New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[MrMotes]

Personally, i think point 7 is pretty telling:

Focus group participants indicated that while keeping the Rams in St. Louis was preferred, remaining a NFL
city was of the utmost importance. The vast majority of participants would support a new NFL team if it came to the market.

 

[beej]

Why did the NFL short list us for expansion if the long term outlook was so poor? Long term losses were ok for an expansion team and not the Rams? I think that was just more the NFL saying what it needed to in order to try to force an outcome they wanted. This whole notion of a lack of business support is just setting up a narrative in case it's needed to justify an outcome. You got teams in GB, a shantytown named Jacksonville, Carolina, Buffalo and so on and St Louis doesn't have enough business? That is a large steaming pile of B.S. in my opinion.

don't get too offended. It was a business evaluation. it's just +'s and -'s. Almost any city they do that to is going to have both. It's not saying that we are unfit for NFL or that we are a perfect match. Just areas of concern. Things that could be fixed but areas of concern none the less.

 

[MrMotes]

Unless the Rams prices for a game experience are in line with their product, attendance will remain below average.

Even Dave Peackock says it's not all about the product:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...tml?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

St. Louis is never going to be Dallas or San Francisco or Los Angeles, Peacock said in an interview with the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday. The riverfront stadium won’t be able to charge big-city prices.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Even Dave Peackock says it's not all about the product:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...tml?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

St. Louis is never going to be Dallas or San Francisco or Los Angeles, Peacock said in an interview with the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday. The riverfront stadium won’t be able to charge big-city prices.

Interesting that you left out the next few sentences regarding what Peacock said:

But much of the rest, he said, comes down to the local appetite for a losing team.
The Cardinals are popular, he noted, in part because of nearly a dozen runs into the playoffs and multiple title fights over the past 15 years.
“That tells you,” he said, “performance is important.”

 

[MrMotes]

Interesting that you left out the next few sentences regarding what Peacock said:

But much of the rest, he said, comes down to the local appetite for a losing team.
The Cardinals are popular, he noted, in part because of nearly a dozen runs into the playoffs and multiple title fights over the past 15 years.
“That tells you,” he said, “performance is important.”

Right. But even so St. Louis will never compete with the big markets and the Cardinals will never be worth what the Dodgers or Yankees are worth.

That's what Peacock is saying. That's what i'm saying.

Performance is a factor but not the only factor...

 

[bluecoconuts]

you wont listen to anything with an open mind so im done talking to you, twist away at others words not mine.

How am I twisting your words or not "having an open mind"? Because I won't go and say that he needs to look at attendance numbers from 35 years ago like its somehow relevant? Even though they had two completely different ways of counting?

Well then why are owners still investing in markets smaller than St Louis's? Why do people still own teams in cities not named LA or NY?

Corporate support, other teams/sports in the area, the relationship between fan outreach and support, etc. There's a lot of different things that factor in. That's why three owners are fighting for LA and not for San Antonio. That's why owners are mulling over London and not Las Vegas. That's why owners are taking a game away from Buffalo and taking it to Toronto.

 

[bluecoconuts]

As far as community outreach as a reason fans go to games, I think the impact (of community outreach) is minimal. I'd be surprised if the average fan (who doesn't have a PSL/season ticket - isn't "locked in") says "Well, the team isn't doing very well but I'm going to see the Rams anyway because they held such-and-such an event... they good members of my community".

It's supposed to be a reason why fans go to games, that's why teams do it. That's why the Rams have gone beyond what other teams do. Teams do community outreaches to get fans to spend money at games and on their products, not just for shits and giggles and good press.

Unless the Rams prices for a game experience are in line with their product, attendance will remain below average.
I know they've made adjustments and done what they could to keep ticket prices down... but the overall game experience (tickets, food, beverages, parking, etc.) is still very expensive.
Line that up with a below average team and people tend to say "nah, I'll watch it on TV until they get better".

They're some of the cheapest in the league though, how much lower can they get?

think it's really pretty simple. Product below average = below average sales. Don't see how that could be argued... and I certainly don't believe for a second that any owner or Executive of the NFL could be hoodwinked into thinking the attendance drop lately is not primarily due to the product on the field.

I agree that a below average product will bring below average sales, but if that is the connection then the sales should have risen when the team got better, but they haven't. So while the NFL isn't stupid, they're going to know that the shitty product on the field had a big effect, they're probably still going to look at the corporate support, they're going to look at the team improving and sales remaining the same and wonder how long it takes to see results, they're going to see the Rams trying in their community and not getting any results. All of that doesn't mean that St Louis isn't a good city or a good sports city, obviously it is. I think they're going to wonder if they're going to have to fight the Cardinals for that money, and if it's even possible to do so. Cardinals were listed as the most important team in St Louis, and the studies show it's a limited market with limited monies, so the NFL now has to fight against the top team in the city for money.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Right. But even so St. Louis will never compete with the big markets and the Cardinals will never be worth what the Dodgers or Yankees are worth.

That's what Peacock is saying. That's what i'm saying.

Performance is a factor but not the only factor...

Yes, and what I'm saying is what Peacock is saying as well.

Regardless of the market, if your product is sub-standard, you will have a much bigger uphill climb.

And, of course, you can be in a smaller market and still make lots of money:
Indianapolis: $60.7 operating income
Carolina (Charlotte): $55.6
Jacksonville: $56.9

"Value", as I've said, is only realized when you sell the asset.

And, like you have said many times, Kroenke isn't into selling things.

So, the real question is... can Kroenke make an acceptable ROI if the Rams remain in St. Louis.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Also if anyone hasn't seen it yet, here's the exact market study. Shorter than I thought it would be, there's some good stuff and some bad stuff, as expected.

https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/ch...ibility_Analysis_-_St._Louis_07July2015.0.pdf

 

[MrMotes]

That's the executive summary which is why it's only 4 pages. I'm sure the full report is a lot longer...

 

[The Ripper]

Yes, and what I'm saying is what Peacock is saying as well.

Regardless of the market, if your product is sub-standard, you will have a much bigger uphill climb.

And, of course, you can be in a smaller market and still make lots of money:
Indianapolis: $60.7 operating income
Carolina (Charlotte): $55.6
Jacksonville: $56.9

"Value", as I've said, is only realized when you sell the asset.

And, like you have said many times, Kroenke isn't into selling things.

So, the real question is... can Kroenke make an acceptable ROI if the Rams remain in St. Louis.

You nailed it. If he can then he stays and if not he most likely will be looking elsewhere.

 

[Rmfnlt]

It's supposed to be a reason why fans go to games, that's why teams do it. That's why the Rams have gone beyond what other teams do. Teams do community outreaches to get fans to spend money at games and on their products, not just for shits and giggles and good press.
I'm sure community serservice helps a tad... but I sincerely doubt the owners/NFL are going to put very much weight on it as a motivating factor for people to go to the games (as in "the Rams did all that nice community service and the sales still dropped... see???? We need to leave!"). I'm sure you can see how weak it would be for the Rams to try to use the connection between community service and sales as a reason to exit St. Louis.

They're some of the cheapest in the league though, how much lower can they get?
I dunno... if the team takes a nosedive (God forbid) this year? They'd be forced to find some way to attract customers. The mere fact that they have some of the cheapest tickets is proof to me that they understand the correlation between quality of product and sales.

I agree that a below average product will bring below average sales, but if that is the connection then the sales should have risen when the team got better, but they haven't. So while the NFL isn't stupid, they're going to know that the crappy product on the field had a big effect, they're probably still going to look at the corporate support, they're going to look at the team improving and sales remaining the same and wonder how long it takes to see results, they're going to see the Rams trying in their community and not getting any results. All of that doesn't mean that St Louis isn't a good city or a good sports city, obviously it is. I think they're going to wonder if they're going to have to fight the Cardinals for that money, and if it's even possible to do so. Cardinals were listed as the most important team in St Louis, and the studies show it's a limited market with limited monies, so the NFL now has to fight against the top team in the city for money.
Are we really going to go back to the "degree of bad" discussion? They were absolutely horrid under Spagnuolo... Fisher came in and they've gone backward every year. Those are facts.
Bottom line: It's still a below average product. The fact that it's not nearly as below as it was, doesn't change the fact that it is still a below average product. Sorry.
Fight the Cardinals? How popular are the Dodgers? I hear they're pretty darned popular. Then, of course, you have the Clippers, Lakers, Kings... lots of other things to do than watch a below average product... and let's not forget the beaches and mountains... amusement parks? I love California! Just couldn't afford to live there!

 

[RamFan503]

Wasn't it said that Peacock has lined up companies who have said that they will provide support should a new stadium get built? I'm confident he will have this side of things taken care of to the NFL's satisfaction.

A letter is not a commitment. Pre-selling the corporate suites for an extended period might help. Not sure.

All the report says to me in this area is that there is a question as to the amount of business interest in the long term that can be expected to maintain sold out corporate suites.

I'm not sure how there is any question that having that bad of a product is going to negatively affect season tickets and corporate sales. From what I understand though, corporate sales are generally not affected as much by how the team is doing. Still, after ten years of losing, even that support can erode.

But I'm sure the NFL is also going to look at how records have affected that support in Miami, Cleveland, Buffalo, Oakland, Detroit, Jacksonville, and maybe a couple others. I realize that St Louis is coming off historically bad records, but there are several teams that have had worse records over the past three years and the product on the field over that period IMO will not be ignored - especially when making market comparisons.

Mind you - I don't even know how St Louis compares with those other markets. If it is favorably, it will weigh in St Louis' favor. If not - it will go the other way. In all of this, the report citing a lack of business from which to draw from in the future seems a bit damning in this area. But how would that compare to the other markets I mentioned above? Clearly several of those markets must have the same issues, but again, I don't know. I suspect Detroit is in a world of hurt in the corporate sector - Buffalo the same. If areas have far fewer fortune 1000 companies, a pretty bad 10 year stretch, and are still showing support, I think that may be damaging to St Louis' case.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm sure community serservice helps a tad... but I sincerely doubt the owners/NFL are going to put very much weight on it as a motivating factor for people to go to the games (as in "the Rams did all that nice community service and the sales still dropped... see???? We need to leave!"). I'm sure you can see how weak it would be for the Rams to try to use the connection between community service and sales as a reason to exit St. Louis.

I don't know how much weight they put on it, they could say that they needed a better team, they could use it as an excuse that says the Rams gave it a real shot. Who knows what logical gymnastics they're going to pull to justify whatever they do. I do think it will factor in somewhat though, because it shows that the Rams didn't just sit around and not try, they tried more than most/all and got nothing for it. It could be used to show that there's only so much money to go around.

I dunno... if the team takes a nosedive (God forbid) this year? They'd be forced to find some way to attract customers. The mere fact that they have some of the cheapest tickets is proof to me that they understand the correlation between quality of product and sales.

I dunno, there's only so much they can lower them, and Peacock said it himself, they can only charge so much before it's out of price for the people. That puts a cap on things.

Are we really going to go back to the "degree of bad" discussion? They were absolutely horrid under Spagnuolo... Fisher came in and they've gone backward every year. Those are facts.
Bottom line: It's still a below average product. The fact that it's not nearly as below as it was, doesn't change the fact that it is still a below average product. Sorry.
Fight the Cardinals? How popular are the Dodgers? I hear they're pretty darned popular. Then, of course, you have the Clippers, Lakers, Kings... lots of other things to do than watch a below average product... and let's not forget the beaches and mountains... amusement parks? I love California! Just couldn't afford to live there!

I disagree that they've taken a step backward every year under Fisher. I think the Rams are a lot better under Fisher and since Kroenke has taken over. They're not there yet, but they're closer. I'm not disputing that the Rams aren't a powerhouse or anything, but if fan support is so connected to product on the field we should have seen a rise, no?

And the difference between LA is that there's far more money to go around. So while they still have to fight the Dodgers, Kings, Lakers, and Clippers, the pie is a lot bigger, which makes it a lot easier.

 

[tonyl711]

How am I twisting your words or not "having an open mind"? Because I won't go and say that he needs to look at attendance numbers from 35 years ago like its somehow relevant? Even though they had two completely different ways of counting?



Corporate support, other teams/sports in the area, the relationship between fan outreach and support, etc. There's a lot of different things that factor in. That's why three owners are fighting for LA and not for San Antonio. That's why owners are mulling over London and not Las Vegas. That's why owners are taking a game away from Buffalo and taking it to Toronto.

i choose not to converse with you, you wont listen to anyone elses side, so lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[bluecoconuts]

i choose not to converse with you, you wont listen to anyone elses side, so lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I listen to everyone's side, I just may not agree with it. Frankly I'm not even sure what you're arguing about anymore, or what we're 'agreeing to disagree' about, similar to how I'm not sure what words I twisted around either, but whatever then.

 

[RamFan503]

i choose not to converse with you, you wont listen to anyone elses side, so lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

The site has a great ignore function. I suggest rather than continually telling someone you are not going to converse with them, you simply put them on ignore so the rest of us don't have to witness the horror.

 

[blue4]

How am I twisting your words or not "having an open mind"? Because I won't go and say that he needs to look at attendance numbers from 35 years ago like its somehow relevant? Even though they had two completely different ways of counting?



Corporate support, other teams/sports in the area, the relationship between fan outreach and support, etc. There's a lot of different things that factor in. That's why three owners are fighting for LA and not for San Antonio. That's why owners are mulling over London and not Las Vegas. That's why owners are taking a game away from Buffalo and taking it to Toronto.

No kidding, but I'm talking about the ability of a team to make money or lack therof to justify a move which is what this conversation was about. And two owners are fighting for LA out of self defense, not because they really want to move.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I do think it will factor in somewhat though, because it shows that the Rams didn't just sit around and not try, they tried more than most/all and got nothing for it.

They keep stats on such things? I'd love to see them!

 

[blue4]

I don't know how much weight they put on it, they could say that they needed a better team, they could use it as an excuse that says the Rams gave it a real shot. Who knows what logical gymnastics they're going to pull to justify whatever they do. I do think it will factor in somewhat though, because it shows that the Rams didn't just sit around and not try, they tried more than most/all and got nothing for it. It could be used to show that there's only so much money to go around.



I dunno, there's only so much they can lower them, and Peacock said it himself, they can only charge so much before it's out of price for the people. That puts a cap on things.



I disagree that they've taken a step backward every year under Fisher. I think the Rams are a lot better under Fisher and since Kroenke has taken over. They're not there yet, but they're closer. I'm not disputing that the Rams aren't a powerhouse or anything, but if fan support is so connected to product on the field we should have seen a rise, no?

And the difference between LA is that there's far more money to go around. So while they still have to fight the Dodgers, Kings, Lakers, and Clippers, the pie is a lot bigger, which makes it a lot easier.

7-8-1, 7-9, 6-10. The exact definition of a step backward every year. If we are going to live in the real world where results matter in regards to the move, then we should also be realistic here. The fact is, yes the FACT, is we got worse while our division got better. It's a fact because it was proven, repeatedly, on the football field that we didn't make enough plays to win. The QB problem? Talk to the playoff Cardinals.

So no, why would you see a rise from additional causal fans if the newspaper stat sheet still shows the same crap? When you still see the absolutely undisciplined penalties to ensure game deciding drives die a quick death on your tv? I don't understand why you would think attendance would rise after another losing season and another promise of next year.