the NFL “to perhaps take some additional risks that we might have been uncomfortable taking a few years ago.” At NFL headquarters, Grubman called the idea of a league-built, league-owned stadium “visionary.” “It would serve a greater purpose than simply returning a team to Los Angeles—team, or teams. It would serve as a West Coast center of gravity for the NFL as an entertainment property,” Grubman said. “There’s no better place on the planet to do that than the Los Angeles market—the intersection of entertainment, celebrity and business.” A league-owned stadium in L.A., Grubman said, could theoretically host the NFL Pro Bowl, Super Bowls and the NFL draft, serving as a catalyst to propel the NFL even higher into the business stratosphere. “It’s a market that could support two teams. Therefore, if we build a stadium there, whether it’s league-built or club-sponsored, it’s likely that stadium would be built to accommodate two teams,” Grubman said.

991GT3

December 10th, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^

The only way the NFL would allow the Raiders to move to LA is if Davis gives up the ownership of the team which he will never do. The better bet is the Rams going to LA assuming the Chargers allow it which isn't happening.

Blue Noise

December 10th, 2014 at 11:40 AM ^

Agreed, this reeks of bullshit. The NFL will almost certainly not be able to get a new stadium in LA unless AEG is involved; AEG will never be able to purchase the Raiders because the Davis family would never relinquish control barring a Donald Sterling situation where they're forced to.

maizenblue92

December 10th, 2014 at 11:41 AM ^

I'd say this is pretty credible to me. It is strictly NFL news being reported by an NFL insider. The issue when he reports on Harbaugh is he only gets half of the story, the NFL side. He fails to include Michigan rumors because he is (obviously) not a Michigan insider.

Moe

December 10th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^

Many in the Oakland area are saying that there really isn't anything strong going on with discussions in keeping the Raiders in Oakland.  I feel this is good news in regards to the Harbaugh situation.

btn

December 10th, 2014 at 12:00 PM ^

I actually think this is bad news for us.

I has read that the main thing keeping San Fran from trading Harbaugh to Oakland was they did not want him coaching the Raiders while they played in the 49ers stadium while their new stadium was being built. This neatly solves that problem.

Can Michigan compete with a team willing to relocate to get their coach?

ShadowStorm33

December 10th, 2014 at 12:14 PM ^

SF's say in this is minimal at best. They can't trade Harbaugh anywhere he doesn't want to go. I'm pretty convinced he would never go to the Raiders, since they're one of if not the most dysfunctional organizations in professional sports. He'd never get the kind of control he will be most certainly demanding, and it'll be SF management problems all over again, only magnified. That being said, probably one of the only things the Raiders have going for them is their location, in the Bay Area. Move them and that goes away too.

UofM626

December 10th, 2014 at 12:08 PM ^

Just for fucking Harbaugh people! The Silver and Crap have been trying to get out of Oakland for years! I for one hope they stay the hell up there and don't ever come down here to LA.... I can't stand the team and especially there ghetto ass fans

'07LesMilesMafia

December 10th, 2014 at 12:18 PM ^

having lived in AA, SF and LA, i'll say that the lifestyle/culture difference between LA and SF is much greater than SF vs. Ann Arbor.  That being said, LA is still an awesome place to live.