New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Username]

In

Fucking

Tears

http://www.theonion.com/article/st-louis-rams-threaten-leave-town-unless-taxpayers-51109

 

[blue4]

It's not just about california. It's about football locations on the west coast. The Midwest and eastcoast teams are much more densely packed. We have only 5 teams west of new Mexico. 5?? And then its Denver, even after there is Houston and Dallas which are on the east side of Texas. The map speaks for itself. Football on the west coast would benefit from an extra team. I'm sure the NFL is taking that into consideration. The Rams would be the option that makes most sense in maintainting market exposure on the west coast. Jmho.

So why put the extra team where there are already 3 teams if you need another team there? Put it in Salt Lake City then, or Portland. And if course market exposure in E Missouri and W Illinois withers and dies to get that so how is that growing your brand?

 

[ChrisW]

California is the most populous state in America, LA alone has more people than most states have, there's plenty of room, and that means the NFL has plenty of reason.

18 million people just in LA

Who have lived 20+ years without the NFL just fine. San Diego might lose all their pro sports teams in the coming years if they don't turn around their money situation. LA is the perfect relocation destination for the Chargers. That way the population at large in Cali doesn't lose a team.

 

[LorenzoTheLimner]

Don't you remember? Hispanics hide from the census Bureau lol. Just a joke. California and the west continues to grow at a rapid rate. The east coast of course had a head start on us. The massive california railway is already under construction. In 15 years time it will be much more dense all over, rather than just So-cal and Bay area. There are long term goals as well than just immediate impact that I'm sure sports moguls factor in

If I were a sports mogul billionaire I would consider that west coast investment a cash cow waiting to be taken. Why not inves

There are 3 NFL teams that cover Cali. There isn't a reason to add a 4th.

I don't think you understand how large California is. 4 teams should be a minimum. Even Jerry Jones cashes in on the population here in California. A Texas team owner comes yearly to recruit and maintain a large fan base in California because the population is there and no other owner in the league does that. You don't see the Bob Kraft annually scheduling practices in the same state to cash in on extra fans

 

[ChrisW]

I don't think you understand how large California is. 4 teams should be a minimum. Even Jerry Jones cashes in on the population here in California. A Texas team owner comes yearly to recruit and maintain a large fan base in California because the population is there and no other owner in the league does that. You don't see the Bob Kraft annually scheduling practices in the same state to cash in on extra fans

So you're advocating that one of the current NFL cities has to lose their team in order to satiate California's desire to have one more? I don't agree with that.

 

[blue4]

I was agreeing with the premise that Columbia is a better alternative than LA, but if Stan was building a palace in Columbia instead of St Louis (and there was no LA controversy) that would suck for St Louis and there would be an uproar.
120 miles is basically a 2 hour drive, then of course the whole parking fiasco that is the NFL experience. And of course there are those who are 30-40 miles south of the stadium that are now looking at 150-160 miles. Its better than LA but would be horrible to do to a fan base.
Build it on the river and its a win

Well of course I agree there. None of the fans are going to be happy short term unless no one moves to LA. I'm only trying to speculate how the owners view that distance in regards to SD. That's why Columbia was brought up.

 

[blue4]

[QUOTE="ChrisW, post: 603255, member: 993" That way the population at large in Cali doesn't lose a team.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Your example of the Cardinals moving isn't remotely the same. The distance would have to be shorter and the Dodgers and Twins would also be trying to move to Chicago, which of course wouldn't already have a team there. So there would be no Chicago rivalry. It bears no resemblance to the NFL situation here.

If you're putting me in the same situation as the Raiders, and there was another team across the bridge in East St Louis, yes I would be a fan of the East ST Louis team. Because it's better than no team. Even if they were rivals before.

If you are putting me in the same situation as the Chargers, 113 miles to another town that currently doesn't have a team is no hardship for me. It'd take me until training camp to get over that.

Putting 4 teams in a 500 mile radius and allowing a chunk of the Midwest to wander off and watch college football or curling or whatever doesn't sound like good business to me. If all parties make their stadium goals I don't see the NFL willingly allowing that to happen.

You're just looking at it in terms of pure distance, and you can't really do that. It's about rivalries, not distance. Rams fans make the trip from LA to St Louis to see games, they go to Arizona to see games, fans will always make trips to see their teams.

However when you move them to a rival city, that's where you lose more people. That's why I selected Chicago, not for the distance, but because they are rivals.

It's not simply that your team is moving, it's that they're moving to a rival city.

Take the Raiders and the Rams out of the equation. We're just looking at San Diego and LA. You're saying that the NFL will assume that the San Diego fans will stay on and continue to cheer for them. I'm saying I don't think that's very likely, and one of the reasons is because they're moving to a rival city. If the Cardinals were to move to Chicago I wouldn't expect St Louis fans to be okay with it either. It's not about distance, it's about moving to a rival city.

Now throw in the fact that they're getting into bed with their most hated rival team to move to their most hated rival city, and you see how it's even worse. Imagine the Reds (or Boston or the SF Giants, whatever hated rival for the Cardinals) teaming up with the Cardinals to move to Chicago. The skies would be black from the smoke of burning every piece of merchandise in the city. You're essentially saying Chargers fans should be okay and will get over it soon.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Who have lived 20+ years without the NFL just fine. San Diego might lose all their pro sports teams in the coming years if they don't turn around their money situation. LA is the perfect relocation destination for the Chargers. That way the population at large in Cali doesn't lose a team.

So? The NFL see's dollar signs, plenty of cities can be just fine without an NFL team, but if the league wants more money they need to stick teams in the biggest cities with the most money to offer. It sucks for the fans, but that's the business side of sports.

 

[LosAngelesRams]

In

freaking

Tears

http://www.theonion.com/article/st-louis-rams-threaten-leave-town-unless-taxpayers-51109

LOL! That's funny.

"all while using only basic hand tools, which we would be willing to provide."

Thats gonna be alot of hammers and screw drivers.

 

[ChrisW]

So? The NFL see's dollar signs, plenty of cities can be just fine without an NFL team, but if the league wants more money they need to stick teams in the biggest cities with the most money to offer. It sucks for the fans, but that's the business side of sports.

If we're talking pure dollar signs, then Carson is the better project. You increase the value of both teams, and give the two teams in the worst stadiums the best stadium.

 

[Isiah58]

There are 3 NFL teams that cover Cali. There isn't a reason to add a 4th.

The distance from San Diego to Oakland is the same distance as St. Louis to Atlanta, or St. Louis to Detroit. Does it seem reasonable that a team in St. Louis should be affected by a market in Atlanta or Detroit or Oklahoma City? The fact that there is a state boundary around the teams is kind of an artificial determination of what a region can support or not support.

 

[Username]

LOL! That's funny.

"all while using only basic hand tools, which we would be willing to provide."

Thats gonna be alot of hammers and screw drivers.

At press time, sources confirmed that Kroenke’s proposal was unanimously approved by the St. Louis city council.

Can't tell which is a worse deal. The one we have in place now, or this one.

 

[Legatron4]

This is an example of why STL needs the Rams and a new stadium. Downtown Buffalo just 3 years ago compared to now. It would be in 10 fold for STL with a brand new stadium.

 

[LosAngelesRams]

Can't tell which is a worse deal. The one we have in place now, or this one.

Lol!

Theres been so much back and forth I'm exhausted with the whole relocation thing. I try to read as much as possible on here. Hopefully all this shit gets resolved soon so we can all just go back to watching football in peace.

 

[Username]

Lol!

Theres been so much back and forth I'm exhausted with the whole relocation thing. I try to read as much as possible on here. Hopefully all this crap gets resolved soon so we can all just go back to watching football in peace.

Haven't read or cared about any of it in months. Way I see it, the Rams have one more year here. I will support THE TEAM while they're in Stl still. Which means buying resold tickets, and literately spending no money at any game.

 

[LorenzoTheLimner]

If we're talking pure dollar signs, then Carson is the better project. You increase the value of both teams, and give the two teams in the worst stadiums the best stadium.

You can't transport Oakland 400 miles away, and San Diego 200 miles away without expecting to lose out on your fan base. If San Diego does not have consistent ticket sales, and Oakland does well where they are. Why move them? Especially Oakland. That fan base is dedicated and rowdy despite having one of the worst losing decades in the NFL. To me it's too much of a risk not knowing future outcomes from moving those fan bases, especially with two teams, and especially to Los Angeles where ticket prices will be much higher than in Oak and SD

 

[ChrisW]

You can't transport Oakland 400 miles away, and San Diego 200 miles away without expecting to lose out on your fan base. If San Diego does not have consistent ticket sales, and Oakland does well where they are. Why move them? Especially Oakland. That fan base is dedicated and rowdy despite having one of the worst losing decades in the NFL. To me it's too much of a risk not knowing future outcomes from moving those fan bases, especially with two teams, and especially to Los Angeles where ticket prices will be much higher than in Oak and SD

St. Louis is 1800 miles from LA. Why move the Rams there?

The Rams had the worst stretch of losing in NFL history, and yet still pull mid 50k's in attendance. Why move the Rams?

 

[blue4]

You're just looking at it in terms of pure distance, and you can't really do that. It's about rivalries, not distance. Rams fans make the trip from LA to St Louis to see games, they go to Arizona to see games, fans will always make trips to see their teams.

However when you move them to a rival city, that's where you lose more people. That's why I selected Chicago, not for the distance, but because they are rivals.

It's not simply that your team is moving, it's that they're moving to a rival city.

Take the Raiders and the Rams out of the equation. We're just looking at San Diego and LA. You're saying that the NFL will assume that the San Diego fans will stay on and continue to cheer for them. I'm saying I don't think that's very likely, and one of the reasons is because they're moving to a rival city. If the Cardinals were to move to Chicago I wouldn't expect St Louis fans to be okay with it either. It's not about distance, it's about moving to a rival city.

Now throw in the fact that they're getting into bed with their most hated rival team to move to their most hated rival city, and you see how it's even worse. Imagine the Reds (or Boston or the SF Giants, whatever hated rival for the Cardinals) teaming up with the Cardinals to move to Chicago. The skies would be black from the smoke of burning every piece of merchandise in the city. You're essentially saying Chargers fans should be okay and will get over it soon.

Yes I'm saying that Chargers fans would get on board. I'm in no way saying anything that's happening would be fair. I'm not saying immediately. The sky's would bleed for a few years then the Chargers would make the playoffs and then SD fans would come trickling back. Yes distance will have a lot to do with that. When one distance is 113 miles and the other is 1,800 miles, I think distance has to be a major factor. I don't see anyway around it. This is about the owners and the NFL, not the fans. You say expect them to team up with a rival team? Well they have. It's done. They've teamed up. The 3 owners have pretty much said up yours to the fans. The NFL is going to do what's best for them long term, not you or I.
The way you say to do it, a market that is making a major effort and has been solid gets totally abandoned. The way I say to do it there is a team in every market for a fan who wants to go to football games.

You make it sound like I don't have sympathy for Chargers fans. I do.

 

[blue4]

St. Louis is 1800 miles from LA. Why move the Rams there?

The Rams had the worst stretch of losing in NFL history, and yet still pull mid 50k's in attendance. Why move the Rams?

Exactly