Raiders on the move

57K was the 3rd worst average that year and the 2nd worst for capacity filled so not great numbers, obviously you're fond of St Louis so are going to defend them, nothing wrong with that.

Ultimately LA was always going to get a team, unfortunately for St Louis the Rams were the prime target (could have been the Raiders, Chargers or Jags though), there was nothing about the stadium or fan base that could make a convincing case for them to stay and unfortunately the financial power of the NFL pushed the decision through.

 

The reason teams are moved is bad owners, they'll use whatever excuses they can. Attendance is near the bottom of reasons as well, TV money and relocation fees are what interest them more.

 

Isn't that the point? The NFL did whatever the heck it wanted to do, even if it meant violating their own rules and procedures, and they lied and misled those in one market (politicians, business leaders, fans, etc.) as cover. This demonstrates the lack of integrity within the NFL's operations and ownership group, which has shown itself in many other areas (long before the present taking-the-knee nonsense). The salient point here is that this kind of thinking, at least the ownership component, can be found within English football. The Allams? Would they screw over the city of Hull and the supports of Hull City AFC if they could score a big payday?

 

The Allams would screw anybody to make cash just like the Top 6 ****ers in The Prem are trying to do.

 

Interesting note on the NFL's Los Angeles debacle . . . the Nielson rating for the LA Rams is 7.5 despite being in first place with the likelihood of a winning season and playoffs. The new LA Chargers are drawing a 7.4 rating, making for a combined rating of 14.9 for the NFL in Los Angeles. This is still less than the ratings they drew in St. Louis, which was 18.5 in 2015, their 11th straight losing season. The LA television market is huge, but it isn't a good NFL market.