New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

I keep seeing Shane's face as the OP of this monster thread....When did he abandon it? lol...

His article was what prompted us to allow the thread at that time. We all like Shane and his reporting and thought it was an appropriate way to have the one thread dedicated to relocation. I believe he has popped in a few times but after this many posts, I couldn't guarantee that.

 

[Loyal]

His article was what prompted us to allow the thread at that time. We all like Shane and his reporting and thought it was an appropriate way to have the one thread dedicated to relocation. I believe he has popped in a few times but after this many posts, I couldn't guarantee that.

I was teasing..not dissing Shane..Who would constantly respond/post over 619 pages of posts...I was really commenting on the threads life, when most die after about 5 pages...

 

[iced]

Yeah, that's saying that they need to show they lost money and made less than average the next two. It's not worded clearly, the way it's written could mean that Kahn can simply just say "I lost money in 2013, and 2014 and 2015 I didn't make NFL average, so I'm leaving in 2016." or even 2005, 6 and 7, etc.

I think its worded pretty clearly. They have show a loss first, then below average revenue the following two (if they wanted to move, which they don't.)

http://jacksonville.com/sports/foot...lease-makes-it-costly-leave-jacksonville-2030

“The Jaguars weren’t looking for a way out,” said former Mayor John Delaney, who worked on the deal as chief of staff for Mayor Ed Austin. “But one of the lessons Ed Austin taught me is whenever you go into a partnership, always arrange for the divorce.”

Obviously they wont open their books, but he can get out penalty free if that happens.

Which they would never do, making it pretty much irrelevant..

. And the Jags don't have any interest in moving nor are complaining about stadium issues - in fact, unlike these 3 owners, they are investing in their stadium. So of course they're not going to be mentioned.

 

[FrantikRam]

I think this will come down to a few simple things:

1. Los Angeles DOES deserve a team. Think about it....since the internet got big, fantasy football blew up, the Sunday Ticket became common place, and the NFL is everywhere...updates on our smart phones, an entire network for the NFL - since ALL this happened, LA has NOT had a team.

So to those that say they don't deserve a team.....the NFL has become infinitely more popular since the Rams moved. They NEED to get a team to the 2nd biggest market, because the NFL is so big now....these games would sell out every week.


2. St. Louis doesn't NOT deserve a team. I really think the easiest thing to do here would be for the Rams to move to LA, and another team move to St. Louis. But I don't think that'll happen.

3. I think the Rams will stay, but wouldn't be surprised if we move...but if we do, I don't think STL gets another football team.

JMO.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think its worded pretty clearly. They have show a loss first, then below average revenue the following two (if they wanted to move, which they don't.)

http://jacksonville.com/sports/foot...lease-makes-it-costly-leave-jacksonville-2030

Which they would never do, making it pretty much irrelevant..

. And the Jags don't have any interest in moving nor are complaining about stadium issues - in fact, unlike these 3 owners, they are investing in their stadium. So of course they're not going to be mentioned.

Yes, but it doesn't specify if he needs to show them for the current year or previous years. He could, in theory, open his books and get the green light to break his lease tomorrow if he wanted to, and the books supported him.

Or he could simply pay the 100 million to leave with the penalties. He's not really all that locked in if he wants to leave. I don't think he is planning on it anytime soon, but if he wanted to he could.

 

[RamFan503]

Is there really an under served portion of the market? Oakland has basically told the Raiders to shove off.
Also, you bring in a fourth team, still doesn't change the fact that two of them need stadiums and with LA filled they never will get new stadiums. So yes you can bring in another team but you've still got your problems in SC plus you've just lost a chunk of the Midwest. Inglewood doesn't seem to solve any problems. Sure Stan is richer, but there's public money left behind along with your market in St Louis and you've severely hampered half the teams in SC ability to increase value.

Only by the sheer numbers I have seen and the studies that were published on what the different municipalities and areas could support as far as professional sports teams.

I don't know how it would play out but I have to think the NFL will lose casual FOOTBALL fans and corporate interests from any of the markets being left. The next thing I would think they would look at is where will these fans and corporate interests go and which market can pick up the most in the different scenarios. I have to think that St Louis fans by in large would choose another team. Knowing the SD area, I don't know that would be the case. Maybe it would. I'm just guessing as I know the SD area but don't know the St Louis area.

It just occurs to me that the direct fan participation in attending games will be much lower on the priority list than potential TV viewers, corporate sponsors, population masses to draw from, etc.

Please understand Blue. I don't say this because I WANT the Rams to move. I am sick of teams moving with no regard for the fans. It is pure BS.

But I have to look at what makes the most money for the NFL and also, what sadly might be the simplest transition. Because I think we all agree that the fans are not the priority for the NFL. It is the dollar.

The Rams in LA means that all NFC West teams are truly from the West. The Chargers and Raiduhs would also remain in the West leaving only KC as the non-Western team in both divisions. This retains some pretty long term rivalries as the 49ers have been in the Rams division since they were formed, same with the Charger to the Raisuhs and the Raiduhs and the other Western teams have a pretty long standing and fierce rivalry as well. It makes for a pretty neat package.

There are more than enough corporate interests to draw from in all three markets and surrounding areas of CA. If you think about it, at one time, the state of CA would have been the 6th largest producing country in the world if it was its own country. I mean YIKES! Vegas is pretty big as well with about 2 million people in the area.

So is it underserved? It would seem so.

 

[RamFan503]

when most die after about 5 pages...

If only - eh?

 

[iced]

Yes, but it doesn't specify if he needs to show them for the current year or previous years. He could, in theory, open his books and get the green light to break his lease tomorrow if he wanted to, and the books supported him.

Or he could simply pay the 100 million to leave with the penalties. He's not really all that locked in if he wants to leave. I don't think he is planning on it anytime soon, but if he wanted to he could.

Other teams have that as well - but they're not calling those lease to lease either.

Maybe because the NFL books is a no fly zone? That'd be my best guess.

But Its irrelevant - they're not complaining about stadium issues and have no desire to move nor threatening to move.

 

[The Ripper]

I've no clue what the lease situation was in Anaheim when the Rams left, but there shouldn't be a penalty. Of course, the NFL could impose its own penalty outside of the lease itself.

They had to give notice of 18 months and payoff the bonds.

 

[LosAngelesRams]

Yeah yeah yeah, whatever nothing but rain, hippies, and hipsters up there, I lump you all in together.

Foreal! I stayed with family in Kalama, Washington. Kinda close to Oregon, it would rain for weeks straight.

Everyone knew eachother in town, you could literally stand on one side of the town and see the other side.

 

[The Ripper]

Other teams have that as well - but they're not calling those lease to lease either.

Maybe because the NFL books is a no fly zone? That'd be my best guess.

But Its irrelevant - they're not complaining about stadium issues and have no desire to move nor threatening to move.

No on calls it that accept for reporters. They have a long term lease but can get out of it. It goes down every year just like Jacksonville. The payoff in 2008 was $ 60 million for the Chargers.

 

[dbrooks25]

I keep seeing Shane's face as the OP of this monster thread....When did he abandon it? lol...

This thread opened up as a result of a relocation article he wrote.

Edit: I responded to this before I even got to this page. NM

 

[blue4]

Only by the sheer numbers I have seen and the studies that were published on what the different municipalities and areas could support as far as professional sports teams.

I don't know how it would play out but I have to think the NFL will lose casual FOOTBALL fans and corporate interests from any of the markets being left. The next thing I would think they would look at is where will these fans and corporate interests go and which market can pick up the most in the different scenarios. I have to think that St Louis fans by in large would choose another team. Knowing the SD area, I don't know that would be the case. Maybe it would. I'm just guessing as I know the SD area but don't know the St Louis area.

It just occurs to me that the direct fan participation in attending games will be much lower on the priority list than potential TV viewers, corporate sponsors, population masses to draw from, etc.

Please understand Blue. I don't say this because I WANT the Rams to move. I am sick of teams moving with no regard for the fans. It is pure BS.

But I have to look at what makes the most money for the NFL and also, what sadly might be the simplest transition. Because I think we all agree that the fans are not the priority for the NFL. It is the dollar.

The Rams in LA means that all NFC West teams are truly from the West. The Chargers and Raiduhs would also remain in the West leaving only KC as the non-Western team in both divisions. This retains some pretty long term rivalries as the 49ers have been in the Rams division since they were formed, same with the Charger to the Raisuhs and the Raiduhs and the other Western teams have a pretty long standing and fierce rivalry as well. It makes for a pretty neat package.

There are more than enough corporate interests to draw from in all three markets and surrounding areas of CA. If you think about it, at one time, the state of CA would have been the 6th largest producing country in the world if it was its own country. I mean YIKES! Vegas is pretty big as well with about 2 million people in the area.

So is it underserved? It would seem so.

Without getting into the whole "can you drive there" discussion again, I would say that the fans from SD are just as likely to find another team as the fans from St Louis. I don't know why we would be more likely to find another team than SD.

I totally agree you have to look at what makes the most money for the NFL. But I disagree that leaving two teams in rotten stadiums and an essential total abandonment of an entire market is the simplest and most efficient way to do that. 21st ain't as large as SD or LA but it ain't peanuts either. And no one has an answer for how the Chargers and Raiders are going to resolve their issues if the Rams move. That's 3 cities either abandoned with public money on the table or in shambles from a team relations standpoint. All for one guy. And that's it. One guy who doesn't actually have it bad already, who has plenty of options in his home market, and just wants to hang out with Jack Nicholson. To me, that seems to be the exact opposite of simple.

Assuming of course everyone has their financing, yada, yada.


I very much doubt the NFL cares about all the teams being located in the West. They don't care that the South teams are actually in the south why would they care about the West? They don't care that KC isn't in the actual west right now. They didn't care about it the first time they reorganized, and it's caused not one real problem. I can't see any owner really taking this into account. Maybe as a 5th tiebreaker or something. As for rivalries, location doesn't seem to hurt the Seattle/St Louis vibe now and it certainly didn't hurt the SF rivalry when we were good. Our poor performance hurt that.

 

[The Ripper]

I very much doubt the NFL cares about all the teams being located in the West. They don't care that the South teams are actually in the south why would they care about the West? They don't care that KC isn't in the actual west right now. They didn't care about it the first time they reorganized, and it's caused not one real problem. I can't see any owner really taking this into account. Maybe as a 5th tiebreaker or something. As for rivalries, location doesn't seem to hurt the Seattle/St Louis vibe now and it certainly didn't hurt the SF rivalry when we were good. Our poor performance hurt that.

Not that there in the south, north or whatever but they do care about the travel costs for the teams.

 

[ChrisW]

21st ain't as large as SD or LA but it ain't peanuts either

San Diego is the 28th market. So STL is higher than them.

Oakland is thrown in with San Jose and San Francisco on some ratings, with all 3 combining for about the 6th biggest market.

Other notable numbers:
PITT: 23
Indy: 25
Baltimore: 26
Cincy: 34
Jax: 47

All these markets get the same share of TV money. Doesn't matter if you're number 1 or number 100.

http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_2014-2015_DMA_Ranks.pdf

 

[JonRam99]

San Diego is the 28th market. So STL is higher than them.

Oakland is thrown in with San Jose and San Francisco on some ratings, with all 3 combining for about the 6th biggest market.


http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_2014-2015_DMA_Ranks.pdf

Really? Didn't realize that. Assumed San Diego would've been a bigger market.

That said.... if the Chargers can't move to LA (Carson has nice new renderings but a lousy polluted site + it looks like Spanos has no interest in staying in San Diego), moving them to St. Louis would actually be a market upgrade. So if the Rams & Raiduhs move to LA, & the Bolts move to St. Louis, would everyone be happy? (the NFL + Cities + Teams) the Bolts would have a nice new stadium (next to the *ahem* Union Light & Power building), the Rams & Raiduhs would move in to a new stadium in a city where they have some history & fan support... the only losers would be Oakland and Carson.

 

[ChrisW]

Really? Didn't realize that. Assumed San Diego would've been a bigger market.

That said.... if the Chargers can't move to LA (Carson has nice new renderings but a lousy polluted site + it looks like Spanos has no interest in staying in San Diego), moving them to St. Louis would actually be a market upgrade. So if the Rams & Raiduhs move to LA, & the Bolts move to St. Louis, would everyone be happy? (the NFL + Cities + Teams) the Bolts would have a nice new stadium (next to the *ahem* Union Light & Power building), the Rams & Raiduhs would move in to a new stadium in a city where they have some history & fan support... the only losers would be Oakland and Carson.

I'm still not convinced you gain much by moving to LA with regards to TV money. I mean, I don't know how it all works, but games are still shown there anyway. Are they banking on the fact that more people with watch with a home team in the market?

 

[iced]

No on calls it that accept for reporters. They have a long term lease but can get out of it. It goes down every year just like Jacksonville. The payoff in 2008 was $ 60 million for the Chargers.

-sigh- to prove it he'd have to do something the NFL isn't going to do, nor does he want to.

Not sure why you're trying to compare the leases and situations but to each their own

 

[Mojo Ram]

I think this will come down to a few simple things:

1. Los Angeles DOES deserve a team. Think about it....since the internet got big, fantasy football blew up, the Sunday Ticket became common place, and the NFL is everywhere...updates on our smart phones, an entire network for the NFL - since ALL this happened, LA has NOT had a team.

So to those that say they don't deserve a team.....the NFL has become infinitely more popular since the Rams moved. They NEED to get a team to the 2nd biggest market, because the NFL is so big now....these games would sell out every week.


2. St. Louis doesn't NOT deserve a team. I really think the easiest thing to do here would be for the Rams to move to LA, and another team move to St. Louis. But I don't think that'll happen.

3. I think the Rams will stay, but wouldn't be surprised if we move...but if we do, I don't think STL gets another football team.

JMO.

[av]http://www.clinteastwood.net/realmediafiles/soundclips/deserves.mp3[/av] :shades:

 

[blue4]

Not that there in the south, north or whatever but they do care about the travel costs for the teams.

But to use that as a big basis? Not sure about that. I can't see anyone raising their hand and saying, "Good Lord what about airfare?!" They fly to London without worry or care. NY flies to Dallas without worrying about airfare. KC manages. We've managed for 20 years. I don't see it as even coming up unless it's in tiebreaker mode.