[max]

Why would the NFL abandon SD and not STL? Looking at this chart, it doesn't make sense...

[OldSchool]

Because St Louis is special and they don't need to attend games to prove they love their team. /sarcasm

[Jacksnowfan]

hope you posted this on RRF, they're delusional over there.

[SoCalRam78]

Well, obviously this is all secondary to Kroenke's bitterness to fans and the inept play of the Rams. Never mind they have a quality young team with an elite rookie running back. Plus San Diego has won all those recent super bowls and Spanos throws bouquets of roses at the fans every game.

Sorry, was channeling my inner Bernie there.

[max]

It also gets significantly better TV Ratings.
Leaving SD would be batshit.
Stl peeps say it would be crazy to leave that kind of stadium money on table.. There will be significant stadium $ in SD if the team ever comes to the table. And more eyeballs and butts in stands (at a higher avg ticket price, too) means more dollars.
It doesn't mean the league will choose SD... but I wouldn't get it.

Yeah, that's kind of my point.

I don't get how it is better for the NFL to have:
A. 2 teams in LA and 1 team in STL,
compared to:
B. 1 team in SD, 1 team in LA, and 1 team in Oakland.

B is clearly more profitable than A, yet there are owners who prefer the less profitable plan.

[Elvis]

It also gets significantly better TV Ratings.
Leaving SD would be batshit.
Stl peeps say it would be crazy to leave that kind of stadium money on table.. There will be significant stadium $ in SD if the team ever comes to the table. And more eyeballs and butts in stands (at a higher avg ticket price, too) means more dollars.
It doesn't mean the league will choose SD... but I wouldn't get it.

Yeah, that's kind of my point.

I don't get how it is better for the NFL to have:
A. 2 teams in LA and 1 team in STL,
compared to:
B. 1 team in SD, 1 team in LA, and 1 team in Oakland.

B is clearly more profitable than A, yet there are owners who prefer the less profitable plan.

Allegedly some of the owners care about what's best for Dean Spanos.

How true that is remains to be seen...

[bluecoconuts]

San Diego gets a lot of away fans into their stadium, so while that's cool for the 31 other owners, or at least the ones with fans that travel well, or the Raiders/Rams/Cowboys/Steelers (who have big fanbases in Southern California) it's not very good for Spanos. There are obviously several different reasons for this, including the potential relocation though.

I've heard the NFL doesn't want to give up San Diego, because they love them as a Super Bowl site, as they should. Having LA and a new San Diego stadium would probably make them quite happy, because it gives them two new places to hold the Super Bowl. However I think they'll look after their buddy first and foremost. If Spanos decides he wants to stay in San Diego, the NFL will be happy to help, if he doesn't they'll let him go.

San Diego and Oakland project better over the long run than St Louis does, which is why the NFL is probably leaning towards keeping them. If another NFL owner wanted to move to St Louis, they'd probably be happy to let him go (assuming Stan leaves of course), but they've indicated the potential growth isn't that good.

[SoCalRam78]

If Spanos moves to LA, how long will it be before he bitches about a team trying to move into the San Diego market? I give it a year.

[moklerman]

If Spanos moves to LA, how long will it be before he bitches about a team trying to move into the San Diego market? I give it a year.

Didn't you get the memo? It's Spanos' world, we're all just livin' in it. And stealing from him because we aren't paying for the privilege.

[SoCalRam78]

Well, there may be a decent turnout this weekend......of Bear fans that is, who will make up the majority of fans. 60-70% of the fans will be Bear fans I predict.