Page 1 of 1
NFL wants team in LA
Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 9:29 pm
by Jake
NFL Wants Team in L.A.
By Brent Kallestad
Associated Press
Tuesday, May 25, 2004; 7:26 PM
AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. -- The NFL would like to have a team back in Los Angeles by 2008, Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said Tuesday.
Tagliabue said league owners were pushing for a decision on a stadium site by next spring, giving the NFL the time it needs to return a franchise to the country's second largest television market by 2008.
"We're hopeful we can stick to a timeline that would have us make some decisions on a stadium project maybe a year from now in May of '05," he said.
The league, which has not had a team in the Los Angeles area since the Rams departed for St. Louis 10 years ago, has been working with groups representing sites at Carson, the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.
"Everyone has been working at this," Tagliabue said. "At some point decisions need to be made."
League owners have made no decision about expanding to a 33rd team or moving a troubled franchise to Los Angeles when and if they come to an agreement on a stadium there.
Indianapolis owner Jim Irsay, who is involved in discussions with community and state leaders about improvements in the Colts' situation, said he was confident of working out a new deal to remain in Indiana.
"This is clearly on the frontburner," he said. "More and more we're trying to get people behind this thing.
"I'm 44 years old, I'm not signing until I'm 74 years ... unless I know we have a strong, long-term plan," Irsay said.
The NFL also said it plans to honor the memory of former Arizona Cardinals defensive back Pat Tillman during the regular season -- perhaps by having all teams display a helmet decal with his uniform No. 40.
Tillman, who starred at Arizona State and then the Cardinals before rejecting a multimillion dollar contract to join the Army, was killed last month in Afghanistan during a firefight with the enemy. He was 27.
"We previewed some of the initial thinking we have about paying tribute," Tagliabue said. "The key thing here is to have a proper balance between respecting what Pat did and what all the other men and women of the military do."
Owners also heard some preliminary discussions about the league's preparations for new television agreements and received an update on Jacksonville's preparations for the 2005 Super Bowl, scheduled Feb. 6.
Tagliabue said he would detail the Super Bowl preparations Wednesday. The owners wrap up their spring meeting Thursday.
Former NFL quarterback Jack Kemp briefed owners on the USA Football program aimed at increasing interest in the sport. This year the league will help with a kickoff promotion, "Play Football Week," that will run from Aug. 28 to Sept. 4.
Supported by the league and players association, it will promote youth registration and participation in programs sponsored by police leagues, YMCA's and Pop Warner, among others.
© 2004 The Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... May25.html
Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 11:38 am
by CVGVIKE
L.A. doesn't deserve another team. They had both the Rams (OKAY..the Rams were technically in Anaheim) and Raiders and they're both gone. Obviously, the NFL wants one there for the TV revenue. But I would rather see another large market get a new team. Or even a small market. How about Omaha, Nebraska? Those guys and gals love their football and I'm sure they would fill up a stadium for a new NFL team much more than L.A. fans. The only problem with Omaha is that I'm sure there are already many thousands of Viking fans there and they would not want to change teams. But there are cities that should get a NFL team before L.A.
Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 11:58 am
by Redskins Rule
From what I understand alot of residents of LA want a team there. Personally, I will be surprised if they put a team there just because they already have two teams playing pretty close to one another.
Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 2:16 pm
by REDEEMEDSKIN
Redskins Rule wrote:From what I understand alot of residents of LA want a team there. Personally, I will be surprised if they put a team there just because they already have two teams playing pretty close to one another.
Are you really Peter Angelos in disguise? 
L.A. should have a team. Maybe they can be the LA MOVERS, so when they move away, nobody can say they were not warned.
Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 4:00 pm
by joebagadonuts
it's all about the money. la is the country's second largest tv market. cha. ching.
i think adding a 33rd team is a monumental mistake. the talent pool is pretty thin as it is. how else can kordell stewart CONTINUE to get jobs in the nfl?!? and look at our dline last year. no way they stink that bad if there are only 26 or 28 teams.
i say move the bengals. i mean, how is it that the state of ohio gets two teams?!? what genius worked that one out?
Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 4:57 pm
by REDEEMEDSKIN
joebagadonuts wrote:i say move the bengals.
That would really test the old question: Can a tiger change its stripes?
Marvin and L.A.??? The last time he was involved with an L.A. he knew what was best for him and left.
Perhaps that L.A. pans out a lot better.
Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 10:00 am
by skinsfaninroanoke
Seems to me that it is because a good number of the original NFL came from Ohio:
Canton Bulldogs
Cleveland Tigers
Dayton Triangles
Akron Professionals
Rochester (N.Y.) Jeffersons
Rock Island Independents
Muncie Flyers
Decatur Staleys
Chicago Cardinals
Hammond Pros
You had teams joining and leaving the APFA (what the NFL was called originally) for some time - you want the geneaology - check it here
http://www.football.com/history/index.shtml
Quite a history...
Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 8:04 pm
by Irn-Bru
* I'm glad that the NFL is honoring Pat Tillman (and by doing so honoring all of our soldiers) this year. It's a good gesture, and I think it will be well received.
* NO MORE EXPANSION TEAMS
* If anything, I'd say move Arizona. They couldn't sell out if they gave people 5 dollars to show up at the game. I know that the stadium is new and all, but by 2008 or so maybe it won't be so hard to move them away for the right price. LA certainly shouldn't have the Raiders--they belong in Oakland. Having the Rams in St. Louis is a nice fit. The only other team I think that you could possibly move would be Bengals, but even they are a distant 2nd. Heck, if Modell still owned a team he would rip them out of a city no matter how awesome the fan base was.
* DC deserves a Superbowl. They need to stop thinking about weather conditions so much and spread it around a little more. It's no fun watching the Superbowl year after year in places like New Orleans, Tampa, Atlanta, Miami, etc. etc. Weather conditions are a part of the game, and it favors cities/areas over others too much. (Then again, I wouldn't jump for joy at having the Superbowl at Lambeau field, so I am being a bit biased here)
ARE YOU KIDDING???!!!
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:06 am
by REDEEMEDSKIN
FanfromAnnapolis wrote:* DC deserves a Superbowl. They need to stop thinking about weather conditions so much and spread it around a little more. Weather conditions are a part of the game, and it favors cities/areas over others too much. (Then again, I wouldn't jump for joy at having the Superbowl at Lambeau field, so I am being a bit biased here)
I used to think the same way, but after my trip to Miami this past weekend, I can definitely say NO to a Super Bowl in DC. Weather is a HUGE factor, but traffic would be as well. We can barely handle our daily rush hour, and to think we could handle the extra traffic a super bowl brings would be ridiculous. Ahhhh...... Miami. 