Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

nicefellow31 wrote:

mwald wrote:Kroenke's another big business man, won't try to paint it any different. But funny how the press hasn't gone out of their way to report how he's (apparently) footing most of the bill.

My only regret is no real grass. But maybe I presume too much. $1.7 billion might make that happen, too.

Kroenke is footing the bill in L.A. but didn't want to pay for a stadium in St. Louis?

The franchise will be become more valuable in Los Angeles and Kroenke will be able to hang out with people like Tom Cruise.

JWL wrote:
The franchise will be become more valuable in Los Angeles and Kroenke will be able to hang out with people like Tom Cruise.

Maybe it's a conspiracy by the scientologists?

JWL wrote:

nicefellow31 wrote:

mwald wrote:Kroenke's another big business man, won't try to paint it any different. But funny how the press hasn't gone out of their way to report how he's (apparently) footing most of the bill.

My only regret is no real grass. But maybe I presume too much. $1.7 billion might make that happen, too.

Kroenke is footing the bill in L.A. but didn't want to pay for a stadium in St. Louis?

The franchise will be become more valuable in Los Angeles and Kroenke will be able to hang out with people like Tom Cruise.

Well I'm a Redskins fan and our owner has had Tom Cruise at our games and training camp. I think that experience may be a little overrated.

Lessee, in no particular order:

Baltimore loses the Colts, and gains the Ravens
Houston loses the Oilers and gains the Texans
Los Angeles loses the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams, and regains the Rams (and maybe the Chargers)
Cleveland loses the Browns (which become the Ravens) and regains the "new" Browns
St. Louis loses the Cardinals, then gains (and subsequently loses) the Rams

This isn't meant to be an exhaustive list, but presented only to provide background to my question: why is it if a city proves it cannot hold onto an NFL franchise, the NFL allows them to have another team? Having shown once that it cannot hold on to a team, why is the NFL so ready to give them another chance?

fgoodwin wrote:Lessee, in no particular order:

Baltimore loses the Colts, and gains the Ravens
Houston loses the Oilers and gains the Texans
Los Angeles loses the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams, and regains the Rams (and maybe the Chargers)
Cleveland loses the Browns (which become the Ravens) and regains the "new" Browns
St. Louis loses the Cardinals, then gains (and subsequently loses) the Rams

This isn't meant to be an exhaustive list, but presented only to provide background to my question: why is it if a city proves it cannot hold onto an NFL franchise, the NFL allows them to have another team? Having shown once that it cannot hold on to a team, why is the NFL so ready to give them another chance?

In all but the Chargers case (a new team in a fledgling league), the owner of the team that moved was a lowlife or simply incompetent: Irsay, Adams, Davis, Frontiere, Modell, Bidwill--a regular Rogue's Gallery.

BD Sullivan wrote:

fgoodwin wrote:Lessee, in no particular order:

Baltimore loses the Colts, and gains the Ravens
Houston loses the Oilers and gains the Texans
Los Angeles loses the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams, and regains the Rams (and maybe the Chargers)
Cleveland loses the Browns (which become the Ravens) and regains the "new" Browns
St. Louis loses the Cardinals, then gains (and subsequently loses) the Rams

This isn't meant to be an exhaustive list, but presented only to provide background to my question: why is it if a city proves it cannot hold onto an NFL franchise, the NFL allows them to have another team? Having shown once that it cannot hold on to a team, why is the NFL so ready to give them another chance?

In all but the Chargers case (a new team in a fledgling league), the owner of the team that moved was a lowlife or simply incompetent: Irsay, Adams, Davis, Frontiere, Modell, Bidwill--a regular Rogue's Gallery.

Alright, since you went there...why not?

Irsay and Frontiere, probably some mental instability there. Bidwill, a misanthrope. Modell and Adams, opportunists.

That leaves Davis. Easily one of the most hated owners ever, but maybe one of the most misunderstood? He was extremely intelligent, business savvy, and competent as hell (not counting his geriatric years, which will happen to all of us). He just didn't take sh*t from people.

Irsay may have been an incompetent owner, but the relocation of the Colts to Indianapolis wasn't evidence of that. That's more a case of a city doing everything it possibly could to force a team to move. Their ultimate threat to take ownership of the team, and the legislation they were in the process of enacting to seize the team, didn't leave Irsay with a whole lot of choice in what to do.

fgoodwin wrote:Lessee, in no particular order:

Baltimore loses the Colts, and gains the Ravens
Houston loses the Oilers and gains the Texans
Los Angeles loses the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams, and regains the Rams (and maybe the Chargers)
Cleveland loses the Browns (which become the Ravens) and regains the "new" Browns
St. Louis loses the Cardinals, then gains (and subsequently loses) the Rams

This isn't meant to be an exhaustive list, but presented only to provide background to my question: why is it if a city proves it cannot hold onto an NFL franchise, the NFL allows them to have another team? Having shown once that it cannot hold on to a team, why is the NFL so ready to give them another chance?

But can we all agree it is time to give Decatur another chance?

Ronfitch wrote:
But can we all agree it is time to give Decatur another chance?

If we can have a team in East Rutherford, NJ (pop. 8,513), why not?

by Ronfitch » Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:40 pm
"But can we all agree it is time to give Decatur another chance?"

But no one uses starch any more?

---

by John Grasso » Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:52 pm
"If we can have a team in East Rutherford, NJ (pop. 8,513), why not?"

Is that skeeters per house lot?