Burwell: St. Louis needs to move now to keep Rams

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874

Burwell: St. Louis needs to move now to keep Rams

• BRYAN BURWELL

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_ff6a32c7-b5f3-53aa-a262-8b84a6b2be51.html

It’s early September in Football America, and even in baseball-obsessed precincts such as St. Louis, the start of the NFL regular season has been known to whip its pockets of football diehards into heightened states of uncontrolled fanaticism. Baseball lovers may have a more notorious literary class elevating their athletic obsessions into romantic dream-like states. But NFL freaks have never let a lack of literary cache stop them from professing their undying loyalty to King Football religiously in sold-out football cathedrals every autumn Sunday.

Yet as the Rams open the 2014 regular season at home inside the Edward Jones Dome, the fanatic energy that should grip the downtown streets this Sunday morning with tailgating in the parking lots and a block-party buzz on the Broadway plaza is mixed with an unmistakable sense of a buzz kill permeating the air.

A lot of Rams loyalists are wondering if they’re gathering here for the beginning of the Last Roundup. The team’s lease agreement with the Convention and Visitors Commission, which runs the Edward Jones Dome, expires at the end of this season. That creates the rather anxious dynamic in which owner Stan Kroenke is free to play the high-stakes game of franchise free agency whose ultimate course could lead to the departure of the Rams as early as next season.

So instead of the overriding theme of the ’14 season being whether or not the Rams can survive the loss of quarterback Sam Bradford, make a major breakthrough and compete for the playoffs in the rugged NFC West, we’re dealing with the confusing machinations of a deal that is neither art nor science, just a big and complicated mess.

This is our maddening game of shadows. It’s layered in a labyrinth of confusing state and local politics, cloaked in blankets of complicated, secretive big-business ambitions, mixed with the history of a city and region that has so many great individual ideas but so few brilliant, all-encompassing plans. The fate of the Rams is about so many things that you’ll have to excuse me for a moment while my head swims.

Let’s just start with the most basic question that everyone wants to know and take it to the less obvious one that everyone should be discussing.

Question No. 1: Is this the beginning of the end for the Rams in St. Louis?

No one knows for sure. I’m not even sure Kroenke has made that decision, though there is a lot of well-informed speculation out there suggesting that he already has chosen Los Angeles over St. Louis. Yet based on his negotiating history, Kroenke tends to always have a plan but doesn’t execute it until the last possible moment. And for all those sources who say they know what he’s going to do? Well, Kroenke has a very tight circle of trust and he’s not likely revealing his strategy to anyone who would dare spill his moves before he executes them.

So let’s deal with far more important questions:

Is there a movement out there — or a smart local business or political leader — that can create a wide-sweeping regional plan that would prove to be a benefit to the entire region of greater St. Louis? And does anyone believe that a massive stadium and multipurpose real estate development surrounding it should be a part of that regional vision?

If we just stop looking at this as a Kroenke issue and decide if this is bigger than the Rams owner, then maybe we’d be onto something. St. Louis has historically been known as a town full of piecemeal, scatter-shot visions that seem to forever dot the city’s landscape — Northside up here, Ballpark Village down there, Gateway Arch project over there, Washington Avenue around there — but nothing that connects all these ideas into an all-encompassing renewal plan that merges all these dots into one harmonious urban dream of a unified St. Louis of the future.

I see what is happening in Oakland, where the city has at least put together something to bring to Raiders owner Mark Davis as an incentive to keep him from relocating the team back to LA. Maybe the plan will fall apart, but it’s worth looking at what they are at least proposing.

Is there anyone out there with the gumption and vision to make it happen for St. Louis?

Are there enough people out there that want it to happen?

Is there anyone out there who understands how to make it happen?

Stop looking at this as a stadium issue and instead envision it as a larger plan that will revitalize the entire region. The most troubling part of the political heel dragging that St. Louis is infamous for is that it plays right into Los Angeles’ hands. The more St. Louis waits, the more Gov. Jay Nixon proceeds with trepidation, the more incentive it gives Kroenke to find a way to put LA in play.

The thing I wish would happen now is for someone in power to declare if we actually want to keep the Rams. If we do, then stop messing around. Put a deal on the table for Kroenke to consider. Give him some of that valuable land that is along the Mississippi riverfront from the new bridge all the way down to the shadows of Busch Stadium. Land, land, land, land. That’s what billionaire real estate developers value most. Give him some land and let him join in a vision to expand the Gateway Arch project to even greater and spectacular proportions.

The trouble is, nothing ever is this easy in St. Louis.

The history of this town seems to doom it to self-destructive heel dragging and fractionalized defeatist thinking. People are more concerned with their own futures instead of concentrating on what’s best to stem the sagging fortunes of this perennial underdog region.

Does anyone out there believe that the Rams are a needed and irreplaceable asset to the region?

Ultimately, I wonder if the best possible solution to keep St. Louis as an NFL city is out-of-the-box thinking by commissioner Roger Goodell. Maybe this is a bit of far-fetched dreaming, but let’s just assume that the one thing that Kroenke values the most is the chance to build his ultimate football palace in LA, create a massive real estate development surrounding a Jerry World-like structure that would house a franchise that would become one of the more valuable in the NFL, the economic equal of the $3.2 billion Dallas Cowboys?

What if it doesn’t matter to him what the logo on the helmet says, just as long as the mailing address ends with “Los Angeles, California”?

So what do you give to the multi billionaire who has everything?

Why not the expansion rights to LA?

Would Kroenke value LA more than he values holding onto the Rams? If he really is that guy who repeatedly said how important it was for him to help bring the NFL back to Missouri, then maybe he’d want to be some sort of local hero and sell the Rams to a prospective owner who wants to keep them here and as a reward from the commissioner, the league cuts him a deal to let him become an expansion owner of a new Los Angeles team?

Just add that to the long, long list of wise guys with ideas. Maybe someone with a plan can string them all together and secure St. Louis’ NFL future. But time is running out.

Running out in a hurry.
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
17,846
What's with the recent overload of depressing moving articles from the #1 (by default) paper in St. Louis? From the Greg Robinson sitting, to this possibility of moving shit.

The beginning of the football season should be of excitement, with the possibility of a real good year (even without Sam Bradford).

But no, in typical PD fashion....

debbie-downer.jpg


One has to think, that if the Rams do go, the terrible PD coverage surely played a part in it.
 

Rams0307

Guest
They are bringing it up because the writers for the paper have recently found out that Governor Nixon has done nothing to put a plan in place to keep the Rams in St. Louis, even though he stated months ago that he would. That's disconcerting.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
What's with the recent overload of depressing moving articles from the #1 (by default) paper in St. Louis? From the Greg Robinson sitting, to this possibility of moving crap.

The beginning of the football season should be of excitement, with the possibility of a real good year (even without Sam Bradford).

But no, in typical PD fashion....

debbie-downer.jpg


One has to think, that if the Rams do go, the terrible PD coverage surely played a part in it.


They're not bringing up anything that 1000's of fans aren't already thinking. It's easy to forget on here that this site is typically more of the Rams fan. I mean, Rams no matter where they are. The majority of fans in any town are fans of THAT towns football team. When I go to work and BS about football with co-workers, or go outside and BS with neighbors it's always the same talk. "I don't know, I'm not real excited this year. Good chance they won't even be here in a couple years."

You can blame the PD, or Silent Stan, or whoever. Fact is, until people see some sort of movement from ANYONE, this stuff ain't going away.
 

thirteen28

I like pizza.
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
8,324
Name
Erik
I don't live in St. Louis or LA and don't necessarily have a dog in this fight, but I did save a chunk of a chat from JT from last year which was pretty interesting in terms of numbers:

You're right. It's a tough puzzle to solve. But there can be a way out. Let's say Kroenke moves to LA. New stadium cost: in excess of $1 billion. Relocation fee: At least $800 million. Then through in associated costs of playing in another stadium while his is being built, plus having practicing facilities, team offices and any related costs with environmental impact issues, etc. You're talking more than $2 billion. Now consider a possible St. Louis solution: NFL stadium fund kicks in $200 million; city and state come up with $400 million (the CVC already was at $180 million, so you need "just" another $220 million), Stan kicks in $400 million and you have a $1 billion stadium. So the question for Stan is: Would you rather kick in $400 million to stay in St. Louis and get a new stadium and be a local hero, or pay more than $2 billion to get a new stadium in LA? Doesn't seem like that tough of a decision to me. Ways for St. Louis and the state to come up with $220 million _ 1.) Raise the cigarette tax, it's already one of the lowest in the nation _ to the point where many in Illinois side of St L buy their cigs in Mo. _ and have some of that money got to cancer research, etc.; 2.) Raise hotel and rental car taxes. The vast majority of people who use hotels and rental cars are out of towners. Do you really think they'll notice and extra dollar or two on their bill?


http://live.stltoday.com/Event/Rams_chat_with_Jim_Thomas_28?Page=1

Looking at that, I just don't see how it makes sense for Stan to pack up and move to LA business-wise in the near and even intermediate term. For all of the stadium proposals out there, he's not going to own the building in any one of them. He's going to have a fight on his hands from at least Alex Spanos of the Chargers as well, and that could split the owners. And after the move, he'll have California taxes to deal with, which are much higher than Missouri's, as California is in top 3 for highest tax burdens in the nation. When you couple that with attendance issues that both the Rams and Raiders had when in that area, it really begins to be a dicey proposition business-wise, at least from my view.

Honestly, I really don't get the whole hoopla with LA as being such an important market for the NFL to have a team in. Yes, it's very large, but nothing stops LA from getting NFL games on TV now. But if a team moves there, and doesn't sell out and suffers local blackouts the TV market will take a hit - and so will the NFL in their TV deals.

To me it almost seems like the NFL benefits more from not having a team in LA and using it as a bargaining chip than they would from actually having a team there.
 

mr.stlouis

Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,454
Name
Main Hook
This isn't even appropriate for this time of year. This is something you write when the lease is up. Here's a list of topics to write that are way more suitable for Pre-game writing...

-Quinn's goal 26 sacks
- Williams to dial up the pressure
-Sean Hill Ready to Lead
-Best DL Since the Fearsome Foursome
-Tavon Ready to Break Out
-Stacy's Mom Says Rams Rule
-Best OL Since the GSOT
-Rams Ready to Ram It
-Joseph Returning to Form; Rams Got a Steal
-Rams ST's best in the NFL?
-Aaron Donald the X-Factor
-Brockers Ready
-Never Fear, Shaun Hill is Here
-Quick and Britt ready to Prove Themselves
-Rams Minus 6 to Win


Is the post dispatch really this ignorant?
 

Philly5

Rookie
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
415
Either side needs to step up and get the ball moving. The longer 'limbo' lasts the more likely the Rams move.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
This isn't even appropriate for this time of year. This is something you write when the lease is up. Here's a list of topics to write that are way more suitable for Pre-game writing...

-Quinn's goal 26 sacks
- Williams to dial up the pressure
-Sean Hill Ready to Lead
-Best DL Since the Fearsome Foursome
-Tavon Ready to Break Out
-Stacy's Mom Says Rams Rule
-Best OL Since the GSOT
-Rams Ready to Ram It
-Joseph Returning to Form; Rams Got a Steal
-Rams ST's best in the NFL?
-Aaron Donald the X-Factor
-Brockers Ready
-Never Fear, Shaun Hill is Here
-Quick and Britt ready to Prove Themselves
-Rams Minus 6 to Win


Is the post dispatch really this ignorant?

As I said, this is what most of the readers of the PD are talking about. It's not about ignorance.
 

Loyal

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
29,454
Either side needs to step up and get the ball moving. The longer 'limbo' lasts the more likely the Rams move.
I sort of agree. However, I think the ball (fair or not) is in Gov Nixon's lap. Kroenke just has to let things play out, and see what he's offered. Nixon needs to make an offer that the NFL won't let Kroenke ignore, since Kroenke would have to prove to the NFL that St Louis isn't serious about keeping the Rams....I am a fan regardless, but am tired of the whole situation, and can't wait for it to be resolved, one way or the other.
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
17,846
They're not bringing up anything that 1000's of fans aren't already thinking. It's easy to forget on here that this site is typically more of the Rams fan. I mean, Rams no matter where they are. The majority of fans in any town are fans of THAT towns football team. When I go to work and BS about football with co-workers, or go outside and BS with neighbors it's always the same talk. "I don't know, I'm not real excited this year. Good chance they won't even be here in a couple years."

You can blame the PD, or Silent Stan, or whoever. Fact is, until people see some sort of movement from ANYONE, this stuff ain't going away.

Its been like this since before the lease expired. Nothing new.

And as @mr.stlouis said the timing of this is terrible. They had all off season to talk about this, and it comes eight before opening day.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Trust me when I say that Every. Single. Person I've talked to in the last two days about football outside of this place is talking about it. Really, TBH they've never had a football conversation with me this year that didn't start out or end up with this.

Newspapers and politicians are like mirrors, really. I don't like it either, but as one of my doom and gloom friends says, "So be it."
 

V3

Hall of Fame
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
3,848
I don't live in St. Louis or LA and don't necessarily have a dog in this fight, but I did save a chunk of a chat from JT from last year which was pretty interesting in terms of numbers:



Looking at that, I just don't see how it makes sense for Stan to pack up and move to LA business-wise in the near and even intermediate term. For all of the stadium proposals out there, he's not going to own the building in any one of them. He's going to have a fight on his hands from at least Alex Spanos of the Chargers as well, and that could split the owners. And after the move, he'll have California taxes to deal with, which are much higher than Missouri's, as California is in top 3 for highest tax burdens in the nation. When you couple that with attendance issues that both the Rams and Raiders had when in that area, it really begins to be a dicey proposition business-wise, at least from my view.

Honestly, I really don't get the whole hoopla with LA as being such an important market for the NFL to have a team in. Yes, it's very large, but nothing stops LA from getting NFL games on TV now. But if a team moves there, and doesn't sell out and suffers local blackouts the TV market will take a hit - and so will the NFL in their TV deals.

To me it almost seems like the NFL benefits more from not having a team in LA and using it as a bargaining chip than they would from actually having a team there.

It makes sense for Kroenke because it instantly take the franchise from the least valuable in the NFL to one of the most valuable. I wouldn't be shocked to see that relocation fee substantially reduced due to how much the NFL wants a team in LA and because Kroenke is one of the most powerful owners out there. I suspect LA would be willing to work on the taxes and other incentives as well(St. Louis did when we first got them). Now add in all the influx of money from PSLs, a new stadium that will be mostly paid for by others(including the NFL), sold out tickets every game, merchandise sales, huge TV contracts, etc, etc. I totally see how LA would be enticing for Kroenke.

I've always been worried about this happening and I feel it's leaning towards the Rams moving. St. Louis is a dying city. There is little incentive for businesses to operate from here and the leadership is shit. Now throw in all the civil unrest recently, one of the higher crime rates in the nation, poor jobs market, etc. Losing the Rams would be a huge blow to the city and I don't see them ever getting another team if they left. I'm worried about losing the Rams but I'm also worried about the city of St. Louis.
 
Last edited:

V3

Hall of Fame
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
3,848
Its been like this since before the lease expired. Nothing new.

And as @mr.stlouis said the timing of this is terrible. They had all off season to talk about this, and it comes eight before opening day.
The Raiders working on staying in Oakland helped stir it up again. That leaves the Chargers and the Rams for possibilities for LA and many people think the NFL wants two teams there. There's your NFC and AFC teams right there. That's why the topic is getting hot again, not to mention the land Kroenke bought and the fact that St. Louis has done little to nothing to even start the ball rolling.

Edit: I also forgot to add that the NFL also just started some commitee , or something like that, to get a team in LA. That has never been the case in the past which adds even more fuel to the fire.

Perhaps if the PD can stir up enough worry/interest, the powers that be will start hearing people tell them to get their act together and work something out.
 
Last edited:

thirteen28

I like pizza.
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
8,324
Name
Erik
It makes sense for Kroenke because it instantly take the franchise from the least valuable in the NFL to one of the most valuable. I wouldn't be shocked to see that relocation fee substantially reduced due to how much the NFL wants a team in LA and because Kroenke is one of the most powerful owners out there. I suspect LA would be willing to work on the taxes and other incentives as well(St. Louis did when we first got them). Now add in all the influx of money from PSLs, a new stadium that will be mostly paid for by others(including the NFL), sold out tickets every game, merchandise sales, huge TV contracts, etc, etc. I totally see how LA would be enticing for Kroenke.

I've always been worried about this happening and I feel it's leaning towards the Rams moving. St. Louis is a dying city. There is little incentive for business to operate from here and the leadership is crap. Now throw in all the civil unrest recently, one of the higher crime rates in the nation, poor jobs market, etc. Losing the Rams would be a huge blow to the city and I don't see them ever getting another team if they left. I'm worried about losing the Rams but I'm also worried about the city of St. Louis.

I agree with some of your post, but not all, particularly the highlighted portions.

On the sellouts every game ... that I don't necessarily agree with. The Rams, even in the 80's when they were mostly winning and in the playoffs a majority of year, still rarely sold out Anaheim stadium, and usually then it was only by fans from the visiting team making up a sizable difference. For example, the game in which Eric Dickerson broke OJ's single season record in Anaheim, there were only about 49,000 people on hand in a stadium that seated 69,000. The one game I attended there, in 1988 (vs. Seahawks) the Rams were 5-2 going in, 6-2 coming out, with Jim Everett as one of the hottest young QB's in the league and a very dynamic and exciting passing attack ... 57,000. Some will say it's because it's down in Anaheim, but yet the Giants get plenty of New Yorkers to come over to see them play in New Jersey. In short, the Rams never really had any homefield advantage in Anaheim, and rarely had one in when they were in the Coliseum. During my time as a Rams fan (since the early 70's), I've never seen them have a homefield advantage that was equal to what they had in St. Louis when they were winning.

Demographically, much of the LA area is made up of people from somewhere else, which means loyalty to teams from elsewhere as well. So moving the Rams there hardly guaranteed a bunch of sellout games or hordes of new Rams fans to fill up the stadium. Factor in that in the area you have two MLB teams, two NBA teams, two NHL teams, and two major college football programs, and you have a lot of competition for tickets. Add the beach and other pastimes, you have even more. So given both history of the NFL in LA as well as the current status quo on the ground there now, I don't see sellouts being anywhere close to guaranteed.

As far as TV contracts, since the NFL negotiates as a league, I don't think it would help or hurt the franchise any more than others. But with the prospect of blackouts in the LA area where there is no prospect of the same now, the networks might actually have more leverage in negotiations with the NFL if there was a team in LA vs. in the present where there is none. And even with sellouts, the way the NFL broadcast rules are you would have only two games broadcast on free TV vs. three right now. That was one of the things I hated during my last year in Charlotte NC, suddenly I had fewer options to watch football when they had a team vs. when they didn't. The lost ad revenue in LA is certainly much, much greater than in Charlotte.

I can't really comment on St. Louis, as I know little about the town, but I simply don't see LA as a slam dunk win for the Rams, another franchise, or the NFL in general. I certainly don't have as much information as Stan Kroenke, but it would seem there are a lot of variables that could cause any NFL investment in LA to go south very quickly, and a lot will have to go right to make it the huge financial windfall everyone assumes that it will be.
 
Last edited:

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,158
Name
Mack
Several things struck me. And as a relocated Floridian (that's important because native Floridians are just...off. They even admit it. Ask 'em. They just shrug and go, "yeah..."), I'm pretty ambivalent to all this. I used to care more when I lived in LA, but now, while I feel for the St. Louisans, I also KNOW the pain of losing the Rams and will forever remember that hateful feeling I had when GF took the Rams away. So I know what it feels like to lose a team and while I don't want that for you, I have distance now. I'm just a Rams fan, I'm not a LOCAL Rams fan. I didn't realize what a big difference that was until they left town...

Anyway, several things...

1) The new, state-of-the-art stadium doesn't have to cost $1billion dollars. If anything, LA is a land of contradiction and while they like opulence, they also want sustainability. Also, expect them to try and replicate some of the things done in Seattle while taking paying homage to LA. In part, if anyone's ever been to a game at the Coliseum in LA, that's a BBQ. You just BAKE out there in the hot sun. So I expect them to try to work the seating to minimize the amount of seats that are just bathed in direct sunlight (presuming they don't just make it a dome). Also, even if it is that much, the Rams won't own it. AEG will with the help of the NFL. The Rams will be tenents. So the move might actually be very, very cheap while not affecting the Rams value at all (I mean, the Clippers don't own Staples and they sold for $2 Billion). As for where to play in the interim. The Rose Bowl has been recertified as an NFL ready stadium NOW and there are colleges and fields all over LA where the Rams could "make do" for a year or two until the Stadium is built. The point is that it would be a far easier transition than the Oiler move to Nashville. Most of the skids have already been greased. Not saying it's going to happen or anything.

2) Yes, St. Louis has to come up with money to pay for a new stadium. Okay. What about paying for the Dome? Don't they still owe about half of what is left on the Dome? Investors will have to be assured that the city/county can handle the debt structure of both sets of bonds even in the event of raised consumption taxes or hotel taxes or whatever. Everyone seems to think it's a slam dunk that the City/County can secure financing for a new dome. Really? At what rate? Is it even feasible? It may be. It may be fiscally prudent, even, but that would require a bit of a comeback financially for St. Louis.

3) Moving to LA increases the value of the Rams by nearly a Billion dollars. As much as Kroenke has been devoted to Mizzou (as CGI posted the Kroenke quote from 2006), it's awful hard for a billionaire real estate investor to NOT appreciate a Billion dollars in appreciation if he moves his team 1800 miles west.

4) Fighting Alex Spanos? That's not much of a fight. If he had many friends in NFL circles, the NFL could have flexed their muscle with San Diego for how many years? Instead, the Spanos family has had to fight that fight, bitterly, alone. I'm not even taking sides. My dad lives in SD and both sides are clear what they want. The Spanos' are clear they want a stadium paid for mostly by the community and the SD community is clear that for the most part, they want the Spanos family to pay for it. And in San Diego, how can you threaten people with, "if you don't build me a new stadium, we'll leave and you'll only be stuck with awesome beaches, great seafood, best triathlon training in the world, great golf and some of the best weather on the planet...." That's kind of a tough sell, especially when the NFL front office hasn't really had your back through any of it. So, honestly, I don't know if it's just that the NFL has let the SD situation play out or if the Spanos family really can't gin up the votes to block a team getting into LA. That said, if the NFL wants a team in LA, whichever team it is, I'm sure the Commish will go to the owners and GET consensus such that any owner won't be able to derail it. And Goodell is good about taking care of owners on the back end. Owner Shad Khan, who failed in owning the Rams became owner of the Jags rather quickly. I would presume if the Rams (or any other team) DO end up in Los Angeles that the NFL will then turn its attention to SD once LA is settled because Goodell does make sure to dot the *i*s and cross the *t*s.

5) Tax abatements. Any team that moves there will likely get an abatement or tax holiday. Even if they don't, the extra revenue for being in such a wealthy market will MORE than make up for the added taxes. I mean, what difference does paying 30% in tax over 20% tax make if you're making twice as much or three times as much money? The amount the Rams will be able to charge...in LA...for those Luxury boxes? ZOMG... obscene is what we're talking about. The interior decorating bill for those luxury boxes will be more than most of us are paying FOR OUR HOUSES. So, really, the very last thing a savvy real estate developer and team owner like Kroenke will be worried about will be the taxes. Also... accountants. Bet he has really good ones.

6) LA still a bargaining chip? It's been 20 years since live pro football's been in LA. Many of the teams' are resolving their situations (Jags sale contingent on staying, Vikes got new stadium) which makes LA desired by fewer teams (the Raiders want to be the Oakland Raiders of Los Angeles). Also, many younger fans under 30 never had any attachment to a local franchise and risk losing an entire generation to other sports or to TV. Males 20-30 make up a HUGE demo for the NFL and there are tons in LA that are grossly underserved by the NFL other than by TV.

Now, does any of this change that Kroenke really and truly wants to keep the Rams in St. Louis? Nope. I think he truly does. I think his ties to the area and statements make that clear. However, he's also made clear that he's going to go through the process. As a land developer, he does NOT have to report his land purchases to the NFL...UNLESS they might impact football operations. Well, he reported the LA/Hollywood Park purchases to the NFL. If they were for potential shopping mall development, he wouldn't have done that. If he had NO INTEREST in moving the team to LA, he wouldn't have done that. However, even in the absence of interest, he also has to take into account that St. Louis just may not be able to get any kind of stadium deal done at any price.

That's reality. And he likes owning the venue. Plus, AEG hadn't announced the building of the football stadium next to Staples. They still haven't announced a ground breaking, but I think that's coming.

I will agree that none of this stadium stuff changes anything about our season. Specifically, our Rams are going to Quinn-tople the Vikes. (sorry, hate that Sack City thing so much...)
 

V3

Hall of Fame
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
3,848
I agree with some of your post, but not all, particularly the highlighted portions.

On the sellouts every game ... that I don't necessarily agree with. The Rams, even in the 80's when they were mostly winning and in the playoffs a majority of year, still rarely sold out Anaheim stadium, and usually then it was only by fans from the visiting team making up a sizable difference. For example, the game in which Eric Dickerson broke OJ's single season record in Anaheim, there were only about 49,000 people on hand in a stadium that seated 69,000. The one game I attended there, in 1988 (vs. Seahawks) the Rams were 5-2 going in, 6-2 coming out, with Jim Everett as one of the hottest young QB's in the league and a very dynamic and exciting passing attack ... 57,000. Some will say it's because it's down in Anaheim, but yet the Giants get plenty of New Yorkers to come over to see them play in New Jersey. In short, the Rams never really had any homefield advantage in Anaheim, and rarely had one in when they were in the Coliseum. During my time as a Rams fan (since the early 70's), I've never seen them have a homefield advantage that was equal to what they had in St. Louis when they were winning.

Demographically, much of the LA area is made up of people from somewhere else, which means loyalty to teams from elsewhere as well. So moving the Rams there hardly guaranteed a bunch of sellout games or hordes of new Rams fans to fill up the stadium. Factor in that in the area you have two MLB teams, two NBA teams, two NHL teams, and two major college football programs, and you have a lot of competition for tickets. Add the beach and other pastimes, you have even more. So given both history of the NFL in LA as well as the current status quo on the ground there now, I don't see sellouts being anywhere close to guaranteed.

As far as TV contracts, since the NFL negotiates as a league, I don't think it would help or hurt the franchise any more than others. But with the prospect of blackouts in the LA area where there is no prospect of the same now, the networks might actually have more leverage in negotiations with the NFL if there was a team in LA vs. in the present where there is none. And even with sellouts, the way the NFL broadcast rules are you would have only two games broadcast on free TV vs. three right now. That was one of the things I hated during my last year in Charlotte NC, suddenly I had fewer options to watch football when they had a team vs. when they didn't. The lost ad revenue in LA is certainly much, much greater than in Charlotte.

I can't really comment on St. Louis, as I know little about the town, but I simply don't see LA as a slam dunk win for the Rams, another franchise, or the NFL in general. I certainly don't have as much information as Stan Kroenke, but it would seem there are a lot of variables that could cause any NFL investment in LA to go south very quickly, and a lot will have to go right to make it the huge financial windfall everyone assumes that it will be.


I agree it's not a slam dunk. There's a lot that would have to happen for it to work in LA but I also think that if those things did happen, Kroenke would make MUCH more money there than if he stayed in St. Louis. With the tickets, I'm sure there could/would be issues selling out but I don't see that being an issue in the short term(10 years). That seems to be about the time for that new team smell to wear off. I honestly think they'd sell out every game for the first 10 years, give or take a few. But even after that, they could charge much more per seat there than in St. Louis and they'd probably have more seats than anything built here. The TV contracts I'll admit I don't know all the ins and out but as I understand it, the league splits all the revenues generated from them and any contract that would be made in LA would surely be huge. It would dwarf anything the St. Louis market could generate. That just means a bigger chunk of money for everyone, including Kroenke. Perhaps I'm way off on that one? Either way, I still think there are plenty of reasons why LA would be appealing for Kroenke, and the longer out you go, I think the reasons get more profitable.

Who knows? Right now, I try not to think too much about it. If there's something St. Louis fans can do to get the city off their butts, I'd love to help. Sending a letter to Nixon or Slay is about all I can think of right now. I'm not sure how effective petitions are anymore.
 

thirteen28

I like pizza.
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
8,324
Name
Erik
I agree it's not a slam dunk. There's a lot that would have to happen for it to work in LA but I also think that if those things did happen, Kroenke would make MUCH more money there than if he stayed in St. Louis. With the tickets, I'm sure there could/would be issues selling out but I don't see that being an issue in the short term(10 years). That seems to be about the time for that new team smell to wear off. I honestly think they'd sell out every game for the first 10 years, give or take a few. But even after that, they could charge much more per seat there than in St. Louis and they'd probably have more seats than anything built here. The TV contracts I'll admit I don't know all the ins and out but as I understand it, the league splits all the revenues generated from them and any contract that would be made in LA would surely be huge. It would dwarf anything the St. Louis market could generate. That just means a bigger chunk of money for everyone, including Kroenke. Perhaps I'm way off on that one? Either way, I still think there are plenty of reasons why LA would be appealing for Kroenke, and the longer out you go, I think the reasons get more profitable.

Who knows? Right now, I try not to think too much about it. If there's something St. Louis fans can do to get the city off their butts, I'd love to help. Sending a letter to Nixon or Slay is about all I can think of right now. I'm not sure how effective petitions are anymore.

The TV contract wouldn't be made between the league and LA, it's made between the league and the national networks, as well as through some providers such as DirecTV. The NFL does not do local TV contracts the way baseball does, although as you mention, the money from the TV contracts is split between the owners.

This is why I don't understand why the league has such a hard on to get back into LA (assuming they really do and the LA market isn't just a cynical ploy to extract funds from other municipalities, which is not out of the question). Right now, on Sundays between 10AM and 4 PM local time, LA gets three broadcast games, a double header on one network, and a single game on another network. But given the NFL's own broadcasting rules, ones which they have been very resistant to change, they would only have two games on if they had a team, one from the local team and one other game. If the local team is playing at home and it's not a sellout, that game is blacked out. I'm not sure if it gets replaced with another game or no game at all. But at minimum, given the NFL's broadcast rules, they would lose broadcast game a week. Thus, the only way putting a team in LA makes sense in terms of TV market is if the local team generates enough interest to offset the lost broadcast game. Given the demographics of LA that I mentioned in my previous post, as well as all of the options for entertaining ones self that are available in that area, I'm not sure that's the case, not by a long shot.

It would be a much more lucrative market for an NFL team if the NFL was structured like the NBA or MLB. Those leagues are structured in such a way that the bigger markets usually have significant advantages over the smaller ones. There are reasons why the LA Lakers and Boston Celtics have built long lasting dynasties while you don't see the same from the Milwaukee Bucks. The NFL however is built for parity, which is why a team in Green Bay can be consistently competitive with teams from much larger markets like New York.

It really struck me during the last round of expansion when Houston got a team over LA. That competition was so rigged in LA's favor that all they had to do was not seriously f**k it up. Had they come up with a plan that was equal to Houston's, they would have gotten the team for sure. And even with the competition slanted in their favor, they still lost out. Hard for me to believe they've gotten their stuff together given that there still isn't a solid plan for a stadium yet, just a bunch of concepts being thrown around by various groups.

I certainly don't think St. Louis should rest on its laurels at all, they need to come up with a plan and get busy working with Stan pronto. But as I said, I don't think LA is a slam dunk for a franchise by any means. It wasn't an accident that they lost two teams in the same year, nor was it an accident that they lost out on an expansion bid that was theirs for the taking.
 

209RamsFan

Guest
Anyway you put it.....they are moving to LA. Return of the LARams...coming to a stadium near you.