PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
https://mail.profootballresearchers.org/forum/
https://mail.profootballresearchers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3373
Don't forget Landover, MD (23,078), Foxborough, MA (16,865), and Orchard Park, NY (29,054).John Grasso wrote:If we can have a team in East Rutherford, NJ (pop. 8,513), why not?Ronfitch wrote:
But can we all agree it is time to give Decatur 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?
But Decatur was the first to see its team move, right?Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:Don't forget Landover, MD (23,078), Foxborough, MA (16,865), and Orchard Park, NY (29,054).John Grasso wrote:If we can have a team in East Rutherford, NJ (pop. 8,513), why not?Ronfitch wrote:
But can we all agree it is time to give Decatur another chance?
It's nice to see the NFL getting back to its small-town roots!
Money talks ... always has, always will.MIKEBENNIDICT 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?
How long do you expect the NFL and other places to hold a grudge against a city for such a reason?
Living in the Twin Cities as watching the discussions here (Twins stadium, Vikings stadium), I see no reason for leagues to NOT expect cities to pay ... the local leaders fall over themselves to offer to pay. With Los Angeles off the table now - at least as an empty market - the "threat" to move may be have less force now, but I guess there is always St. Louis.MIKEBENNIDICT wrote:Plus in my opinion the NFL and other leagues need to stop expecting cities to pay for their facilities and perhaps not constantly wanting to build new stadiums every 30 40 50 years.
Back in 2002, when the Chicago Bears were playing their home games at the University of Illinois stadium in Champaign, they planned to spend each night before the event at the Decatur Holiday Inn, 47 miles away. After a bus ride of more than an hour with the other game day traffic, that experiment got as old as a leather helmet and was abandoned after their first preseason home stand.Ronfitch wrote: But can we all agree it is time to give Decatur another chance?
And San Antonio is serious about Raiders, I personally don't see it, but Red McCombs is seriousRupert Patrick wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nf ... /79524848/
Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis is slated to meet with casino mogul Sheldon Adelson to discuss the potential relocation of the franchise to Las Vegas, according to published reports.