- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 23,196
- Name
- Dennis
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
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
It all comes down to money. They still want revenues from those markets because it not only affects the home team but the visiting ones too. We heard early reports on ticket sales but things may have changed in the other markets but SD the tickets sales have been strong. They also want the concessions and other revenues from the games this year and if it was known that would dry up along with the fans.
MrMotes
Starter
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 954
Exactly.
Tell SD and St. Louis their teams are gone after the 2015 season before it's played? Not smart.
Have the cities present their proposals for keeping their teams and say good, though non-committal things about the proposals? Much smarter.
I don't know if the NFL already knows what's going to happen but if they do, it wouldn't be make sense to say so now. Even if they know certain teams aren't moving they don't want to say that either. They want to keep the leverage high for home market negotiations...
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 35,084
- Name
- Stu
I am too. If that is actually true, and with how poorly this article was put together, I'm not going to assume he's right about that, I would have to think that can't bode well on a market analysis. Personally, I don't give Gordo much credence on that as it would be fitting he used skewed numbers to fit his hyperbole ridden tirade. Truly a pathetic article.
iced
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,620
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
It's a bad article but he's correct on the Blues. They have struggled with corporate sponsors.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 35,084
- Name
- Stu
What I wonder though is how the thought that your team might be moving soon will affect the attendance of all three markets rather than just the one (likely only one for 2016) that actually does get the nod to move. I suppose if the Raiduhs AND the Chargers move at the same time it might be better not to say but there still only seems to be one realistic temporary stadium that may be very temporary in itself.
I can't picture the Stub Hub center being a realistic option for 2 or 3 seasons as I can't imagine their parking is sufficient for the type of seating expansion they would need. A big game here and there is much different than an entire NFL regular season. If that stadium was built and zoned the way most are, the traffic corridors have been altered to accommodate the 27,000 fans a soccer stadium holds, not an additional 20,000. And can you imagine if whatever team made it to the playoffs? 45,000 fans for a playoff game? They'd have to move it to the Coliseum - I would think a rival stadium would have a problem with that.
I really think someone is going to have to address the temporary venue question before the NFL can have 2 teams move into LA at the same time. If it is SD and the Raiduhs, I have to guess that one of the teams would move there first and then the other would move once the stadium is completed. That would probably be the same if they choose the Inglewood project. One team would move with the potential for the second team to move after the stadium is built.
The rub to all of that may be that because only one team would likely be moving, the other two would have some more time to iron out deals in their home markets. In that end, maybe only one team moves. How crazy would it be if that team ends up being the Raiduhs. Nah.... never happen.
Angry Ram
Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 18,000
Me too. Plus the general uptight image they try to show. Which doesn't fit reality. I'm not to the point where if there is no Rams, no NFL for me, but I just care about game days.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 35,084
- Name
- Stu
Wow. Not good.
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
The temp venue problem will make it difficult to make a 2 team solution work. I am not sure of the exact quote but Policy talked about in order for 2 teams to succeed neither can have a have a strong base in the new market. The problem with a team staying in their home market would be that that team would be at a disadvantage in regards to corporate support. One team would get a 3 year start.
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Yeah, that's strange given that the Blues are a pretty strong team, and have been a playoff team the past few years. They haven't gotten it done in the playoffs, but they're making it there on the backs of very strong regular seasons. It's more difficult for the NHL because it's not as popular, but I thought the Blues were thriving in St Louis.
Dodger Stadium for the Raiders and the Coliseum for the Chargers is the only way I really see that working, unless they go with the Rams in the Coliseum, and let San Diego know they have until 2018 to get their shit together or the Chargers leave. Then focus on the Raiders in Oakland knowing they have St Louis or San Antonio, among others, if the city can't figure that out.
It's a tricky situation though, especially with the Rose Bowl pulling out. I agree that the Stub Hub center is unlikely to really work for 3 or 4 seasons as needed if they choose Carson. As a last resort perhaps, but you'd think the NFL would want to avoid that. Dodger Stadium said they'd take a team (but I've heard there could be huge issues with the size, and the Coliseum could do the other. However if you pick Carson you can't really have the team stay back because it would kill attendance.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 24,477
The NFL?Yeah, you're right... I did make a left turn of sorts.
Don't you think that, if they applied more effort into this process, it could have been figured out quicker?
Not at all. I think if they rushed to judgement, they would have chosen Kroenke LA. He owns the property, doesnt need financing and other than FAA approval, he seems good to go.
Carson and St louis have some serious hurdles to clear, and commiting to them and then having each deal fall apart would be quite a disaster. (I am not predicting either deal would but cant be certain they would hold at this point either)
I think the NFL pushing deadlines has been a help to St Louis, a big one.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
Bayless & Smith Discuss: NFL Team in L.A. a Bad Idea? --ESPN
Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith react to Giants OL Geoff Schwartz’s opposition to having an NFL team in Los Angeles.
Watch Bayless/Smith Debate LA
Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith react to Giants OL Geoff Schwartz’s opposition to having an NFL team in Los Angeles.
Watch Bayless/Smith Debate LA
snackdaddy
Who's your snackdaddy?
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 12,799
- Name
- Charlie
What do I know for certain? That this thread will soon pass the 11,000 post mark. That much I KNOW!
I just contributed to that.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
What’s the response to those saying St. Louis isn’t a city capable of supporting an NFL franchise? Bernie Miklasz weighs in on the Kevin Wheeler Show.
Listen to Bernie Defend STL
Listen to Bernie Defend STL
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 41,288
Went into watching this and really did not expect Smith to respond like that at all.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 24,477
What did he say?
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 41,288
As a born and bred New Yorker with his whole family there and in spite of the high taxes he wouldn't hesitate to move the whole family to LA because it's so great. He and Skip also expressed their opinion on the Giants guard who said no NFL player would want to play in LA was an idiot and went over why.
- Status