New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Sum1]

BC...Well, here is the other slant on why it can be perceived as a Hail Mary....

Kroenke/Rams have been steadfast in the Inglewood project and essentially only worrying about their process to get to LA. They aren't truly concerned with what the Chargers or Raiders are doing EXCEPT that it could effect their route to LA. Their plan never included teaming up with the Chargers and helping the Raiders UNTIL it became apparent that the Carson project was real competition. Now, rather than try and take the project head on they are trying to create a compromise and make it look like they are trying to solve a problem rather than just get to their end game.

It could work out perfectly for them in that regard. There still seems to be a number of ways this could turn out...but just for the sake of this specific situation I can see two different scenarios.

1. The NFL sees this as a way to solve stadium issues for the three teams and it gets two teams into LA at the same time. The Raiders stay in Oakland, their long time market while the Rams return to LA and the Chargers join them.

2. The NFL sees this a different way. That Stan/Rams are willing to put resources into two markets that are not their current home market rather than put forth a true good faith effort to make it work where they are...while also stepping away from a proposal including significant public funds.

I'm hoping that the NFL has the integrity to remain true to their bylaws. But I'm not ignorant or naive...the NFL will do what they want. But more than anything in this situation that I am presenting it seems that a couple things could be HUGE deal makers/breakers...the STL stadium situation and financing...and the Carson project.

Maybe this is my STL bias...but when I look at this latest play by Stan I can't help but see that his willingness to help the Chargers and Raiders is only to help his own cause. But the other side of the coin is a stadium situation that the Chargers/Raiders have put together to help themselves out of necessity and a St. Louis stadium situation that is being put together that helps the team and an existing market.

 

[The Ripper]

BC...Well, here is the other slant on why it can be perceived as a Hail Mary....

Kroenke/Rams have been steadfast in the Inglewood project and essentially only worrying about their process to get to LA. They aren't truly concerned with what the Chargers or Raiders are doing EXCEPT that it could effect their route to LA. Their plan never included teaming up with the Chargers and helping the Raiders UNTIL it became apparent that the Carson project was real competition. Now, rather than try and take the project head on they are trying to create a compromise and make it look like they are trying to solve a problem rather than just get to their end game.

It could work out perfectly for them in that regard. There still seems to be a number of ways this could turn out...but just for the sake of this specific situation I can see two different scenarios.

1. The NFL sees this as a way to solve stadium issues for the three teams and it gets two teams into LA at the same time. The Raiders stay in Oakland, their long time market while the Rams return to LA and the Chargers join them.

2. The NFL sees this a different way. That Stan/Rams are willing to put resources into two markets that are not their current home market rather than put forth a true good faith effort to make it work where they are...while also stepping away from a proposal including significant public funds.

I'm hoping that the NFL has the integrity to remain true to their bylaws. But I'm not ignorant or naive...the NFL will do what they want. But more than anything in this situation that I am presenting it seems that a couple things could be HUGE deal makers/breakers...the STL stadium situation and financing...and the Carson project.

Maybe this is my STL bias...but when I look at this latest play by Stan I can't help but see that his willingness to help the Chargers and Raiders is only to help his own cause. But the other side of the coin is a stadium situation that the Chargers/Raiders have put together to help themselves out of necessity and a St. Louis stadium situation that is being put together that helps the team and an existing market.

I think that the info about Kroenke helping the other teams may only be true for the Raiders. Davis needs 400 million for the project and if he can help line up financing and possibly a a partner for Davis then the Carson deal is dead. The Chargers have said they can still make it work with one team but the debt levels are high for 2 teams but if it's just one there's too much risk. That doesn't mean that the Rams are a go for Inglewood since Spanos still has other options in LA since there are 2 other sites that are viable and Policy worked on one of them.

 

[Sum1]

I think that the info about Kroenke helping the other teams may only be true for the Raiders. Davis needs 400 million for the project and if he can help line up financing and possibly a a partner for Davis then the Carson deal is dead. The Chargers have said they can still make it work with one team but the debt levels are high for 2 teams but if it's just one there's too much risk. That doesn't mean that the Rams are a go for Inglewood since Spanos still has other options in LA since there are 2 other sites that are viable and Policy worked on one of them.

Don't you think he's only going to help the Raiders if it helps to put the Rams in LA? And the NFL only wants one stadium in LA...so....

 

[The Ripper]

Don't you think he's only going to help the Raiders if it helps to put the Rams in LA? And the NFL only wants one stadium in LA...so....

He only needs one team to pull out of Carson and the Raiders are the easier team so yes. I didn't say 2 stadiums just that there are to other options for Spanos in LA for a stadium if Carson falls apart and if he doesn't want to go to Inglewood. They're both long shots but they do exist.

The NFL doesn't want 2 stadiums in any market not just LA.

 

[RamBill]

Randy Karraker and D’Marco Farr on The Fast Lane gets Bernie Miklasz all riled up about the Rams potential move back to Los Angeles. Bernie asks why should Kroenke be rewarded when he helped pull the Rams out of LA originally.

Listen to Bernie Talk Rams-LA

 

[The Ripper]

When is Bernie going to get a fact checker?
Average Attendance 1980-88 61,824
capacity of 67,821
91% of capacity

 

[beej]

When is Bernie going to get a fact checker?
Average Attendance 1980-88 61,824
capacity of 67,821
91% of capacity

I just did the math and Bernie's numbers actually look right to me.

 

[The Ripper]

I just did the math and Bernie's numbers actually look right to me.

2014 86.4 % vs 91 % . He said that the Rams had a higher % than when the Rams with Dickerson were winning.

If he compared it to 92 or 93 which is a better comparison that would have been correct.

Attendance is not “attendance". In the mid 1990 in switched from turn style clicks to paid attendance.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/05/25/how-sports-attendance-figures-speak-lies/

 

[RamFan503]

Oh, I hope I'm not coming across as insulting towards St Louis, that's not my intention at all.

Nah - it was more just pointed at a few who have posted more than some others lately. Not really aimed at criticizing anyone - just the tone over the past couple days. It happens from time to time.

 

[beej]

2014 86.4 % vs 91 % . He said that the Rams had a higher % than when the Rams with Dickerson were winning.

If he compared it to 92 or 93 which is a better comparison that would have been correct.

Attendance is not “attendance". In the mid 1990 in switched from turn style clicks to paid attendance.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/05/25/how-sports-attendance-figures-speak-lies/

I'm not a big fan of Bernie, but if you go back and actually listen to what he says, he's right. He's talking about comparing 1984(the year dickerson set the single season record) to 2014.

 

[The Ripper]

I'm not a big fan of Bernie, but if you go back and actually listen to what he says, he's right. He's talking about comparing 1984(the year dickerson set the single season record) to 2014.

I was using the numbers from the NFL for the Rams relocation in 1995. I went back and compared the numbers for the teams Pro-Football reference and what the NFL used for relocation's. No surprise they were different for the Rams, Brown's, Oilers and a few others. It just shows that the NFL can used the numbers anyway they want to fit the recommendation.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm not a big fan of Bernie, but if you go back and actually listen to what he says, he's right. He's talking about comparing 1984(the year dickerson set the single season record) to 2014.

Is he comparing percentage? If so he's incredibly flawed from the get go. First there is venue size, and second the NFL used to count everyone who actually came to the game, vs now where it's tickets sold. Its not a good argument really.

 

[OldSchool]

In 2014 the Rams had more attendance per game than the Rams did 30 years before in 1984 in Los Angeles yes that is correct. But it shouldn't come to much of a shock to anybody that every team is drawing more attendance 30 years later. Another way to look at it is in 1984 the NFL's average attendance per game for the season was 59,813. That year the Rams drew 54,455 average. So in 1984 the Rams were 91% of the NFL's average attendance. In 2014 the Rams drew 57,018 and the NFL average for 2014 was 67,509. That makes last year's Rams attendance 84.5% of the NFL average. So yes they did draw more last year than 1984 in LA as Bernie claims. But as usual Bernie really doesn't give an accurate account of the numbers. He cherry picks to favor his argument. There is no denying though starting in the early 80's Rams attendance started to decline in LA and they were a middle of the road attendance team after years of leading the NFL in attendance. LA fans will give you reasons for this just like St Louis fans will give you reasons for their attendance figures being as low as they are.

In short arguing attendance from LA 30 years ago with St Louis today is a ridiculous argument to get into.

 

[dieterbrock]

In 2014 the Rams had more attendance per game than the Rams did 30 years before in 1984 in Los Angeles yes that is correct. But it shouldn't come to much of a shock to anybody that every team is drawing more attendance 30 years later. Another way to look at it is in 1984 the NFL's average attendance per game for the season was 59,813. That year the Rams drew 54,455 average. So in 1984 the Rams were 91% of the NFL's average attendance. In 2014 the Rams drew 57,018 and the NFL average for 2014 was 67,509. That makes last year's Rams attendance 84.5% of the NFL average. So yes they did draw more last year than 1984 in LA as Bernie claims. But as usual Bernie really doesn't give an accurate account of the numbers. He cherry picks to favor his argument. There is no denying though starting in the early 80's Rams attendance started to decline in LA and they were a middle of the road attendance team after years of leading the NFL in attendance. LA fans will give you reasons for this just like St Louis fans will give you reasons for their attendance figures being as low as they are.

In short arguing attendance from LA 30 years ago with St Louis today is a ridiculous argument to get into.

Wasn't attendance down league wide in 1984 as a result of the previous season strike?

 

[OldSchool]

Wasn't attendance down league wide in 1984 as a result of the previous season strike?

The source I used had the following attendance numbers:

1981: 60745
1982: 58472
1983: Not listed
1984: 59813

So there was a drop from 81 but an increase from 82. Again that's one source at NFL.com that has a synopsis of each year from that decade.

http://www.nfl.com/history/chronology/1981-1990

 

[iced]

In short arguing attendance from LA 30 years ago with St Louis today is a ridiculous argument to get into.

Especially because:

1) Venue Size - gigantic difference between the two cities' stadiums, as well as market size.

2)Back then, Ticket sales were a bigger source of revenue as opposed to TV contracts...Since I think the mid 90's, those numbers have flipped. Now TV brings in 60%'ish of their revenue, with ticket sales down in the lower 20%'ish. There's a bigger emphasis now on getting the game on TV, especially when to avoid black outs you can buy tickets at what, 34 cents to the dollar or something? I think that's the right figure but not 100%

 

[mr.stlouis]

So the Raiders and Chargers will be presenting their stadium to Carson on June 22. My knee jerk reaction was "very big news" considering they are both still in talks with their current markets. Opinions greatly vary, however.

 

[OldSchool]

Especially because:

1) Venue Size - gigantic difference between the two cities' stadiums, as well as market size.

2)Back then, Ticket sales were a bigger source of revenue as opposed to TV contracts...Since I think the mid 90's, those numbers have flipped. Now TV brings in 60%'ish of their revenue, with ticket sales down in the lower 20%'ish. There's a bigger emphasis now on getting the game on TV, especially when to avoid black outs you can buy tickets at what, 34 cents to the dollar or something? I think that's the right figure but not 100%

3) Population changes

4) The way attendance is counted(should count for 4 5 6 7 and 8)

5) Entertainment options in every NFL city. In other words is the NFL game the only real entertainment option in each city on a Sunday? I know there isn't much else to do in Green Bay Wisconsin on a Sunday but you can probably find something else to do in Miami, LA or New York.

6) Do we really need to say anything else other than comparing attendance numbers from 3 decades in the past to todays numbers is incredibly short sited and narrow minded?

 

[OldSchool]

So the Raiders and Chargers will be presenting their stadium to Carson on June 22. My knee jerk reaction was "very big news" considering they are both still in talks with their current markets. Opinions greatly vary, however.

What is there to present to the City? I thought it was all signed off on and approved other than the environmental cleanup being done?

 

[blue4]

I hate to bring this up people but attendance numbers from 30-40 years ago aren't going to mean anything. They're completely irrelevant to this process going on now. It's not even worth arguing about. Even the attendance numbers now probably won't be dealbreakers unless we believe 31 billionaires are too stupid to factor in the Rams trying desperately to move in a public fashion.