Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38
Like Tree22Likes

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

  1. #31
    LA Rammer's Avatar
    LA Rammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wilmington, CA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    2,709
    Rep Power
    38

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFanSam View Post
    Considering the NFL stopped considering the Los Angeles area as a valid market after 1995, that might be prudent.
    actually not accurate at all... "In 2000, the NFL awarded Los Angeles an expansion franchise. Southern California could not produce a viable stadium plan and Houston was given the franchise instead."

    and there have been attempts by the NFL thereafter. ouch

    LA RAMMER

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

  2. #32
    LA Rammer's Avatar
    LA Rammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wilmington, CA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    2,709
    Rep Power
    38

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

    anyways not REALLY important if Rams stay or go. important we have a winning season. if Rams are #1 on Forbes or last doesn't mean a single thing for us. Stan isn't going to pay our mortgage...
    macrammer likes this.
    LA RAMMER

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

  3. #33
    RamsFanSam's Avatar
    RamsFanSam is online now Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Springfield, Missouri, United States
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,656
    Rep Power
    71

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LA Rammer View Post
    actually not accurate at all... "In 2000, the NFL awarded Los Angeles an expansion franchise. Southern California could not produce a viable stadium plan and Houston was given the franchise instead."

    and there have been attempts by the NFL thereafter. ouch
    I stand corrected.

    My point was that the NFL does not have a team there 20 years later, so a franchise in LA is not a priority.

    I do agree that what matters is a winning season.

    HORNS UP!
    LA Rammer likes this.

  4. #34
    MoonJoe's Avatar
    MoonJoe is offline Ram MVP
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Norco, CA
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,440
    Rep Power
    42

    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.
    Actually the Raiders are more valuable because they sell more merchandise.
    "The disappointment of losing is huge!"

    Jack Youngblood

  5. #35
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,629
    Rep Power
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    Cue the "Rams to Los Angeles" crowd...
    It not only would make dollars, but it would also make sense.

  6. #36
    RamsFanSam's Avatar
    RamsFanSam is online now Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Springfield, Missouri, United States
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,656
    Rep Power
    71

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MoonJoe View Post
    Actually the Raiders are more valuable because they sell more merchandise.
    Joe, you brought up a great point.

    Part of the team revenue is merchandise. Supposedly, the LA crowd is nothing but die-hard fans. If this is true, then they are still buying Rams merchandise, as are the people around St. Louis. I have NO doubt that 90% of the fans in St. Louis would be so bitter if the team moved that they would stop supporting the team.
    Now, here's my point - IF the fans in LA are as loyal as they claim they are, then a move to LA would not affect merchandise sales, because all of the die-hard fans are already buying Rams stuff, ,and if they truly are supporting the team, they won't buy more stuff just because of the location of the team. However, the St. Louis fans would be so pissed about the team moving that most would stop supporting the team immediately.
    How does alienating over a million fans help a team out? I understand that after the Rams moved OUT of LA, there were a few thousand die hard fans who still supported the team - now, I hear that number is down to less than 3000. (I'm counting JUST the die hard fans - not the ones who own a shirt and think that makes them a fan.) Before they moved, the people turned their backs on the team, and that played heavily into the decision to let them move.
    Do LA fans (the few die hard ones) really think that people will support the Rams this time? I don't. If they were fans, they would ALREADY support the team.

  7. #37
    Mikey's Avatar
    Mikey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    835
    Rep Power
    10

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFanSam View Post
    Joe, you brought up a great point.

    Part of the team revenue is merchandise. Supposedly, the LA crowd is nothing but die-hard fans. If this is true, then they are still buying Rams merchandise, as are the people around St. Louis. I have NO doubt that 90% of the fans in St. Louis would be so bitter if the team moved that they would stop supporting the team.
    Now, here's my point - IF the fans in LA are as loyal as they claim they are, then a move to LA would not affect merchandise sales, because all of the die-hard fans are already buying Rams stuff, ,and if they truly are supporting the team, they won't buy more stuff just because of the location of the team. However, the St. Louis fans would be so pissed about the team moving that most would stop supporting the team immediately.
    How does alienating over a million fans help a team out? I understand that after the Rams moved OUT of LA, there were a few thousand die hard fans who still supported the team - now, I hear that number is down to less than 3000. (I'm counting JUST the die hard fans - not the ones who own a shirt and think that makes them a fan.) Before they moved, the people turned their backs on the team, and that played heavily into the decision to let them move.
    Do LA fans (the few die hard ones) really think that people will support the Rams this time? I don't. If they were fans, they would ALREADY support the team.
    Alienating the fan base in St Louis(metro pop of 3 million) to move to Los Angeles (metro pop of 16.4 million). Also Rams fans in LA were more pissed off at ownership than at the Rams for moving. St Louis doesn't support the Rams now with merchandise or ticket sales. Should they stay in St Louis where they're one of the bottom 2 or 3 every year in ticket sales and merchandise sales?

    Again I'm not in favor of them moving to LA, it's a flight for me to watch them in either St Louis or LA, I'm simply playing devils advocate. Fans don't support the Rams in StL, they didn't support them at the end in LA. Neither local or state government will foot the bill for a new stadium. So it all comes down to what Stan wants to do and where he feels it will benefit his business venture the most. The LA vs StL fans arguing won't mean a thing to him. He could move San Antonio and have a similar population base as StL and have as much competition for fans as anywhere else. LA like New York and Chicago are cities that people migrate to for work and loyalties are divided among many teams. But most of those fans will support a local team instead of or in addition to their favorite teams.

  8. #38
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,145
    Rep Power
    75

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

    Leigh Steinberg

    ​Earlier this week, Michael Ozanian and Forbes did a superb reporting on the franchise values of NFL teams. Dallas sat at the peak with a valuation of $ 3.2 billion. It reminded me of a conversation I had years ago with Jerry Jones when he commented “the two most valuable franchises in the NFL will be Dallas and whatever franchise is in Los Angeles.” That clearly is the potential for the Los Angeles franchise. Ironically, St. Louis sits at the bottom of the valuations at $930 million, and Oakland is not much higher at $970 million. Both franchises have histories in Southern California; both franchises have the ability to move. Both franchises would immediately double their value

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •