Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
POLL: Odds the Rams move to Los Angeles in 2016? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Bob Magaw
- Start date
Blackjacks
Footballguy
I don't see it happening.
This was a business decision by Kroenke to force STL's hand to get a new stadium.
He bought that land in LA knowing he could use it as leverage and sell it without a problem (and probably even make money on the sale)
I say 20% cause you never know but I am pretty sure my Rams aren't going anywhere.
This was a business decision by Kroenke to force STL's hand to get a new stadium.
He bought that land in LA knowing he could use it as leverage and sell it without a problem (and probably even make money on the sale)
I say 20% cause you never know but I am pretty sure my Rams aren't going anywhere.
cstu
Footballguy
There is so much more money to be made in Los Angeles than Kroenke is going to get from St. Louis pitching in some stadium money.
cstu
Footballguy
The first one to announce the move will get it. I put the Rams as the favorite because it's only one team (no deals to be agreed on like the Chargers/Raiders) and Kroenke has everything he needs to move the team.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
whats the local scuttlebutt about the recent local proposal for the Chargers to stay in SD.
Obviously 2 of the 3 teams in SD/OAK and STL are moving to LA.
Which team stays behind?
Obviously 2 of the 3 teams in SD/OAK and STL are moving to LA.
Which team stays behind?
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
I noted that point elsewhere, but reportedly if the Rams move to LA, they go from #32 to #1 most valuable NFL team. So, exactly, why WOULDN'T he do it is a better question.
As you have said also, he has the money, the team, the land and the will to make the move. I don't think it is 100%, but more in that direction of the poll spectrum.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
Mark Davis has said that he's $400M away from funding a stadium to stay in Oakland. Says he's open to selling a minority share of the Raiders to do it, but it seems like an easy decision for him to move the Raiders back to Los Angeles and share the Inglewood stadium with the Rams.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
It does cloud the issue somewhat that in a game of musical chairs where three teams want into the LA market but only two can make it, there is a perception SD and OAK may ace out STL. I just think STL has the most preparation, momentum, is furthest along in the process and is by far the most likely. Which of the other two join them in LA, and if they share the Rams stadium or build a second of their own, I have no idea.
The Rams and Raiders make sense from the standpoint they have the seeds of a pre-existing fan base, unlike the Chargers.
The Rams and Raiders make sense from the standpoint they have the seeds of a pre-existing fan base, unlike the Chargers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Blackjacks
Footballguy
I always ask myself if LA is such a great place for football teams to move to how many have been there and how many are there now? Why did they all leave if they were making so much money?cstu said:
The #'s look great due to the population but once the new smell of the car wears off they will go back to doing something else.
There are way too many things to do in Los Angeles for 2 football teams to share the market.
I doubt they would be more popular than USC after the first 3 years.
IMO, Kroenke is wanting to keep the team in STL and wanting a new stadium paid for by the city.
Once he gets this, he will sign a new deal.
cstu
Footballguy
The Rams first moved to Anaheim because of the black out rule (L.A. Coliseum holds 100,000). The Rams moved to St. Louis for a lot of reasons - a new stadium that L.A. wouldn't fund and low ticket sales due to the team's poor play and the city being in the middle of a recession.
It was also during the recession (1995) that the Raiders moved back to Oakland. The Raiders also suffered from poor play, low ticket sales, and a city unwilling to fund a stadium.
The Los Angeles economy has never been better and the popularity of the NFL is at an all-time high.
ItsOnlytheRiver
Footballguy
I don't see LA supporting 2 teams.
Rams to LA, Chargers get a new stadium in SD, Oakland shares with the 9ers.
Rams to LA, Chargers get a new stadium in SD, Oakland shares with the 9ers.
Blackjacks
Footballguy
The Rams haven't been over .500 for about 13 years and Oakland has been awful as well for about the same times.
Why do you think the market wouldn't turn on them again?
I understand the NFL is at a all time high in interest but people like good teams.......
When the Rams were a playoff team the dome was rocking.
It is by the far the loudest atmosphere I have ever encountered in all my sporting events,
Again, I don't see the Rams going anywhere
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
So you think he would rather have the #32 most valuable team instead of the #1 most valuable team, why?
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
The worst is probably over with the Rams fortunes, at least in the current cycle.
Fisher and Snead inherited a team that was 15-65 in the previous half decade (.1875?), the worst span ever in the NFL, and maybe in the history of US professional sports. Since then, they are like 3.5 losses COMBINED from being 8-8 all three seasons - what the Cowboys were from 2011-2013.
The roster, partly because of the RG3 trade windfall, is vastly better than the one they took over (being able to offload the knee injury risk of Bradford and cap hit to PHI for Foles and a 2016 second also helped more recently), so they seem to be poised on the threshold of bigger and better things. At a time when SF doesn't appear as strong as 2011-2013, and SEA will need to pay Wilson soon, and may have to make some hard decisions on other payers.
OAK also could be an ascendant team (though I like the Rams chances better this season). Doesn't the St. Louis stadium also have a lot of empty seats when the Rams aren't doing well?
If the Rams are a playoff team again, the LA stadium would be rocking again, too. Until I can think of an explanation of why Kroenke would choose to have the #32 most valuable NFL franchise when he could be #1, I'm going to think the odds of an LA move, while not 100%, effectively approach that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marauder
Footballguy
This is partially correct but doesn't tell the whole story. There was a sequence of events that created kind of a perfect storm.
- Los Angeles supported the Rams very well for many years but rarely officially sold out because of the 100K seats and the black-out rules. They fought unsuccessfully with the Coliseum commission for years to try to get the stadium remodeled and to get more parking.
- Anaheim offered them a sweetheart deal to move to Anaheim. This was a monstrous mistake by the team for several reasons. 1. A large percentage of their fanbase came from the San Fernando Valley. For them, driving to Anaheim through LA traffic was like going to the moon. 2. A large portion of the Orange County fanbase were Charger fans. At the time the Chargers were the most exciting offensive team in the NFL. Even the ones who lived within spitting distance of the big A were not going to switch allegiance to the Rams (I can speak from personal experience on this). 3. Anaheim turned out to be a worse football stadium than the Coliseum. 4. Two years after they moved, the Raiders moved into the Coliseum and stole back a lot of the previous Rams fans.
So, what you ended up with was Los Angeles split between the Rams and the Raiders and Orange/Riverside counties mostly supporting the Chargers. In addition both the Rams and the Raiders sucked and played in terrible stadiums. Not a good recipe for selling out games.
I believe LA can support two teams very well in a state of the art Stadium, as long as one of those teams is the Chargers. If the Rams and Raiders both move to LA it might be more difficult.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Good post. Though I think LA has a lot of ready made Rams and Raiders fans from the first stint.
* One thing I'll say about Raiders games in the Coliseum, even Howie Long didn't like to bring his family to games, it was a scary place. The few times I went to a game, I saw more fights break out on a per game basis, than all the Dodger games I ever saw COMBINED (over close to a several decade basis).
* One thing I'll say about Raiders games in the Coliseum, even Howie Long didn't like to bring his family to games, it was a scary place. The few times I went to a game, I saw more fights break out on a per game basis, than all the Dodger games I ever saw COMBINED (over close to a several decade basis).
Last edited by a moderator:
Marauder
Footballguy
Yes, but you need Orange County and the Inland Empire for the two team model to succeed. There are a lot of Chargers fans there.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
I think LA has close to a 15,000.000 population (but not sure if that refers to greater LA and includes Orange County?). I think it could support the Rams and Raiders better than it did before. A better stadium (better planned, with no blackouts), fielding a better product, might provide a better experience than the down years when both were here last. That said, you raise a really good point, and my preference would be the Rams and Chargers?
* It makes sense that existing Chargers fans in Orange county would be thrilled. But would former Rams and/or Raiders fans in LA county transfer their allegiance to the Chargers? And would the Chargers lose some fans in San Diego by moving away.
Last edited by a moderator:
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
Nah, I'd wager 50%. Either it does or it doesn't happen.Bucky86 said:
cstu
Footballguy
That's why I like the Inglewood location - it's close enough for people in OC, SFV, and IE to go to games.
cstu
Footballguy
Florida has 3 teams and a population of 20 million.
California would have 4 teams and a population of 39 million.
Tau837
Footballguy
I live in San Diego and listen to Chargers radio every day. There has been plenty of discussion about this for months. One thing that has been said many times is that the NFL will not allow more than 2 teams in southern California. If true, this rules out the idea of the Chargers in SD and both the Rams and Raiders in LA. It is a game of musical chairs, with 3 teams and 2 chairs.
The Chargers and Raiders have the worst stadium situations in the NFL. St. Louis is apparently ready to build a new stadium for the Rams. The question as put recently on local radio is how the NFL will choose between 2 teams that *need* new stadiums but may not have a clear path to getting them, whether locally or in LA, and 1 team that doesn't *need* a new stadium but *wants* a new stadium and has the resources to get one in LA.
IMO if it comes down to it, the Chargers will get priority over the other 2 teams if they prefer LA. Not sure who would get priority between the Rams and Raiders.
The Chargers and Raiders have the worst stadium situations in the NFL. St. Louis is apparently ready to build a new stadium for the Rams. The question as put recently on local radio is how the NFL will choose between 2 teams that *need* new stadiums but may not have a clear path to getting them, whether locally or in LA, and 1 team that doesn't *need* a new stadium but *wants* a new stadium and has the resources to get one in LA.
IMO if it comes down to it, the Chargers will get priority over the other 2 teams if they prefer LA. Not sure who would get priority between the Rams and Raiders.
ItsOnlytheRiver
Footballguy
Who is reporting this?Bob Magaw said:
bulger2holt
Footballguy
Don't see Stan getting the votes with Carson and STL putting in 500 million of public money
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
I'll try and find where I saw it, but this is an example that claims they would be among the most valuable teams the moment they move to LA. Not sure if you were accounting for it, but they were talking about the stadium maybe costing in excess of $1.5 billion (Kroenke married into the Walmart fortune, I don't think he is Paul Allen wealthy, but he is probably one of the wealthiest NFL owners, and maybe in professional sports?), and that would than be added to the value of the team, Kroenke doesn't currently own the stadium in St. Louis.
http://www.businessinsider.com/st-louis-rams-los-angeles-value-2015-1
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Not sure why the league would object to Kroenke financing his stadium independently? I've never heard the league itself or a spokesperson suggesting anything remotely like this could be a problem?
The Rams have the longest tradition in Los Angeles of any of the prospective teams. They have a ready made fan base. The more popular they are, the better it is for the NFL, ratings go up (LA one of the most populous cities on the planet, media capital of the world), TV contracts go up, more money in the coffers of the NFL for all 32 teams to distribute.
To me, the biggest hole in the theory that Kroenke isn't leaving, if he intended to stay, why wouldn't he placate the fans and say I'm not leaving. He has already alienated a broad cross-section of local and regional fans. I'm guessing ticket sales will be way down this year, in what is expected to be a lame duck, final season. Why do that to himself if it wasn't his intention (by remaining silent). Now, some would say it is to get leverage over the stadium committee. But if the committee had been negotiating in good faith all along, why would it be necessary for Kroenke to use tactics like that? And if the relationship has deteriorated to the point he feels the need to use disinformation (or rather, knowing his silence is interpreted as imminent departure), maybe it has deteriorated to the point that he just wants out at this point.
The Rams left because they were promised a sweetheart deal, including future upgrades. They have not been delivered on in a timely manner, so it was an empty promise. The original terms have been broken, so no more obligation to stay, it is null and void. Maybe if more had been done sooner, it wouldn't have gotten to this stage. I'm not blaming the city or region, no doubt there were harsh economic realities that precluded a massive, publicly funded stadium revitalization project at the time. But the bottom line is, the terms weren't complied with, the promise wasn't kept, so there is no claim to a hold on the team.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Kroenke is estimated to be the NFL's second rishest owner after Allen, as I thought. A combined $11.4 billion with his wife. So a billion or a billion and half for stadium construction costs is kind of like tipping money to him. 
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-82455005/
"Kroenke is a former Wal-Mart board member and husband of Ann Walton Kroenke, daughter of Wal-Mart co-founder Bud Walton. Forbes magazine estimates Kroenke's net worth at $5.8 billion — not counting his wife's $5.6 billion — making him the NFL's second-richest owner to Seattle's Paul Allen, the Microsoft co-founder who is worth an estimated $17.1 billion."
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-82455005/
"Kroenke is a former Wal-Mart board member and husband of Ann Walton Kroenke, daughter of Wal-Mart co-founder Bud Walton. Forbes magazine estimates Kroenke's net worth at $5.8 billion — not counting his wife's $5.6 billion — making him the NFL's second-richest owner to Seattle's Paul Allen, the Microsoft co-founder who is worth an estimated $17.1 billion."
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Another article citing the Forbes article that the Rams were currently the least valuable franchise at $930 million, as well as the Business Insiders article that a move to LA could instantly make them worth in the neighborhood of $3.5 billion, and among the most valuable NFL franchises. Anyways, if we stipulate that these two factoids are true, now maybe some can see how the sheer economics would dictate that OF COURSE Kroenke would want to do this, if at all possible.
http://stlouis.suntimes.com/stl-sports/stlouis-rams/7/139/60995/st-louis-rams-worth-billions-move-to-los-angeles/
http://stlouis.suntimes.com/stl-sports/stlouis-rams/7/139/60995/st-louis-rams-worth-billions-move-to-los-angeles/
Last edited by a moderator:
ItsOnlytheRiver
Footballguy
I don't dispute he stands to make a lot of money moving them. The #32 to #1 seems like an exaggeration, though.
cstu
Footballguy
Perhaps not #1 (Cowboys), but the Lakers are the NBA's most valuable franchise so it stands to reason the Rams would be one of the most valuable.
ItsOnlytheRiver
Footballguy
Reasoning seems faulty. It's one of the biggest cities in the world so yes value is increased. The Lakers have a world wide fanbase and a rich history... So the comparison ends with location.
ItsOnlytheRiver
Footballguy
True
TV is an interesting factor. That's another reason other LA teams are so valuable.. They have local TV deals worth a fortune because the number of TV sets they can reach. The NFL doesn't have that. Stan won't be making any extra cash that way, and even though I'm quite sure at this point that the NFL wants a team in LA, it is kind of nice that they get to cherry pick the best NFL games every week to show in that market.
cstu
Footballguy
That's fair. I feel top 10 is reasonable but they do need to become contenders in order to compete with the Cowboys/Redskins/Patriots/Giants as most valuable.
According to Forbes, the Texans are the #5 most valuable team and they do not have much history or a world wide fanbase. I think the Rams would be on par with them.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
I saw it in an article, but like I said, I'll look for it. I did find an article that, more specifically than "a lot", stated it would immediately make them one of the most valuable franchises in the NFL. Does that suffice for your purposes to make the point that a move to Los Angeles could be financially compelling to Kroenke for increased valuation reasons? BTW, were you earlier accounting for the stadium he would own in LA, and doesn't own in St. Louis? What rank would it need to be, short of #1 (which probably the Cowboys would remain, regardless?), where you could concur that a LA move made overwhelming financial sense for Kroenke?
I think the least valuable franchise in St. Louis part is less controversial. So obviously, the less valuable it is in St. Louis, the bigger the gap once it becomes one of the most valuable, which is part of the equation. He may not like being #32. He might like being closer to #1 (#4, #8?).
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
But St. Louis is a tiny market compared to LA. One reason it is the least valuable franchise in the league. WIth 15,000,000 in greater LA to draw from watching home games, that could generate more impactful ratings from LA instead of St. Louis, and make the TV contract more appealing and therefore lucrative in generating future, downstream income. You could say that draw could otherwise go to the Raiders, but they are already in the Bay area, which, if not as populous as LA, still I think generates bigger ratings power than St. Louis. If the city of St. Louis goes away from the NFL, in terms of ratings impact, it would just be a blip on the radar, probably barely felt. But the addition of the Rams (and Chargers) to LA should lead to a massive move of the ratings dial for the league overall.
The question, imo, shouldn't be, why are they doing it, but why they didn't do it sooner. Because Kroenke is the first to have the team, money, land and will to make it happen (the Cowboys weren't looking to move to LA, they already are the most valuable franchise).
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
To see if there was a consensus. There isn't. I just have yet to hear a good explanation for why Kroenke wouldn't want to move and have his franchise be worth a lot more? Maybe there is and it just haven't been uncovered yet. But if it isn't forthcoming, it may be because there isn't one.TV was a good idea, it just happens to point as much if not more to the Rams being in LA than staying.
Last edited by a moderator:
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
To get the answer you are looking for, instead of asking why Kroenke wouldn't want to move to LA, ask what's keeping him I'm STL? The answer is absolutely clear. FWIW, I added a vote to your poll for the 100% answer.
ItsOnlytheRiver
Footballguy
I dunno, Bob, seems like you just have stars in your eyes. I agree the Rams will be a much more valuable team in that market. I don't understand why you're adding all this money to the value for Kroenke owning his own stadium since he'll be paying for that part. Aren't we discussing how much money he stands to make? I do think he loves the idea of possibly having another tenant in his building and having all the development around the stadium.I saw it in an article, but like I said, I'll look for it. I did find an article that, more specifically than "a lot", stated it would immediately make them one of the most valuable franchises in the NFL. Does that suffice for your purposes to make the point that a move to Los Angeles could be financially compelling to Kroenke for increased valuation reasons? BTW, were you earlier accounting for the stadium he would own in LA, and doesn't own in St. Louis? What rank would it need to be, short of #1 (which probably the Cowboys would remain, regardless?), where you could concur that a LA move made overwhelming financial sense for Kroenke?
I think the least valuable franchise in St. Louis part is less controversial. So obviously, the less valuable it is in St. Louis, the bigger the gap once it becomes one of the most valuable, which is part of the equation. He may not like being #32. He might like being closer to #1 (#4, #8?).
Also, while I agree that to an extent Kroenke can do whatever he wants I also think the rest of the owners aren't just going to give up their stadium leveraging chip and that huge market for free. They're going to hit him up for relocation fees.
In the long run, so long as the LA fans stick with the team after the newness has worn off this is a slam dunk move for Kroenke. But like I said, I think you're exaggerating things a bit.
ItsOnlytheRiver
Footballguy
I disagree. It's football... in Texas. Houston is much different city than when the Oilers shipped off. Better comp is the Chargers.
