New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Rmfnlt]

Seattle played in the last 3 SB's?

Now that brought value.

 

[MrMotes]

The NFL is a business. Trying to apply right and wrong to business doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

If a local restaurant moves to what they think is a better location is that wrong because a lot of people won't get to eat there anymore?

 

[Rmfnlt]

The NFL is a business. Trying to apply right and wrong to business doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

If a local restaurant moves to what they think is a better location is that wrong because a lot of people won't get to eat there anymore?

Of course, that gross over-simplification and the comparsion is apples to orangutangs.

I think I'm done for a while now.

 

[RamFan503]

First off @Isiah58 nice, well thought out post. I think it is hard for anyone to put themselves in Kroenke's shoes but I think most of what you said has a very good chance of being true. And none of that has anything to do with good or bad fan bases.

It is mean spirited and completely unfair. Just as the same accusations rang hollow about 1995. What's got me upset more than anything is suggesting the move in 1995 was due to fair weather or transient fans will bring swift recriminations from everyone. Saying the exact same thing about St Louis gets no response at all unless it's from a St Louis resident. Georgia is a valid excuse for LA. Stan is not for ST Louis. And these little potshots have been increasing.

I think the same reaction comes from both fan bases. And it needs to stop. We can talk about the market studies (wish we had the one for LA) without pointing at fan bases. In fact, IIRR the report actually tends to be positive toward actual fan support.

The big question it seems to raise is business and corporate support. There are a myriad of reasons that businesses find the need to cut out those types of luxuries. I now from my perspective - at least in my area - we have been cutting back on several things lately. It seems to me that most of the talk of the economy rebounding is just that - talk. Most business owners I know are hedging against things getting worse in the immediate future - not better.

Having a weaker economic trend than apparently either LA, SD, or the Bay Area isn't going to help in this area.

I'm not sure i understand the question.

Kroenke has improved the team (first and foremost by firing Spagnulo and Devaney) and i want them to move to L.A. He doesn't need any defense from where i'm sitting.

I get why St. Louis will (and does) hate him for what he's doing. But there's a lot of fans who applaud his silent methodical approach. (Compare how the Rams are playing this to how the Chargers are, in open war with the mayor of SD). And if this all ends in the Rams playing in a great new stadium in St. Louis, i'll applaud that too...

Kind of sums up where I am on this except that I want them to stay put even though I grew up on the LA Rams.

Quite frankly, I want St. Louis to keep the Rams at this point just to see the disappointed look on everyone else's faces when our little, mid market, engine that could flyover town gets to keep their team as much as any other reason. The way St. Louis is treated like second class citizens by the rest of the country is ridiculous, and that is not "little brother complex" talking.

Too funny. I have to agree. It would also be awesome if when all is said and done, Stan comes out with a statement apologizing that his tactics hurt the fans in St Louis so but that he did it to secure a project that would be home for the indefinite future of the Rams in the Lou. How awesome would that be? And IMO - not all that much of a stretch.

Keep coming back to that "degree of improvement" and is it enough to really get the fan base excited? Yes, ROD is excited (with even a few skeptics here)... but the overall fan base?
I have to be fair and see why they might not be.

But the Rams lead the league in community service! Let's go!!
(sorry, that last sentence may be over-the-top, just for effect )

Yeah - that last sentence is. But I get it.

The problem I have is that if the Rams take a few years to get to the playoffs, is the support going to continue to wane - even with a new stadium. Come November or December, are the fans going to come out to an open air stadium if the Rams are somehow out of the playoff hunt? Does putting a retractable roof and a project sufficient to house a SB not only float Stan's boat but ensure better audiences during a snow or rain storm while the fans buy up seats in a stadium that will house Superbowl 55 or whatever?

The NFL is pretty much the go big or go home league. I think it may very well take a top level stadium to nail down having the NFL stay there.

 

[beej]

The NFL is a business. Trying to apply right and wrong to business doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

If a local restaurant moves to what they think is a better location is that wrong because a lot of people won't get to eat there anymore?

I know that when you have a Mcdonalds franchise in St Louis it doesn't mean you can just close it and move it to LA. Somebody already owns the zip codes in any given area. Mcdonalds HQ would shut that down quick and find someone to reopen the STL franchise.

The NFL has stated, that they own the LA zipcodes, and not just any particular team can play there without approval.

 

[dbrooks25]

That is because the entirety of football nation wants the Rams to return to LA except for, get this, St. Louis residents. I frequent the NFL subreddit, and you wouldn't believe how they treat St. Louis fans. Moving the Rams is a foregone conclusion, they may as well start selling merchandise in Inglewood yesterday.

They are totally empathetic to San Diego, using words like "criminal" or "tragedy" or "appalling" to discuss a potential move, but St. Louisans are vilified for wanting to keep our team, often being told that a cross country move is no excuse to stop being a Rams fan.

Quite frankly, I want St. Louis to keep the Rams at this point just to see the disappointed look on everyone else's faces when our little, mid market, engine that could flyover town gets to keep their team as much as any other reason. The way St. Louis is treated like second class citizens by the rest of the country is ridiculous, and that is not "little brother complex" talking.

A lot of those people probably think St. Louis is located in the South. LOL

 

[RamFan503]

A lot of those people probably think St. Louis is located in the South. LOL

It's not?

 

[The Ripper]

I know that when you have a Mcdonalds franchise in St Louis it doesn't mean you can just close it and move it to LA. Somebody already owns the zip codes in any given area. Mcdonalds HQ would shut that down quick and find someone to reopen the STL franchise.

The NFL has stated, that they own the LA zipcodes, and not just any particular team can play there without approval.

Except NFL teams aren't franchises. They're individual businesses. The Rams couldn't block the Raiders from moving into LA nor could the NFL.

 

[snackdaddy]

I'm not sure i understand the question.

Kroenke has improved the team (first and foremost by firing Spagnulo and Devaney) and i want them to move to L.A. He doesn't need any defense from where i'm sitting.

I get why St. Louis will (and does) hate him for what he's doing. But there's a lot of fans who applaud his silent methodical approach. (Compare how the Rams are playing this to how the Chargers are, in open war with the mayor of SD). And if this all ends in the Rams playing in a great new stadium in St. Louis, i'll applaud that too...

Its easy to understand why St. Louis fans are upset about a possible move. But in the same token, for every upset fan in St. Louis there's a happy fan in LA. St. Louis fans are learning to hate Kroenke for what he wants to do, but LA fans consider him a hero. Its all about where the perspective is.

I'm pretty sure LA fans were hating on Georgia for moving their team while St. Louis fans were applauding her. Just the way it is when one city loses a team to another. I'll bet the Oilers, Browns, and Colts fans were hating their owners while the cities who ended up with the teams loved them.

Its really should not be about St. Louis vs. LA or Baltimore vs. Indianapolis, etc. and the animosity that goes with it. But it usually ends up that way. Fans losing a team are pissed and fans gaining one are glad to have them.

 

[snackdaddy]

Probably never should have moved in the first place... but two wrongs don't make a right.

Again, its all about perspective. From where you're sitting its a wrong. For many LA Rams fans it would be righting a wrong that took place 20 years ago.

 

[snackdaddy]

Of course, that gross over-simplification and the comparsion is apples to orangutangs.

I think I'm done for a while now.

Not sure why its apples to orangutans. He's stating a business wants to move to a different location because it improves the value of the business over where they're at now. The only difference is the volume of business with a restaurant compared to an NFL team. But the premise seems to be the same to me.

 

[RamFan503]

Not sure why its apples to orangutans. He's stating a business wants to move to a different location because it improves the value of the business over where they're at now. The only difference is the volume of business with a restaurant compared to an NFL team. But the premise seems to be the same to me.

I think the key difference is that the restaurant owner is not likely to have had tax dollars used to build his restaurant and then pay a heavily subsidized rent until such time that the restaurateur saw a greener pasture.

Unfortunately, the powers that be should have really seen this coming being that they essentially played that game to get the Rams there in the first place.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I think the key difference is that the restaurant owner is not likely to have had tax dollars used to build his restaurant and then pay a heavily subsidized rent until such time that the restaurateur saw a greener pasture.

Unfortunately, the powers that be should have really seen this coming being that they essentially played that game to get the Rams there in the first place.

Trying to compare moving an NFL franchise to McDonalds is apples to oranutangs.

C'mon guys.

This really is getting silly. I swore I would take a break and I will now... but that comparison is just plain wild. Soley intended, IMO, to try to win an argument (or get the last word in)... which is what I thought ROD is NOT about.

OK... this time I mean it... carry on discussing how moving the Rams and McDonalds is somehow comparable.

 

[The Ripper]

I think the key difference is that the restaurant owner is not likely to have had tax dollars used to build his restaurant and then pay a heavily subsidized rent until such time that the restaurateur saw a greener pasture.

Unfortunately, the powers that be should have really seen this coming being that they essentially played that game to get the Rams there in the first place.

The owner is only a tenant. The building wasn't specifically for the owner and the financing had already been obtained prior to the lease.

 

[The Ripper]

Trying to compare moving an NFL franchise to McDonalds is apples to oranutangs.

C'mon guys.

This really is getting silly. I swore I would take a break and I will now... but that comparison is just plain wild. Soley intended, IMO, to try to win an argument (or get the last word in)... which is what I thought ROD is NOT about.

OK... this time I mean it... carry on discussing how moving the Rams and McDonalds is somehow comparable.

You're right but the comparison to McDonald's has been used multiple times maybe not here but in the media regarding an NFL team going rouge. Marc Gannis has used it on the Fast Lane a few times even though multiple courts have ruled that it's not the case for a NFL team.

 

[beej]

Except NFL teams aren't franchises. They're individual businesses. The Rams couldn't block the Raiders from moving into LA nor could the NFL.

wiki:
Each NFL club is granted a franchise, the league's authorization for the team to operate in their city. This franchise covers 'Home Territory' (the 75 miles surrounding the city limits, or, if the team is within 100 miles of another league city, half the distance between the two cities) and 'Home Marketing Area' (Home Territory plus the rest of the state the club operates in, as well as the area the team operates their training camp in for the duration of the camp). Each NFL member has the exclusive right to host professional football games inside their Home Territory and the exclusive right to advertise, promote, and host events in their Home Marketing Area. There are several exceptions to this rule, mostly relating to teams with close proximity to each other: theSan Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders only have exclusive rights in their cities and share rights outside of it; and teams that operate in the same city (e.g. New York Giants and New York Jets) or the same state (e.g.California, Florida, and Texas) share the rights to the city's Home Territory and the state's Home Marketing Area, respectively. The Los Angeles home territory has no team, but is "owned and controlled" by the league.[81]

 

[RamFan503]

The owner is only a tenant. The building wasn't specifically for the owner and the financing had already been obtained prior to the lease.

Doesn't really matter. The owner of whatever business that obtains profit due to tax dollars being used to provide them a facility fall into a different category in my opinion. I'm not arguing that the teams are not individual businesses. I'm arguing that once they take public funds in any form, that changes the field of play.

Generally, if a business takes a tax deferral - for example - they have to pay it back if they decide to move.

 

[RamFan503]

The Los Angeles home territory has no team, but is "owned and controlled" by the league.[81]

This is the part that I think will be difficult to defend at best if it comes up. No franchise owns a market where they have no business dealings. Taking the McDonalds analogy - not that it is remotely similar - they would be hard pressed telling someone who could afford the franchise and all that went with it that they could not close their store in one market and open one in a market where no such McDs franchise exists. If the potential franchisee sued, they would most certainly lose unless they had something else to use as justification - like financial instability or not having the wherewithal to be successful in that market.

 

[The Ripper]

wiki:
Each NFL club is granted a franchise, the league's authorization for the team to operate in their city. This franchise covers 'Home Territory' (the 75 miles surrounding the city limits, or, if the team is within 100 miles of another league city, half the distance between the two cities) and 'Home Marketing Area' (Home Territory plus the rest of the state the club operates in, as well as the area the team operates their training camp in for the duration of the camp). Each NFL member has the exclusive right to host professional football games inside their Home Territory and the exclusive right to advertise, promote, and host events in their Home Marketing Area. There are several exceptions to this rule, mostly relating to teams with close proximity to each other: theSan Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders only have exclusive rights in their cities and share rights outside of it; and teams that operate in the same city (e.g. New York Giants and New York Jets) or the same state (e.g.California, Florida, and Texas) share the rights to the city's Home Territory and the state's Home Marketing Area, respectively. The Los Angeles home territory has no team, but is "owned and controlled" by the league.[81]

Multiple courts have ruled that the teams are individual businesses not franchises. LA Memorial Coliseum vs the NFL (Raiders I). CVC vs the NFL. and most recently American Needle vs the NFL.

 

[rams2050]

The CVC does not and SHOULD NOT get a pass. They knew the ramifications of the lease going in, but they decided that they could do without the Rams just so they could fill the Dome with conventions.

Now, I don't mind the convention business, and neither do I mind the possibility of the Final Four, swimming events, etc., but somewhere in all of that they forgot that the Dome was supposed to be the Rams' home.

I think it would have been easier to update the Dome to the first tier standards and also figure out a way so as NOT to lose all those other events that they have been salivating over. Would have been easier, in my mind, to upgrade the Dome so that it would have been able to host those events -- many of which don't even take place during football season -- and then also somehow expand the convention center area, which right now is sort of pathetic unless the Dome is included in the convention space. I mean, have you ever gone to a convention that spilled out into the Dome? So much wasted space, and the utility bills have to be horrendous. There has to have been a better plan if only the CVC wasn't comprised of people who have absolutely no vision and, to my mind anyway, no civic pride.