NFL Franchise in Toronto?

[triplexpac]

Article 1

Article 2

But then again...

Article 3

Long story short:

The men who own the Leafs and the Blue Jays have finally publicly admitted they want to work together to bring a National Football League team to Toronto.

- The Toronto Star

Edited September 7, 2006 by triplexpac

[The Sultan of Swank]

There go the Argo's

[Ananas]

There goes the CFL as any kind of mainstream entity too. Seriously, Ted Rogers would piss on the flag if it would make him a few bucks.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

That's great, but the NFL doesn't want Toronto, and has repeatedly said so.

And the CFL would still survive, just not the Argos. The Ti-Cats and all the Western teams have loyal enough fanbases to keep it afloat.

[Evil Chase K]

Please no. Unless it's a current team moving there, but don't expand and ruin what you have now.

[Ananas]

And the CFL would still survive, just not the Argos. The Ti-Cats and all the Western teams have loyal enough fanbases to keep it afloat.

[DMN in the House]

Los Angeles first dammit!

[Toe]

Only if Flutie is the QB opening day....

[oldskool]

They want LA to get one, but they won't be giving out new teams. Tagliabue said once they let Cleveland in for 31 that they wanted to re-align the teams, and once Houston came in with 32 they did so; they won't fuck it up to add LA or Toronto for 33, or even both at 34.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Los Angeles first dammit!

[DMN in the House]

I already support the Kings. They annoy me by looking like they might challenge for the playoffs, then just throwing it all away. Fuckers.

[NobBe Nobbs]

I already support the Kings. They annoy me by looking like they might challenge for the playoffs, then just throwing it all away. Fuckers.

[GhostMachine]

Frankly, Los Angeles doesn't deserve another team. I don't blame them for losing the Raiders back to Oakland, because Al Davis is an asshole. But they couldn't hold onto the Rams and the stadium that's left in LA needs to be torn down and replaced, not repaired and refurbished, and from what I heard LA refused to do that.

I still can't believe Houston got an expansion team after the way the Oilers were treated the last few years they were there.

If the NFL ever does expand, I would hope cities that have never had an NFL team would get them, instead of cities that have had teams but couldn't hold onto them.

A team in Canada eventually would probably be a good idea, but not in Toronto.

[ACCBiggz]

NFL doesn't need a big market like LA, and after LA has already tried both the Raiders and Rams... they don't need another chance. It is already proven they don't need a franchise there.

As for Toronto... I'm against it too.

[DMN in the House]

We don't need a team, and, honestly, I won't support them, as I'll never leave the Raiders, but it'd be cool to have one here.

Oh, and there's nothing wrong with the Coloseum, it needs some work, but they'll never tear it down, and it works fine for USC, who draws just as much, if not more, than most NFL teams.

[NobBe Nobbs]

That's an interesting thought; were the league to expand to 34 teams, where would you put the new two? I'd be inclined to give Las Vegas a chance as it'd probably get a nice reception, and maybe an obscure state like Delaware or Utah.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

Thus proving that Be knows nothing about the business of American sports.

The NFL won't expand to Las Vegas as long as they allow betting on football. And besides that, placing a team in a tourism-oriented city is never a good idea. The CFL tried Las Vegas, and it bombed even more than the other American markets.

Delaware's not big enough to support a team, and Utah's happy with the Broncos.

I would say put a team in LA (although don't be surprised if you need a contingency plan), and one in Toronto (from the league's standpoint).

[livid]

It's true that the NFL doesn't need a team in LA, but it's the second biggest market in and they don't have a team there. Now, the NFL does fine and dandy, but who's to say that they can't make even more money by going to LA? A team in LA, regardless of whether they fucked up or not, is ultimately good for the NFL's business if it's done right. If it's not done right, you'll have another Rams/Raiders situation. Regardless of whatever you think, the next NFL team is going to be in LA.

And if they add another to go along with it, I have no clue where it would be. San Antonio maybe?

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

Getting back to the original topic, Howard Bloom has a great article up on the front page of sportsbusinessnews.com explaining why he thinks a team WILL head to Toronto.

And Beatnik, the CFL both can and will survive without a Toronto team. Maybe TSN will back out of its coverage, and rights fees will definitely go down, but the CBC would gladly take an opportunity to show a sport that will still get high ratings without a Toronto team (aside from massive hype jobs like Ricky Williams or Damon Allen breaking a meaningless record, the Argos don't get great ratings, and they easily have the least loyal fanbase in the league).

Cable rights could then go to Sportsnet (which is TRYING to get regional properties like an Argo-less CFL) or The Score.

[ACCBiggz]

It's true that the NFL doesn't need a team in LA, but it's the second biggest market in and they don't have a team there. Now, the NFL does fine and dandy, but who's to say that they can't make even more money by going to LA?