@NateTheRam Post that kind of stuff again and I will bounce you. And don't use how you qualified it as an excuse. You can find this guy in multiples in LA or any other town or city. Watch them all you want. Don't post it on this site.
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
Just for reference Los Angeles county showed a per capita income last census of $28k. The lowest in New York was 10k over that. There is money in Southern California yes but even San Diego county has a higher per capita than LA county.
Yeah - I would guess the LA market is in every contract anyway. If it is filled then there is probably a predetermined bump.
Its not my party so I will try to make sure I pee in the toilet and avoid hitting the seat.
Serious question ...what is the target age demographic for advertisers?
And a serious follow up question ... what is the average age of any remaining LA based fans that would have been there when the Rams last played a home game in California - 1993? or in Los Angeles proper (and not in Anaheim - 1980)?
That is age +20 or age +35. Those are critical numbers to consider. Unless you're telling me that there is a huge, YOUNG fan base in LA as Ram fans...I don't know, I don't live or travel there often (haven't been to LA since '09 except for flights in or out of LAX).
The point is not to make anyone angry about it, and it IS factually based - the NFL wants the LA market because of the numbers of new target age group eyeballs it can sell to the networks and other broadcast partners. The target group that the NFL seeks is not the BBTLAR crowd or other LA Ram fans...those folks are not in the 18-34 demo that advertisers crave, the malleable ones, the ones that advertisers feel can be eadily influenced in their buying decisions.
In THAT regard, the LA Rams history does not contribute anything, its actually not even part of the NFL equation for determining which way they will go. The fact that LA has a larger metropolitan area than St. Louis and by definition more 18-34 year olds as well is of far greater import to the final decision than the 50,000 or so remaining LA Ram fans
Last edited:
If it doesn't succeed, I think that'd be the reason. Wonder if they're banking on LA's eagerness to just have a team
I don't think it matters who's favorites, especially since a Poll isn't truly subjective of the whole populous. We all know winning = dollars. If a Team in LA is winning (like the Chargers), fans will fill the seats - especially if you're talking playoffs.
And with Television Contracts being the bread n butter, I think that's what truly matters (it does make up 60% of the NFL's overall revenue). Ticket sales don't come close to that - and it's not like people aren't going to buy tickets if Rams don't move.
In fact, IIRC, you've pointed out before Kroenke would be pocketing his own ticket sales (revenues are split 60/40 home/away)if he built his own stadium vs the Riverfront deal...so i'm not sure how this would matter to the other owners, since their big money comes from TV.
Last edited:
This may be the best post I've read on the topic. Lots of good insight there. Thanks for sharing it.
A little heavy handed on the warning IMO...but its not my party so I will try to make sure I pee in the toilet and avoid hitting the seat.
That's all I ask.
I can answer this somewhat anecdotally. I am a third generation Rams fan. Both my sons are huge Rams fans. I have family and friends in the LA area (mostly Malibu, Thousand Oaks, Simi, and San Fernando Valley) that are mostly the same way. The team was there for so long, it was just a way of life to be a Rams fan. We watched them on TV as actors, they did all kinds of non-football events around the city, the Rams were LA. It's really hard to describe. But we talk Rams history to our kids. They sit around and listen to the yore of the "old folk". All corny stuff maybe but it's just the way it is. More people I know still talk about the great times at Rams games and even Dodger games than Lakers games. You wouldn't believe how jacked my sons are to watch the opening day game in St Louis.
The demographic that actually has money in LA is a little older than the 18 - 35 demo so there is that. But the thing is, the fact that LA hasn't had a team in 20 years cuts both ways. Much of the younger demographic would have likely gravitated toward a new LA team if one had come in. But none did so...
I'm sure that some of the current Rams fans in the LA area would gravitate toward another team should the Rams not be the ones to move to LA. My guess is that the Chargers would garner most of the switching Rams fans while the Raiduhs would pull in the teen crowd and (sorry but it's true) the gang/thug contingent much like they would no doubt do in most any city. If you have ever been to a home Raiduh game, you'd know this to be true.
So IMO - the LA Rams fan contingent does mean something. Certainly not everything or the most important thing to the NFL. But it certainly doesn't hurt - again IMO - to have an instant rabid fan base that has missed their Rams for 20 years. From what I know, they will come back with a vengeance and PSLs will be sold out in a NY minute. I would think that weighs in at least a little.
Cheers man.
The kids of people who were Rams fans when they were still in LA age range. Perfect target audience built in. Most (read I'm not implying all) kids follow their parents in their sports affiliations.
was gonna say...
my old man is a steelers fan,i'm rams, one sister is a chiefs,and other is a redskins fan lol
I don't think he's going to be able to successfully argue that they built a market in LA. I don't think he will even try. The forgotten fact here is that he will be abandoning a healthy market so I very much doubt he will even want to have a discussion about fans and building markets. The LA market is so huge that I'm willing to bet he pays what he needs to in order to get it. In other words, the other owners will want their cut to allow this to happen and like a mafia don paying a cut to the police to be able to operate that's what he will do. IMO.
Mo. legislators sue Nixon to stop state stadium funding
• By David Hunn, Alex Stuckey
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_879fd7da-677d-5301-8f27-2ff1ff71a318.html
ST. LOUIS • Six state legislators have sued Gov. Jay Nixon and the public board that owns and operates the Edward Jones Dome to block state funding of a proposed riverfront football stadium here.
Senator Rob Schaaf and Representatives Rob Vescovo, Jay Barnes, Mark Parkinson, Eric Burlison and Tracy McCreery allege that taxpayer money is “in the process of being spent illegally by the Defendant in pursuance of an illegal construction of a new NFL stadium in St. Louis with taxpayer money,” the suit says.
Nixon’s two-man stadium task force has presented a plan for a $985 million stadium just north of downtown. The task force estimates it will take at least $250 million from the state and city of St. Louis, and say that money will come from an “extension” of the bonds used to build the Edward Jones Dome, where the St. Louis Rams now play.
The legislators’ suit argues that extending those bonds is illegal.
Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, said lawmakers did everything they could to resolve this problem while the Legislature was in session. Bills were filed and discussions were had on the floor but they didn't get anywhere.
"If they want to build a stadium, go ahead but don't expect the state to pick up the tab unless they come to the Legislature and ask permission to go into debt," Schaaf said.
If it is approved by a vote of the people, he said, he would be OK with money going toward the stadium.
"I always trust the people," Schaaf said. "If the people want to spend $300 million, more power to them."
This story is breaking. Check back soon for more details.
• By David Hunn, Alex Stuckey
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_879fd7da-677d-5301-8f27-2ff1ff71a318.html
ST. LOUIS • Six state legislators have sued Gov. Jay Nixon and the public board that owns and operates the Edward Jones Dome to block state funding of a proposed riverfront football stadium here.
Senator Rob Schaaf and Representatives Rob Vescovo, Jay Barnes, Mark Parkinson, Eric Burlison and Tracy McCreery allege that taxpayer money is “in the process of being spent illegally by the Defendant in pursuance of an illegal construction of a new NFL stadium in St. Louis with taxpayer money,” the suit says.
Nixon’s two-man stadium task force has presented a plan for a $985 million stadium just north of downtown. The task force estimates it will take at least $250 million from the state and city of St. Louis, and say that money will come from an “extension” of the bonds used to build the Edward Jones Dome, where the St. Louis Rams now play.
The legislators’ suit argues that extending those bonds is illegal.
Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, said lawmakers did everything they could to resolve this problem while the Legislature was in session. Bills were filed and discussions were had on the floor but they didn't get anywhere.
"If they want to build a stadium, go ahead but don't expect the state to pick up the tab unless they come to the Legislature and ask permission to go into debt," Schaaf said.
If it is approved by a vote of the people, he said, he would be OK with money going toward the stadium.
"I always trust the people," Schaaf said. "If the people want to spend $300 million, more power to them."
This story is breaking. Check back soon for more details.
i dont think Stan is going to empty his bank account either, he has his limit too. i dont understand why you would think GS will cringe and Stan wont when GS has 12 times the money. they have publicly stated that they would cover the cost of the stadium and help cover any operating losses, why is it that thier word is not as good as Stans in your eyes?
Last edited:
Question on that, I didn't read the links about this, are they upset about the repurposing the bonds or because they're trying to extend the bonds. I can understand if they're mad about an extension that is creating more public debt without a vote. But if they're just using the remaining years in the current bonds and applying that to the new stadium I don't see much grounds for objecting.
and you dont think the Folks at GS realize there might be cost overruns? im sure they arent going into this blind.
My objection to the GS discussion is people are making it sound like they're providing a blank check for this stadium and there are no issues. The problem lies in if the debt owed to GS exceeds the clubs ability to pay it back or approaches the value of the franchises the NFL will step in and not allow this. The NFL demands that teams are financially stable and that scenario wouldn't make them stable. Most of us realize there is a limit these two franchises can afford to pay back GS, we aren't saying GS doesn't have the money to burn.
I'm pretty sure what he wants to do is extend the payoff year of the bonds 30 years past what they are now. The arguement is that it won't create a new tax, but extend the current Hotel/Rental Car taxes.
BuiltRamTough
Pro Bowler
No one really expected them to live up to them. Not after the ode to extravagance in Dallas. It was wishful pandering from desperate people to lure the Rams.
- Status