JavaScript must be enabled to use this chat software. OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread - Page 43


Page 43 of 44 FirstFirst ... 333435363738394041424344 LastLast
Results 631 to 645 of 652
Like Tree170Likes

Thread: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

  1. #631
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    51
    Posts
    10,115
    Rep Power
    79

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFanSam View Post
    "And seeing as the Rams and St. Louis are about $600 million apart on how much the city, county and state should chip in for a new stadium, Kroenke's interest in L.A. should not be underestimated," the Times reports.

    Rumors. Gotta love 'em...

    Considering that it would take over a billion dollars to build a decent stadium in LA, plus the higher taxes, I don't see it happening.

    I really love how people get all worked up because a land developer looks into buying...wait for it....

    LAND.
    Here are some interesting concepts being floated that could make it possible for any team to move to LA.

    NFL wants back in L.A, but questions must be answered first

    By Sam Farmer

    After 19 years of dead ends, the NFL is taking another run at returning to Los Angeles. Solving that riddle will require some creative thinking and possibly an outside-the-box approach.

    The league is evaluating various sites in the L.A. area and looking into alternative financing models for a stadium, including paying for one itself as opposed to having an individual owner foot the bill.

    "Whatever gets us a team in L.A., that would be awesome," said New England's Robert Kraft, among the league's most influential owners. "That might be the solution. Whatever it takes, I know I'd be willing to support."
    Whatever gets us a team in L.A., that would be awesome. ... Whatever it takes, I know I'd be willing to support. - Robert Kraft, New England Patriots owner

    How might the league approach the situation differently? Here are some answers to the primary questions:

    What are the two main financing scenarios?

    In the first, a club has a stadium site and concept in mind, puts together a financing plan and looks to the league for help. The NFL helps pay for the venue but also assesses a hefty relocation fee. The club then has full control of the stadium.


    In the second, the league pays for the stadium, offsetting that $1-billion-plus investment by selling naming rights, personal seat licenses (PSLs) and the like. That becomes the home of one or two teams (perhaps to be named later), who don't have the astronomical cost of a stadium on their books. In theory, the relocation fee would be smaller because the NFL benefits from those sponsorship sales.

    Why would a team want to have a stadium that's owned by the league?

    That's the pivotal question, and there are a lot of owners who wouldn't want Big Brother as a landlord. That said, the NFL could make it more enticing by giving tenants control of key revenue streams such as sales of suites, club and general admission seats, local sponsorship and advertising, parking and the like. The challenge for the league would be making the deal attractive enough.



    If all 32 teams are sharing in the revenue that stadium generates, those teams would probably push to hold major events there. For instance, the NFL has searched for ways to revamp (and pump interest) into the Pro Bowl. What if that annual event were staged at the league's stadium in L.A.? The league is already considering holding the 2015 draft in L.A. What about moving the scouting combine there? A West Coast hub of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, perhaps? And it's not a reach to think the league might want to relocate the NFL Network and NFL.com to an eventual L.A. stadium, if one ever happens.

    Who would play there?

    When the Raiders and Rams left LA, the LA market got much better TV games. When we had both teams, and they both stunk, we were screwed. First, the rule is that when your local team is on the road, that game must be broadcast to the local market. Second, there is the silly rule that when a team...


    As soon as a team tips its hand that it's leaving, it's dead in its current market. In theory, the NFL could build a stadium without naming the teams that might play there until the last minute, thereby avoiding a lame-duck season. As it is, there's a very tight window for a team to announce it's relocating from mid-January through February precisely because the team would need time to sell season tickets in its new market. But were it a league-owned stadium, the NFL could start moving dirt at any time and simply say, "Stay tuned."

    Is there another potential revenue stream out there, one the league might harness to finance a stadium?


    Yes, Super Bowl PSLs. This idea has been floating around for years, and it's only a matter of time before it happens. If and when the league establishes a regular rotation of Super Bowl sites and it's reexamining how it currently awards cities the marquee game it can start selling seats years in advance. Well, the rights to seats, anyway. For instance, if L.A. were promised four Super Bowls in 20 years, the league could tell fans, "Pay X-thousand dollars now, and you will have the right to buy a face-value ticket for this seat for all four of those Super Bowls." You may not like it, and it's going to be pricey, but there's a good chance that's eventually going to happen.

    Why would the league want to be back in L.A., anyway?

    This market has already lost two teams, and three if you count the short-lived L.A. Chargers. In that sense, it's about as rock-solid reliable as a Hollywood marriage.

    Then again, how well managed were the L.A. Raiders and Rams? At the same time those teams were struggling in Southern California, the New England Patriots were failing in Massachusetts. The Saints were always a mess in New Orleans, and they became hugely profitable with the same owner at the helm. The Seahawks were gasping for air in Seattle and even briefly moved to Anaheim before Paul Allen rebranded them.

    The NFL says it wants to be back in L.A. The real question is, how much?



  2. #632
    RamingtoLA is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    los angeles
    Posts
    38
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    MoonJoe and RAMFANRAIDERHATER like this.

  3. #633
    zgare's Avatar
    zgare is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Des Peres, MO
    Posts
    130
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    There are 13 smaller metros thn St Lois that have NFL teams. Looks like St Louis is in the same state that this author says New England, New Orleans, and Seattle were in before their big turnarounds. If the Rams stay and break the 10 year non-winning season streak, in a few years we may look back and shake our heads that anyone would have thought a city withas much success and as rabid fans as St Louis could have been a move candidate, just as we this piece does with Seattle, New England, and New Orleans now. Why doesn't the NFL just expand and not go through another big round of musical teams.
    ZGare

  4. #634
    sjacksonrules's Avatar
    sjacksonrules is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    southern il
    Posts
    1,467
    Rep Power
    33

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by zgare View Post
    There are 13 smaller metros thn St Lois that have NFL teams. Looks like St Louis is in the same state that this author says New England, New Orleans, and Seattle were in before their big turnarounds. If the Rams stay and break the 10 year non-winning season streak, in a few years we may look back and shake our heads that anyone would have thought a city withas much success and as rabid fans as St Louis could have been a move candidate, just as we this piece does with Seattle, New England, and New Orleans now. Why doesn't the NFL just expand and not go through another big round of musical teams.
    L.A. could have four teams if one of them wasnt the Rams there would still be people saying bring the Rams back.

  5. #635
    svh01 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    273
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    I personally think the Rams should move to Tampa(or maybe Orlando)! That way I can get season tickets and then watch every away game on TV!

    Honestly I could care less where or if they move. Regardless I will be a fan. I was fan of the LA Rams and stayed a fan of the St. Louis Rams.
    Randart likes this.

  6. #636
    Fettmaster's Avatar
    Fettmaster is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,414
    Rep Power
    26

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by svh01 View Post

    Honestly I could care less where or if they move. Regardless I will be a fan. I was fan of the LA Rams and stayed a fan of the St. Louis Rams.
    I agree, except I could not care less where the Rams play.


  7. #637
    cowboyhater's Avatar
    cowboyhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Columbus, GA
    Posts
    582
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    Why doesn't the NFL just expand and not go through another big round of musical teams.

    Thirty-two is as big as you want to get. Eight four team divisions makes scheduling a piece of cake.

    Expanding the league waters down the talent even further.

    Size of metro area is only one of many factors to determine a team's value in today's profit driven NFL. If we want to go with the "there are X cities with smaller metro areas" we could look at all the metro areas larger than Green Bay, and have teams in Hartford, Columbus, Toledo, Grand Rapids, Boise and Tulsa.

    My family was moving this week from Wisconsin to Georgia. En route, we stopped at a truck stop in southern Illinois, less than 100 miles from St. Louis. Shirts and memorabilia from a dozen teams were on display. The Rams were not included.
    LA Rammer likes this.

  8. #638
    jjigga3000's Avatar
    jjigga3000 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,608
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    I just want to say @hubison and @RamfanSam went really hard on me saying I was wrong in my assertion of the Rams moving to L.A. I was just one season off. I was gonna leave well enough alone, but then I went back and read some of their post. Let's just get this out the way I TOLD YOU SO The real question now is what team will show up in L.A.? Let's hope a mature team that knows how to keep a lead.
    Vinnie25 likes this.

  9. #639
    jjigga3000's Avatar
    jjigga3000 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,608
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFanSam View Post
    For the seventh year in a row, I will tell everyone the Rams are NOT going to LA. Saint Louis is now their home, and considering Toronto is also in the market for an NFL team (if you believe rumors), then my guess would be expansion in the future.
    My How you were wrong on this statement.

  10. #640
    jjigga3000's Avatar
    jjigga3000 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,608
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFanSam View Post
    I find it quite humorous that some people are sure the Rams are moving back to Los Angeles. There is no reason why they should. There are other cities that want an NFL team, such as San Antonio, and the Rams have as much of a shot at going there as they do to L.A. But if you really think about it, there are other teams that have much less support than the Rams do in their current cities - these are the teams that are likely to move. Will Kronke keep the Rams in St. Louis? Odds are he will - but there is no guarantee. There is a contract in place, and it would be prohibitively expensive to consider breaking the lease. Kroenke has assets that he could use to his advantage to get a new stadium, and by using these assets, the chances of the Rams moving to L.A. are less than the chance of the Rams moving to Bentonville, Arkansas. Think about it - with Stan's Wal-Mart connections, a new stadium might just be built in Arkansas, and then those who are so sure about the Rams moving back to the land of no support (L.A.) would be up a creek which shall not be named without a paddle.
    My question to you is are you still a Rams fan?

  11. #641
    jjigga3000's Avatar
    jjigga3000 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,608
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Captain Obvious " Rams are tanking for Move To LA"

    Quote Originally Posted by jjigga3000 View Post
    Let's get this straight St Louis Rams fans, I'm from L.A. but now live in Dallas, it is because of me being from L.A. that I'm an Rams fan and I supported them even when they moved from L.A. for 16 years until I moved to Dallas in 2010. I don't really care whether the Rams stay or move, I'll root for them if they're in London. My point is from an unbiased opinion, not bias. I get nothing from the Rams being in the L.A. market or St Louis Market. I have to buy Sunday Ticket to watch them. I make an investment in them every year. So people like RamsFanSam stop getting your panties in a bunch when people make educated speculation about the Rams moving. GOSSIP and speculation are two different things.
    My non biased educated speculation was correct and I know it was. I'm kinda of gloating because had the Rams stayed and I wouldn't have cared some folks on this forum would have been gloating hard. This is my last post on this subject. I'm sad for the St Louis Fans, you were and are good fans, you didn't deserve to lose a team. As a fan that lives outside of St Louis, thank you for the support you gave the Rams as a city you were truly great fans. I only hope you stay on as Rams fans as we who are from Los Angeles supported them when they left.

  12. #642
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    33
    Posts
    20,647
    Rep Power
    158

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    You can be happy that the Rams are going back to LA.

    You can even be satisfied in the knowledge that you may have predicted it.

    But reviving a year-old thread to respond with multiple "I told you so's" isn't going to be tolerated, as it is neither civil nor in any way necessary.
    thoey, MoonJoe, Rambos and 4 others like this.

  13. #643
    Vinnie25's Avatar
    Vinnie25 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    973
    Rep Power
    7

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    I feel for St. Louis fans right now, I really do. I went through the same thing back in 1994 when I was only 13 years old and naive and knew nothing about all the politics of the NFL. I just knew that my favorite team since birth (one that me and my father had season tickets to until he died in 1991) was stolen from me by a selfish owner and moving far away. A lot of friends and family jumped ship to different teams like the Chargers or SanFran, but I remained loyal to "my team". I hated Georgia for what she took away from me, but I couldn't blame the actual Rams team for her mistakes and continued to support them with all my heart. They were still the same Rams, with the same color and logo scheme, with the same history... how can I turn my back on that? I always hoped that one day the Rams would return to Los Angeles, a place where even through the hard times they were still beloved by many and had a deep and rich history for almost 50 years. Now that officially they are back, this moment is bittersweet to me. Sure I'm happy they're back (even though I now live in Seattle), but the feeling is bittersweet because my heart hurts for all the fans from St. Louis, who though I never actually me in person, I learned through this forum are some of the most hardcore and intelligent and passionate fans a team could hope for. I know that you're all probably hurting and filled with hatred for Stan and all his cronies (and I don't blame you; how he treated the city of St. Louis was despicable), but I hope that all of you will remain loyal to the team and continue to root for the Rams and all of their players.
    viper likes this.

  14. #644
    NJ Ramsfan1 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    2,829
    Rep Power
    80

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    People must recognize and acknowledge that the fan is the LEAST important element of any relocation equation. Sad but true. Instead, it is all about finding new revenue streams and maximizing profitability. Stan did that with this move, distasteful and upsetting as it may be. The Rams also negotiated with St. Louis for a number of years behind the scenes, and when it was evident they couldn't (or wouldn't) meet the "first tier" requirement of the lease, Stan explored his options- which any one of us would do if we owned such a business.

    No one on this forum has any idea if the St. Louis stadium plan had major shortcomings. The league said it did, and ultimately they're the ones making the decision. The conspiracy theorists will go to their grave feeling otherwise, and nothing will change that.

    Because they have lost their team, St. Louis, its politicians and its sportswriters has and will continue to churn out the full assortment of "Stan is the Devil" propaganda, but truth be told, St. Louis acted too late to have any hope of keeping the Rams. And the ill fated "first tier" clause, which allowed them to get the Rams 21 years ago proved to be its undoing in 2016.
    rammiser likes this.

  15. #645
    jjigga3000's Avatar
    jjigga3000 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,608
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: OFFICIAL (and only) "Rams to L.A." Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    You can be happy that the Rams are going back to LA.

    You can even be satisfied in the knowledge that you may have predicted it.

    But reviving a year-old thread to respond with multiple "I told you so's" isn't going to be tolerated, as it is neither civil nor in any way necessary.
    So it was tolerable when I was dissed and even attacked at times? Yeah right. It's ok for me to take the punishment but not the others. Sorry Nick you're wrong.

Similar Threads

  1. *Official Rams @ Saints Prediction Thread
    By LA Rammer in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: -12-12-2010, 05:47 PM
  2. Replies: 218
    Last Post: -10-11-2009, 04:50 PM
  3. Replies: 305
    Last Post: -10-04-2009, 08:26 PM
  4. The Official Gibril Wilson For Next Rams SS Thread
    By THOLTFAN81 in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: -02-26-2009, 12:33 PM
  5. *Official Rams vs. Jags Gametime Thread
    By LA Rammer in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -10-30-2005, 05:19 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
  •