Rams to re-locate to L.A. in 7 years...?

[jjigga3000]

it's funny to see people talking about what the L.A. fanbase wants. When they don't live in L.A.

[RamsFan16]

L.A. would be the worst scenario for the Rams. We've got bad blood back there. How do we know moving the Rams back there would increase sales for us? I say keep the rams in St. Louis for as long as possible, and then relocate to a city not named Los Angeles when we NEED to. I think we're content in St. Louis. Don't fix if when its not broke.

[Goldenfleece]

Originally Posted by jjigga3000

it's funny to see people talking about what the L.A. fanbase wants. When they don't live in L.A.

Well, how can anyone truly attest to the interests of the community at large without polls or statistics or attendance records from the last time the Rams were in L.A. regardless of where they live? Even a Rams fan living in the city isn't really going to be able to tell you how many of the x million people living there would turn out for games on a regular basis.

[rams2061]

It wouldn't surprise me. I don't believe St. Louis can handle 3 pro teams.

[dgr828]

Here's a few spots that the Rams may use as their home turf upon returning to LA. (The Los Angeles Rams, of course will need a temporary site from the start until a new state~of~the~art Stadium is completed....Future looks bright!)

1. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum
2. Rose Bowl
3. Home Depot Center
4. Angel Stadium
5. Dodger Stadium
6. Irwindale Raceway

How say you? What site would you like to see the Los Angeles Rams play their games?

[HUbison]

Originally Posted by Goldenfleece

Well, how can anyone truly attest to the interests of the community at large without polls or statistics or attendance records from the last time the Rams were in L.A. regardless of where they live? Even a Rams fan living in the city isn't really going to be able to tell you how many of the x million people living there would turn out for games on a regular basis.

Ask and ye shall receive....

Per game attendance for the final 5 years in LA:
1990 - 59,920
1991 - 51,586
1992 - 51,813
1993 - 45,401
1994 - 42,312

Per game attendance for the most recent 5 years in St.L:
2003 - 66,057
2004 - 65,923
2005 - 65,460
2006 - 65,326
2007 - 63,044


Well yea, HUb, but you gotta go back farther than that!

Ok, fine. Over their entire time in St. Louis, the Rams have averaged 63,886 per game. During that same time period in LA, the Rams averaged 52,873 per game.

Well yea, HUb, but look at last year.....that was the worst attendance the Rams have ever seen!

Really? The 2007 Rams averaged 63,044 per game. That single season is better than any season in nearly the final two decades of LA Rams football.



Why do we keep having to have these silly turf tiffs and hometown hassles?

Sadly Fleece, I'm afraid the facts in this will be lost yet again.

[RAMarkable]

Originally Posted by HUbison

Ask and ye shall receive....

Per game attendance for the final 5 years in LA:
1990 - 59,920
1991 - 51,586
1992 - 51,813
1993 - 45,401
1994 - 42,312

Per game attendance for the most recent 5 years in St.L:
2003 - 66,057
2004 - 65,923
2005 - 65,460
2006 - 65,326
2007 - 63,044


Well yea, HUb, but you gotta go back farther than that!

Ok, fine. Over their entire time in St. Louis, the Rams have averaged 63,886 per game. During that same time period in LA, the Rams averaged 52,873 per game.

Well yea, HUb, but look at last year.....that was the worst attendance the Rams have ever seen!

Really? The 2007 Rams averaged 63,044 per game. That single season is better than any season in nearly the final two decades of LA Rams football.



Why do we keep having to have these silly turf tiffs and hometown hassles?

Sadly Fleece, I'm afraid the facts in this will be lost yet again.

Thanks for all the hard work, Statman! But what is starting to concern me is what just happened in Seattle with the NBA franchise. Apparently they also had an "iron-clad" lease and ultimately it did NOT prevent the new owner (some Okie-probably a Sooners fan) from moving the team. I know that you've posted numerous times that the Rams lease with the City of St. Louis would be extemely difficult if not impossible to break, but after what's just happened with Seattle I just don't know anymore. Got comments?

WHAT SAY YE?

[jjigga3000]

Originally Posted by HUbison

Ask and ye shall receive....

Per game attendance for the final 5 years in LA:
1990 - 59,920
1991 - 51,586
1992 - 51,813
1993 - 45,401
1994 - 42,312

Per game attendance for the most recent 5 years in St.L:
2003 - 66,057
2004 - 65,923
2005 - 65,460
2006 - 65,326
2007 - 63,044


Well yea, HUb, but you gotta go back farther than that!

Ok, fine. Over their entire time in St. Louis, the Rams have averaged 63,886 per game. During that same time period in LA, the Rams averaged 52,873 per game.

Well yea, HUb, but look at last year.....that was the worst attendance the Rams have ever seen!

Really? The 2007 Rams averaged 63,044 per game. That single season is better than any season in nearly the final two decades of LA Rams football.



Why do we keep having to have these silly turf tiffs and hometown hassles?

Sadly Fleece, I'm afraid the facts in this will be lost yet again.

those years were in Anehiem to make your argument a solid one you would have to include the Coliseum attendance in you facts my friend. and Anehiem is not in Los Angeles nor is it a L.A. Suburb. It's in Orange County. That is why so many Los Angles Doger fans are angry at the fact the Angels use Los Angeles as a city when they aren't located in the city.

Also lets not forget the fact that the football was not as widely popular as it is now, so those numbers for that time actually are better than those last 5 years in St Louis if you take in account of the overall fanbase of the NFL in general. In fact let's compare the last few years the Cardinals were in St. Louis to prove my point from 83-87 that's the last 5 years the Cards averaged 37,851 fans in attendance a game for that 5 year period. For the L.A. Rams thru the same period, they averaged 54,025 fans a game. That's almost 20 thousand more fans. My point is you can't use the time periods you used to judge how popular a team is the fact is the Rams and Raiders were supported the the Los Angeles fan base. The problem was the owners wanted fans and the people to pay for something they should have paid for.

Also being the fact that I live in Los Angeles I see a lot Rams fans.

[MoonJoe]

Originally Posted by HUbison

Ask and ye shall receive....

Per game attendance for the final 5 years in LA:
1990 - 59,920
1991 - 51,586
1992 - 51,813
1993 - 45,401
1994 - 42,312

Per game attendance for the most recent 5 years in St.L:
2003 - 66,057
2004 - 65,923
2005 - 65,460
2006 - 65,326
2007 - 63,044


Well yea, HUb, but you gotta go back farther than that!

Ok, fine. Over their entire time in St. Louis, the Rams have averaged 63,886 per game. During that same time period in LA, the Rams averaged 52,873 per game.

Well yea, HUb, but look at last year.....that was the worst attendance the Rams have ever seen!

Really? The 2007 Rams averaged 63,044 per game. That single season is better than any season in nearly the final two decades of LA Rams football.



Why do we keep having to have these silly turf tiffs and hometown hassles?

Sadly Fleece, I'm afraid the facts in this will be lost yet again.

Hub,

If you go back further to when Rosenbloom died, I think you will see the true picture. What we had here was the slow death of the fan base for the Rams. I saw many die hard, long term fans jump ship or just stop supporting the team because of what the ownership/management combo was doing to the team. Many of them went over to the hated Raidahs just because their owner Mr. Burns (Davis) at least tried to win.

We continue to have this discussion because there are a lot of people out there who think LA can't support a pro football team. The truth is they tried to back Georgia and the gang, but after many years of mediocracy, they just gave up. (I think the Robinson years were pretty fun though!). We had strongly supported the Rams from the time they got here until she took over. In fact in 1957 we had 102,000 fans watching them play the *****. I call that strong support!

I will continue to stand on the fact you cannot compare LA and St. Louis. Two different animals. We have 6 other pro teams to watch, you have three. You got a new stadium for the team the NFL didn't give you, we got an old Olympic stadium and a retro-fitted baseball stadium. Your weather can be real bad, ours can be real good. Your population in 2000, 348,189. Los Angeles alone, 3,694,820. Add in Orange (3,002,048) and Riverside Counties (2,026,803) and you can see we are a little bit larger than St. Louis. We have again, probably one of the best college football programs in USC and you have St. Louis University. We have Disneyland, Hollywood and the ocean. You have the Arch and Budweiser. I can go on forever here, but I think you get my point.

One thing we do have in common though, you guys lost the Cardinals correct?

Was that because your city can't support a pro football team or is it something else?

[laram0]

As far as I'm concerned the RAMS can stay in St. Louis or move anywhere in the "WORLD". They will still be my "RAMS".


GO RAMS!

[HUbison]

Originally Posted by RAMarkable

Thanks for all the hard work, Statman! But what is starting to concern me is what just happened in Seattle with the NBA franchise. Apparently they also had an "iron-clad" lease and ultimately it did NOT prevent the new owner (some Okie-probably a Sooners fan) from moving the team. I know that you've posted numerous times that the Rams lease with the City of St. Louis would be extemely difficult if not impossible to break, but after what's just happened with Seattle I just don't know anymore. Got comments?

WHAT SAY YE?

Well, RAMarkable, we all know the big dinero can do about anything; so nothing is impossible. However, I've yet to see an LA moneyman step up to buy the Rams and spend their way out of town. And I don't know that the Sonics deal is what LA Rams fans would want anyway. Bennett had to pay $75 million ($45M now, $30M conditional later), and (here's the kicker) had to leave the team name, logo, and colors in Seattle.

What LA fan would want the team back, but with a different name, colors, and logo; while St. Louis hung on until the league determined when the St. Louis Rams, with their blue/gold horned helmets, return to the league?

[HUbison]

We continue to have this discussion because there are a lot of people out there who think LA can't support a pro football team.

Moonie, I can speak only for myself; but it's never been said that LA can't support an NFL team. They can......but that doesn't mean they are entitled to.

Your population in 2000, 348,189. Los Angeles alone, 3,694,820. Add in Orange (3,002,048) and Riverside Counties (2,026,803) and you can see we are a little bit larger than St. Louis.

Which makes those attendance stats so much more astounding. St. Louis pulls in 19% of its population base, and SoCal pulled in less than 1%.

I can go on forever here, but I think you get my point.

Yes, I think everyone here in flyover country gets your point. You (and Randy Newman) love LA. Wonderful.....enjoy it. To each their own. As for me, I'll take Missouri over California anyday.

One thing we do have in common though, you guys lost the Cardinals correct?

Actually, I believe it Chicago was the other locale to lose the Cardinals, so no, we don't have that in common.

Was that because your city can't support a pro football team or is it something else?

Yet we don't live under the false assumption that St. Louis is entitled to their return.

Guys, spin the numbers anyway you like to feel better. But in the end they don't change. The St. Louis Rams have brought in 11,000 more per game than the LA Rams did in their final years over that same time period even though the Rams product in St. Louis was far inferior to the product the Rams gave to the LA fans in that same span.


Let's cut to the chase. I agree with your basic premise. Bottomline on this: LA should have an NFL team. An area that large should be able to support a team, and most likely would. I would vote (not that the league is listening, but) for a team in LA. It makes sense. However, LA is not entitled to the Rams; and do not have some superior claim to this team. St. Louis has treated this team very well; in fact better than the previous years in another location.

[HUbison]

Originally Posted by laram0

As far as I'm concerned the RAMS can stay in St. Louis or move anywhere in the "WORLD". They will still be my "RAMS".


GO RAMS!

Amen, and amen.

[GreatestShow99]

Originally Posted by MoonJoe

Was that because your city can't support a pro football team or is it something else?

Bill Bidwell. Its funny that it took him 20 years to get that elusive stadium....

[MoonJoe]

Originally Posted by HUbison

Well, RAMarkable, we all know the big dinero can do about anything; so nothing is impossible. However, I've yet to see an LA moneyman step up to buy the Rams and spend their way out of town. And I don't know that the Sonics deal is what LA Rams fans would want anyway. Bennett had to pay $75 million ($45M now, $30M conditional later), and (here's the kicker) had to leave the team name, logo, and colors in Seattle.

What LA fan would want the team back, but with a different name, colors, and logo; while St. Louis hung on until the league determined when the St. Louis Rams, with their blue/gold horned helmets, return to the league?

Originally Posted by HUbison

Moonie, I can speak only for myself; but it's never been said that LA can't support an NFL team. They can......but that doesn't mean they are entitled to. Which makes those attendance stats so much more astounding. St. Louis pulls in 19% of its population base, and SoCal pulled in less than 1%. Yes, I think everyone here in flyover country gets your point. You (and Randy Newman) love LA. Wonderful.....enjoy it. To each their own. As for me, I'll take Missouri over California anyday. Actually, I believe it Chicago was the other locale to lose the Cardinals, so no, we don't have that in common. Yet we don't live under the false assumption that St. Louis is entitled to their return.

Guys, spin the numbers anyway you like to feel better. But in the end they don't change. The St. Louis Rams have brought in 11,000 more per game than the LA Rams did in their final years over that same time period even though the Rams product in St. Louis was far inferior to the product the Rams gave to the LA fans in that same span.


Let's cut to the chase. I agree with your basic premise. Bottomline on this: LA should have an NFL team. An area that large should be able to support a team, and most likely would. I would vote (not that the league is listening, but) for a team in LA. It makes sense. However, LA is not entitled to the Rams; and do not have some superior claim to this team. St. Louis has treated this team very well; in fact better than the previous years in another location.

Hey Hubby,

I am guessing it is the multi quote button that allows the boxes, but my doesn't seem to work so I'll go through your post and address it the best I can.

I never said LA was entitled (or had a superior claim?). What I said is