The pros and cons of sharing Los Angeles for the Rams
By Nick Wagoner
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...-and-cons-of-sharing-los-angeles-for-the-rams
EARTH CITY, Mo. -- Speaking to their fans in Los Angeles for the first time in person last Friday, Rams owner Stan Kroenke and chief operating officer Kevin Demoff mostly received loud cheers.
Kroenke, who is now public enemy No. 1 in St. Louis, even heard chants expressing love to him for returning the team to the city. But there were a couple of moments that left the Rams fans in attendance not so happy. Namely, any time Kroenke or Demoff mentioned the possibility of the San Diego Chargers or Oakland Raiders joining the Rams in L.A.
On Tuesday, representatives from the Rams and Chargers -- though not the owners -- had their first meeting to discuss options for the Chargers to make the move to the City of Angels. Nothing substantial came from those conversations but they're expected to continue at some point. The Chargers have until Jan. 15, 2017, to decide if they want to partner with the Rams in Kroenke's Inglewood stadium project.
That decision could be made sooner than later, though, as the Chargers have many reasons to not wait, not least of which is the fact that every day the Rams re-plant their roots in Los Angeles is a chance to build their fanbase further.
With that in mind, here's a quick look at the pros and cons of the Chargers (or Raiders) joining the Rams in Los Angeles:
Pros
Falling in line with the rest of this relocation process, the No. 1 reason it wouldn't be a bad thing to have a partner in the stadium is money. Simply put, if the Chargers decided to join the Rams as a full partner in the stadium, it would mean that Kroenke gets someone to share in the cost of a project that comes with a price tag that is apparently growing by the day. With interest, some estimates have that cost coming in somewhere in the $2.6 billion range. Kroenke can afford to foot the bill on his own, but a partner that could offset the cost of the project wouldn't be the worst thing and the Rams and Chargers could still sell personal seat licenses independent of each other to help recoup their investments. It would also mean additional money from the league's G4 loan similar to what the Jets and Giants got for MetLife Stadium. Keep in mind, a partner would only be sharing in the cost and revenue of the stadium, which only accounts for about a quarter of the project. Kroenke would still reap the rewards of the surrounding development.
In one option, the Chargers could come aboard as a tenant in the Inglewood stadium, which would mean the Rams let the Chargers play there for a presumably reasonable or even cheap rate. It would also mean the Rams could potentially have access to some of the revenue streams for all games played in the stadium, which means, yes, more money for Kroenke.
The sooner an agreement gets done, the sooner the Rams can begin selling PSLs, suites and the rest of their premium seating inventory. As it stands now, the Rams have to wait until 2017 unless they come to an agreement sooner. While the addition of the Chargers would bring competition for those dollars, it would give the Rams extra time to begin selling and, presumably, give both teams enough time to sell most of that before the Inglewood stadium opens in 2019.
While Rams fans understandably want Los Angeles all to themselves, there could be something fun about having a natural rivalry with an AFC team playing in the same building. The schedule wouldn't always allow for a Rams-Chargers game but even if it didn't happen in the regular season, it could be something the teams explored as an easy preseason game every year without the travel.
Cons
Just as sharing the stadium can be considered a positive for the Rams, it could also be viewed as a negative. Not so much for the stadium itself but for sharing the market. The Chargers currently claim that about 25 percent of their season ticket holders come from the Los Angeles area. The Rams have much deeper ties with the city but having the Chargers in town would mean competing for fans and their dollars. While San Diego hasn't exactly been a dominant team recently, the Chargers have been far more competitive than the Rams over the past decade. If the Chargers came in and started winning while the Rams continue to languish in mediocrity, the Rams could find themselves lagging behind.
The main focus for the NFL in returning to Los Angeles was to find a way to make the country's second-largest market work long-term. Immediately putting two teams back in Los Angeles would run the risk of over saturating a market that might not be willing to embrace multiple teams. At last week's owners meetings, it was reported that Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt was against having two teams in Los Angeles, at least right away. While some fans could view the options as a good thing, it's just another team competing for fans with the many teams already there in addition to the Rams.
There's no doubt that moving to Los Angeles should make the Rams more appealing to free agents, especially those who are young and single. Although state income taxes will increase dramatically from Missouri, Southern California sells itself in a lot of ways. The Chargers would still be competitive in that regard in San Diego but the size of the Los Angeles market makes it more appealing from an endorsement standpoint. Having another team there means even more competition for a team that hasn't really been a destination for free agents in the past.
