Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38
Like Tree22Likes

Thread: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

  1. #16
    Mikey's Avatar
    Mikey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    824
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFanSam View Post
    Bullcrap. There is NO way in hell that anyone can tell me the stadium and location make the value different. If it did - then the RAIDERS would be LAST.

    If the logic of the LA crowd were sound, then the LA KISS would be worth more than the Dallas Cowboys. After all, it's EXACTLY what LA wanted - their own football team...one the BELONGS to them, not one that belongs to another city.
    You mean the Raiders team that is only valued 40 million higher than the Rams? A very small figure for a team that every year sells a lot more merchandise than the Rams. The Raiders are in a similar situation as the Rams, a new stadium will boost their value a lot. Also don't throw me into the Rams need to move to LA crowd, a new stadium in STL would do as much for the Rams.


  2. #17
    LA Rammer's Avatar
    LA Rammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wilmington, CA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    2,708
    Rep Power
    38

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    I stopped entering into LA or St. Louie debates. 2015 right around corner. Whether Rams stay in St. Louis or not is yet to be seen. Silent Stan is yet to break his silence. I said it before, Rams stay in St. Lou I'm still a fan, but those falling hard into this debate might departure once team moves (if they move) to LA.

    Stay thirsty my friends
    LA RAMMER

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

  3. #18
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,613
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    I really can't imagine the Rams moving back to L.A.

    Of course, a couple of months ago, I said the same thing about Lebron James going back to Cleveland.
    thoey and LA Rammer like this.

  4. #19
    sosa39rams's Avatar
    sosa39rams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On
    Posts
    5,454
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    I wouldn't hate a move to LA (but this is coming from a Canadian...).

    1) New stadium
    2) New (well old) jerseys
    3) MUCH more attracting to FA's

    I see literally no negative of moving to LA. This is why I really don't care what Kroenke decides to do.
    mh-i likes this.


    THE DREAM TEAM

  5. #20
    macrammer's Avatar
    macrammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Livermore, Ca/ Arnold,Ca
    Age
    55
    Posts
    2,078
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    I do not care where Rams play.....I watch them every week regardless. But, owning a football team is a business (except if you are Jerry Jones) and as a business, the investor will try to achieve the highest level of value for his/her investment. Stan has a nice bankroll.....but most likely would love to see his team in top ten rather then as a bottom feeder.
    LA Rammer and mh-i like this.

  6. #21
    J-RodRamFan's Avatar
    J-RodRamFan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    DMV- Maryland
    Posts
    443
    Rep Power
    3

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    This is a shock to me that we're dead last. It's also a shock that Green Bay isn't higher on the list.

  7. #22
    mh-i's Avatar
    mh-i is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    CA
    Age
    55
    Posts
    1,248
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    Quote Originally Posted by macrammer View Post
    Just for grins....anybody venture a guess to the hypothetical value in LA with new stadium???
    Triple before they ever play a game.

  8. #23
    mh-i's Avatar
    mh-i is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    CA
    Age
    55
    Posts
    1,248
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFanSam View Post
    Bullcrap. There is NO way in hell that anyone can tell me the stadium and location make the value different. If it did - then the RAIDERS would be LAST.

    If the logic of the LA crowd were sound, then the LA KISS would be worth more than the Dallas Cowboys. After all, it's EXACTLY what LA wanted - their own football team...one the BELONGS to them, not one that belongs to another city.
    The Rams used to be in LA and Anaheim. Still fans all over the place. Arena football isn't the NFL. Hell, Arena football can't compete with USC or UCLA. The Kiss aren't the first Arena team to be in LA. BTW, I think Arena football is highly entertaining. Fun to attend.

    As far as the Raiders go the stadium is very old and in a rough part of town. That said the Bay Area is HUGE and can support two NFL teams no problem. The Raiders are a HUGE brand like the Cowboys. There are still Raider stores in So Cal and the Raiders left LA 20 years ago with the Rams. The Raiders would do well wherever they went and like the Cowboys don't have to win to stay successful. Go figure.

  9. #24
    macrammer's Avatar
    macrammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Livermore, Ca/ Arnold,Ca
    Age
    55
    Posts
    2,078
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    Quote Originally Posted by mh-i View Post
    Triple before they ever play a game.
    if this is indeed true, I, as an owner / investor, would be looking to move to a market that can offer substantially more revenue leverage. But, maybe Stan is not like that. perhaps he will ignore the obvious.

  10. #25
    Fettmaster's Avatar
    Fettmaster is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,188
    Rep Power
    24

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFanSam View Post
    Bullcrap. There is NO way in hell that anyone can tell me the stadium and location make the value different. If it did - then the RAIDERS would be LAST.

    If the logic of the LA crowd were sound, then the LA KISS would be worth more than the Dallas Cowboys. After all, it's EXACTLY what LA wanted - their own football team...one the BELONGS to them, not one that belongs to another city.
    What? You don't think a team with a local television deal in a city of nearly four million people might generate a tad more in advertising revenue than a city with a little over three-hundred thousand people?

    And you're really comparing the AFL to the NFL? I don't even know where to start on that one. I don't mean to be rude but this is probably one of the most misguided posts I've ever read on this forum.
    Rambos, LA Rammer and NB Ram like this.


  11. #26
    RamsFanSam's Avatar
    RamsFanSam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Springfield, Missouri, United States
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,655
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    Quote Originally Posted by Fettmaster View Post
    What? You don't think a team with a local television deal in a city of nearly four million people might generate a tad more in advertising revenue than a city with a little over three-hundred thousand people?

    And you're really comparing the AFL to the NFL? I don't even know where to start on that one. I don't mean to be rude but this is probably one of the most misguided posts I've ever read on this forum.
    Let's look at this in terms that everyone can understand...

    There has not been an NFL franchise in LA since 1995. If a team would make more money by being in LA, then there would be a team in LA. Since there is not an NFL team in LA, then apparently, a Los Angeles team wouldn't make enough money to make it worthwhile.

    And the comment about the LA KISS? Read YOUR comment that you posted:
    What? You don't think a team with a local television deal in a city of nearly four million people might generate a tad more in advertising revenue than a city with a little over three-hundred thousand people?
    Don't you think that an AFL franchise owned by one of the most successful rock bands of all time, in a city of nearly four million people that continues to claim that they are starved for football of any kind, would generate a tad more advertising revenue than a city with a little over three hundred thousand people? Yeah, it doesn't work like that. The way the NFL is set up with revenue sharing, etc, the LA market isn't as attractive as many people claim. If it were, then LA would have had teams fighting for a stadium.

  12. #27
    Fettmaster's Avatar
    Fettmaster is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,188
    Rep Power
    24

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    So because LA doesn't have a team, that proves a team can't make more money in LA. Got it. Even though the Clippers just sold for two billion dollars.

    And what are you even trying to say in your second paragraph? Nobody is comparing arena football to the NFL except you. What I demonstrated in my quote was an example of how a team, any team can increase its revenue by moving from a smaller city like St. Louis, to the second biggest city in the country. Yes, the NFL is setup with revenue sharing, etc. But teams can still generate their own revenue. Read the Forbes article. The cowgirls are worth so much in part because of their marketing partnerships.

    And yeah, if LA actually had a stadium, yes teams would be fighting for it.
    LA Rammer, Mikey and NB Ram like this.


  13. #28
    RamsFanSam's Avatar
    RamsFanSam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Springfield, Missouri, United States
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,655
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    Quote Originally Posted by Fettmaster View Post
    So because LA doesn't have a team, that proves a team can't make more money in LA. Got it. Even though the Clippers just sold for two billion dollars.

    And what are you even trying to say in your second paragraph? Nobody is comparing arena football to the NFL except you. What I demonstrated in my quote was an example of how a team, any team can increase its revenue by moving from a smaller city like St. Louis, to the second biggest city in the country. Yes, the NFL is setup with revenue sharing, etc. But teams can still generate their own revenue. Read the Forbes article. The cowgirls are worth so much in part because of their marketing partnerships.

    And yeah, if LA actually had a stadium, yes teams would be fighting for it.
    OK, let's look at your statements:

    1. According to your statements, the larger the city, the more valuable the franchise. This means the Packers, currently listed as #13, should not be ranked higher than franchises from Kansas City, Miami, Atlanta - heck, ANY of the other franchises, since Green Bay only has 104,000 people.

    Point made. Oh, wait...no, it isn't, because Green Bay is worth much more than other franchises from larger cities.

    2. Are you saying that the Dallas Cowboys, worth $3.2 billion dollars, would be worth MUCH more by moving to LA? I'm guessing that since Dallas has a population of around 1.3 million, that the move to LA would make the Cowboys worth 3 times as much? How about the Patriots?

    3. LA had a stadium - yet, TWO teams LEFT. So much for teams "fighting for it". Then, as a further example, what about the 3 proposed stadiums that were supposedly sure things, including Farmers Field and the LA Stadium at Grand Crossing? Last I heard, the city stopped backing these proposals after the NFL showed absolutely NO interest in the market.

    Please, enlighten me with your explanation as to how the Chargers, Raiders, Vikings, Rams, Bills, and Buccaneers were all fighting to move to Los Angeles. The Vikings did not move there because they didn't see a market. The Bills? Who knows, but obviously, they think that they are better off where they are. The owner of the Bucs has flat out said NO to LA. Mark Davis has said he'd much rather move to San Antonio - in the middle of Cowboys and Texans country - instead of relocating to Los Angeles - and if the Raiders are even rejecting LA, then there's a good reason.

    Have you figured out yet that population and the dreams of a couple of thousand people doesn't mean the NFL will succeed in a market? If it did, I'm sure that San Antonio would have it's own team, as would Oklahoma City, Omaha, and Las Vegas. As it is, keep hoping. I'm sure that the NFL will consider LA for an expansion team in the future. Until then, there's always the LA KISS...IF you can get a seat.

  14. #29
    Fettmaster's Avatar
    Fettmaster is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,188
    Rep Power
    24

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    No, don't put words in my mouth. I never flat said the bigger the city the more valuable the franchise. I even said the cowgirls were worth alot of money in part because of their partnerships. You originally said there was no way in hell that a team's stadium and location affect its value. Myself and others foolishly attempted to point out this comment is just flat out wrong. I should have stopped when I read the AFL comparison, but I'll go ahead and stop now.
    Last edited by Fettmaster; 3 Weeks Ago at 04:08 PM.
    LA Rammer, Mikey and NB Ram like this.


  15. #30
    RamsFanSam's Avatar
    RamsFanSam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Springfield, Missouri, United States
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,655
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Rams ranked as least valuable NFL franchise by Forbes Magazine

    Quote Originally Posted by Fettmaster View Post
    I'll go ahead and stop now.
    Considering the NFL stopped considering the Los Angeles area as a valid market after 1995, that might be prudent.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Rams 2nd pick valuable?
    By rob6465 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: -12-13-2011, 01:27 AM
  2. Replies: 22
    Last Post: -05-30-2009, 04:57 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: -03-13-2009, 07:43 PM
  4. Does Anyone subscribe To This magazine?
    By AlphaRam in forum LOUNGE
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: -05-02-2007, 08:40 PM
  5. NFL .com Fantasy Foootball magazine
    By LARAM in forum FANTASY
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -06-16-2006, 02:11 AM

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
  •