Printable View
As it seams to be popular at the moment.
What if, Los Angeles are granted a franchise .... As long as its "named" the "Los Angeles Rams" and St Louis has to rebrand. This is a what if only.
So.
St Louis would not loose anything OTHER than the name. It keeps its players, coaches and staff but has to pick a new name and logo and colour.
What do YOU do? mmmm :eek:
What would happen to its history, franchise records etc?
If l.a. gets the Rams back then I would think they would have to give St Louis back the Cardinals
It worked for the Browns, it could work here. But I doubt Stan would want to give up the name because of the "branding" and history of the franchise...
Interesting what if. I think that brand and history has to stay with the owner, he bought it (MoonJoe makes a great point).
However, naming the St Louis Franchise would be interesting.
Dang, talk about a conundrum....
I'm not an LA fan!Quote:
Originally Posted by RamDez
I'm not a St. Louis fan!
I'm a Rams fan!!
And I will always continue to be a Rams fan!!!
:ram:
I am in agreement. I would have to stay a Ram fan even if its in a different city. And I would hate to even think of the implications of this. If they move to AZ I will move to AZ. Love the weather.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferter
Los Angeles doesn't own the name Rams, so the scenario that you painted is kinda out of the question. They could call themselves the Los Angeles Trendies; the Los Angeles Hollywoods; the Los Angeles South LAs; the Los Angeles Confidentials etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamDez
yeah I'm a Rams fan so no way I want the name changed, ever.
But to add to the "What if".......what if the owners of the LA expansion team offer Stan enough money to buy the mascot? Not the personnel or infrastructure, just the logo?Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoRam
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamDez
At first I thought, 'Don't want it.' Then I thought abut the Baseball team, and that would be an option for hardcore St. Louis fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by sjacksonrules
St. Louis Stallions was the name of the team that became the Jacksonville Jaguars because of the league's vandetta against St. Louis. Yes, St. Louis was more prepared for a football team, and has better supported a football team, but the league was still pissed at St. Louis for not paying their extortion money to keep bidwell in town. Maybe if the league had not been so set against St. Louis having an expansion team, the RAMS would still be in LA. Or maybe they'd be in Baltimore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richbert88
To this and Dez's post, I don't want to think about it. But since I am already here...Quote:
Originally Posted by HUbison
I no longer live in St. Louis, but I still have ties there. The current team, with whatever the new name would be, would probably stay my number one (due to players and coaches), but I would still root just as hard for the RAMS.
gap
All I would want is coach Fischer!
If the heart of this theoretical situation is whether your loyalty is to Fisher & this current group of players/staff or the name/logo/colors/franchise history/records, it's an easy one; I am a Rams fan & always will be.
I certainly don't see the NFL messing with brand loyalty ( ie profit) by taking the name without all that it symbolizes. I could see some local fans sticking with Fisher & co as the St Louis Steamers or whatever but why would any other Rams fan ?
Coaches, even owners and cities, players and equipment managers come & go but the blue & gold Gehrke swirl is forever to me.
This would be a tough call for me. Would I stick with an organization and players I'm emotionally vested in, or follow a name and uniform. I'd probably take the easy way out and stick with both, at least for a while.