Harry P. Posted December 13, 2015 Posted December 13, 2015 Today is Sunday, which means I spent my afternoon watching the Bears lose (again!)... this time to Washington. Sheesh... But watching football got me wondering... how is it that Los Angeles, the second-largest city (and media market) in the entire country has no NFL team? Years ago the LA Rams moved to St. Louis when the St. Louis Cardinals moved to Phoenix... so in the "realignment" St. Louis got the Rams and Arizona got the Cardinals... but LA was left without a pro football team! A small city like Green Bay has a very successful pro team, but a huge megalopolis like LA doesn't? Huh? And on the same subject, how does a big city like Las Vegas have no pro sports teams at all? No baseball, football, basketball, or hockey? How is that possible? You would think the big brains running pro sports would be eager to tap the Las Vegas market.
Rob Hall Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 It's complicated.... but most likely LA will have a team again in the next few years...lots of talk of a new stadium and either the Rams, Chargers or Raiders (or two of them) moving there. One reason I've read there are no pro sports in LV is all the gambling. Another big city w/ out pro sports is Columbus--they don't have a pro football, baseball or basketball team...I've read it's because Ohio State is so big in college sports.
Harry P. Posted December 14, 2015 Author Posted December 14, 2015 But Columbus at least has a pro hockey team. LV has no pro teams at all!As far as gambling goes... yeah, that applies to the tourist trade. They go to Vegas to gamble, not watch sports. But if you actually live in Las Vegas, I'm sure the whole "strip" thing gets old soon. I'm pretty sure a city the size of Las Vegas, with a metro area population of a million people, could easily support a few pro sports teams. Seems odd to me that there are no pro teams in Las Vegas.
Agent G Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 For decades, Las Vegas was the only place to make a legal sports wager. To prevent any form of gambling related corruption surrounding pro sports, there would be no franchises in 'Vegas. Fast forward to the 21st century and we are actively seeking some form of pro franchise here. I think the NHL will "break the ice". Trust me, the "strip thing" gets old fast.......... G
Harry P. Posted December 14, 2015 Author Posted December 14, 2015 Trust me, the "strip thing" gets old fast..........G Yes, I would think so.
Agent G Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Once you work in a casino, or in my case regulate/police them, the allure is gone. Certain restaurants and shows are the only draws. When she retired, MrsG was the "Director of Casino Operations" at the old Las Vegas Hilton. She has repeatedly said she will never go back into "the industry".She had a great offer as the Executive Vice President of the Race/Sports Book in the Fountainbleu. (The woman can set a line faster than most and nearly as fast as the pro handicappers) VP's rarely if ever get on the floor, or in her case, the book itself, so she said yes. Trouble is that place will never open and most likely be torn down. It was such an offer that I could have retired.....again........G
Harry P. Posted December 14, 2015 Author Posted December 14, 2015 BTW... is it true that the famed "Las Vegas Strip" with all those iconic hotels/casinos is actually not technically in Las Vegas at all? I remember reading that the "strip" is actually outside the city limits of Las Vegas.
Monty Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Harry, my answer is based on something I read in Sports Illustrated a couple decades ago. The article basically said that the LA Rams had a hard time filling the stadium because there's so many other things to do and see in and around the area. In addition, a team will generally draw more fans when the team is performing well. The Rams allegedly want to move back to LA, but they haven't had a +.500 season since 2003, so I'm not sure the "draw'' is going to be there. As someone else mentioned, there's also the prospect of sharing a stadium with the Chargers of Raiders, which I would think would further dilute the fanbase.
Agent G Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Oh no."The Strip" is not in the city of Las Vegas, it is technically unincorporated Clark County, Nevada.Downtown "Fremont Street" is in the city.https://www.google.com/maps/place/Las+Vegas,+NV/@36.1246737,-115.4551966,10z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x80beb782a4f57dd1:0x3accd5e6d5b379a3Zoom in and you'll see the strip in not in the city.G
High octane Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 BTW... is it true that the famed "Las Vegas Strip" with all those iconic hotels/casinos is actually not technically in Las Vegas at all? I remember reading that the "strip" is actually outside the city limits of Las Vegas.I have a few cousins living in Vegas Harry, and that's simply not true.
Agent G Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Your cousins are wrong.I live here. The strip is NOT in the city.G
Rob Hall Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 BTW... is it true that the famed "Las Vegas Strip" with all those iconic hotels/casinos is actually not technically in Las Vegas at all? I remember reading that the "strip" is actually outside the city limits of Las Vegas.Correct, the strip is in unincorporated Paradise..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_Nevada
Harry P. Posted December 14, 2015 Author Posted December 14, 2015 So when the vast majority of tourists "go to Las Vegas" and presumably stay in a hotel on the strip... they actually aren't in Las Vegas! Hilarious! I do know that the "old" downtown area (the Fremont Street area with that cool light show thingie on the overhead canopy) is in Las Vegas. But how ironic that the most iconic tourist attractions in Las Vegas aren't in Las Vegas!
Mark Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 For many years, the NFL has used LA as a bogeyman, in order to squeeze cities with existing franchises into building new arenas for those teams. "If we don't get a new stadium, we can't stay competitive, and might need to move...and, you know, Los Angeles doesn't have a team...". Now most franchises either have a new stadium, or one in the works, so that ploy isn't working anymore. Never mind that with the TV deals that are in place, they could let people into the stadium for free, and they'd still be making money...
Petetrucker07 Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 There are 2 real options on the table right now. One is the Chargers making a move up the 405 freeway to the old Hollywood Park complex in Inglewood, or the big sports stadium near Staples Center. But part the problem is funding. I just had a conversation with a co-worker tonight about this very subject. The NFL doesn't want to loose ANY money, the people don't want a stadium built with public funds, and private funding isn't there. But, there are a 2 real options, that are very close to a decision. When, who knows. It may never go through based on the track record of this issue over the past 15 or 20 years.
Harry Joy Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 I lived near St. Louis when they snagged the Rams. The big dig against LA was always that they did a poor job of supporting teams, and never went to see them.
Harry P. Posted December 14, 2015 Author Posted December 14, 2015 I lived near St. Louis when they snagged the Rams. The big dig against LA was always that they did a poor job of supporting teams, and never went to see them.But even if the actual stadium was empty, wouldn't the TV deal alone pretty much guarantee a profit?
Petetrucker07 Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 LA fans are fair weather people for sure. Look at the Clippers, nuff said. Nobody liked them till they were doing well.
Mark Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 But even if the actual stadium was empty, wouldn't the TV deal alone pretty much guarantee a profit?But, it's not enough. It's never enough.
High octane Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Your cousins are wrong.I live here. The strip is NOT in the city.GCorrect, the strip is in unincorporated Paradise..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_NevadaUnincorporated Paradise and Winchester use a Las Vegas mailing address.
1930fordpickup Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 But even if the actual stadium was empty, wouldn't the TV deal alone pretty much guarantee a profit?Yes it would for the owner of the team. They do not need to sell many tickets to turn a profit in the NFL. That just pads the pocket for the owner with ticket sales. One problem is that the owners do not pay for very much if anything that goes into the stadiums anymore. If people do not show up for the games and spend money in the area of the stadium the city that pays for the stadium does not turn a profit on their investment . Sure they get the tax dollars of what the players earn that year but the stadium cost more than that to build. One thing I do not understand about the LA thing is that all three teams ( in the running)have already been in LA at one point or another. How many strikes does a city get? I will gladly send the Lions to LA for a team that wants to win to come to Detroit. For whatever reason the fans here are still going to the games in droves. Any owner with a good team would make a killing in Detroit.
Agent G Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Unincorporated Paradise and Winchester use a Las Vegas mailing address.Yes they do but, they are not within the city limits of Las Vegas.G
Dave Ambrose Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 I think the Chargers moving to LA is all but ratified. The city and county each offered $200M for the stadium. That isn't enough for them, and they've been completely intransigent in discussions with the city. Their primary representative is from LA. so they'll probably be leaving for Carson.I like football, but I gotta say, good riddance.
Monty Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 My poor Raiders are supposedly considering a joint venture with the Chargers at a shared stadium near Carson. I hate the prospect because so much of the Raiders' identity is built around Oakland, not Carson or Irwindale or, God forbid, San Antonio TX. I don't know much about the team, their fans or the organization, but I have to wonder how well the Chargers will do away from their SC fan base.
Quick GMC Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 My poor Raiders are supposedly considering a joint venture with the Chargers at a shared stadium near Carson. I hate the prospect because so much of the Raiders' identity is built around Oakland, not Carson or Irwindale or, God forbid, San Antonio TX. I don't know much about the team, their fans or the organization, but I have to wonder how well the Chargers will do away from their SC fan base. That's already been scrapped as far as I know. Also, from what I heard the last two weeks, the Chargers are done in SD and likely moving to LA.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now