Talk:Los Angeles Stadium (Industry)

Which Teams, if Any, Might Move Here?

I am not sure how to state this "encyclopedically": is there any reasons to believe that any teams are actually trying to move to this new stadium? Almost every NFL team already has a new stadium, or a refurbished older stadium. The two most obvious candidates are the Oakland Raiders (who played for several years in Los Angeles) and the San Francisco 49ers. The San Diego Chargers have a fairly newly renovated stadium but they might also be tempted to move. The New Orleans Saints come to mind for obvious reasons but they supposedly have a longterm deal to remain in New Orleans. The New York Jets have never had their own stadium during their half-century of existence, but they are massively popular and will be sharing a new facility with the New York Giants next year. The Minnesota Vikings are a mediocre team with an outdated stadium, but a new stadium seems to be on its way. Is there anyone else? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer my own rhetorical question, the Kansas City Chiefs and Jacksonville Jaguars also have stadium and/or attendance issues. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Chiefs are staying put in Kansas City...a few years ago, the taxpayers there approved a sales tax to help fund renovations to both Arrowhead and Kauffman Stadiums. The Jaguars' future in Jacksonville is in absolute doubt. There's talk that could play one or two games in Orlando at a soon-to-be renovated Citrus Bowl, and of course, there's always L.A. --ShawnHill 17:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The most likely candidates are the Raiders and Jaguars. Al Davis said he always wanted to stay in Los Angeles has long as the city renovated the Coliseum. When that didn't happened, he went back to Oakland. Although with Al's big ego, I doubt he'll want to give up 40 percent stake on the team. As with Jacksonville, the city is not big enough to support an NFL team. The population of the city is inflated because it's a consolidated city–county. The real population should be closer to 500,000 comparable to cities such as Sacramento, not 800,000. Imagine the city and county of Sacramento merging. Its population will be even bigger than that of Jacksonville. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.91.214 (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

YouTube Video of Goodell

Re this edit, I watched this hour-long video (actually quite interesting in parts) and I didn't hear anything that related to the notion that the Steelers are candidates to move to Los Angeles. Unless someone else heard something I missed and can point to a specific statement in the video that verifies the claim made by this edit, I would think the edit in question should be reverted.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

USC Trojans football stadium relocated

USC Trojans plans to relocated football stadium from Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum to Los Angeles Stadium by 2015. 71.137.233.211 (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be an interesting addition if you have a reference. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Temporary Homes

Dodger Stadium was mentioned as a possible temporary home for an NFL team while the new "Los Angeles Stadium" was built. This is unlikely because there never has been a football game at Dodger Stadium, not to mention the fact that and Dodgers owner Frank McCourt has expressed the desire to build a football stadium on the current Dodgers Stadium parking lot. It is unclear why Dodger Stadium was on the list while Angel Stadium (which actually has hosted pro football in the past and which is still used for high school playoff games) was left off. The Home Depot Center soccer stadium is another possibility although some temporary seats might be needed. I think it is best to just name the three existing large football stadiums in Southern California and leave it at that for now. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Qualcomm Stadium Flood

I think the mention of this is irrelevent to this article as it has no effect on where the Chargers will play in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanFTW85 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you leave the vikings stadium problems behind when you removed the Chargers issue? R U a SD Chargers fan?Smith03 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC) ps I am a Minnesota Vikings fan

I left the Vikings stadium problems because I don't know anymore about it than what is right in front of me. Since you're the expert then please tell us if it has any baring on them moving to LA. I don't understand what any of that has to do with leaving the Chargers incident in the article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanFTW85 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question no the roof collapse has nothng to do with a possible move. the lease is up after 2011 season that is what is trigging the talk. I am not sure that either the dome's roof collapse or the flood in SD is really relative to the article. However it seem funny when someone removes one but leaves the other in the article.Smith03 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How is it funny? Why would I remove anything to do with something I know nothing about (the Minnesota stadium). I removed the San Diego reference because I know it's irrelevent. If you think the Minnesota reference is irrelevent then go ahead and remove it.SeanFTW85 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Los Angeles Stadium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213095144/http://www.sgvtribune.com/stadium to http://www.sgvtribune.com/stadium
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614011339/http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_13593698 to http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_13593698
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/63720272.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiU9PmP%3AQiUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaUU
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091216103505/http://www.sgvtribune.com/stadium/ci_11996296 to http://www.sgvtribune.com/stadium/ci_11996296
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091216102140/http://www.sgvtribune.com/stadium/ci_13406305 to http://www.sgvtribune.com/stadium/ci_13406305

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)