- Joined
- Mar 23, 2013
- Messages
- 96
Good news about Chris Borland retiring; though I'd be frustrated if he was a Ram, not a 49er.
We're fans, and something like this doesn't change that. Nor does domestic violence; or Adrian Peterson; or any of the other "outside influences" impacting the game.
But the NFL is trying to grow the brand; it's already got us. Thus the emphasis on female fans; on yearly games in London; on putting a franchise or franchises in LA. In my opinion, the Borland retirement - a 24-year-old third round pick on a high profile team - is yet another hit on the NFL's persona; it's "good will" in the marketplace.
In my opinion, these "attacks" on the shield bode well for St. Louis keeping an NFL presence. The commissioner HAS to fix LA; delays have resulted in three "lame duck" franchises; in St. Louis; in San Diego; and in Oakland. And there's no way that 4 franchises in California; none in St. Louis; makes sense. Heading for LA and leaving St. Louis bare looks like a pure money grab; it breaks the implicit contract between the NFL and its fans. That's NOT something other NFL owners would look at lightly, in my opinion.
Sure, NFL franchises make money; but the big value in the franchises is the growth in value, from when a franchise is purchased, to when it is sold. In my opinion, that's why Stan Kroenke is motivated to buy land in Inglewood; nothing else. An LA franchise - particularly if Kroenke keeps the merchandise rights as Jerry Jones has done in Dallas - is far more valuable than a franchise in St. Louis. It's a money grab, pure and simple; but at the same time, it denigrates the shield; breaks the bond between franchises and the cities who bleed for them. I don't see how NFL owners can permit that to happen; the value of their franchises is too tied up in good will they've garnered in their communities.
I don't know what the best solution is; permitting Kroenke to purchase the Broncos, and reconcile his NFL franchise with his other teams? permitting a trade of franchises? prohibiting Kroenke's move? I don't know. But it's time for Roger Goodell to set the agenda; to lead the owners to some decision that protects the NFL, as well as the individual franchises jockeying for a place in LA. I think such a decision also protects the NFL in St. Louis; anything else would unnecessarily diminish the brand.
Just my opinion. And any new development - even a 24-year-old retiring for health concerns - makes leadership in the LA situation that much more important.
We're fans, and something like this doesn't change that. Nor does domestic violence; or Adrian Peterson; or any of the other "outside influences" impacting the game.
But the NFL is trying to grow the brand; it's already got us. Thus the emphasis on female fans; on yearly games in London; on putting a franchise or franchises in LA. In my opinion, the Borland retirement - a 24-year-old third round pick on a high profile team - is yet another hit on the NFL's persona; it's "good will" in the marketplace.
In my opinion, these "attacks" on the shield bode well for St. Louis keeping an NFL presence. The commissioner HAS to fix LA; delays have resulted in three "lame duck" franchises; in St. Louis; in San Diego; and in Oakland. And there's no way that 4 franchises in California; none in St. Louis; makes sense. Heading for LA and leaving St. Louis bare looks like a pure money grab; it breaks the implicit contract between the NFL and its fans. That's NOT something other NFL owners would look at lightly, in my opinion.
Sure, NFL franchises make money; but the big value in the franchises is the growth in value, from when a franchise is purchased, to when it is sold. In my opinion, that's why Stan Kroenke is motivated to buy land in Inglewood; nothing else. An LA franchise - particularly if Kroenke keeps the merchandise rights as Jerry Jones has done in Dallas - is far more valuable than a franchise in St. Louis. It's a money grab, pure and simple; but at the same time, it denigrates the shield; breaks the bond between franchises and the cities who bleed for them. I don't see how NFL owners can permit that to happen; the value of their franchises is too tied up in good will they've garnered in their communities.
I don't know what the best solution is; permitting Kroenke to purchase the Broncos, and reconcile his NFL franchise with his other teams? permitting a trade of franchises? prohibiting Kroenke's move? I don't know. But it's time for Roger Goodell to set the agenda; to lead the owners to some decision that protects the NFL, as well as the individual franchises jockeying for a place in LA. I think such a decision also protects the NFL in St. Louis; anything else would unnecessarily diminish the brand.
Just my opinion. And any new development - even a 24-year-old retiring for health concerns - makes leadership in the LA situation that much more important.
