New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

Seems like it. I don't know how grounded in reality that would be though.

I don't think it's grounded in reality for anyone.

I think having Carson win over Inglewood would bring a huge sigh of relief from the NFL. In the end I'm not sure it will be enough to trump Kroenke tho.

I don't think they sigh a relief unless Kroenke says it's okay and he wont fight it. Otherwise they're probably going to be really worried he'll start a legal battle, Kroenke isn't afraid to go to court. I think fans look at things as states and cities, I think the NFL looks at it more as markets, which is what they should do. Markets and state boarders typically don't match the Packers market spreads across multiple cities and states, the Giants market doesn't.

So they're all changing markets regardless, it's stupid for the NFL to expect that more fans in Oakland or San Diego are going to remain than St Louis just because they're still in California. Driving distance doesn't really matter, look at east coast teams for good examples of that. Even if it did, you're still talking about having to take time off work to go to games. If someone in San Diego wants to go to a game he's looking at probably 5-6 hours on the road each way at least, the traffic is going to be a nightmare. Imagine a 10 AM game in Carson, he wants to be there by 9 at the latest, so he needs to leave around 3 or 4 AM. The game is finished and he's probably back in his car by 2, and home at 7 or 8 PM. That's a very long day, I don't think you can expect many people to make that trip with any regularity, and I have to imagine the NFL knows that.

In my opinion I don't think the NFL gives two shits about a "California solution" or "Doing markets right", I think they give a shit about profits, and making all owners as happy as possible. If they can have Kroenke happy in St Louis, they'll do it, if they can get him and Spanos happy in Inglewood, and Davis happy wherever he is, they'll do that. If they have to make an owner unhappy, I'm guessing they pick the one with the least amount of bite. Perhaps not, we'll see. Vinnie made a good point a few days ago about this though, the owner who doesn't get LA has to go back to his city tail between his legs and hope they work with him fairly. Which owner is most poised to do this? That's the guy who probably gets left out.

We'll see how things evolve, if Stan really does want St Louis (maybe it's all an elaborate move to get forgiveness on cross ownership, who knows) then he'll stay. Otherwise I don't know how much stomach the NFL has for fighting against the second richest guy they have. Especially when he offers the most security in an LA market that the NFL has to get done right if they want to even sniff their projections.

The whole Raiders to STL situation is sketchy to me. Davis doesn't seem to wanna go, can they force him there? I mean, I guess the Raiders are better then no team at all. With all the work Peacock has put into the stadium, how can the NFL just abandon the STL market? I don't see it happening. I wouldn't be a Raiders fan but like I've stated many times, STL absolutely needs an NFL team. Would two expansion teams in LA work? Then everyone would keep their teams and LA would get fresh new teams. I don't know if you could find 34 QBs though.

I don't think expansion would work, especially not two teams. I get the sense the NFL has positioned themselves to say "Financing wasn't worked out" in St Louis because it requires team contribution. Which is a little fucked, but I get the sense that's going to be their out to explain to everyone else.

 

[iced]

Rozelle in his letter to the executive committer that recommended not approving the move to St Louis pointed out that the ownership and team management directly caused the Rams problems. It pointed to the the Rams losing in court to the Anaheim and the Angels in 1988 as the start of the teams issues. They tracked team payroll that prior to 1988 had been at or above the league average after the was at the bottom. They tracked winning percentage the same thing and they found it directly correlated with the salaries. When the NFL audited the books they found significant amount of management expenses that couldn't be explained or documented. They also found that starting in 1988 the owner in started taking out substantial funds from the team in both salary and dividends. The other factor was that the revenues for the team actually placed the team in the top quartile for revenues from 1988 to 1993 and even in 1994 the team finished 10th.

Shaw's job was to maximize the income to Georgia not the Rams. If you look at the situation and the teams recent performance. when did it start and what significant date corresponds to it?

And you could easily make the same argument about the team since it moved to St.Louis... our glory years were a result of Martz and vermeil. It wasn't until after those players left that DV brought to the team when it began to faulter.

I don't think Shaw was nearly as competent as many a couple of people give him credit for - it's widely known both him and Zygmunt are the reasons for the teams downfall post GSOT. If the team had actually improved or stayed steady after DV left you may be on to something - but his past of drafts and FA moves indicate to me to he was mostly incompetent. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

 

[RAGRam]

I don't know if you could find 34 QBs though.

Off topic, but I've always pondered this, if you eliminated 16 teams, could you find 16 starting quality QBs? i.e. would the 16th best QB who is now average just be reclassified as awful?

 

[Legatron4]

Off topic, but I've always pondered this, if you eliminated 16 teams, could you find 16 starting quality QBs? i.e. would the 16th best QB who is now average just be reclassified as awful?

Well, I think a guy like Alex Smith would be the worst starting QB in a 16 team league. So, I don't think so.

 

[blue4]

I don't think it's grounded in reality for anyone.



I don't think they sigh a relief unless Kroenke says it's okay and he wont fight it. Otherwise they're probably going to be really worried he'll start a legal battle, Kroenke isn't afraid to go to court. I think fans look at things as states and cities, I think the NFL looks at it more as markets, which is what they should do. Markets and state boarders typically don't match the Packers market spreads across multiple cities and states, the Giants market doesn't.

So they're all changing markets regardless, it's stupid for the NFL to expect that more fans in Oakland or San Diego are going to remain than St Louis just because they're still in California. Driving distance doesn't really matter, look at east coast teams for good examples of that. Even if it did, you're still talking about having to take time off work to go to games. If someone in San Diego wants to go to a game he's looking at probably 5-6 hours on the road each way at least, the traffic is going to be a nightmare. Imagine a 10 AM game in Carson, he wants to be there by 9 at the latest, so he needs to leave around 3 or 4 AM. The game is finished and he's probably back in his car by 2, and home at 7 or 8 PM. That's a very long day, I don't think you can expect many people to make that trip with any regularity, and I have to imagine the NFL knows that.

In my opinion I don't think the NFL gives two shits about a "California solution" or "Doing markets right", I think they give a crap about profits, and making all owners as happy as possible. If they can have Kroenke happy in St Louis, they'll do it, if they can get him and Spanos happy in Inglewood, and Davis happy wherever he is, they'll do that. If they have to make an owner unhappy, I'm guessing they pick the one with the least amount of bite. Perhaps not, we'll see. Vinnie made a good point a few days ago about this though, the owner who doesn't get LA has to go back to his city tail between his legs and hope they work with him fairly. Which owner is most poised to do this? That's the guy who probably gets left out.

We'll see how things evolve, if Stan really does want St Louis (maybe it's all an elaborate move to get forgiveness on cross ownership, who knows) then he'll stay. Otherwise I don't know how much stomach the NFL has for fighting against the second richest guy they have. Especially when he offers the most security in an LA market that the NFL has to get done right if they want to even sniff their projections.





I don't think expansion would work, especially not two teams. I get the sense the NFL has positioned themselves to say "Financing wasn't worked out" in St Louis because it requires team contribution. Which is a little fucked, but I get the sense that's going to be their out to explain to everyone else.

I know we've disagreed before on the issue of distance, and I think we still do. Moving a team a thousand miles away from its fan base just doesn't compare at all to moving 200 miles. From what I've seen, unless I've got the wrong Carson, California, is that the distance between the actual stadium and SD is closer to 100 miles than 200. I don't think it's in any way comparable. You're correct it's about profits, which is why destroying a sizeable chunk of the Midwest market to stop a team from moving a couple hours up the highway doesn't make any sense to me, unless Carson becomes not viable. I know you live out there and I don't, but the majority of owners don't live there either and from the outside looking in especially facing the absolute loss of a team completely out of your reach as a fan, 100-200 mile move after 14 years of futility seems like a heck of a consolation prize and an easy solution for the NFL.

Of course this all hinges on Carson being viable by fall. I don't see it. So, it's really kind of an disagreement about a hypothetical.

 

[iced]

Well, I think a guy like Alex Smith would be the worst starting QB in a 16 team league. So, I don't think so.

at first glance you'd think so - then take a look at the list of last years qb's and there's a lot of good/decent/more than capable ones into the 16 area (in no particular order)

brees
rodgers
eli
peyton
stafford

roethlisberger
ryan
stafford
luck
rivers

wilson
foles
newton
flacco
tannenhill

Romo

other mentionable qb's: dalton, palmer, cutler...

younger qb's? bridgewater, bortes, carr

can't include mariota or winston yet

 

[Legatron4]

at first glance you'd think so - then take a look at the list of last years qb's and there's a lot of good/decent/more than capable ones into the 16 area (in no particular order)

brees
rodgers
eli
peyton
stafford

roethlisberger
ryan
stafford
luck
rivers

wilson
foles
newton
flacco
tannenhill

Romo

other mentionable qb's: dalton, palmer, cutler...

younger qb's? bridgewater, bortes, carr

can't include mariota or winston yet

Good point. It is interesting how difficult it is to find 32 starting healthy QBs. Has there ever been a season that all 32 starters last all 16 games?

 

[bluecoconuts]

I know we've disagreed before on the issue of distance, and I think we still do. Moving a team a thousand miles away from its fan base just doesn't compare at all to moving 200 miles. From what I've seen, unless I've got the wrong Carson, California, is that the distance between the actual stadium and SD is closer to 100 miles than 200. I don't think it's in any way comparable. You're correct it's about profits, which is why destroying a sizeable chunk of the Midwest market to stop a team from moving a couple hours up the highway doesn't make any sense to me, unless Carson becomes not viable. I know you live out there and I don't, but the majority of owners don't live there either and from the outside looking in especially facing the absolute loss of a team completely out of your reach as a fan, 100-200 mile move after 14 years of futility seems like a heck of a consolation prize and an easy solution for the NFL.

Of course this all hinges on Carson being viable by fall. I don't see it. So, it's really kind of an disagreement about a hypothetical.

We'll probably never see eye to eye on the distance thing. To me it's more about the different markets than the distance. I don't root for the Ducks because that's Anaheim, not LA. Even if we didn't have the Kings, they'd be the closest team, but they wouldn't be LA's team. Their parade wouldn't be down Figueroa, it's a different market. I look at east coast teams that are like 30 minutes away from each other, but those are all distinct markets. I think when you have major metropolitan areas, that's where you see bigger divides. It's not "I'm not going to root for the New Jersey Devils", because they're further away (even though it's a 20 minute subway ride) it's "I'm not going to root for the New Jersey Devils because it's New Jersey."

Also the majority of NFL owners may not live in LA, but I'm almost 100% certain they have all spent plenty of time in the city, and Southern California in general. They should have a good idea about how it all works, and how shitty the traffic is. Assuming they're not just taking private helicopters around.

I guess it'll depend about how they see viability. I think Carson is plenty viable, but if you're looking to have the stadium construction start by the end of the year, it's impossible.

 

[Moostache]

One of the aspects of this whole saga that drives me batshit crazy is the insistence that the NFL "needs" to get back into L.A.

How bad has the NFL done in the 20 years since leaving the L.A. market?
Well, if this is "bad", then I need to be doing a lot worse personally...

1994 TV rights contract (from '94-'97) = ave. annual value = $1.1 Billion
2013 TV rights contract (from '06-'13) = ave. annual value = $3.7 Billion
And the current deal? Try over $5 Billion PER YEAR!

So, a league that so desperately "needs" L.A. has grown its TV revenues by 500% over the last 20 years?
This is not to say that the LA market won't get a team this time around...but the "inevitability" of it all and especially the "inevitability of Stan" reminds me of a certain politician back in 2007-2008:

 

[blue4]

We'll probably never see eye to eye on the distance thing. To me it's more about the different markets than the distance. I don't root for the Ducks because that's Anaheim, not LA. Even if we didn't have the Kings, they'd be the closest team, but they wouldn't be LA's team. Their parade wouldn't be down Figueroa, it's a different market. I look at east coast teams that are like 30 minutes away from each other, but those are all distinct markets. I think when you have major metropolitan areas, that's where you see bigger divides. It's not "I'm not going to root for the New Jersey Devils", because they're further away (even though it's a 20 minute subway ride) it's "I'm not going to root for the New Jersey Devils because it's New Jersey."

Also the majority of NFL owners may not live in LA, but I'm almost 100% certain they have all spent plenty of time in the city, and Southern California in general. They should have a good idea about how it all works, and how crappy the traffic is. Assuming they're not just taking private helicopters around.

I guess it'll depend about how they see viability. I think Carson is plenty viable, but if you're looking to have the stadium construction start by the end of the year, it's impossible.

Trying to guess what the owners will view as important is like reading tea leaves. After being in this thread for so long I almost hope they release their exact reasoning for whatever they do so we can see who's the psychic and who can't predict billionaire behaviours.

 

[OldSchool]

So, a league that so desperately "needs" L.A. has grown its TV revenues by 500% over the last 20 years?
This is not to say that the LA market won't get a team this time around...but the "inevitability" of it all and especially the "inevitability of Stan" reminds me of a certain politician back in 2007-2008

Ignores the question of how much more would they have grown if there was a team, or two, in the 2nd largest market in the country.

 

[blue4]

One of the aspects of this whole saga that drives me batshit crazy is the insistence that the NFL "needs" to get back into L.A.

How bad has the NFL done in the 20 years since leaving the L.A. market?
Well, if this is "bad", then I need to be doing a lot worse personally...

1994 TV rights contract (from '94-'97) = ave. annual value = $1.1 Billion
2013 TV rights contract (from '06-'13) = ave. annual value = $3.7 Billion
And the current deal? Try over $5 Billion PER YEAR!

So, a league that so desperately "needs" L.A. has grown its TV revenues by 500% over the last 20 years?
This is not to say that the LA market won't get a team this time around...but the "inevitability" of it all and especially the "inevitability of Stan" reminds me of a certain politician back in 2007-2008:

There ain't no hardship here, that's for sure.

 

[blue4]

Ignores the question of how much more would they have grown if there was a team, or two, in the 2nd largest market in the country.

Don't think he's saying it wouldn't matter, just that 500% isn't exactly a "need to" matter to address.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

One of the aspects of this whole saga that drives me batshit crazy is the insistence that the NFL "needs" to get back into L.A.

How bad has the NFL done in the 20 years since leaving the L.A. market?
Well, if this is "bad", then I need to be doing a lot worse personally...

1994 TV rights contract (from '94-'97) = ave. annual value = $1.1 Billion
2013 TV rights contract (from '06-'13) = ave. annual value = $3.7 Billion
And the current deal? Try over $5 Billion PER YEAR!

So, a league that so desperately "needs" L.A. has grown its TV revenues by 500% over the last 20 years?
This is not to say that the LA market won't get a team this time around...but the "inevitability" of it all and especially the "inevitability of Stan" reminds me of a certain politician back in 2007-2008:

It's not that they need LA, they just want every nickel and dime. If a team moves to LA and they all get a little bit richer someway somehow, that's a win for them. It's the NFL they're greedy.

 

[Moostache]

Don't think he's saying it wouldn't matter, just that 500% isn't exactly a "need to" matter to address.

Exactly....the way people talk about the NFL "needing" LA you'd think the league was having the player's mothers stage bake sales in front of the stadiums for Christ's sake...

 

[Moostache]

It's not that they need LA, they just want every nickel and dime. If a team moves to LA and they all get a little bit richer someway somehow, that's a win for them. It's the NFL they're greedy.

Which is what I hope people start to realize...the NFL is going to have a choice to make on this issue.

That choice is going to be between enforcing their own rules or coming straight out and being seen for the naked greedy cash grabbers they are. There are two things rich people really like - 1) Money and 2) people ignoring what they do to get and keep that money and respecting them anyway, despite the fact that they are the embodiment of everything kids are raised to NOT be.

The NFL is a bunch of greedy, back-stabbing billionaires and multi-millionaires. Its time to deny them one of the two things they crave...respect.

 

[OldSchool]

Only time I've seen people saying the NFL needs to go to LA are local media trying to convince their readers/viewers that it's a good thing they move. St Louis has media people doing the same thing that St Louis needs the to stay an NFL city and the NFL needs to not abandon the St Louis market. I've yet to see an owner or the NFL say they need to go to LA.

One thing that is I thought about though, does the NFL need to finally put a team in LA to keep it as leverage for local markets? Putting one team there allows them to keep using it as leverage for cities to build stadiums. Pretty soon cities are going to start calling their bluff if a team isn't put there. I don't think they need this but it certainly would help them with leverage.

 

[RamFan503]

I haven't forgotten, I just get confused as to why there is still so many LA fans after she shafted you. I realize this is a poor analogy, but to me it's like stalking your ex wife after she cheated on you and told you to get lost, you aren't good enough.

That is certainly how I would take the Rams leaving. Why would I follow, or why would you follow, a team that pisses on you as a fan and on your city? Especially a Stan Kroenke owned team, as he was one of the people who pissed on you. If the Cardinals come back here, it needs to be someone other than a Bidwell as owner.

Of course, IMO, YMMV, etc.

Because I have followed the RAMS my entire life - not Kroenke or Frontiere or even Rosenbloom. I didn't sit in the Coliseum or Big A or Candlestick or Qwest Field or any of the other venues I've watched my Rams play in to see the owner of the team. I didn't put on my Rams gear and jump in the front seat of my dad's car to watch the owners. I went to watch the Horns on the field.

 

[MrMotes]

Don't think he's saying it wouldn't matter, just that 500% isn't exactly a "need to" matter to address.

Yeah but Moostache is the one using the word "need" and then knocking it down. The NFL wants to be in L.A.

The scale is pretty outrageous. California has 39 million people, Missouri 6 million. So if MO can support 2 teams, CA can support 13. If MO can only support one team, CA can support 6. The gravity of that imbalance is pretty strong, Kroenke certainly seems to be feeling it...

 

[blue4]

Because I have followed the RAMS my entire life - not Kroenke or Frontiere or even Rosenbloom. I didn't sit in the Coliseum or Big A or Candlestick or Qwest Field or any of the other venues I've watched my Rams play in to see the owner of the team. I didn't put on my Rams gear and jump in the front seat of my dad's car to watch the owners. I went to watch the Horns on the field.

Perhaps we have very different personalities. What you describe is a special relationship with your team. I had that with the Cardinals as a kid. They destroyed that relationship. I have it now with the Rams.
I get that the Horns on the field is what you went to see, it's just that by leaving they're telling you they don't care. All those special moments you describe, they're telling you they don't care. They are preventing you from having those. I suppose the reason we don't understand each other on this is because I had a new team move in after the old one left. The void was filled so to speak.