Will any other metro host multiple teams in the same sport?

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I said in the long run, things will get better as they build a fanbase grows. It was never going to be a overnight thing .

Nah dude, it's only their third year in town but it's time to hit the panic button and run around like your hair's on fire

The city added two NFL teams in successive years. Why aren't there huge fanbases for both teams already? lol

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by edale

You got defensive when someone mentioned the Chargers moving to LA being a mistake for the league, given the incredible apathy that Angelenos have toward the team. YOU brought up that the valuation of the team increased by moving to LA, which no one has disputed. What I, and others, have said is that valuation of the team is not the marker that anyone cares about except for the team owner and Roger Goodell. Yes, the Chargers are supposedly worth a lot more on paper now than when they were in San Diego. They are also a team essentially without a fan base and that no one cares about.

Relax, bud. No one is taking shots at Los Angeles. You don't have to go on a crusade again to save the city's reputation from mean skyscraperpage forumers.

I'm not sure where you guys are getting this from. The response regarding team value was only discussed to explain why the team won't move from los angeles. Stevie wonder can see that the chargers are not popular in Los Angeles

[LA21st]

Relax guys.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

I'm not sure where you guys are getting this from. The response regarding team value was only discussed to explain why the team won't move from los angeles. Stevie wonder can see that the chargers are not popular in Los Angeles

Exactly. I thought that was clear but you never know with this group.

Some people love putting words in other people's mouths in this thread.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Handro

I don't think you do understand though; he moved because he wanted a new stadium not because he though LA was a better market for his team. That's why it's so sweet watching the team struggle to sell season tickets after abandoning their rabid fan base in San Diego because taxpayers wouldn't fund his private stadium.

Taxpayers shouldn't spend one red cent to fund billionaires' hobbies. It's a damn crime how many teams extract massive concessions from desperate cities to move or keep teams there.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Taxpayers shouldn't spend one red cent to fund billionaires' hobbies. It's a damn crime how many teams extract massive concessions from desperate cities to move or keep teams there.

Agreed. It's nothing something to be proud of when cities give in.
Aren't conservatives supposed to be happy California's not spending taxpayer dollars on stupid sports stadiums?

I mean...

[Handro]

^yea, it should really be illegal. I think St. Louis is still on the hook for millions of dollars a year for the Rams stadium there.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Taxpayers shouldn't spend one red cent to fund billionaires' hobbies. It's a damn crime how many teams extract massive concessions from desperate cities to move or keep teams there.

Preach.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Taxpayers shouldn't spend one red cent to fund billionaires' hobbies. It's a damn crime how many teams extract massive concessions from desperate cities to move or keep teams there.

i think that's a tune we can all dance to.

no more tax payer money for billionaire team owners!

not one penny.

[ThePhun1]

Stadiums can be (and should be) free to local tax payers.

[craigs]

Someone up-thread mentioned the 49ers moved to the South Bay suburbs--that happened precisely because San Francisco refused to transfer money from taxpayers like myself up to the billionaire team owner. The city of Santa Clara was willing to do that, however, which has roiled their civic politics ever since.

[DCReid]

Some of the cities could perhaps support multiple soccer teams - NY and LA metro already does but perhaps Chicago and DFW could. Of course, there are many other cities that have no MLS team and many of them will get teams first.

[S Car Go]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I'll say it a third time,since it's so complicated for you. SPANOS CARES ABOUT THE VALUATION. HE DECIDES TO STAY OR GO.

Unless one of us here is Dean Spanos, who gives a shit? Everyone is just saying it was a negative move for the league and the fans.

[LA21st]

Nobody is saying it's not a shitty move.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

North Carolina should probably be rewarded an MLB team at some point

I always thought that 'Charlotte White Sox' had a nice ring to it.

Doubt it will ever happen, though.

[Razor]

unrelated, but can Pittsburgh support an NBA franchise?.
Montreal would be interesting as well for the NBA.
Cleveland another crack at the NHL? Ditto for Houston?

[Austin55]

Fort Worth is the largest US city not to have it's name on a MLS, NHL, MLB NFL or NBA team, now that Austin has an MLS team.

[ThePhun1]

When you take into account that major league sports play in its county, what is the largest city with no pro sports in its county nor named for the city? Fresno?

Edit: the winner is Louisville, which still has high level collegiate sports.

[ThePhun1]

Anchorage is the largest city and metro without major pro sports or D-I college sports. The largest in the contiguous states s Laredo. And no, Mesa doesn't count, it would be next.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Anchorage is the largest city and metro without major pro sports or D-I college sports. The largest in the contiguous states s Laredo. And no, Mesa doesn't count, it would be next.

I thought it was Rochester, NY.