What's new
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.

Goodbye Rams (2 Viewers)

2) You stopped addressing how excusing poor attendance because of a poor record in St. Louis but not LA isn't contradictory.
For a minute, I thought I was wrong for the double standard. But re-examining this and I don't think so. The LA Rams sucked from 1990 to 1994. 5 whole years. That's nothing. The Rams in St. Louis have had the worst run in NFL history over the last 12 years. I'll give you the 1990-1994 Rams sucked and the attendance dropped, but what about right before that. Right before that the LA Rams were not just good, they were really, REALLY good:

1989 - 11-5

1988 - 10-6

1987 - 6-9

1986 - 10-6

1985 - 11-5

1984 - 10-6

1983 - 9-7

During those monster seasons playing in a huge stadium with a population that far outpaces that of St. Louis, the LA Rams had less attendance than the St. Louis Rams in 2014 who had not seen a winning season since 2003. ELEVEN years!

Here's something from the local media here in St. Louis:

In 1984 the LA Rams went 10-6, made the playoffs, and had future Hall of Famer Eric Dickerson rushing for an NFL record 2,105 yards and 14 touchdowns.

The '84 Rams averaged 54,455 per home game that season.

In 2014 the Rams posted their 11th consecutive non-winning season with the owner plotting to haul the team away.

The '14 Rams averaged 57,018 per home game.
I can't find a link, but the local radio guys have been jumping on the stat that during that wonderful run by the LA Rams, they had less attendance per year than the St. Louis Rams have the last 7 years after so many years of absolutely terrible football.

Eagerly awaiting an encyclopedia response to this argument, but if the attendance numbers for the LA Rams from 83 to 89 are indeed under the St. Louis Rams numbers during the last 7 years years, coupled with the fact that an expansion team was gift wrapped to the LA market, then I stand by the fact that LA just doesn't care about football as much as those in St. Louis. Even when the Rams were good in LA, the far smaller St. Louis Market is more eager to have an NFL team than the LA residents.
Comparing absolute attendance figures from the last 10 years to the 1980s is a joke, right? The NFL is many times more popular now than it was then, and attendance has risen accordingly. It's like saying today's Honda Civic is the same as an '80s Mercedes because they cost the same.

In the years you mentioned, here are the LA Rams' attendance ranks:

1983: ranked 15th of 28 teams

1984: 17/28

1985: 15/28

1986: 10/28

1987: 18/28

1988: 17/28

1989: 11/28

Middle of the pack every year. There wasn't a single year where there weren't at least 10 teams drawing fewer fans.

St Louis Rams attendance ranks last 7:

2009: 29/32
2010: 30/32
2011: 31/32
2012: 30/32
2013: 31/32
2014: 30/32
2015: 32/32
At or near the bottom every year.
LA data here: http://losangelesrams.org/about/statistics/attendance.html

St Louis data here: http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

 
Oof! :)

Another case of the contextless numbers not meaning what some thought they did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
See my post just after this one you made. I was crafting it when you posted this. Frankly, the LA market is about 10 times that of St, Louis, but even when the LA Rams were kicking butt, the attendance was less than when the St. Louis Rams were in the midst of the worst run of a team in the NFL. Last I checked, the Coliseum holds more people than the Dome in St. Louis.
The Rams weren't playing in the Coliseum in those years. The Raiders were.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1) Would the current initiative pass a popular vote? If not, does it prove what you think it does. Maybe it proves a few politicians and financiers have a vested interest in keeping the NFL in state as it creates jobs and helps the economy, a separate issue.

2) Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.
The people voted into office are chosen to do the will of the people. Whether it goes to a popular vote or not is a moot point. What has the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....
Unless votes were cast at the time at the city, county and state level specifically with how representatives would vote on the stadium initiative, than in fact it may have been the furthest thing in mind for many voters, and have nothing to do with each other. In that case the popular vote question remains, and isn't moot. If the governor thinks it is good for the economy, and has the power to do so, he is going to jam it down the city of St. Louis and state of MO's collective throats whether they want it or not. So again, building a stadium may not mean what you think it means. It just means if a few politicians think it will be good for the economy, they are going to do everything in their power to preserve the economic boon.

This doesn't address the other point. You can't criticize LA for poor record related poor attendance, while making excuses for St. Louis. Criticize or excuse both if it is for the exact same reason. This isn't complicated.
If this were possible, then we would just all vote collectively on everything. A pure democracy. But since this is pretty much completely impossible, and may be even the definition of moot as we don't re-elect our representatives every week, month, or even year, then we'll have to go with the hopes that the ones we do elect, will react to a new situation with their constituency's concerns in mind even if it's more than a couple months from the election cycle. But keep hanging your hat on the politician thing when the better term is representative (as in representing the people), alderman/alderwoman, governor, mayor, etc. They may be slimy politicians but they still represent the people.

And of course, I'll ask it again:

What have the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....
I have asked this question now three times. Care to address it any time soon?
This_Guy gave you a link to an L.A. Times article that details much of what has gone on over the last 20 years.
First I've seen that article, but man that does not help your argument. Over and over lip service is played to bringing a team but nothing remotely resembling an actual plan emerges until Kroenke proposes to do it himself along with an investment group and two other teams have burned the bridges in their market. LA was promised the expansion team that became the Houston Texans. It was promised a team and couldn't get anything done:

March 1999

The NFL awards Los Angeles an expansion franchise contingent on agreement between the city and league on issues that include a stadium site and ownership group.

October 1999

With no agreement reached in Los Angeles, the NFL awards the expansion team to Houston to create the Texans.
So basically the team and a stadium has to be gift wrapped and placed in the laps of the residents of LA or they aren't going to do jack squat to bring a team back other than talk about it.The second biggest market in the country just has to build a stadium. If the 50th media market in the country (Jacksonville) can get a team, why can't LA? Because they won't lift a finger to do it and are only getting a team because one owner is planning on building his own stadium and the other two have exhausted every option in their own cities to get a new facility. That article really is an indictment of ineptitude and apathy about the NFL in LA, not something to be proud of.
Sounds like they've played this one very well.

The politicians in St. Louis, meanwhile, sound like they've been less than forthcoming with the people and this stadium is going to cost the good citizens of St. Louis significantly more than they were told.

 
TheFanatic said:
2) You stopped addressing how excusing poor attendance because of a poor record in St. Louis but not LA isn't contradictory.
For a minute, I thought I was wrong for the double standard. But re-examining this and I don't think so. The LA Rams sucked from 1990 to 1994. 5 whole years. That's nothing. The Rams in St. Louis have had the worst run in NFL history over the last 12 years. I'll give you the 1990-1994 Rams sucked and the attendance dropped, but what about right before that. Right before that the LA Rams were not just good, they were really, REALLY good:

1989 - 11-5

1988 - 10-6

1987 - 6-9

1986 - 10-6

1985 - 11-5

1984 - 10-6

1983 - 9-7

During those monster seasons playing in a huge stadium with a population that far outpaces that of St. Louis, the LA Rams had less attendance than the St. Louis Rams in 2014 who had not seen a winning season since 2003. ELEVEN years!

Here's something from the local media here in St. Louis:

In 1984 the LA Rams went 10-6, made the playoffs, and had future Hall of Famer Eric Dickerson rushing for an NFL record 2,105 yards and 14 touchdowns.

The '84 Rams averaged 54,455 per home game that season.

In 2014 the Rams posted their 11th consecutive non-winning season with the owner plotting to haul the team away.

The '14 Rams averaged 57,018 per home game.
I can't find a link, but the local radio guys have been jumping on the stat that during that wonderful run by the LA Rams, they had less attendance per year than the St. Louis Rams have the last 7 years after so many years of absolutely terrible football.

Eagerly awaiting an encyclopedia response to this argument, but if the attendance numbers for the LA Rams from 83 to 89 are indeed under the St. Louis Rams numbers during the last 7 years years, coupled with the fact that an expansion team was gift wrapped to the LA market, then I stand by the fact that LA just doesn't care about football as much as those in St. Louis. Even when the Rams were good in LA, the far smaller St. Louis Market is more eager to have an NFL team than the LA residents.
Which "huge stadium" are you talking about? The Rams weren't playing in the Coliseum (which is huge) in the 80s. They were playing in a baseball stadium in Anaheim.

Also, they were playing in Anaheim. Oh, and are you just going to ignore the obvious fact that there was another NFL team LA/OC were supporting?

 
TheFanatic said:
2) You stopped addressing how excusing poor attendance because of a poor record in St. Louis but not LA isn't contradictory.
For a minute, I thought I was wrong for the double standard. But re-examining this and I don't think so. The LA Rams sucked from 1990 to 1994. 5 whole years. That's nothing. The Rams in St. Louis have had the worst run in NFL history over the last 12 years. I'll give you the 1990-1994 Rams sucked and the attendance dropped, but what about right before that. Right before that the LA Rams were not just good, they were really, REALLY good:

1989 - 11-5

1988 - 10-6

1987 - 6-9

1986 - 10-6

1985 - 11-5

1984 - 10-6

1983 - 9-7

During those monster seasons playing in a huge stadium with a population that far outpaces that of St. Louis, the LA Rams had less attendance than the St. Louis Rams in 2014 who had not seen a winning season since 2003. ELEVEN years!

Here's something from the local media here in St. Louis:

In 1984 the LA Rams went 10-6, made the playoffs, and had future Hall of Famer Eric Dickerson rushing for an NFL record 2,105 yards and 14 touchdowns.

The '84 Rams averaged 54,455 per home game that season.

In 2014 the Rams posted their 11th consecutive non-winning season with the owner plotting to haul the team away.

The '14 Rams averaged 57,018 per home game.
I can't find a link, but the local radio guys have been jumping on the stat that during that wonderful run by the LA Rams, they had less attendance per year than the St. Louis Rams have the last 7 years after so many years of absolutely terrible football.

Eagerly awaiting an encyclopedia response to this argument, but if the attendance numbers for the LA Rams from 83 to 89 are indeed under the St. Louis Rams numbers during the last 7 years years, coupled with the fact that an expansion team was gift wrapped to the LA market, then I stand by the fact that LA just doesn't care about football as much as those in St. Louis. Even when the Rams were good in LA, the far smaller St. Louis Market is more eager to have an NFL team than the LA residents.
Which "huge stadium" are you talking about? The Rams weren't playing in the Coliseum (which is huge) in the 80s. They were playing in a baseball stadium in Anaheim.

Also, they were playing in Anaheim. Oh, and are you just going to ignore the obvious fact that there was another NFL team LA/OC were supporting?
The NFL in Orange County 25 years ago, vs the NFL in Inglewood in 2016 are vastly different. I'm sure Kroenke has done his homework regarding

ticket sales / concessions / merchandising in Los Angeles to support his upcoming move from a financial standpoint.

 
The original stadium terms included a top quarter venue, which they (inevitably) eventually fell short of.

Later in negotiations to make things right, the stadium authority was far apart from the Rams and again fell short of what was needed to continue.

In the recent financing measures, there is again a shortfall, this time of $100 million (if they had secured 100% of the funding, they would be on stronger footing in claiming they had done everything possible that was in their power and control to salvage the tenuous relationship with the franchise).

Seems like a pattern?

If the Rams come to LA, great. If not, it will just mean the continuation of a decades long state of affairs I'm already accustomed to.

 
The original stadium terms included a top quarter venue, which they (inevitably) eventually fell short of.

Later in negotiations to make things right, the stadium authority was far apart from the Rams and again fell short of what was needed to continue.

In the recent financing measures, there is again a shortfall, this time of $100 million (if they had secured 100% of the funding, they would be on stronger footing in claiming they had done everything possible that was in their power and control to salvage the tenuous relationship with the franchise).

Seems like a pattern?

If the Rams come to LA, great. If not, it will just mean the continuation of a decades long state of affairs I'm already accustomed to.
There is a shortfall because the NFL said there is a shortfall and they want a "nicer" stadium than the one proposed. So somebody at the NFL (task force?) told Peacock the NFL would chip in another $100 million but somebody apparently didn't clear this with Goodell.

Joe Buck says it best. Segment 1, 14:40 mark

 
By stating the NFL, was this voted on by the 32 owners?

Is this a recent development, when did this financial disconnect originally come to light?

Did the NFL change terms at some point, or was it a matter of failure to comply with existing, known parameters?

Bottom line, it sounds like the recent stadium funding proposal isn't in compliance with the NFLs current expectations (whether they were changed at some point or not).

 
2) You stopped addressing how excusing poor attendance because of a poor record in St. Louis but not LA isn't contradictory.
For a minute, I thought I was wrong for the double standard. But re-examining this and I don't think so. The LA Rams sucked from 1990 to 1994. 5 whole years. That's nothing. The Rams in St. Louis have had the worst run in NFL history over the last 12 years. I'll give you the 1990-1994 Rams sucked and the attendance dropped, but what about right before that. Right before that the LA Rams were not just good, they were really, REALLY good:

1989 - 11-5

1988 - 10-6

1987 - 6-9

1986 - 10-6

1985 - 11-5

1984 - 10-6

1983 - 9-7

During those monster seasons playing in a huge stadium with a population that far outpaces that of St. Louis, the LA Rams had less attendance than the St. Louis Rams in 2014 who had not seen a winning season since 2003. ELEVEN years!

Here's something from the local media here in St. Louis:

In 1984 the LA Rams went 10-6, made the playoffs, and had future Hall of Famer Eric Dickerson rushing for an NFL record 2,105 yards and 14 touchdowns.

The '84 Rams averaged 54,455 per home game that season.

In 2014 the Rams posted their 11th consecutive non-winning season with the owner plotting to haul the team away.

The '14 Rams averaged 57,018 per home game.
I can't find a link, but the local radio guys have been jumping on the stat that during that wonderful run by the LA Rams, they had less attendance per year than the St. Louis Rams have the last 7 years after so many years of absolutely terrible football.

Eagerly awaiting an encyclopedia response to this argument, but if the attendance numbers for the LA Rams from 83 to 89 are indeed under the St. Louis Rams numbers during the last 7 years years, coupled with the fact that an expansion team was gift wrapped to the LA market, then I stand by the fact that LA just doesn't care about football as much as those in St. Louis. Even when the Rams were good in LA, the far smaller St. Louis Market is more eager to have an NFL team than the LA residents.
Which "huge stadium" are you talking about? The Rams weren't playing in the Coliseum (which is huge) in the 80s. They were playing in a baseball stadium in Anaheim.

Also, they were playing in Anaheim. Oh, and are you just going to ignore the obvious fact that there was another NFL team LA/OC were supporting?
Are you going to ignore the 10 times the population? 2 times the team but 10 times the population to go to the games, or not go to the games.

 
2) You stopped addressing how excusing poor attendance because of a poor record in St. Louis but not LA isn't contradictory.
For a minute, I thought I was wrong for the double standard. But re-examining this and I don't think so. The LA Rams sucked from 1990 to 1994. 5 whole years. That's nothing. The Rams in St. Louis have had the worst run in NFL history over the last 12 years. I'll give you the 1990-1994 Rams sucked and the attendance dropped, but what about right before that. Right before that the LA Rams were not just good, they were really, REALLY good:

1989 - 11-5

1988 - 10-6

1987 - 6-9

1986 - 10-6

1985 - 11-5

1984 - 10-6

1983 - 9-7

During those monster seasons playing in a huge stadium with a population that far outpaces that of St. Louis, the LA Rams had less attendance than the St. Louis Rams in 2014 who had not seen a winning season since 2003. ELEVEN years!

Here's something from the local media here in St. Louis:

In 1984 the LA Rams went 10-6, made the playoffs, and had future Hall of Famer Eric Dickerson rushing for an NFL record 2,105 yards and 14 touchdowns.

The '84 Rams averaged 54,455 per home game that season.

In 2014 the Rams posted their 11th consecutive non-winning season with the owner plotting to haul the team away.

The '14 Rams averaged 57,018 per home game.
I can't find a link, but the local radio guys have been jumping on the stat that during that wonderful run by the LA Rams, they had less attendance per year than the St. Louis Rams have the last 7 years after so many years of absolutely terrible football.

Eagerly awaiting an encyclopedia response to this argument, but if the attendance numbers for the LA Rams from 83 to 89 are indeed under the St. Louis Rams numbers during the last 7 years years, coupled with the fact that an expansion team was gift wrapped to the LA market, then I stand by the fact that LA just doesn't care about football as much as those in St. Louis. Even when the Rams were good in LA, the far smaller St. Louis Market is more eager to have an NFL team than the LA residents.
Comparing absolute attendance figures from the last 10 years to the 1980s is a joke, right? The NFL is many times more popular now than it was then, and attendance has risen accordingly. It's like saying today's Honda Civic is the same as an '80s Mercedes because they cost the same.

In the years you mentioned, here are the LA Rams' attendance ranks:

1983: ranked 15th of 28 teams

1984: 17/28

1985: 15/28

1986: 10/28

1987: 18/28

1988: 17/28

1989: 11/28

Middle of the pack every year. There wasn't a single year where there weren't at least 10 teams drawing fewer fans.

St Louis Rams attendance ranks last 7:

2009: 29/32
2010: 30/32
2011: 31/32
2012: 30/32
2013: 31/32
2014: 30/32
2015: 32/32
At or near the bottom every year.
LA data here: http://losangelesrams.org/about/statistics/attendance.html

St Louis data here: http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance
Funny how you go by rankings and not actual attendance numbers. Very convenient:

1989 - 11-5 - 58,846

1988 - 10-6 - 54,469

1987 - 6-9 - 47,356

1986 - 10-6 - 59,285

1985 - 11-5 - 56.242

1984 - 10-6 - 54,455

1983 - 9-7 - 52,780

2014, the Rams have a terrible season yet again and the owner is flirting with moving the team and they draw 57,000. The LA Rams during that pretty epic run of seven years only topped 57,000 twice. The St. Louis Rams may rank lower in relation to the rest of the league, but they flat out drew more while sucking mightily.

THIS year, the St. Louis Rams, with an owner who is outright trying to move the team, and the team drew 52,000 which is more than every single year the last four the Rams were in LA including years well before there was any idea that they were moving.

And I realize that there were two teams, but there is also 10 times the population than St. Louis, so that's not much of an argument.

 
"Comparing absolute attendance figures from the last 10 years to the 1980s is a joke, right? The NFL is many times more popular now than it was then, and attendance has risen accordingly."

Neither funny or convenient, just how it is.

If you don't know, ask somebody if it is preferred to have attendance chronically near dead last or middle of the pack?

You seem to be having difficulty grasping the concept that the league has grown in popularity, and raw attendance figures from decades ago don't mean what you think they do (a recurring theme in the thread), relative to today.

If LA attendance was middle of the pack TODAY, given far higher attendance figures due to increased popularity of the league relative to decades ago, the raw numbers would be higher than the recent chronically near dead last counterparts in STL.

The only reason the conversation has persisted along these lines as long as it has is because you have made some mistaken inferences about relative fan interest tied to attendance, because you were misinformed about the relative numbers in the first place. The more you try to gotcha others, the more you just gotcha yourself. Sometimes you can't dig yourself out of a hole by digging deeper and deeper. You just become more stuck in a deeper hole.

You already admirably admitted the mistake on this earlier, the backpedaling away from the initial insight is a retrograde direction.

* There also seems to be confusion about viewing attendance as a PERCENTAGE of the total population of a city. That is completely meaningless. If LA attendance figures smoke that of STL, it makes no difference to Kroenke what fraction of the total population is in attendance.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/12/20/chargers-rams-franchise-swap-could-be-only-way-out-of-l-a-maze/

Chargers-Rams franchise swap could be only way out of L.A. maze

Posted by Mike Florio on December 20, 2015, 9:09 AM EST
cd05oddlnmnhy2mwmjrlzwqzntjhm2viytq1y2vly2yzocznpte5nzviyti2mje4zdrjmdrjzwvkowe3zwrmyzlinwnj-e1450620534643.jpeg
AP
As the NFL’s effort to figure out which of three interested teams will get the golden ticket to L.A. (along with the privilege of paying dearly for it through relocation fees), the process is quickly getting uglier, with members of the league’s Los Angeles committee making promises to St. Louisin an effort to keep the Rams there and publicly trashing San Diego in an effort to get the Chargers out.

It’s careening toward a potential free-for-all on January 12 and 13, when the owners get together with the goal of putting at least one team in Los Angeles, possibly two. From that chaos a variety of potential solutions can emerge. One solution that was mentioned on Thursday as an outside-the-box/beyond-the-boundaries-of-sanity suggestion could, surprisingly, gain traction.

Indeed, it ultimately could be the only way out of this mess.

In 1972, Carroll Rosenbloom and Robert Irsay swapped the Colts and the Rams. Ultimately, a swap of the Chargers and the Rams could be the cleanest way out of the league’s sudden L.A. clusterfudge.

As one source with knowledge of the current league dynamics said in response to the possibility of a franchise swap, “It’s not a bad idea.”

Good or bad, it may be the only way to placate everyone involved.

With folks like Panthers owner Jerry Richardson and Texans owner Bob McNair, two of six members of the L.A. committee, campaigning openly for the Chargers to move to L.A. and for the Rams to stay put in St. Louis, giving the Chargers to Stan Kroenke (who would move them to L.A.) and the Rams to Dean Spanos (who would keep them in Missouri) would allow Kroenke to build his own venue in Inglewood, at a site that many believe is better — and more potentially profitable — than the proposed Chargers/Raiders location in Carson.

Making Inglewood even more attractive is talk of Kroenke building new studio space for NFL Network there, which would be available to the league for the right price: Free. And even though the jury remains out on whether FAA concerns regarding an Inglewood stadium would keep the thing from being built, the Carson site has issues, too.

“Most of that site was a former landfill. It’s contaminated land,” Carson mayor Albert Robles acknowledged earlier this year. “There is a strip, about 11 acres, that was never a landfill.” With the total site at 168 acres, the simple math (which is the only math I understand) is that 157 acres was a landfill.

And while Spanos, who will be reluctant to leave Southern California, the numbers quickly will pile up in his favor if he’d trade the Chargers for the Rams.

First, Spanos would incur no relocation fee.

Second, Spanos would surely secure extra money from Kroenke in a Chargers-Rams trade, given that Kroenke would then take the Chargers to L.A. It becomes, as a practical matter, a private relocation fee paid directly to Spanos. The extra amount paid to Spanos for the Chargers could persuade the league at large to insist on less from Kroenke to take the Chargers on a relatively short trip up the road.

Third, Spanos would cash in with the Rams, getting the new stadium he covets and filling it up with a fan base both relieved and invigorated by the fact that the team is staying put. Consider the bump the Buffalo Bills realized when, after months of uncertainty regarding the future location of the team, Terry and Kim Pegula purchased the franchise and renewed the vows with Western New York. A similar outcome in St. Louis would make Spanos an instant hero there, with corresponding dollars flowing into the team’s coffers. (Kroenke, a Missouri native named for Cardinals legends Stan Musial and Enos Slaughter, also would salvage a bit of his image and legacy there, since he will have found a way to leave while also leaving the team behind.)

If the possibility of a swap ever makes its way into the meeting room, the question becomes how much money would Spanos need (in addition to getting the Rams) to pull the trigger on a trade. Surely, there’s a sufficiently large number that would get him to do it. The question is whether that’s a number Kroenke would offer — and whether the rest of the owners would work with Kroenke and Spanos to make it happen by not putting any thumbs on the relocation-fee scale.

Is it a perfect solution? Far from it. But it may be the only thing that works at a time when: (1) plenty of owners think Spanos deserves to get out of San Diego; (2) plenty of owners think the Rams should stay in St. Louis; (3) Kroenke has plenty of money to make everyone happy and still get what he wants — a team in L.A.; and (4) nothing will get approved without 24 votes.

The deeper question is whether owners like Richardson and McNair would be willing to work with Kroenke to let him get to L.A. with a different team, or whether their opposition to a Rams move is less about keeping the team in St. Louis and more about pushing back against Kroenke, who has behaved to date in a way that has rubbed plenty of his partners the wrong way.
 
"Comparing absolute attendance figures from the last 10 years to the 1980s is a joke, right? The NFL is many times more popular now than it was then, and attendance has risen accordingly."

Neither funny or convenient, just how it is.

If you don't know, ask somebody if it is preferred to have attendance chronically near dead last or middle of the pack?

You seem to be having difficulty grasping the concept that the league has grown in popularity, and raw attendance figures from decades ago don't mean what you think they do (a recurring theme in the thread), relative to today.

If LA attendance was middle of the pack TODAY, given far higher attendance figures due to increased popularity of the league relative to decades ago, the raw numbers would be higher than the recent chronically near dead last counterparts in STL.

The only reason the conversation has persisted along these lines as long as it has is because you have made some mistaken inferences about relative fan interest tied to attendance, because you were misinformed about the relative numbers in the first place. The more you try to gotcha others, the more you just gotcha yourself. Sometimes you can't dig yourself out of a hole by digging deeper and deeper. You just become more stuck in a deeper hole.

You already admirably admitted the mistake on this earlier, the backpedaling away from the initial insight is a retrograde direction.

* There also seems to be confusion about viewing attendance as a PERCENTAGE of the total population of a city. That is completely meaningless. If LA attendance figures smoke that of STL, it makes no difference to Kroenke what fraction of the total population is in attendance.
Peter King, MMQB

I chose Joe Buck, the lifelong St. Louisan, to stand up for St. Louis—not about what the possible last game there was like, but about why the city should not be viewed as some NFL doormat.

Sometimes I have to ask myself, ‘What hat am I wearing?’ If I’m wearing my FOX hat, I’m impartial, and I stay out of the scrum. Or if I wear my St. Louis hat, I think about what gets lost, and that’s the overall body of work on behalf of St. Louis. In 21 seasons, they’ve been over .500 four times. In the five seasons ending in 2011, they were 15-65. Yet, they sold out every game from when they got there until they started 0-8 in 2007. Frankly, I find it amazing they can get anyone in the door. Consider where they play. The dome is like a warehouse. It was obsolete the day they opened it. It got filled because of guys like Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Az Hakim, Orlando Pace, Ricky Proehl.

Now you’ve got an owner [stan Kroenke] doing everything for four years to show his intentions. He does everything but make a public comment for St. Louis. Look at Jerry Jones, the owner of the Cowboys and one of the biggest stars in the league. In this day and age, owners have to talk. When you have an owner who won’t talk … I mean, St. Louis fans aren’t dumb. They’ve seen the writing on the wall. They see he’s got one foot out out the door. They have seen it before. When you are telling the fans you don’t want to be there, while the team is struggling at epic levels … I am surprised anyone walks through the door. They see him act like, Here is my beautiful place in L.A., and I can’t want to leave you.

I started talking about this on Twitter, and it raised some eyebrows, I thought about it from St. Louis’s perspective. It’s not a selfish perspective. Honestly, I thought about it from my Dad’s perspective. The city of St. Louis was something my dad believed in more than he believed in anything in his life. When my dad wanted the new baseball stadium for downtown St. Louis, he was excited for what it would mean for downtown St. Louis. His feeling was, let’s try to revitalize a downtown area that needs help. It’s way bigger than football now, just like it was bigger than baseball. It’s developing events for downtown St. Louis. I’ve seen what a new stadium has done in Indy and Cincinnati. Indy hosted a Super Bowl. If you’re a leader of St. Louis, that should make you salivate.

To say this team’s not been supported, I would turn it around. I would say the team hasn’t deserved it.

I’m not a child. [Kroenke] is one of 32 owners who can, in the words of Jerry Jones, pretty much do what he pleases. He was a part of the effort that got the team to St. Louis.

And I’ve heard people say how hard it’ll be for football to ever flourish in St. Louis. They say it’s a baseball city. Well, when I was a kid at Busch Stadium, you could shoot a cannon through there and hit no one. It can be a football city. Absolutely.

Can the marriage between the owner and the city be repaired? My answer is yes. Fans will welcome Kroenke back into their good graces. He’s a Missouri guy, named after Stan Musial and Enos Slaughter. He’s a decent guy who is a huge sports fan.

What community has built two stadiums in 25 years for the NFL? That’s never happened in the history of the NFL. To say St. Louis doesn’t support the NFL is a dumb, blanket statement, and I call people on it. It’s just not true.

But you know, at the end of the day, the owner has the keys to the Corvette.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Comparing absolute attendance figures from the last 10 years to the 1980s is a joke, right? The NFL is many times more popular now than it was then, and attendance has risen accordingly."

Neither funny or convenient, just how it is.

If you don't know, ask somebody if it is preferred to have attendance chronically near dead last or middle of the pack?

You seem to be having difficulty grasping the concept that the league has grown in popularity, and raw attendance figures from decades ago don't mean what you think they do (a recurring theme in the thread), relative to today.

If LA attendance was middle of the pack TODAY, given far higher attendance figures due to increased popularity of the league relative to decades ago, the raw numbers would be higher than the recent chronically near dead last counterparts in STL.

The only reason the conversation has persisted along these lines as long as it has is because you have made some mistaken inferences about relative fan interest tied to attendance, because you were misinformed about the relative numbers in the first place. The more you try to gotcha others, the more you just gotcha yourself. Sometimes you can't dig yourself out of a hole by digging deeper and deeper. You just become more stuck in a deeper hole.

You already admirably admitted the mistake on this earlier, the backpedaling away from the initial insight is a retrograde direction.

* There also seems to be confusion about viewing attendance as a PERCENTAGE of the total population of a city. That is completely meaningless. If LA attendance figures smoke that of STL, it makes no difference to Kroenke what fraction of the total population is in attendance.
It comes down to this, St. Louis has TWICE stepped to the plate in the last 20 years to build a stadium to get or keep an NFL Team with absolutely no guarantee to have a team either time. LA, has done nothing. Even when gift wrapped a franchise, couldn't build a stadium. You can say that the politicians and not the people are doing it the second time, but if those politicians felt that they would lose votes by spending public money on a stadium they would not be doing what they are doing. The politicians in LA don't seem to feel that there are enough NFL fans in their market to gain them any votes by building a stadium. Did I mention that the Texans franchise was given to LA with the only caveat of getting a stadium built and an owner. And let's face it, the latter is pretty simple since owning a team is being given the ability to print money. Just build a stadium, how hard can it be? This podunk cow town is about to do it a second time.

LA has 10 times the population, but doesn't fill the stadium even when the team is having an epic run and Eric Dickerson is in his prime.

The Rams sold out every game in the Dome from 1995 to I believe 2011 (or was it 13). That's 10 years after they were any good (and 10 years of putrid football). But the narrative is that football doesn't work in St. Louis. Please...

 
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000613870/article/los-angeles-relocation-fee-to-be-550-million-per-team

Los Angeles relocation fee to be $550 million per team

By Kevin Patra
Around the NFL writer
Published: Jan. 3, 2016 at 11:36 a.m

The deadline for the St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders to apply for relocation is Monday.

NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported Sunday on NFL Network's GameDay Morning that all three teams will file before tomorrow's deadline.


It isn't a surprise that the three teams that have been jockeying for position to move to Los Angeles will apply.

More interesting is the relocation fee an owner must pay for the right to move a franchise, which Rapoport reported is $550 million per team that relocates to L.A.

Only teams that are approved to move would be required to pay that hefty fee.

There are currently two separate groups vying for the move to Los Angeles: Rams owner Stan Kroenke plans to build a stadium in Inglewood. The Raiders and Chargers jointly have plans to move to Carson.

Whichever team or teams get left out of the L.A. mix, the league is expected to help secure a new home, per Rapoport.

Some other tidbits on potential relocation from RapSheet:

1. Heading into the January 12 meeting on relocation, no side right now is set to get the 24 votes needed to approve a move. There will need to be a compromise.

2. The Rams will not accept St. Louis' stadium plan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the league will help out the Raider franchise somehow to make it viable to stay in Oakland. That's just the feel I'm getting.

 
Read an article at NFL.com today:

Relocation fee $550 mil. Per franchise.

It appears no team can avoid 9 nay votes, so some form of compromise will be necessary (reported for a while).

 
Larry Ellison is getting involved with the Raiders to help them with Carson. The NFL was worried about the Raiders' financial situation. Not anymore. Iger and Ellison are the trump cards for Carson. Ellison is worth 50 billion.

 
Last item in the NFL.com article from today.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000613870/article/los-angeles-relocation-fee-to-be-550-million-per-team

The Rams will not accept St. Louis' stadium plan.​

* If the Raiders do return to LA, he won't have to travel as far to his regular barber for the signature "Moe" cut.
The STL deal will get sweetened for Kroenke to accept it. He will hold out until he's satisfied. CHargers and Raiders are getting Carson. Iger and Ellison won't lose. Ellison could buy Kroenke 7X over

 
Kroenke is the second wealthiest owner in the NFL (behind only the Seahawks Paul Allen of Microsoft fame), maybe even without the fortune of his Walmart heiress wife, so that is somewhat of a red herring, obviously money won't be an issue.

Cash poor Davis scrambling to add Ellison so late in the game (speculative anyways, has he officially been added, also linked with the 49ers?) looks like an act of desperation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The latest as of about a month and a half ago from Sam Farmer of the LA Times, arguably the most knowledgeable man on the ground in Los Angeles not attached to the NFL, he appears to be neutral and not a mouthpiece for any of the three teams, and seems to have cultivated some good league sources.

Excerpt - "...anyone who says they absolutely know what's going to happen is lying either to you or themselves." :)

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-stadiums-20151120-story.html

Here's where we stand on the NFL returning to Los Angeles

"The clock is winding down on the likelihood of the NFL's return to Los Angeles by the 2016 season, and the situation is as murky as ever.

St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is proposing a stadium in Inglewood, and the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders are backing a competing plan in Carson.

The NFL held special committee meetings in New York last week to discuss L.A., and the full ownership will convene in Dallas in two weeks for the league's regular one-day December meetings, where L.A. will be a focus.

If a decision on the nation's second-largest market isn't made within the next three months, yet another postponement is a possibility.

Here we ask and answer some questions on where the situation stands:

Is the NFL going to be back in Los Angeles next season?

There's a good possibility, but no one can say for sure not any of the owners and not Commissioner Roger Goodell. We're closer to its being a reality than at any time since the late 1990s, when L.A. and Houston were in the running for the 32nd franchise, but anyone who says they absolutely know what's going to happen is lying either to you or themselves.

Would this be decided by a vote of the owners?

Any relocation requires a three-quarters majority approval from the 32 NFL owners. But in this case, the league would manage the outcome instead of pitting the two projects against each other for an up-or-down vote. The NFL doesn't want one or two teams to emerge as losers and get sent back to markets they tried to leave. That means there would be lots of negotiations (and probably a grand bargain) before anything comes to a vote.

Could a team move to L.A. without league approval?

It's possible, and happened before with Al Davis and the Raiders. But that is unlikely in this instance. The NFL could deny that team any financial help in building the stadium, withhold the right to host Super Bowls, and take other measures to make it an unsavory option.

When would a vote happen?

People involved in the process are all over the map on that. The league had hoped to schedule a vote in January, but owners say that might be overly optimistic. Goodell has said the likely window is in January or February. But the NFL does not want to upstage the Super Bowl especially a Super Bowl in the Bay Area, with a vote critical to the future of a Bay Area team. A logical time could be between the Feb. 7 Super Bowl and the scouting combine, which starts Feb. 23.

Could there be a vote at the annual owners meetings in March?

Anything could happen, but that would be problematic because it's so late. That's squarely in the heart of the season-ticket selling window, and people don't buy tickets for a team in limbo. If there were no vote by the end of February, it's likely that a return to L.A. would be postponed for another year.

Do either the Rams or the Chargers/Raiders currently have the requisite 24 votes for approval?

That's highly unlikely. There are strong indications that each side has the necessary nine votes to block the other. However, the league hasn't taken a straw poll.

So who has the edge?

Depends on whom you ask. We know that Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson is squarely behind Carson (he's said so), and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is an Inglewood man (he was even born there). In between the Jerrys, it's shades of gray. The L.A. committee, the six-owner group of which Richardson is a member, will probably endorse the Carson plan. But nobody knows how influential that committee's recommendation will be with the rest of the owners, or with Goodell.

Which proposal is further along?

Inglewood. The design for that stadium is complete, and planners say the site preparation work to start construction is nearly finished. The Carson stadium is still being designed.

Is there a consensus in the league that L.A. is a two-team market?

No. That is still a lively debate among the owners, many of whom question the risk of putting two franchises into a market that lost two 20 years ago.

What was the vibe from NFL owners and executives after hearing the pitches from the three home markets last week?

Several owners and executives not connected with the Rams find the St. Louis plan lacking and were unconvinced last week by backers of that proposal. Some have pointed to the better deal the Minnesota Vikings got with the public footing half the cost of a new stadium from a bigger market.

Some owners perked up at San Diego's pitch, but there remains significant skepticism about whether that deal could come to fruition. The Chargers and others are convinced that it cannot, that even if the city were to get a public-funding initiative on the ballot, the measure would lose. Nobody in the NFL is going to force owner Dean Spanos to stay in that market.

Oakland didn't deliver a viable proposal.

With three teams and two stadium proposals, there are all sorts of scenarios and combinations floating out there. Is there anything we can say will not happen?

There will not be two new stadiums, or three teams moving to L.A. And, barring a change in ownership, the Raiders are not going to move here on their own.

What about the Rams and Chargers sharing a stadium in Inglewood?

That's a popular scenario inside and outside NFL circles. There could be an effort in the coming weeks to get Kroenke and Spanos in a room together to discuss the possibilities. But remember, the Chargers have a deal with the Raiders, so those two would first have to decide to go their separate ways (and so far there's no indication they're bound for a breakup.) Among the other complications, Spanos wouldn't be interested in a landlord-tenant relationship with Kroenke, and doesn't like the Inglewood site or plan.

The Chargers and Raiders announced last week that Disney Chairman Bob Iger, an entertainment visionary, will head their project if Carson is green-lighted by the league. Might that tip the scales in their favor?

It's hard to say how that will influence owners, or whether Iger will have a role in winning the bid. Again, his official role is contingent on the bid's approval. The league does love Disney, but it remains to be seen what kind of influence Iger will have, especially this late in the process.

What will the relocation fee be for the team or teams that move?

The league has yet to determine that. Add it to the long list of questions to be answered in a process that never seems to end.

sam.farmer@latimes.com

Twitter: @LATimesfarmer

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Could a team move to L.A. without league approval?

It's possible, and happened before with Al Davis and the Raiders. But that is unlikely in this instance. The NFL could deny that team any financial help in building the stadium, withhold the right to host Super Bowls, and take other measures to make it an unsavory option.
Never going to deny a Super Bowl in Los Angeles. Owners are petty but not stupid.

 
Bob Magaw said:
Kroenke is the second wealthiest owner in the NFL (behind only the Seahawks Paul Allen of Microsoft fame), maybe even without the fortune of his Walmart heiress wife, so that is somewhat of a red herring, obviously money won't be an issue.

Cash poor Davis scrambling to add Ellison so late in the game (speculative anyways, has he officially been added, also linked with the 49ers?) looks like an act of desperation.
And Kroenke begging Spanos to join him isn't a sign of desperation?

 
Someone reported this weekend that the relocation fee would be $550 MILLION

insane

FTR,I think St Louis gets a team. they have the best stadium proposal, and all 3 teams will not go to LA. It may be the chargers or raiders, but someone ends up in St Louis.

 
Bob Magaw said:
Kroenke is the second wealthiest owner in the NFL (behind only the Seahawks Paul Allen of Microsoft fame), maybe even without the fortune of his Walmart heiress wife, so that is somewhat of a red herring, obviously money won't be an issue.

Cash poor Davis scrambling to add Ellison so late in the game (speculative anyways, has he officially been added, also linked with the 49ers?) looks like an act of desperation.
And Kroenke begging Spanos to join him isn't a sign of desperation?
Maybe this has been discussed, but why isn't Kroenke also begging Davis/Raiders to join him?

Seems to me the simplistic view here is that the NFL has 3 problems, and the plan that solves two of those has an edge over the plan that solves only one.

With that in mind I would think Kroenke would be interested in partnering with either the Chargers or the Raiders.

 
Bob Magaw said:
Kroenke is the second wealthiest owner in the NFL (behind only the Seahawks Paul Allen of Microsoft fame), maybe even without the fortune of his Walmart heiress wife, so that is somewhat of a red herring, obviously money won't be an issue.

Cash poor Davis scrambling to add Ellison so late in the game (speculative anyways, has he officially been added, also linked with the 49ers?) looks like an act of desperation.
And Kroenke begging Spanos to join him isn't a sign of desperation?
Maybe this has been discussed, but why isn't Kroenke also begging Davis/Raiders to join him?

Seems to me the simplistic view here is that the NFL has 3 problems, and the plan that solves two of those has an edge over the plan that solves only one.

With that in mind I would think Kroenke would be interested in partnering with either the Chargers or the Raiders.
Because Spanos has a lot of support among the other owners, Davis does not. Any proposal that would leave the Chargers out in the cold would not be popular with a large contingent of owners. I get the feeling that most owners would be happy if Davis sold the Raiders.

 
Bob Magaw said:
Kroenke is the second wealthiest owner in the NFL (behind only the Seahawks Paul Allen of Microsoft fame), maybe even without the fortune of his Walmart heiress wife, so that is somewhat of a red herring, obviously money won't be an issue.

Cash poor Davis scrambling to add Ellison so late in the game (speculative anyways, has he officially been added, also linked with the 49ers?) looks like an act of desperation.
And Kroenke begging Spanos to join him isn't a sign of desperation?
LOL at begging.

Not comparable, as that scenario has been discussed for years, long before Spanos hooked up with junior (he'd be fine with a tenant :) ).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Riversco said:
Bob Magaw said:
Read an article at NFL.com today:

Relocation fee $550 mil. Per franchise.

It appears no team can avoid 9 nay votes, so some form of compromise will be necessary (reported for a while).
B-Deep said:
Someone reported this weekend that the relocation fee would be $550 MILLION

insane
:oldunsure:

 
Can someone explain to me why LA needs TWO teams?
No city "needs" a football team. But L.A. was able to support two teams in the past, there's no reason to think why they couldn't support two teams now. It's really about TV revenue and marketing, anyway. Pittsburgh and Green Bay are two of the smallest markets but have two of the biggest fanbases.

The owners of the Rams, Chargers and Raiders believe that they will make more money in Los Angeles than they'd make in their current cities. Simple as that.

 
The stadium in San Francisco was only half full at kick off Sunday and there were thousands of empty seats through out the game. One the most successful organizations in the NFL, were in the Superbowl just a couple of years ago, and only half full. SF doesn't deserve a football team.

 
I'll take the Rams staying without Kroenke, if that isn't an option, L.A. can have them. 10 straight losing seasons BTW, longest in the NFL. I give it 3 seasons, max, of this brand of "football" we've been seeing in St. Louis before the stadium is half full.

You can have them, seriously. Only hard feelings are against Kroenke and the talking head spin machine media that acts like STL sucks as NFL fans because they don't want to spend their time and money watching what has effectively been 10+ years of pre-season football.

 
Can someone explain to me why LA needs TWO teams?
No city "needs" a football team. But L.A. was able to support two teams in the past, there's no reason to think why they couldn't support two teams now. It's really about TV revenue and marketing, anyway. Pittsburgh and Green Bay are two of the smallest markets but have two of the biggest fanbases.

The owners of the Rams, Chargers and Raiders believe that they will make more money in Los Angeles than they'd make in their current cities. Simple as that.
LA didn't support 2 teams, thus the reason why they constantly lose teams. The entertainment dollar is spread really thin in southern California because of the many options people have.

 
Can someone explain to me why LA needs TWO teams?
No city "needs" a football team. But L.A. was able to support two teams in the past, there's no reason to think why they couldn't support two teams now. It's really about TV revenue and marketing, anyway. Pittsburgh and Green Bay are two of the smallest markets but have two of the biggest fanbases.

The owners of the Rams, Chargers and Raiders believe that they will make more money in Los Angeles than they'd make in their current cities. Simple as that.
How do fans pick a team to support? Seems like everyone would just pick the best team and the other one would languish.

 
Can you cut and paste this with the appropriate credit.
ST. LOUIS • The St. Louis region is losing population and lags in economic drivers to such a degree that it cannot support three professional sports teams, St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke told the National Football League in his proposal to move to Los Angeles.

Moreover, despite “significant” investments in the team, game attendance “has been well below the League’s average,” Kroenke continued in the league submission, obtained late Tuesday by the Post-Dispatch.

And the local plan to build a $1.1 billion riverfront stadium? “Any NFL Club that signs on to this proposal in St. Louis will be well on the road to financial ruin, and the League will be harmed,” the application said.

In contrast, Kroenke’s proposal to build a $1.9 billion, 3 million-square-foot football palace in Inglewood, Calif., provides the league with “the best economic opportunity in Los Angeles,” it said.

Gordo's Zone: Time running out for the Rams in St. Louis?

The document is part of a proposal required by league relocation guidelines. The NFL declined to release it publicly. The Rams, however, agreed to do so.

Its 29 pages amount to both a gushing celebration of Kroenke’s Los Angeles stadium plan and a scathing review of the future economic well-being of St. Louis.

Kroenke’s stadium is designed for two teams, is shovel-ready, can open by 2019, and would be the largest in the NFL, the application said. “We believe an Inglewood Super Bowl could generate as much as $50 million more in League revenue than the Carson proposed stadium …,” it said.

St. Louis, on the other hand, “lags, and will continue to lag, far behind in the economic drivers that are necessary for sustained success of an NFL franchise,” the application said.


Dave Peacock, co-chairman of Gov. Jay Nixon’s riverfront stadium task force, responded late Tuesday, arguing that St. Louis is a good market. The Rams’ analysis of the St. Louis plan contains “inconsistencies and inaccuracies,” he said.

Plus, the team picked St. Louis statistics they wanted to use. “And that’s probably not surprising,” Peacock said. “Their job is not to give a balanced argument.”

Plenty of other cities — Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Buffalo — don’t have the same growth you see in California or Texas, “yet they’re very good NFL markets,” Peacock said.

It’s not just about market size, he continued. It’s about the team’s performance, on and off the field.

“The St. Louis Cardinals outperform their market size, and the Blues, with new engaged ownership, have dramatically changed their economics in the last few years,” Peacock said.

But Kroenke’s application doesn’t rest on economics alone. It carefully builds a devastating argument that his L.A. proposal is better than his competitors’, that he has a contractual right to leave St. Louis and that a Rams’ move would make the league stronger.

Kroenke and his staff sent the proposal Monday to the NFL. The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders also filed Monday, proposing a two-team stadium in Carson, a dozen miles south of Inglewood.

But the Rams publicly released just a two-sentence statement notifying the public of the submission.

Fans here were irritated. The public authority that runs the Edward Jones Dome wanted to see Kroenke’s application, too, and wrote to the NFL.

Late Tuesday, Rams executive vice president Kevin Demoff provided the document.

In it, Kroenke describes building a “world-class, iconic structure,” akin to those in Dallas and Minneapolis. It is designed with 70,000 fixed seats, plus 30,000 standing for large events. A clear roof protects fans, but open sides allow for “an outdoor fan experience.”

And the facility, surrounded by 8.5 million square feet of office, hotel and dining space, would serve “as the epicenter for a NFL retail and entertainment district,” according to the document.

The Rams are the right team to fill the stadium, the document says, with the “longest and strongest” connection to L.A. fans.

Moreover, Kroenke argues, the Rams have a contractual right to leave St. Louis.

St. Louis promised the team a first-tier football stadium without delivering, the application says. The Jones Dome is among the worst stadiums in professional sports, Kroenke said, and the team has negotiated with the stadium authority for years to get improvements.
 
Maybe it's time for the NFL to consider expansion. The US population is growing. They could probably get $550M from the relocating franchises and then another billion x 2 from two more markets.

 
Maybe it's time for the NFL to consider expansion. The US population is growing. They could probably get $550M from the relocating franchises and then another billion x 2 from two more markets.
Because there are so many franchise-quality QBs lying around out of work that the product quality wouldn't suffer noticeably from adding two more full squads of players to the existing pool....

But you're right about the money, so it probably happens.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top