New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Legatron4]

I'm with @ChrisW on this one. Look how much attendance has skyrocketed for the Seahawks since they started winning. I know they've generally had decent attendance, but the amount of bandwagon fans is staggering. Because they win. I mean, was there better fans in the entire NFL then STL in 1999? The only reason to move this team to LA is for money. If the NFL actually does this right, the Rams won't go anywhere.

 

[ChrisW]

The only reason to move this team to LA is for money. If the NFL actually does this right, the Rams won't go anywhere.

I want to add that I'll concede defeat if funding falls through. But, as long as there is a publicly funded stadium on the table in STL, I'll feel like a victim if they leave, and it'll tarnish my love of this team.

Adding in this nugget from the relocation bylaws. Which may or may not matter, but it goes along with good faith negotiating in my mind.

"The extent to which the club, directly or indirectly, received public financial support by means of any publicly financed playing facility, special tax treatment, or any other form of public financial support and the views of the stadium authority (if public) in the current community."

 

[RamFan503]

That's fair. But if you would compare the Dodgers and the Cardinals, you have a pretty close comparison of attendance numbers regardless of the size of the markets. And that's the point I'm trying to make with regards to tradition and winning.

Right. But my point is that the Cards have done it through a winning tradition - which any fan would like and follow. The Dodgers have done it by playing in LA. Of course the Dodgers used to win consistently but not so much over the past couple decades. If the Dodgers combined winning with that, they would be even bigger. And from a story I read not too long ago, only the Yankees have a bigger international following than the Dodgers.

 

[Hacksaw]

I never questioned their history in LA. I was just asking how recently he was in Europe because I could see the Kings being a big name in hockey with their cups in recent years.

I see. No doubt the bandwagon has made a stop in Europe too. My point was simply about the perception in LA of the 3 teams (Lakers-Rams-Dodgers) all being on equal footing. This was in response to your assertion that it is unfair to use the Lakers. Sure they have been in roughly 1/2 of all NBA championship series ever but this (and last) years Lakers team made the Rams look real good by comparrison. lol. . ... . . sort-a.

 

[ChrisW]

Right. But my point is that the Cards have done it through a winning tradition - which any fan would like and follow. The Dodgers have done it by playing in LA. Of course the Dodgers used to win consistently but not so much over the past couple decades. If the Dodgers combined winning with that, they would be even bigger. And from a story I read not too long ago, only the Yankees have a bigger international following than the Dodgers.

I wish there was a way to easily track the international following by record. The Dodgers have been good since 2005 which was the last time they were under .500 record wise. I would also argue that the Dodgers and Yankees logo are 2 of the most relatable because of their exposure in hollywood, and entertainment in general.

I'm assuming here that you're basing their international following on merchandise sales as opposed to those international fans who actually watch a good amount of their 162 games each year.

 

[RamFan503]

I'm with @ChrisW on this one. Look how much attendance has skyrocketed for the Seahawks since they started winning. I know they've generally had decent attendance, but the amount of bandwagon fans is staggering. Because they win. I mean, was there better fans in the entire NFL then STL in 1999? The only reason to move this team to LA is for money. If the NFL actually does this right, the Rams won't go anywhere.

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing in favor of a move. I just wanted to make sure that is out there AGAIN.

But I believe Seattle has recorded "sell outs" since they built the new stadium. Regardless, the NFL is more about TV viewers these days than it is butts in seats. Butts in seats is more important for smaller markets but when you are talking about a market like LA, it is very much secondary or even lower.

 

[ChrisW]

Butts in seats is more important for smaller markets but when you are talking about a market like LA, it is very much secondary or even lower.

Since all TV revenue is shared, shouldn't LA have a focus of more butts in the seats, hence the need for a bigger stadium?

Oh and numbers wise, Seattle has been floating around middle of the road (16-21) since Centruy Link opened in 2002.

 

[Hacksaw]

And the TV's are already on in LA each Sunday morning. Unless it's sunny out,,,, oh ,, wait?

 

[Legatron4]

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing in favor of a move. I just wanted to make sure that is out there AGAIN.

But I believe Seattle has recorded "sell outs" since they built the new stadium. Regardless, the NFL is more about TV viewers these days than it is butts in seats. Butts in seats is more important for smaller markets but when you are talking about a market like LA, it is very much secondary or even lower.

True. But wouldn't that also fall under the whole "can't move for money" category? You're essentially saying if they play in LA, they'll make more from TV viewings. Stan isn't allowed to do that. Or so they say.

 

[ChrisW]

True. But wouldn't that also fall under the whole "can't move for money" category? You're essentially saying if they play in LA, they'll make more from TV viewings. Stan isn't allowed to do that. Or so they say.

That would fall under best interests of the league. I think the whole part of him not making money from it has to do with moving just to increase the value of the franchise.

 

[bluecoconuts]

How long ago were you in Europe? I only ask for the sake of the Kings. If it was within the last year or two, they would be one of the hottest NHL franchises in terms of cups in recent years. Other than my Blackhawks.

I was there last summer, so they were coming off their most recent cup, so yes that does have an effect, but even before that I would see shirts and hats. When I grew up I was a Kings fan, and they SUCKED back then.

It's not hard to see that it's the Cardinals radio network, but shows what tradition and winning ccould create in the St. Louis area. Look at how big of a region the city draws for the Cardinals. It's there for the Rams to take, all they have to do is settle down and claim it by being loyal to the area and creating the tradition.

I agree with the idea that the Rams are capable of becoming a national brand in St Louis, I'm not saying they can't. My point is that it's easier and faster to do it in LA, or any other global city, just because the exposure is going to be much higher.

Since all TV revenue is shared, shouldn't LA have a focus of more butts in the seats, hence the need for a bigger stadium?

Sure, that's why you build a stadium with tons of attractions around it as well. Shops, restaurants, etc, families can make it a day trip instead of just sit in traffic for hours, go to game, leave game, sit in traffic for hours. There was a sizable jump in attendance by both the Kings and Lakers when they moved from the Forum to Staples Center, part of that was having more to do, the Forum was the Forum, but Staples Center was LA Live, there was shit to do, and a beautiful venue to boot. They'll attract more casual fans that way.

 

[RamFan503]

True. But wouldn't that also fall under the whole "can't move for money" category? You're essentially saying if they play in LA, they'll make more from TV viewings. Stan isn't allowed to do that. Or so they say.

Stan isn't. The NFL is. THAT's what I'm saying.

 

[ChrisW]

And the TV's are already on in LA each Sunday morning. Unless it's sunny out,,,, oh ,, wait?

Exactly. so you wouldn't gain much in TV anyway. Since they already show games there on Sundays.

 

[bluecoconuts]

"The extent to which the club, directly or indirectly, received public financial support by means of any publicly financed playing facility, special tax treatment, or any other form of public financial support and the views of the stadium authority (if public) in the current community."

What's the rest of that statement, because it doesn't make sense alone. I'm assuming they say they factor that in as well?

 

[ChrisW]

What's the rest of that statement, because it doesn't make sense alone. I'm assuming they say they factor that in as well?

It's part of "Factors That May Be Considered In Evaluating The Proposed Transfer" .

 

[Legatron4]

Stan isn't. The NFL is. THAT's what I'm saying.

Gotcha. So, why is it that the Rams have such a tough time staying in one city? I mean, Detroit has been terrible forever. Why do they get to stay? This would be the Rams 3rd move since they came into the league. That's certainly the most out of any other team. It just doesn't make sense to continue to alienate the fan base. Pick a city and keep them there.

 

[bluecoconuts]

It's part of "Factors That May Be Considered In Evaluating The Proposed Transfer" .

I can't seem to find these in the bylaws, are they from something else?


*Edit* Found them, it's from Minnesota interpreting the rules when there were rumors the Vikings were getting ready to move. It's not in the bylaws, but they may have gotten it from someone from the league that gave him more information. Personally I wouldn't hang onto those factors much though.

 

[ChrisW]

I can't seem to find these in the bylaws, are they from something else?

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/lrl/issues/FootballStadium/NFLFranchiseRelocationRules.pdf

 

[Young Ram]

Let me ask you something. Something I've heard LA guys talk about, is Stan wants LA for prestige. Which I agree, the Franchise would be worth more in LA. But, how do you attain a nationwide fanbase if you keep alienating fan bases by moving the franchise back and forth? I know it happened before, but if the St. Louis stadium is sitting there, funded, waiting for Stan, don't you agree that it would be essentially crapping on St. Louis to move?

I've been a Rams fan since 2000 so if they stay or move I will continue to be a fan. Like RamFan said I'm just getting a little excited for the possibility of them moving close to home. I do feel for St. Louis fans though and if they do end up moving I could see how hard it would be for them to keep following the Rams because of how the owner has dealt with this relocation thing.

 

[bluecoconuts]

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/lrl/issues/FootballStadium/NFLFranchiseRelocationRules.pdf

You can find the information in the NFL constitution by following the article references provided in that pdf.

It seems they based it off of Article 4 section 3 that really doesn't say much other than it requires a vote. They also say they grabbed some information from a senate bill from 1984 that they modified and then added things themselves, either way the NFL is under no obligation to enforce them.