Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GB4

Rams Moving?

Recommended Posts

MarshallCounty,

 

You are exactly right! One might even argue that it has been in the NFL's best interest not to have a team in L.A. for just that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MarshallCounty,

 

You are exactly right! One might even argue that it has been in the NFL's best interest not to have a team in L.A. for just that reason.

 

On point...

 

Folks, LA is getting an NFL team.  Soon.  As it should.

 

LA has never been required to show the support of other locales ..... (new facilities at the expense of taxpayers).... PULEEZE!!!!   

 

They are going to use London as a way to extort teams in the future.

 

Unless Shahid Khan (from STL) can figure out a way to move JAX to STL instead of London.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA has never been required to show the support of other locales ..... (new facilities at the expense of taxpayers).... PULEEZE!!!!   

Supply and demand is what it is.  LA is getting a football team.  How many football teams that will call LA home is more of the question.

Edited by Lebowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supply and demand is what it is.  LA is getting a football team.  How many football teams that will call LA home is more of the question.

 

LA is getting a "football team" because the owner can quadruple the value of the franchise should he choose to sell them in the future. 

 

As for my initial comment...  Please name the NEW facility that LA (and LA County) has built on the taxpayer's dime in the past say......70 years or so?   Yet the citizens of other locales (STL in this regard) are being shanghaied into HAVING to build another within 20 years for the 'chance' to keep a franchise.  

 

The NFL when it comes to franchise relocation is nothing but a money-grab and a straight-up public taxpayer robbery.  Only because Silent Stan is using his own money to facilitate this atrocity, are the Rams even going there.  

 

And one more thing......I am totally convinced that the drafting of Michael Sam BOUGHT votes for his potential relocation from those in the know within the NFL.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And one more thing......I am totally convinced that the drafting of Michael Sam BOUGHT votes for his potential relocation from those in the know within the NFL.

Please elaborate. I don't see the connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously Sam was marginal at best as an NFL player. But the potential of him NOT being drafted would have been an embarrassment that the league couldn't justify.

Strangely enough. Guess what team had additional picks awarded to them only weeks earlier? Yep...the Rams.

I am sure someone was asked to do a "solid" .... Now what's the payback?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously Sam was marginal at best as an NFL player. But the potential of him NOT being drafted would have been an embarrassment that the league couldn't justify.

Strangely enough. Guess what team had additional picks awarded to them only weeks earlier? Yep...the Rams.

I am sure someone was asked to do a "solid" .... Now what's the payback?

Thank you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA is getting a "football team" because the owner can quadruple the value of the franchise should he choose to sell them in the future. 

 

As for my initial comment...  Please name the NEW facility that LA (and LA County) has built on the taxpayer's dime in the past say......70 years or so?   Yet the citizens of other locales (STL in this regard) are being shanghaied into HAVING to build another within 20 years for the 'chance' to keep a franchise.  

 

The NFL when it comes to franchise relocation is nothing but a money-grab and a straight-up public taxpayer robbery.  Only because Silent Stan is using his own money to facilitate this atrocity, are the Rams even going there.  

 

And one more thing......I am totally convinced that the drafting of Michael Sam BOUGHT votes for his potential relocation from those in the know within the NFL.

Take it easy, man.

 

Taxpayer's paying for a stadium is nothing new.  (Google: Rome Colosseum).  In 1999, the city of Carson was ready to pony up $180 million.  But that's not the point the Dude was trying to make.  If the building of a stadium, scratch that, if the building of stadiums are going to be privately financed by multiple entities doesn't that tell you something about the demand aspect?

 

Nobody is saying you are wrong, man.  The Dude is just saying a city much larger than St. Louis (population 318k), Oakland (population 406k), and San Diego (population 1.4 million) is really wanting a NFL football team.  Hence, supply and demand is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it easy, man.

 

Taxpayer's paying for a stadium is nothing new.  (Google: Rome Colosseum).  In 1999, the city of Carson was ready to pony up $180 million.  But that's not the point the Dude was trying to make.  If the building of a stadium, scratch that, if the building of stadiums are going to be privately financed by multiple entities doesn't that tell you something about the demand aspect?

 

Nobody is saying you are wrong, man.  The Dude is just saying a city much larger than St. Louis (population 318k), Oakland (population 406k), and San Diego (population 1.4 million) is really wanting a NFL football team.  Hence, supply and demand is what it is.

 

PULEEZE!!!!

 

This all about GREED!!!!   Kroenke is merely trying to inflate the value of the franchise through relocation to ultimately purchase the Denver Broncos once Pat Bowlin passes away.  

 

He could care less about LA, So stop with the LA dreams.....  If he could move them (Rams) to London England, he would.  

 

There is no more demand for the NFL brand in LA than in STL,   The only difference is in tax-payer responsibility for the building of a "forum".  LA has not built a stadium in almost 90 years on the public dole.   STL has built 4 facilities....(2) Busch Stadiums...(1) Hockey Arena and (2) Football Stadiums...though the original BA and FB was 'multi-purpose'.  

 

Now the NFL wants #5......stop it with the 'fan-boy' support of LA, and admit to the situation that is occurring.  GREED at its finest from the league and the ownership of a franchise,   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PULEEZE!!!!

 

This all about GREED!!!!   Kroenke is merely trying to inflate the value of the franchise through relocation to ultimately purchase the Denver Broncos once Pat Bowlin passes away.  

 

He could care less about LA, So stop with the LA dreams.....  If he could move them (Rams) to London England, he would.  

 

There is no more demand for the NFL brand in LA than in STL,   The only difference is in tax-payer responsibility for the building of a "forum".  LA has not built a stadium in almost 90 years on the public dole.   STL has built 4 facilities....(2) Busch Stadiums...(1) Hockey Arena and (2) Football Stadiums...though the original BA and FB was 'multi-purpose'.  

 

Now the NFL wants #5......stop it with the 'fan-boy' support of LA, and admit to the situation that is occurring.  GREED at its finest from the league and the ownership of a franchise,   

The Dude is trying to tell you that LA doesn't care which team comes to town.  If it's the Rams, so be it.  If it's the Raiders, so be it.  If it's the Chargers, so be it.  If it's a completely different franchise, so be it.  If it's more than one franchise, so be it.  The city has enough people to fill multiple stadiums.  LA doesn't care about owners' greed.  Hence, supply and demand.

Edited by Lebowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dude is trying to tell you that LA doesn't care which team comes to town.  If it's the Rams, so be it.  If it's the Raiders, so be it.  If it's the Chargers, so be it.  If it's a completely different franchise, so be it.  If it's more than one franchise, so be it.  The city has enough people to fill multiple stadiums.  LA doesn't care about owners' greed.  Hence, supply and demand.

. LA has enough people for sure. Long-term demand.....that's a different question as their history supporting NFL teams hasn't been all that impressive. Time will tell as they will get a team or 2. Lots of options for people in that area besides pro football.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things are starting to happen. I think the one benefit of the Rams and Chargers sharing a stadium is the NFL wouldn't have to realign any divisions or have any teams switching conferences. Rapaport is wrong often however.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000621645/article/expectation-is-owners-to-award-rams-inglewood-site

GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's official by 30-2 vote.

GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PULEEZE!!!!

 

This all about GREED!!!!   Kroenke is merely trying to inflate the value of the franchise through relocation to ultimately purchase the Denver Broncos once Pat Bowlin passes away.  

 

He could care less about LA, So stop with the LA dreams.....  If he could move them (Rams) to London England, he would.  

 

There is no more demand for the NFL brand in LA than in STL,   The only difference is in tax-payer responsibility for the building of a "forum".  LA has not built a stadium in almost 90 years on the public dole.   STL has built 4 facilities....(2) Busch Stadiums...(1) Hockey Arena and (2) Football Stadiums...though the original BA and FB was 'multi-purpose'.  

 

Now the NFL wants #5......stop it with the 'fan-boy' support of LA, and admit to the situation that is occurring.  GREED at its finest from the league and the ownership of a franchise,

Since when did it become "greed" to have an asset, like an NFL franchise, and work to increase its value however you legally can? If your bank was offering you a CD at 2% interest, and the one across the street is offering 3%, is it "greed," all other things being equal, to go where it is most profitable for you? The concept doesn't change no matter how many zeroes you put on the end of the number.

And if you think there's no more demand for NFL football in LA than there is in St. Louis, well ... that's just a reflection of the numbers. The LA metropolitan area has a population of more than 18.5 million, while the St. Louis metro is about 2.8 million. Do the math.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did it become "greed" to have an asset, like an NFL franchise, and work to increase its value however you legally can? If your bank was offering you a CD at 2% interest, and the one across the street is offering 3%, is it "greed," all other things being equal, to go where it is most profitable for you? The concept doesn't change no matter how many zeroes you put on the end of the number.

And if you think there's no more demand for NFL football in LA than there is in St. Louis, well ... that's just a reflection of the numbers. The LA metropolitan area has a population of more than 18.5 million, while the St. Louis metro is about 2.8 million. Do the math.

I think the greed angle comes into play regarding the current loyal Rams fans in St. Louis. What about them? Was the Rams franchise actually losing money at it's current location?

With that math LA should be able to support 4-5 NFL franchises. The Colts, Bills, and Packers should move to LA as well, at the very least.

Edited by Muda69
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did it become "greed" to have an asset, like an NFL franchise, and work to increase its value however you legally can? If your bank was offering you a CD at 2% interest, and the one across the street is offering 3%, is it "greed," all other things being equal, to go where it is most profitable for you? The concept doesn't change no matter how many zeroes you put on the end of the number.

And if you think there's no more demand for NFL football in LA than there is in St. Louis, well ... that's just a reflection of the numbers. The LA metropolitan area has a population of more than 18.5 million, while the St. Louis metro is about 2.8 million. Do the math.

Higher population does not necessarily equal increased demand.  LA has lost 2 NFL franchises in the past due to a lack of support.  Lots of other options in LA besides football on Sundays.  I can see one team in LA until they prove themselves...but to give them 2 right off the bat given their history is a little perplexing....I understand the short term cash involved....but I say this looking out 10-20 years when the newness wears off.  The Rams had crappy ownership in StL....why should I think its all of a sudden going to get better in LA with the same people at the helm?

 

I understand your comments about money, and its certainly the owner's prerogative.  But that decisions financially does impact a number of much smaller fish in the exited market....and I guess that's just the way it is....money wins.

 

As much as I feel for the fans of StL....knowing the history of the Rams.....I do understand the benefit of "returning to its roots".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Higher population does not necessarily equal increased demand.  LA has lost 2 NFL franchises in the past due to a lack of support.  Lots of other options in LA besides football on Sundays.  I can see one team in LA until they prove themselves...but to give them 2 right off the bat given their history is a little perplexing....I understand the short term cash involved....but I say this looking out 10-20 years when the newness wears off.  The Rams had crappy ownership in StL....why should I think its all of a sudden going to get better in LA with the same people at the helm?

 

I understand your comments about money, and its certainly the owner's prerogative.  But that decisions financially does impact a number of much smaller fish in the exited market....and I guess that's just the way it is....money wins.

 

As much as I feel for the fans of StL....knowing the history of the Rams.....I do understand the benefit of "returning to its roots".

The NFL is a totally different animal economically now than it was 22 years ago when the last team left LA. There are several billionaires chomping at the bit to move to LA. I'm willing to assume they've done the research on what the economic situation in LA is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the greed angle comes into play regarding the current loyal Rams fans in St. Louis. What about them? Was the Rams franchise actually losing money at it's current location?With that math LA should be able to support 4-5 NFL franchises. The Colts, Bills, and Packers should move to LA as well, at the very least.

Muda, I am on the brink of accusing you of hypocrisy. The St. Louis proposal to keep the Rams included a new stadium with a very substantial component of the financing being supplied by the public sector, i.e., the taxpayers. This something you have railed about relentlessly. In contrast, the Rams' plan for development of the Inglewood, CA site at a cost of $2 billion is going to be privately funded. The Rams' debt service on those development and construction costs alone will be $150 million or so a year.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL is a totally different animal economically now than it was 22 years ago when the last team left LA. There are several billionaires chomping at the bit to move to LA. I'm willing to assume they've done the research on what the economic situation in LA is.

I don't doubt they have done their research....and I agree times change.  We shall see if this market truly has the demand to 2 teams over the long term.  I agree with you that they have the population....just not sure about the long-term desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muda, I am on the brink of accusing you of hypocrisy.

Why? I have never stated whether or not I personally approve or disapprove of the Rams moving back to L.A. My response had to do with what I perceived was the reason the Rams ownership have decided to relocate.

Is the private funding of a stadium in California still part of the relocation plan for the Rams? And what do the Chargers possibly moving as well bring to the table regarding this stadium?

IMHO is a NFL owner wants to move to a new city and in the process front his own money for a new facility, and stop sucking on the public teat, more power to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×