After 21-year absence, Los Angeles will get a football team.
Unfortunately, it's currently St. Louis' team. I'm sad to see that market lose NFL football.
(I'm old enough that I still kind of associate the Rams with LA. "St. Louis Rams" has always sounded weird to my ear.)
NFL owners in Houston voted 30-2 to ratify the Sent Lois Rams' relocation application for an immediate move to LA.
Which raises the question of where they will play while their new stadium is being built. The talk I hear is the Colisseum. That place is ancient, but USC plays there to huge crowds, so it can host large football events I guess. The Rose Bowl would be another viable option. UCLA plays there.
The Rams could be joined by San Diego Chargers, who have a one-year option to decide if they want to relocate and join the Rams, where both teams will eventually share same stadium in 2019. that should be built at proposed stadium site in Inglewood.
The Chargers have already said no, no, no and no, they don't want to be a secondary tenant in the Rams' stadium. They were willing to share the proposed Carson stadium with the Raiders, since the Chargers would be part owners and would probably have more clout than the hapless Raiders. I guess that a big part of the value of a football team these days is owning the stadium and facilities.
Personally, I have always kind of liked the Chargers, ever since the Dan Fouts days. I like the city of San Diego a lot and would much rather that they get their act together and generate a stadium proposal down there. I don't want to see San Diego lose football too.
Oakland Raiders withdrew their application for relocation in LA on Tuesday and will work with the league toward a stadium solution, most likely in Oakland.
I live in the Bay Area and like the Raiders a lot more than the 49'ers. I'd love to see the Raiders stay in Oakland. (Oakland is already losing the Warriors, who are moving to tonier and more upscale San Francisco, and the A's also need a new ball-park and are iffy about staying.) But... Oakland's already struggling to pay its bills and isn't going to put huge sums of city money into a new Raiders stadium where the Raiders' already-rich owners will reap the benefits. Nor are they willing to hand over valuable real estate that they could otherwise develop. So I don't see much chance of the Raiders ever building a new stadium in Oakland. They can't pay for it themselves.
So I anticipate the Raiders moving away. Where isn't certain. San Antonio has been trying to lure them. St. Louis would be a good option, with that billion dollar river-front stadium plan of theirs. Unfortunately the NFL has already judged it "inadequate", without specifying exactly why. Presumably the league was really determined that the Rams move back to LA and didn't want any distractions. So the plan might not be so inadequate if it's the Raiders moving into it. It's certainly as big and lavish as anything the Raiders could afford to build in Oakland. There have even been rumors about the NFL wanting to move a team into Toronto, Mexico City or even London.
If the Chargers decide not to move to Los Angeles, the Raiders will have a one-year option to join the Rams in Inglewood.
I'd speculate that might be more likely than the Chargers moving there. It all depends on whether the Chargers can get a new stadium done in San Diego. (Having their Carson plan rejected might refocus their attention on really trying to do that.) They definitely don't want to be the Rams' tenant in the Rams' stadium. But it might look more tempting to the hapless Raiders. My guess is that the Raiders would explore other options first, though.
If I had to guess, my guess would be that the Raiders will most likely be in San Antonio in five years.
