Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26
  1. #16
    VenturaFwy is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    13
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: LA move is unlikely for Rams

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Because through most of those years, they were very well supported. Before the era of national TV contracts, the Rams filled the Collesium. Then CR died and things changed in the 80's. Attendance fell off, and the rest is history.

    For 39 of the 49 years, the fans did well. It was those last 10 or so seasons that lost the team.

    So far, St. Louis attendance has yet to fall to those 80's-'94 numbers, but hopefully the decline turns around before it gets to that point. Otherwise, the Rams may have a 4th home.
    Your original post said LA couldn't support them "to begin with" and now it's they didn't for the last ten years. Make up your mind. Which is it? The bottom line is they moved because of a new stadium and because they had an owner who drove the team into the ground. Sound familiar?

    I know. I know. It was completely different when St. Louis lost the Cardinals.


  2. #17
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,642
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: LA move is unlikely for Rams

    Quote Originally Posted by VenturaFwy View Post
    Your original post said LA couldn't support them "to begin with" and now it's they didn't for the last ten years. Make up your mind. Which is it? The bottom line is they moved because of a new stadium and because they had an owner who drove the team into the ground. Sound familiar?

    I know. I know. It was completely different when St. Louis lost the Cardinals.
    What original post are you talking about?

    Pretty sure you've made a little mistaken identity here, Ventura. Apology accepted.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  3. #18
    gap's Avatar
    gap
    gap is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,286
    Rep Power
    25

    Re: LA move is unlikely for Rams

    First off, I want to say that I am sorry for those faithful fans in LA that still follow this team, or NFL football in general. You are good people, and I hope you get to have a local NFL team in your lifetime. I also hope it is a franchise, or another team move; not the RAMS. I also hope it isn't a relocation of the whiners, you deserve better than that.

    Second... St Louis was filling Bush Stadium. Not to capacity, but enough to support the team. The owner just wanted a new stadium, with Club Boxes (or whatever those non-$ shared seats are called). The owner just locked up his stuff, and left in the night.

    The problem with filling the current seats is that the PSL "lottery" was divided by ZIP codes. Meaning that those that had the highest income (and not necessarily the highest loyalty) got first dibs on PSLs. They also started pulling the PSL by the highest price first, and then worked their way down to the lowest priced seats. By the time they got to the people that had the low dollar seats as their first, or only, choice, there were no more PSLs left. Well, except may the PSLs that the remaining people couldn't afford. Now the people that would have been loyal fans cannot get PSLs, or don't want to reward the stab in the back by paying for PSLs.

    gap

  4. #19
    theodus69's Avatar
    theodus69 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    so.cal.
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,202
    Rep Power
    19

    Re: LA move is unlikely for Rams

    Rams will always be in LA in my heart and yes I will always say they belong here and no where else. Don't think they won't be back.lease is up in 2014 and a couple more years without a team isn't that long. besides , that will give ED De Bartolo time to get his cash together to make the sale!
    I stopped going to the dentist.......I got tired of the cavity searches!

  5. #20
    VenturaFwy is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    13
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: LA move is unlikely for Rams

    Bottom line, it would be pathetic for a team to return to a city that could not support them to begin with...And please spare me the financials because obviously LA could not or did not want the Rams so they ended up in St Louis...And imo that is where they should stay...Winning games is the only way to turn this topic around....There was never, ever talk of the Rams relocating when they were in the midst of their sellout streak....And i realize that i am "Captain Obvious" but no matter how bad of a product the Rams put on the field, the only way to keep them in Stl and silence this talk is to fill the dome each and every week! And all teams go through ups and downs, so once again spare me with the argument of "the rams don't put a quality team on the field, so i'm not going!"
    Once again as obvious as it sounds, we should just fill up the dome every week and we would no longer be on this subject every off season....End Rant!
    Last edited by VenturaFwy; -06-15-2009 at 09:35 AM.

  6. #21
    LA Rammer's Avatar
    LA Rammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wilmington, CA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    2,746
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: LA move is unlikely for Rams

    Los Angeles Lakers 09 champs. Sorry had to.
    LA RAMMER

    It's Jim not Chris
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HNgqQVHI_8

  7. #22
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,642
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: LA move is unlikely for Rams

    Quote Originally Posted by VenturaFwy View Post
    Your original post said LA couldn't support them "to begin with" and now it's they didn't for the last ten years. Make up your mind. Which is it? The bottom line is they moved because of a new stadium and because they had an owner who drove the team into the ground. Sound familiar?

    I know. I know. It was completely different when St. Louis lost the Cardinals.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ventura
    Bottom line, it would be pathetic for a team to return to a city that could not support them to begin with
    Once again, Ventura, you're not quoting me. I never said that.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  8. #23
    VenturaFwy is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    13
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: LA move is unlikely for Rams

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Once again, Ventura, you're not quoting me. I never said that.
    I saw that it was someone else. Your response to my post initially led me to believe it was you.

  9. #24
    blood85's Avatar
    blood85 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Merced,California
    Age
    44
    Posts
    1,336
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: LA move is unlikely for Rams

    I don't care what anyone says, I DO Want the RAMS to return to L.A. and will keep praying that they DO return HOME.

  10. #25
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,642
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: LA move is unlikely for Rams

    Quote Originally Posted by VenturaFwy View Post
    I saw that it was someone else. Your response to my post initially led me to believe it was you.
    No problem. Don't sweat it.
    Quote Originally Posted by blood
    I DO Want the RAMS to return to L.A. and will keep praying that they DO return HOME.
    Well, again.....they are already home. Such is the simple yet, for some, unfortunate truth of pro sport franchises. Wherever they play their home games is, in fact, their home. All that time they spent in LA, would it have been accurate to say they should come "home" to Cleveland? Of course not. Just as now, they ARE home. It ain't your home; but it is their home.

    In the future, they may be the San Antonio Rams or the Portland Rams or (if the NFL changes policy) the Las Vegas Rams. And if so, I too will be incorrect (though ever vigilant) when I wish for them to come back "home" to St. Louis.

    It may not be MY home, but it will be home.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  11. #26
    hawaiianpunch's Avatar
    hawaiianpunch is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    399
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: LA move is unlikely for Rams

    Really... I want them to move to L.A., so i don't have to pay about 800 to go watch the rams play, in St.Louis. But really it would be selfish of me to wish that, after the Rams won there first Superbowl in St.Louis.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Bassey Excited for Move
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: -05-22-2008, 01:44 PM
  2. Pace is out; Linehan mulls next move at tackle
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -11-13-2006, 09:01 PM
  3. NFL Franchise Year-by-Year Genealogy History
    By OldRamsfan in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: -04-26-2006, 03:31 AM
  4. Rams move Williams back to safety
    By Nick in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -09-29-2004, 08:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •