Goodbye Rams (1 Viewer)

[Ron_Mexico]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

It tells me the NFL is using the Los Angeles market as a pawn in a game to take other cities hostage, forcing them to use public funds to keep their teams from going to Los Angeles.As far as the celebrity angle. It's garbage, a handful of celebs either go to gamesor don't go, whatever. It's no reflection on the Los Angeles fan base what-so-ever.You obviously have not been to a Laker or King game.I went to game 3 of the Kings Blues series, and I can honestly tell you,the place was filled with rabid dogs looking for fresh meat. Los Angeles will fully support an NFL team, imo.

 

[TheFanatic]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

 

[GDogg]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

No basketball. No football. No Pujols.

Is their sports in STL anymore? Shame as STL is one of my favorite towns to visit in the US.

No one cares about basketball in St Louis, the Rams are still here and Pujols is batting below the mendoza line while our team is in first.

That isn't true. Bill's games have been packed for the most part.

cstu, you can stop researching our POS dome. It's terrible, and even the sports commission knows it - no matter what criteria you want to use to find its rating. We dodged a bullet when Kroenke got outbid for the Dodgers, but it's still not looking good. Although, I dont think it's as gloomy as you think.

It isn't terrible, it just isn't awesome. Big difference. Back in 1999-2000 & 2001-2002, you couldn't find a louder place in the league. A team that has been AWFUL for a decade contributes to a poor atmosphere more than anything.ETA

I also believe that the stadium was designed in the early 80's and was going to be built for the Big Red. Again, it isn't terrible but there wasn't a whole lot of design put into it. I think the redesign looks a lot like Scotttrade.

I am so sick of these ####### owners threatening to move teams every few years in order to get a big slice of welfare from the taxpayers to subsidize their immensely profitable ventures.

This isn't a threat, this is an out. The stadium we have now won't be paid for until 2030 I think. I LOVE football and I don't want to give them another penny. I listened to two different local talk shows this morning and 100% said they would rather the Rams leave than give them one penny more.

STL is a dump and the NFL not having a team in LA is crazy. Just move them. Plus the NFC West makes more geographical sense that way.

You make little kids cry because you don't hand out candy on Halloween.

Edward Jones Dome was built back in 95 for only $265 million. The CVC promised “Top Tier” status, which ensured Rams ownership that EJD would be top 25% in the league into perpetuity, as long as they held the lease. It was an insane clause that the CVC agreed to and really puts them at a huge disadvantage going forward. The Rams bent the CVC over and had them grab their ankles. Basically, they abused their leverage.

The CVC was so enamored with stealing the Rams away from LA, they agreed to the following absurd lease terms:

• Rams only pay $25K per game, or $250K for eight regular season games plus two preseason games.

• Rams get 100% of the ticket revenue.

• Rams get 100% of the game concessions as well as a percentage of non-game events.

• They also get 75% of the first $6 million in advertising revenue and 90% of revenue after that.

• Renovations to be agreed upon every 10 years to ensure “top tier” status.

On top of this, the CVC paid out $28 million in bond obligations still owed on Anaheim Stadium and another $20 million (of the $29 million) franchise relocation fee. They additionally covered all the teams moving expenses and built a $10 million training facility.

This deal was so lopsided, they attempted to sue using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act against the NFL and lost.

Please see my next comment about local politics.

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The city itself is pretty small but if you included the county (which should all be part of the city but local politics are even more screwed up than Federal politics if you can believe that) I think we are 18 or 19. Not exactly LA but bigger than a lot of NFL cities.

 

[Marauder]

I just want to clarify a little more about why LA lost the Rams.

First, as pointed out above, LA and OC, although right next to each other are night and day. People from OC try to avoid going to LA at all costs if they can avoid it and people from LA avoid goint to OC at all costs if they can avoid it.

Prior to the Rams moving to Anaheim, the OC football fans were pretty well split between the Rams and the Chargers. Most people from South OC and the beach communities found it much easier and enjoyable to go to the Murph for games rather than downtown LA.

The Rams moved to Anaheim in 1980 thinking they would draw in more of the OC fans and keep their LA fanbase. The problem was, when they vacated the coluseum, the Raiders moved in 2 years later and took away most of the LA Rams fans. In addition, the Chargers were flying high with Air Coryell so they didn't draw any of the Charger fans away. I'm an example, my father and I were Chargers Season ticket holders and although we both lived within 10 minutes of Anaheim stadium we only went to a few Rams games there. So the Rams were squeezed out and their attendance dropped dramatically. It also didn't help that Anaheim Stadium was a terrible stadium for football.

The Dodgers, Angels, Lakers and Kings all draw very well whether they are winning or losing. I have no doubt that if a state of the art stadium is built in the LA area, whatever team moves there will sell out regularly.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I just want to clarify a little more about why LA lost the Rams.First, as pointed out above, LA and OC, although right next to each other are night and day. People from OC try to avoid going to LA at all costs if they can avoid it and people from LA avoid goint to OC at all costs if they can avoid it.Prior to the Rams moving to Anaheim, the OC football fans were pretty well split between the Rams and the Chargers. Most people from South OC and the beach communities found it much easier and enjoyable to go to the Murph for games rather than downtown LA.The Rams moved to Anaheim in 1980 thinking they would draw in more of the OC fans and keep their LA fanbase. The problem was, when they vacated the coluseum, the Raiders moved in 2 years later and took away most of the LA Rams fans. In addition, the Chargers were flying high with Air Coryell so they didn't draw any of the Charger fans away. I'm an example, my father and I were Chargers Season ticket holders and although we both lived within 10 minutes of Anaheim stadium we only went to a few Rams games there. So the Rams were squeezed out and their attendance dropped dramatically. It also didn't help that Anaheim Stadium was a terrible stadium for football.The Dodgers, Angels, Lakers and Kings all draw very well whether they are winning or losing. I have no doubt that if a state of the art stadium is built in the LA area, whatever team moves there will sell out regularly.

 

[GDogg]

I just want to clarify a little more about why LA lost the Rams.First, as pointed out above, LA and OC, although right next to each other are night and day. People from OC try to avoid going to LA at all costs if they can avoid it and people from LA avoid goint to OC at all costs if they can avoid it.Prior to the Rams moving to Anaheim, the OC football fans were pretty well split between the Rams and the Chargers. Most people from South OC and the beach communities found it much easier and enjoyable to go to the Murph for games rather than downtown LA.The Rams moved to Anaheim in 1980 thinking they would draw in more of the OC fans and keep their LA fanbase. The problem was, when they vacated the coluseum, the Raiders moved in 2 years later and took away most of the LA Rams fans. In addition, the Chargers were flying high with Air Coryell so they didn't draw any of the Charger fans away. I'm an example, my father and I were Chargers Season ticket holders and although we both lived within 10 minutes of Anaheim stadium we only went to a few Rams games there. So the Rams were squeezed out and their attendance dropped dramatically. It also didn't help that Anaheim Stadium was a terrible stadium for football.The Dodgers, Angels, Lakers and Kings all draw very well whether they are winning or losing. I have no doubt that if a state of the art stadium is built in the LA area, whatever team moves there will sell out regularly.

I'd add that the Rams were among the league leaders in attendance and either led the league or were in the top 5 in attendance the vast majority of the time they were playing at the Coliseum. When they moved to Anaheim, their numbers and ranks dropped pretty significantly.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

I think it's kind of unfair to say "Well, LA doesn't have a team now so what does that tell you?" and use that as an anti-LA argument just like I think it's unfair to criticize St. Louis for not attending well last season. They have no tradition here, play in a terrible dome and rarely ever win in a bottom third market. Of course they're going to lose ticket sales. Add into that this off season your owner was dabbling in buying the Dodgers (Thus would have gave him some leverage over what NFL team moves to LA with the non-compete clause), had his hands in on the committee that was trying to get a stadium in LA.. and in the midst of this struck a deal that cost his only few remaining season ticket holders one less game a season up until the lease expires in 3 years - of course I'm sure they'll still be asked to pay full price for the 2 preseason games. Fisher better turn this ship around quick if they plan on selling out some games this year.

 

[GDogg]

I think it's kind of unfair to say "Well, LA doesn't have a team now so what does that tell you?" and use that as an anti-LA argument just like I think it's unfair to criticize St. Louis for not attending well last season. They have no tradition here, play in a terrible dome and rarely ever win in a bottom third market. Of course they're going to lose ticket sales. Add into that this off season your owner was dabbling in buying the Dodgers (Thus would have gave him some leverage over what NFL team moves to LA with the non-compete clause), had his hands in on the committee that was trying to get a stadium in LA.. and in the midst of this struck a deal that cost his only few remaining season ticket holders one less game a season up until the lease expires in 3 years - of course I'm sure they'll still be asked to pay full price for the 2 preseason games. Fisher better turn this ship around quick if they plan on selling out some games this year.

Maybe not, but I think St. Louis numbers are germane to the argument regarding St. Louis having a more quality, hardcore fan base than L.A. And, St. Louis has not drawn on par with the league average since 2007. So, last year's figures aren't necessarily a reflection of Kroenke eyeing L.A.

 

[TheFanatic]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The dome downtown here sucks. Terrible set-up for football. The environment is so sterile and empty, it sucks. But then again, I think football should always be played outside, so what do I know?

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

I think it's kind of unfair to say "Well, LA doesn't have a team now so what does that tell you?" and use that as an anti-LA argument just like I think it's unfair to criticize St. Louis for not attending well last season. They have no tradition here, play in a terrible dome and rarely ever win in a bottom third market. Of course they're going to lose ticket sales. Add into that this off season your owner was dabbling in buying the Dodgers (Thus would have gave him some leverage over what NFL team moves to LA with the non-compete clause), had his hands in on the committee that was trying to get a stadium in LA.. and in the midst of this struck a deal that cost his only few remaining season ticket holders one less game a season up until the lease expires in 3 years - of course I'm sure they'll still be asked to pay full price for the 2 preseason games. Fisher better turn this ship around quick if they plan on selling out some games this year.

Maybe not, but I think St. Louis numbers are germane to the argument regarding St. Louis having a more quality, hardcore fan base than L.A. And, St. Louis has not drawn on par with the league average since 2007. So, last year's figures aren't necessarily a reflection of Kroenke eyeing L.A.

Since most of the Kroenke things I mentioned took place after the season I don't see how you took my post to mean that. Obviously crap football year after year in a crap dome is the driving force here. The Kroenke stuff is going to push us into further oblivion, perhaps what he wants.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

The dome downtown here sucks. Terrible set-up for football. The environment is so sterile and empty, it sucks. But then again, I think football should always be played outside, so what do I know?

I would attend Rams games a lot more often if they played outside, but our broke town couldn't build a stadium that would only be used 8 days a year.

 

[GDogg]

I think it's kind of unfair to say "Well, LA doesn't have a team now so what does that tell you?" and use that as an anti-LA argument just like I think it's unfair to criticize St. Louis for not attending well last season. They have no tradition here, play in a terrible dome and rarely ever win in a bottom third market. Of course they're going to lose ticket sales. Add into that this off season your owner was dabbling in buying the Dodgers (Thus would have gave him some leverage over what NFL team moves to LA with the non-compete clause), had his hands in on the committee that was trying to get a stadium in LA.. and in the midst of this struck a deal that cost his only few remaining season ticket holders one less game a season up until the lease expires in 3 years - of course I'm sure they'll still be asked to pay full price for the 2 preseason games. Fisher better turn this ship around quick if they plan on selling out some games this year.

Maybe not, but I think St. Louis numbers are germane to the argument regarding St. Louis having a more quality, hardcore fan base than L.A. And, St. Louis has not drawn on par with the league average since 2007. So, last year's figures aren't necessarily a reflection of Kroenke eyeing L.A.

Since most of the Kroenke things I mentioned took place after the season I don't see how you took my post to mean that. Obviously crap football year after year in a crap dome is the driving force here. The Kroenke stuff is going to push us into further oblivion, perhaps what he wants.

I took it to mean that because you literally "add[ed]" it to your reasoning for having crappy attendance figures last year. I've bolded the portion in which you did that.

 

[GDogg]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.

The Rams bought the tickets themselves to avoid blackouts.

 

[cstu]

I just want to clarify a little more about why LA lost the Rams.First, as pointed out above, LA and OC, although right next to each other are night and day. People from OC try to avoid going to LA at all costs if they can avoid it and people from LA avoid goint to OC at all costs if they can avoid it.Prior to the Rams moving to Anaheim, the OC football fans were pretty well split between the Rams and the Chargers. Most people from South OC and the beach communities found it much easier and enjoyable to go to the Murph for games rather than downtown LA.The Rams moved to Anaheim in 1980 thinking they would draw in more of the OC fans and keep their LA fanbase. The problem was, when they vacated the coluseum, the Raiders moved in 2 years later and took away most of the LA Rams fans. In addition, the Chargers were flying high with Air Coryell so they didn't draw any of the Charger fans away. I'm an example, my father and I were Chargers Season ticket holders and although we both lived within 10 minutes of Anaheim stadium we only went to a few Rams games there. So the Rams were squeezed out and their attendance dropped dramatically. It also didn't help that Anaheim Stadium was a terrible stadium for football.The Dodgers, Angels, Lakers and Kings all draw very well whether they are winning or losing. I have no doubt that if a state of the art stadium is built in the LA area, whatever team moves there will sell out regularly.

I'd add that the Rams were among the league leaders in attendance and either led the league or were in the top 5 in attendance the vast majority of the time they were playing at the Coliseum. When they moved to Anaheim, their numbers and ranks dropped pretty significantly.

I blame the NFL's blackout rule for the Rams leaving. The Coliseum holds 100k but games would get blacked out if it wasn't a sellout, yet teams that had smaller stadium could sell far fewer tickets and not get blacked out. Who came up with that asinine rule?When they moved to Anaheim they lost a huge part of their fan base to the Raiders, who moved to LA two years after the Rams left.

 

[TheFanatic]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.

The Rams bought the tickets themselves to avoid blackouts.

That happened all the time. They reported it on the news, but it was always under 10,000 seats. Usually something like 4K or something like that. They weren't buying 30K a game or anything. The game I went to against the packers was pretty packed. Then again, the packers travel well, and St. Louis is a cheap place to see your team on the road and almost guaranteed a win...

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Their demands on the stadium remodel came out today. Link.

It looks like the last cards are being played so they can justify their exit from St. Louis. I'll repost my e-mail to Ram's Vice-President Kevin Demoff and his reply when they announce they are moving in 24-36 months. It will be funnier then.

Watching the Greatest Show On Turf in person was some of best times in my life. I'll be sad to see them go and always hate Belicheat & the Patriots for stealing the 2001 Superbowl. :(

I hope your rams dont relocate, for your sake.Have you seen the stories about how the patriots had to relocate their pre-superbowl practices indooors because it looked liked someone was filming their preparation for the rams? Anyway, Mike Martz didnt really have an answer for the pats taking faulk out of the game with chips and beating up the wide receivers. Close game, but Ricky Proehl was right about starting a dynasty.

Life is too short to hate. Stop it.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Their demands on the stadium remodel came out today. Link.

It looks like the last cards are being played so they can justify their exit from St. Louis. I'll repost my e-mail to Ram's Vice-President Kevin Demoff and his reply when they announce they are moving in 24-36 months. It will be funnier then.

Watching the Greatest Show On Turf in person was some of best times in my life. I'll be sad to see them go and always hate Belicheat & the Patriots for stealing the 2001 Superbowl. :(

I hope your rams dont relocate, for your sake.Have you seen the stories about how the patriots had to relocate their pre-superbowl practices indooors because it looked liked someone was filming their preparation for the rams? Anyway, Mike Martz didnt really have an answer for the pats taking faulk out of the game with chips and beating up the wide receivers. Close game, but Ricky Proehl was right about starting a dynasty.



Life is too short to hate. Stop it.

That's a general thing. You can hate Hitler, Mao & Belicheck. Also the Goodell for just dismissing the whole thing.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Their demands on the stadium remodel came out today. Link.

It looks like the last cards are being played so they can justify their exit from St. Louis. I'll repost my e-mail to Ram's Vice-President Kevin Demoff and his reply when they announce they are moving in 24-36 months. It will be funnier then.

Watching the Greatest Show On Turf in person was some of best times in my life. I'll be sad to see them go and always hate Belicheat & the Patriots for stealing the 2001 Superbowl. :(

I hope your rams dont relocate, for your sake.Have you seen the stories about how the patriots had to relocate their pre-superbowl practices indooors because it looked liked someone was filming their preparation for the rams? Anyway, Mike Martz didnt really have an answer for the pats taking faulk out of the game with chips and beating up the wide receivers. Close game, but Ricky Proehl was right about starting a dynasty.



Life is too short to hate. Stop it.

That's a general thing. You can hate Hitler, Mao & Belicheck. Also the Goodell for just dismissing the whole thing.

I hate that stupid arch. BOL. Fisher will turn things around.

 

[GDogg]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.

The Rams bought the tickets themselves to avoid blackouts.

That happened all the time. They reported it on the news, but it was always under 10,000 seats. Usually something like 4K or something like that. They weren't buying 30K a game or anything. The game I went to against the packers was pretty packed. Then again, the packers travel well, and St. Louis is a cheap place to see your team on the road and almost guaranteed a win...

In any case, St. Louis has ranked among the bottom three to four teams in attendance and percentage attendance for the last four seasons. I'm not seeing anything that supports the contention that St. Louis has a higher percentage of hardcore, quality fans than Los Angeles. If anything, it looks like they don't support their team at all compared to other NFL cities.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.

The Rams bought the tickets themselves to avoid blackouts.

That happened all the time. They reported it on the news, but it was always under 10,000 seats. Usually something like 4K or something like that. They weren't buying 30K a game or anything. The game I went to against the packers was pretty packed. Then again, the packers travel well, and St. Louis is a cheap place to see your team on the road and almost guaranteed a win...

In any case, St. Louis has ranked among the bottom three to four teams in attendance and percentage attendance for the last four seasons. I'm not seeing anything that supports the contention that St. Louis has a higher percentage of hardcore, quality fans than Los Angeles. If anything, it looks like they don't support their team at all compared to other NFL cities.

I've been to almost every game since they have arrived and there have been a lot of empty seats. I generally have money, sometimes a lot of it, on the other team. Some home games have sounded like away games. If you have actually watched the Rams the last 5 years or so, and I don't really know why you would unless they are playing your team, you know why. It has been just awful football.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.

The Rams bought the tickets themselves to avoid blackouts.

That happened all the time. They reported it on the news, but it was always under 10,000 seats. Usually something like 4K or something like that. They weren't buying 30K a game or anything. The game I went to against the packers was pretty packed. Then again, the packers travel well, and St. Louis is a cheap place to see your team on the road and almost guaranteed a win...

In any case, St. Louis has ranked among the bottom three to four teams in attendance and percentage attendance for the last four seasons. I'm not seeing anything that supports the contention that St. Louis has a higher percentage of hardcore, quality fans than Los Angeles. If anything, it looks like they don't support their team at all compared to other NFL cities.

I've been to almost every game since they have arrived and there have been a lot of empty seats. I generally have money, sometimes a lot of it, on the other team. Some home games have sounded like away games. If you have actually watched the Rams the last 5 years or so, and I don't really know why you would unless they are playing your team, you know why. It has been just awful football.

The team needs an injection ofLOS ANGELES

 

[Sake-Bombers]

My understanding of the LA Stadium deal (and I don't have a link right now, but remember reading it from I think Miklasz) is that AEG would become majority owner of whatever team moves there. Kroenke was minority owner for a long time, I'm not so sure he'd be looking to move and relinquish his majority role.

(I may have details wrong, I'll look for a link when I have a sec, but I'm fairly certain this is a relevant point)

Also, not sure why this has to turn into STL bashing. It's a business deal, not based on anything other than that. There are plenty of other NFL cities that don't suit folks tastes, but as long as there are tickets to be sold and TVs being watched, the league doesn't really care about whether people think St. Louis is lame or awesome.

 

[Fensalk]

The London Rams?

The Rams are playing one home game each of the next 3 seasons in London, England. London is also the home of Kroenke's English Premier League team: Arsenal.

Rams and the ####...

Not only are the Rams headed overseas next season. They're crossing the Atlantic the next three seasons.

The NFL announced Friday that the Rams will play the New England Patriots on Oct. 28 at Wembley Stadium in London. Kickoff is noon St. Louis time. The Rams will also play "home" games at Wembley in the 2013 and 2014 seasons.

"This is a tremendous honor for our franchise, the city of St. Louis and our fans throughout the world," Rams owner Stan Kroenke said in a statement. "We are excited about the opportunity to reach new audiences globally. This is a great platform to showcase the city of St. Louis to London and the UK."

But for a fan base already worried about losing the team to Los Angeles because of a stadium lease clause at the Edward Jones Dome, St. Louis is now reduced to only seven home games for the next three seasons.

With a team that has won only 15 of its last 80 games, the Rams have struggled to get home games on television in recent seasons. Frequently, they've used corporate sponsors to buy unsold tickets, or in some cases bought the unsold tickets themselves.

London, of course, is the home of Kroenke’s Arsenal soccer team of the English Premier League.

With the exception of this season, when Chicago played Tampa Bay, all of the previous matchups have featured an NFC team vs. an AFC club.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said in October that he had been talking to several teams about becoming regulars in London to help build an overseas following.

Such a development, Goodell said then, would be "very powerful and lead us to what we ultimately would like to do — have a franchise here in London."

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/rams-move-a-home-game-to-london-next-seasons/article_dd9d3468-4330-11e1-aa72-001a4bcf6878.html

 

[JaxBill]

If the stadium needs to be multi use, it has to be some kind of dome. That's why small markets are always under the gun. I think the plan submitted is an honest assesment of what type of stadium the Rams need in order to stay, it is just a question of who is going to pay for it. If St. Louis taxpayers don't pay at least 50% it is L.A Rams. Jacksonville owner might make a move first however.

Don't kid yourself. The new owner is spending his own money to upgrade team facilities in Jacksonville. Jacksonville is not going to bail you out of this situation.I feel for the fans of any team that faces the possibility of moving. It is natural to hope that another team will get plucked up first. But the situation the Rams face is very likely going to come to a head before any other team commits to a move to LA.

So you say. How much has the guy committed? All I know is there are several new owners who don't care one iota about the city they bought a team in. I will bet dollars to donuts that Buffalo does not have a team in 5 years. (even though half my family grew up in Buffalo).

Khan predicted at the Super Bowl that the team would spend $130 million this year on player salaries and said last Friday during the draft that the team has already exceeded that figure.

“We’ve spent a lot more than $130 [million] already in cash,” Khan said. “Much more than that. A little bit under $140 million.” He said the team rolled more than $30 million in unspent money from last year and have spent about half of that plus the $120 million in this year’s cap.

Khan is also putting about $10 million into locker room and weight room improvements at the stadium and said money will not be a factor in the discussion of whether to build a practice bubble.

The issue was highlighted recently when the Jaguars had to move a minicamp practice indoors on the club level because a storm soaked the practice fields.

See more images from the minicamp

“It’s been talked about. Much can be said on both sides. The least thing [to be considered] about that is the money. It’s not an issue,” Khan said.

He said the bigger issues are finding space for it, whether it would be a bubble or a shed, and whether they would lose a competitive advantage if the players practice in air conditioning.

Those issues will have to be discussed. “If it helps the team win, I’m all for it,” Khan said.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2012-04-29/story/jaguars-owner-shad-khan-opens-his-wallet-roster-and-stadium#ixzz1v2KTsSDN

Khan tries to lure foreign businesses to Jacksonville.

http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2012-02-25/story/jaguars-owner-shahid-khan-ready-sell-first-coast-around

Khan wiling to offer lending for three downtown historic buildings

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2012/03/07/shahid-khan-issues-statement-on-laura.html

Sure, if he invests this money and people still don't turn out, he will make a business decision to move. He's a businessman first and foremost. But he's not acting like a guy looking for a way out.

 

[TheFanatic]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.

The Rams bought the tickets themselves to avoid blackouts.

That happened all the time. They reported it on the news, but it was always under 10,000 seats. Usually something like 4K or something like that. They weren't buying 30K a game or anything. The game I went to against the packers was pretty packed. Then again, the packers travel well, and St. Louis is a cheap place to see your team on the road and almost guaranteed a win...

In any case, St. Louis has ranked among the bottom three to four teams in attendance and percentage attendance for the last four seasons. I'm not seeing anything that supports the contention that St. Louis has a higher percentage of hardcore, quality fans than Los Angeles. If anything, it looks like they don't support their team at all compared to other NFL cities.

LA has lost two teams so the argument that St. Louis doesn't support teams is comical. They filled the stadium when the Arizona Cardinals were here, but a greedy owner took his ball and went home because he didn't get a stadium built with tax payer money despite being a billionaire.And let's talk about higher concentration of hardcore fans. How many people live in the City of LA (not the suburbs, just the city)? 3.7 million.

Same question for St. Louis? 319K

Link

I stand by my original assertion. LA is a lot of things. Movie capital of the world. Home of thousands of stars. Playground of the rich. On the coast, not far from Vegas. Not far from wine country. Not far from the mountains. Lots and lots of things.

St. Louis is a sports town and one of the best in the country. There is no denying that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.

The Rams bought the tickets themselves to avoid blackouts.

That happened all the time. They reported it on the news, but it was always under 10,000 seats. Usually something like 4K or something like that. They weren't buying 30K a game or anything. The game I went to against the packers was pretty packed. Then again, the packers travel well, and St. Louis is a cheap place to see your team on the road and almost guaranteed a win...

In any case, St. Louis has ranked among the bottom three to four teams in attendance and percentage attendance for the last four seasons. I'm not seeing anything that supports the contention that St. Louis has a higher percentage of hardcore, quality fans than Los Angeles. If anything, it looks like they don't support their team at all compared to other NFL cities.

LA has lost two teams so the argument that St. Louis doesn't support teams is comical. They filled the stadium when the Arizona Cardinals were here, but a greedy owner took his ball and went home because he didn't get a stadium built with tax payer money despite being a billionaire.And let's talk about higher concentration of hardcore fans. How many people live in the City of LA (not the suburbs, just the city)? 3.7 million.

Same question for St. Louis? 319K

Link

I stand by my original assertion. LA is a lot of things. Movie capital of the world. Home of thousands of stars. Playground of the rich. On the coast, not far from Vegas. Not far from wine country. Not far from the mountains. Lots and lots of things.

St. Louis is a sports town and one of the best in the country. There is no denying that.

The above emphasized is the terrible part: this happens in American pro sports and sometimes to the best of sports cities. Philly (A's), Brooklyn (Dodgers, not to mention the Giants in NYC), New Orleans (Jazz, plus the Saints were threatened for years), StL & the football Cards, Cleveland (Browns I), Baltimore (Colts), you name it (heck maybe even L.A. which supported the Rams for 40+ years who knows how things would have been with a proper or even decent metro stadium), no matter how good the city and how loyal its fans teams have bolted because of an owner who was just, whatever, greedy, dumb, megalomaniacal, shortsighted, etc.You never know where these guys' hearts lay though: turns out Enos "Stan" Kroenke is named after StL Cardinal greats Stan Musial and Enos Slaughter. He's a U.Mo. grad, he lives in Columbia and his wife is Arkansas (a Walton). Does someone like this just turn his back on St. Louis? Not so sure.

 

[TheFanatic]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.

The Rams bought the tickets themselves to avoid blackouts.

That happened all the time. They reported it on the news, but it was always under 10,000 seats. Usually something like 4K or something like that. They weren't buying 30K a game or anything. The game I went to against the packers was pretty packed. Then again, the packers travel well, and St. Louis is a cheap place to see your team on the road and almost guaranteed a win...

In any case, St. Louis has ranked among the bottom three to four teams in attendance and percentage attendance for the last four seasons. I'm not seeing anything that supports the contention that St. Louis has a higher percentage of hardcore, quality fans than Los Angeles. If anything, it looks like they don't support their team at all compared to other NFL cities.

LA has lost two teams so the argument that St. Louis doesn't support teams is comical. They filled the stadium when the Arizona Cardinals were here, but a greedy owner took his ball and went home because he didn't get a stadium built with tax payer money despite being a billionaire.And let's talk about higher concentration of hardcore fans. How many people live in the City of LA (not the suburbs, just the city)? 3.7 million.

Same question for St. Louis? 319K

Link

I stand by my original assertion. LA is a lot of things. Movie capital of the world. Home of thousands of stars. Playground of the rich. On the coast, not far from Vegas. Not far from wine country. Not far from the mountains. Lots and lots of things.

St. Louis is a sports town and one of the best in the country. There is no denying that.

The above emphasized is the terrible part: this happens in American pro sports and sometimes to the best of sports cities. Philly (A's), Brooklyn (Dodgers, not to mention the Giants in NYC), New Orleans (Jazz, plus the Saints were threatened for years), StL & the football Cards, Cleveland (Browns I), Baltimore (Colts), you name it (heck maybe even L.A. which supported the Rams for 40+ years who knows how things would have been with a proper or even decent metro stadium), no matter how good the city and how loyal its fans teams have bolted because of an owner who was just, whatever, greedy, dumb, megalomaniacal, shortsighted, etc.You never know where these guys' hearts lay though: turns out Enos "Stan" Kroenke is named after StL Cardinal greats Stan Musial and Enos Slaughter. He's a U.Mo. grad, he lives in Columbia and his wife is Arkansas (a Walton). Does someone like this just turn his back on St. Louis? Not so sure.

He's also a business man. If he can't get the $700 million it's estimated to make the dome up to par (which is how much less than a brand new one?), then he goes. I hope he stays with the team and it gets turned around. When the Rams were good, it was a magical time around St. Louis. They are still supported considering the product, but are likely out of town unless the Chargers or Raiders go first, and even then they might go and have two teams out there...

 

[Sake-Bombers]

Here's an article talking about how AEG's majority interest plans make moving to LA unappealing to many current owners:

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/7753991/report-plan-downtown-los-angeles-stadium-peril

Plans for a downtown stadium and a return of the NFL to Los Angeles might be in peril, according to a report on Yahoo! Sports.

Citing three sources, the website reported Thursday that billionaire developer Phil Anschutz is unwilling to change the terms of a deal that would trigger the return of the NFL to Los Angeles. The deal would call for a downtown stadium to be built and run by Anschutz Entertainment Group. But according to the report, the financial plan is a sticking point.

According to Yahoo!, Anschutz met in December with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft in Denver to discuss the proposed deal. Villaraigosa requested the meeting, according to Yahoo!, with the goal of encouraging Anschutz to place more support behind the stadium AEG has proposed building.

Goodell told Anschutz at the meeting the terms were unacceptable for the NFL and the handful of potential teams that could move to L.A., including the San Diego Chargers, according to the report.

"It was friendly, but boiled down to the view that no NFL owner would accept the terms proposed," one of the sources told Yahoo!. "If (AEG) wanted to get that much control over an NFL franchise, their only option would be to buy a team. If they were willing to back off the control and buy a (limited partnership) stake for a reasonable price, then a shared interest in selling suites/clubs/sponsorships could be worked out."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello declined to comment to Yahoo! on whether Goodell met with Anschutz. AEG spokesman Michael Roth declined to comment because AEG president Tim Leiweke did not take part in the meeting, and Roth said he does not speak for Anschutz, according to the report.

AEG is supposed to reveal an Environment Impact Report on the proposed site in early April.

 

[cstu]

LA has lost two teams so the argument that St. Louis doesn't support teams is comical. They filled the stadium when the Arizona Cardinals were here, but a greedy owner took his ball and went home because he didn't get a stadium built with tax payer money despite being a billionaire.

And let's talk about higher concentration of hardcore fans. How many people live in the City of LA (not the suburbs, just the city)? 3.7 million.

Same question for St. Louis? 319K

Link

I stand by my original assertion. LA is a lot of things. Movie capital of the world. Home of thousands of stars. Playground of the rich. On the coast, not far from Vegas. Not far from wine country. Not far from the mountains. Lots and lots of things.

St. Louis is a sports town and one of the best in the country. There is no denying that.

I won't argue that St. Louis has more hardcore fans, but people in LA are spoiled by the number of choices they have. People here won't spend their money to support a bad product in a lousy stadium when they can do so many other (free) things instead. However, there are more than enough football fans to fill an 80k seat stadium if there's a competitive team to watch. As for the losing of two NFL teams, I don't blame fans for that. Neither the Rams nor the Raiders could get a stadium built and the Coliseum was in a bad part of town with little parking. That may be fine for the USC fans but it's a tough sell for NFL fans. It also didn't help that the Rams lacked a star offensive player while in LA after Lawrence McCutcheon injured his knee in 1978. A modern stadium in a good location like downtown with plenty of parking would make an NFL team popular here.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

A modern stadium in a good location like downtown with plenty of parking would make an NFL team popular here.

No doubt. Especially in proximity to Staples. But the EIR has shown that valuations in the downtown area are already skyrocketing and parking during events such as Laker playoff basketball games has gone as high as $50 per vehicle when there are other events going on at the same time. Not that there isn't money in LA, but they really need to plan this out well. Done right, the investors would clean up on franchise in LA. The people will come if the site conditions meet their expectations for their entertainment dollar. It'd be a cash cow.

 

[GDogg]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.

The Rams bought the tickets themselves to avoid blackouts.

That happened all the time. They reported it on the news, but it was always under 10,000 seats. Usually something like 4K or something like that. They weren't buying 30K a game or anything. The game I went to against the packers was pretty packed. Then again, the packers travel well, and St. Louis is a cheap place to see your team on the road and almost guaranteed a win...

In any case, St. Louis has ranked among the bottom three to four teams in attendance and percentage attendance for the last four seasons. I'm not seeing anything that supports the contention that St. Louis has a higher percentage of hardcore, quality fans than Los Angeles. If anything, it looks like they don't support their team at all compared to other NFL cities.

LA has lost two teams so the argument that St. Louis doesn't support teams is comical. They filled the stadium when the Arizona Cardinals were here, but a greedy owner took his ball and went home because he didn't get a stadium built with tax payer money despite being a billionaire.And let's talk about higher concentration of hardcore fans. How many people live in the City of LA (not the suburbs, just the city)? 3.7 million.

Same question for St. Louis? 319K

Link

I stand by my original assertion. LA is a lot of things. Movie capital of the world. Home of thousands of stars. Playground of the rich. On the coast, not far from Vegas. Not far from wine country. Not far from the mountains. Lots and lots of things.

St. Louis is a sports town and one of the best in the country. There is no denying that.

Really? Then, why have they been teetering on dead last in attendance the past four years? And, no, they didn't fill the stadium when the Cardinals were there. In the last season, the Cardinals averaged a pathetic 28,000 fans per game. They had a crowd of 11,795 fans for a game in 1987. And, it wasn't just that season. They consistently were among the worst in attendance from 1960 through 1987 (according to some blog, but I can't verify this).What does L.A. losing two teams have to do with the fact that St. Louis doesn't support the Rams? I honestly fail to see the relevance. They aren't related in the least.

I'll indulge you, though. I'm sure you're aware that it is much more difficult to support two NFL teams than one. L.A. was supporting the Raiders and the Rams. Still, the Rams averaged 55,880 fans throughout their history in Southern California. The NFL average was 50,379. L.A. didn't lose the Rams because of the fans. They lost the Rams because Georgia Frontiere was murderous ##### and the City of St. Louis bent over for her.

Los Angeles didn't just support two football teams, though. They also support two MLB teams. The Dodgers are among the league leaders in attendance every year, drawing more than 3 million fans pretty much every season. And, that's despite the fact that they haven't won, or even been in, a World Series since 1988. The Angels are now drawing more than 3 million fans per year and drew more than 2 million fans per year prior to their World Series title in 2002.

The Lakers always filled the Forum and now Staples Center. The Clippers haven't, but they were among the league leaders this year. And, despite being an utterly pathetic franchise, they've drawn over the league average in every season. Heck, they draw so well that the NBA is considering moving a third franchise to the area.

L.A. also supports two hockey teams and two MLS teams.

In addition, L.A. supports (and did support while the Rams were here) two major college football programs in UCLA and Southern Cal.

St. Louis fans are great baseball and hockey fans and support the teams in those sports very well. They are simply not very good football fans in comparison to the rest of the NFL cities. There is no denying that.

 

[Casting Couch]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.

The Rams bought the tickets themselves to avoid blackouts.

That happened all the time. They reported it on the news, but it was always under 10,000 seats. Usually something like 4K or something like that. They weren't buying 30K a game or anything. The game I went to against the packers was pretty packed. Then again, the packers travel well, and St. Louis is a cheap place to see your team on the road and almost guaranteed a win...

In any case, St. Louis has ranked among the bottom three to four teams in attendance and percentage attendance for the last four seasons. I'm not seeing anything that supports the contention that St. Louis has a higher percentage of hardcore, quality fans than Los Angeles. If anything, it looks like they don't support their team at all compared to other NFL cities.

LA has lost two teams so the argument that St. Louis doesn't support teams is comical. They filled the stadium when the Arizona Cardinals were here, but a greedy owner took his ball and went home because he didn't get a stadium built with tax payer money despite being a billionaire.And let's talk about higher concentration of hardcore fans. How many people live in the City of LA (not the suburbs, just the city)? 3.7 million.

Same question for St. Louis? 319K

Link

I stand by my original assertion. LA is a lot of things. Movie capital of the world. Home of thousands of stars. Playground of the rich. On the coast, not far from Vegas. Not far from wine country. Not far from the mountains. Lots and lots of things.

St. Louis is a sports town and one of the best in the country. There is no denying that.

Really? Then, why have they been teetering on dead last in attendance the past four years? And, no, they didn't fill the stadium when the Cardinals were there. In the last season, the Cardinals averaged a pathetic 28,000 fans per game. They had a crowd of 11,795 fans for a game in 1987. And, it wasn't just that season. They consistently were among the worst in attendance from 1960 through 1987 (according to some blog, but I can't verify this).What does L.A. losing two teams have to do with the fact that St. Louis doesn't support the Rams? I honestly fail to see the relevance. They aren't related in the least.

I'll indulge you, though. I'm sure you're aware that it is much more difficult to support two NFL teams than one. L.A. was supporting the Raiders and the Rams. Still, the Rams averaged 55,880 fans throughout their history in Southern California. The NFL average was 50,379. L.A. didn't lose the Rams because of the fans. They lost the Rams because Georgia Frontiere was murderous ##### and the City of St. Louis bent over for her.

Los Angeles didn't just support two football teams, though. They also support two MLB teams. The Dodgers are among the league leaders in attendance every year, drawing more than 3 million fans pretty much every season. And, that's despite the fact that they haven't won, or even been in, a World Series since 1988. The Angels are now drawing more than 3 million fans per year and drew more than 2 million fans per year prior to their World Series title in 2002.

The Lakers always filled the Forum and now Staples Center. The Clippers haven't, but they were among the league leaders this year. And, despite being an utterly pathetic franchise, they've drawn over the league average in every season. Heck, they draw so well that the NBA is considering moving a third franchise to the area.

L.A. also supports two hockey teams and two MLS teams.

In addition, L.A. supports (and did support while the Rams were here) two major college football programs in UCLA and Southern Cal.

St. Louis fans are great baseball and hockey fans and support the teams in those sports very well. They are simply not very good football fans in comparison to the rest of the NFL cities. There is no denying that.

Fantastic take.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Really? Then, why have they been teetering on dead last in attendance the past four years? And, no, they didn't fill the stadium when the Cardinals were there. In the last season, the Cardinals averaged a pathetic 28,000 fans per game. They had a crowd of 11,795 fans for a game in 1987. And, it wasn't just that season. They consistently were among the worst in attendance from 1960 through 1987 (according to some blog, but I can't verify this).

...

Just for the record, 1987 was a strike year: that was the year in which 3 games were played by scrubs. That 11,000 attendance game was one of those for the Cards. Also home fans don't go hoopdee-wild to buy tickets when they find out their team is leaving for another city, I think that happened with the Cards.

The Cards have the most losses in the history of the league, they have the third worst win% (ahead of the expansion Texans & Bucs, that's it), they have been playing 91 years (68 seasons when they left StL) but they had one championship in `47 or so (which was not in StL), and they had a grand total of 3 playoff games all on the road (including one bs "play-in" in the strike season in `82) so no home playoff games the entire 38 season run in STL (think about that), and all three playoff games were losses so not a single playoff win either the entire stretch in StL. I'd say even supporting such a franchise for that long speaks highly of a fanbase not badly of it.

 

[GDogg]

Really? Then, why have they been teetering on dead last in attendance the past four years? And, no, they didn't fill the stadium when the Cardinals were there. In the last season, the Cardinals averaged a pathetic 28,000 fans per game. They had a crowd of 11,795 fans for a game in 1987. And, it wasn't just that season. They consistently were among the worst in attendance from 1960 through 1987 (according to some blog, but I can't verify this).

...

Just for the record, 1987 was a strike year: that was the year in which 3 games were played by scrubs. That 11,000 attendance game was one of those for the Cards. Also home fans don't go hoopdee-wild to buy tickets when they find out their team is leaving for another city, I think that happened with the Cards.The Cards have the most losses in the history of the league, they have been playing 91 years (68 seasons when they left StL) but they had one championship in `47 or so (which was not in StL), and they had a grand total of 3 playoff games all on the road (including one bs "play-in" in the strike season in `82) so no home playoff games the entire 38 season run in STL (think about that), all three playoff games were losses. I'd say even supporting such a franchise for that long speaks highly of a fanbase not badly of it.

Except that they reportedly didn't. Being among the worst fan bases in attendance during the 28 years your franchise was located in the city suggests that you don't support it - not that you do.Now, look at their lack of support for the Rams. Well, they've sucked, right? If you only show up when the team is good, then you are a fairweather fan base. And, if you are a fairweather fan base, then you are exactly what the rest of the country accuses the Los Angeles fan base of being. And, if that's what you are, then you probably should quit casting stones at the L.A. fan base and proudly proclaiming the "quality" of your "hardcore" fan base over the quantity of the presumably softcore L.A. fan base.

For a franchise which has supported a perennially struggling franchise, look no further than New Orleans. They've supported the hell out of that team through thick and thin.

 

[GDogg]

Really? Then, why have they been teetering on dead last in attendance the past four years? And, no, they didn't fill the stadium when the Cardinals were there. In the last season, the Cardinals averaged a pathetic 28,000 fans per game. They had a crowd of 11,795 fans for a game in 1987. And, it wasn't just that season. They consistently were among the worst in attendance from 1960 through 1987 (according to some blog, but I can't verify this)....

Just for the record, 1987 was a strike year: that was the year in which 3 games were played by scrubs. That 11,000 attendance game was one of those for the Cards. Also home fans don't go hoopdee-wild to buy tickets when they find out their team is leaving for another city, I think that happened with the Cards.

True. It was a strike year. I guess we can let them off the hook. Well, maybe not. In that same week, 32,113 fans showed up for the Bears-Vikings. 40,622 showed up in Irving, TX to watch the Eagles-Cowboys. 25,867 fans showed up in Miami, FL to watch the Dolphins destroy the Chiefs. By the way, the Cardinals had 18 regular players, the most of any NFL team, playing for them the week 11,795 fans watched them beat the Saints.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Really? Then, why have they been teetering on dead last in attendance the past four years? And, no, they didn't fill the stadium when the Cardinals were there. In the last season, the Cardinals averaged a pathetic 28,000 fans per game. They had a crowd of 11,795 fans for a game in 1987. And, it wasn't just that season. They consistently were among the worst in attendance from 1960 through 1987 (according to some blog, but I can't verify this).

...

Just for the record, 1987 was a strike year: that was the year in which 3 games were played by scrubs. That 11,000 attendance game was one of those for the Cards. Also home fans don't go hoopdee-wild to buy tickets when they find out their team is leaving for another city, I think that happened with the Cards.The Cards have the most losses in the history of the league, they have been playing 91 years (68 seasons when they left StL) but they had one championship in `47 or so (which was not in StL), and they had a grand total of 3 playoff games all on the road (including one bs "play-in" in the strike season in `82) so no home playoff games the entire 38 season run in STL (think about that), all three playoff games were losses. I'd say even supporting such a franchise for that long speaks highly of a fanbase not badly of it.

Except that they reportedly didn't. Being among the worst fan bases in attendance during the 28 years your franchise was located in the city suggests that you don't support it - not that you do.Now, look at their lack of support for the Rams. Well, they've sucked, right? If you only show up when the team is good, then you are a fairweather fan base. And, if you are a fairweather fan base, then you are exactly what the rest of the country accuses the Los Angeles fan base of being. And, if that's what you are, then you probably should quit casting stones at the L.A. fan base and proudly proclaiming the "quality" of your "hardcore" fan base over the quantity of the presumably softcore L.A. fan base.

For a franchise which has supported a perennially struggling franchise, look no further than New Orleans. They've supported the hell out of that team through thick and thin.

I just wanted to clarify what was going on in St. Louis at that time (1987) and before. I think L.A. more than deserves a team and I would say good things about L.A. too - Georgia Frontiere ran that team into the ground in L.A. and despite being one of the very best NFL franchises from the late 60's right up through the end of the 80's, while major cities across America were getting new stadiums, L.A. did not build one for their team. The Raiders were led by Al Davis and that wasn't so great either, so I'd say L.A. has had bad luck in ownership in the past. Still fans went out to the Coliseum (built in the `30's?) and Anaheim. What if they had a decent stadium? We'll never know but maybe we will one day soon.

 

[bulger2holt]

Of all the years the St.Louis football Cardinals and the St.Louis Rams were here, there have been VERY FEW games blacked out. St.Louis almost always sells out their games. These past few really bad years, the team will buy the remaining 4-5,000 tickets, but that's not that many considering it dome holds 60,000. Once Fisher turns this team around, fans will be flocking back and the excitement will grow again. Remember, the Rams just had the worst 4-5 year stretch in NFL history. They have a lot pieces in place to turn this team around quickly, plus 2 1sts the next 2 years.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.

The Rams bought the tickets themselves to avoid blackouts.

That happened all the time. They reported it on the news, but it was always under 10,000 seats. Usually something like 4K or something like that. They weren't buying 30K a game or anything. The game I went to against the packers was pretty packed. Then again, the packers travel well, and St. Louis is a cheap place to see your team on the road and almost guaranteed a win...

In any case, St. Louis has ranked among the bottom three to four teams in attendance and percentage attendance for the last four seasons. I'm not seeing anything that supports the contention that St. Louis has a higher percentage of hardcore, quality fans than Los Angeles. If anything, it looks like they don't support their team at all compared to other NFL cities.

LA has lost two teams so the argument that St. Louis doesn't support teams is comical. They filled the stadium when the Arizona Cardinals were here, but a greedy owner took his ball and went home because he didn't get a stadium built with tax payer money despite being a billionaire.And let's talk about higher concentration of hardcore fans. How many people live in the City of LA (not the suburbs, just the city)? 3.7 million.

Same question for St. Louis? 319K

Link

I stand by my original assertion. LA is a lot of things. Movie capital of the world. Home of thousands of stars. Playground of the rich. On the coast, not far from Vegas. Not far from wine country. Not far from the mountains. Lots and lots of things.

St. Louis is a sports town and one of the best in the country. There is no denying that.

Really? Then, why have they been teetering on dead last in attendance the past four years? And, no, they didn't fill the stadium when the Cardinals were there. In the last season, the Cardinals averaged a pathetic 28,000 fans per game. They had a crowd of 11,795 fans for a game in 1987. And, it wasn't just that season. They consistently were among the worst in attendance from 1960 through 1987 (according to some blog, but I can't verify this).

Are you familiar with the Bidwell family and how big of a-holes they are? The Cardinals are the worst organization in professional sports. You do realize that the Cardinals already announced they were moving before the start of their last season in St. Louis right? They are 496-699 in their history. They moved to St. Louis in 1960 and had a 186-202 record while they were here and won ZERO playoff games. ZERO. Now throw in an owner that refuses to pay to keep quality players and certainly won't spend money on free agency, something that still goes on today, and it isn't shocking that there wasn't a ton of support.

 

[Cecil_Pooples]

Now throw in an owner that refuses to pay to keep quality players and certainly won't spend money on free agency, something that still goes on today, and it isn't shocking that there wasn't a ton of support.

Actually it doesn't anymore.Can't complain about that as a Cardinal fan. [Dockett(2010:$56mil)/Fitz(2011:$128.5mil)/Kolb(2011:$65mil)/Calais Campbell(2012:$55 mil)] You can argue HOW the money is spent but can't that it's not being spent.

 

[azgroover]

St Louis rejects Rams proposals.

St. Louis rejects Rams proposal for upgrading stadium

Posted by Mike Florio on June 1, 2012, 10:28 AM EDT

AP

In a move that will leave no one flabbergasted, shocked, perplexed, and/or needing an explanation, the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission has rejected the Rams’ proposal for sweeping upgrades to the Edward Jones Dome.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the “no” came Friday morning.

Next, the two sides will take the matter to arbitration, if an agreement can’t be reached by June 15. Ultimate failure to strike a deal on the effort to move the stadium into the “first tier” of all NFL venues will allow the Rams to relocate after the 2014 season.

The CVC proposed earlier this year upgrades that would cost $124 million, with the Rams sharing in the expenses. The Rams’ counteroffer detailed no expenses and made no suggestion regarding whether the team would kick in any cash.

The CVC pegged the price of the Rams’ proposal at $700 million.

 

[azgroover]

Now throw in an owner that refuses to pay to keep quality players and certainly won't spend money on free agency, something that still goes on today, and it isn't shocking that there wasn't a ton of support.

This just isn't true at all. I hate the way they spend money sometimes, but they just opened up the checkbook for Calais Campbell a year after making Fitzgerald the richest WR in the game, after extending Dockett, etc. The son is running the show now and I'd say he single handedly got the stadium deal done too.

 

[GDogg]

I don't want to get into an LA vs. St. Louis thing, but LA is the 2nd most populated city in the country, while St. Louis isn't even close to the top 10, plus LA has tons of celebrities that like going to games just to be seen and get their faces on television, so it is really fair to compare the two cities when it comes to sports fans? I'll say no. Sure, the Lakers pack the Staples Center, but let them suck for a few years, and I am sure Jack Nicholson and plenty of other "fans" would suddenly stop going to games; you can almost set your watch to it. I mean, football is the biggest sport in the country, and yet LA doesn't even have one freaking team! What does that tell you?

The people that come to the games here week in and week out, no matter if the product sucks, aren't celebrities. They aren't doing it to be seen. They do it because they love the game and support their teams. Sure the Arizona Cardinals bolted on us because we wouldn't pay for them to have a new stadium and then waited what, 15 years for one in their new city. Nicely done. LA has a lot more people, plain and simple. St. Louis has a lot higher percentage of hardcore fans. Quality vs. quantity. But in this day and age, quantity and ratings is all that matters. Good by Rams. You'll be missed.

Based on? The Rams were 31st in average attendance last year and 27th in percentage attendance. In 2010, they were 30th in percentage attendance and 30th in average attendance. In 2009, they were 29th in both categories. In 2008, they were 30th in average attendance and 29th in percentage attendance.

It looks to me like St. Louis fans are amongst the worst at supporting their NFL team compared to the other NFL cities.

Not sure how this is possible. The Rams games have been blacked out only a couple times in the last 5 years that I can remember and the blackout rules require a shutout. The stadium holds more than 60K. That's small these days compared to something like the Dallas stadium, but it's max capacity is right around 70K.

The Rams bought the tickets themselves to avoid blackouts.

That happened all the time. They reported it on the news, but it was always under 10,000 seats. Usually something like 4K or something like that. They weren't buying 30K a game or anything. The game I went to against the packers was pretty packed. Then again, the packers travel well, and St. Louis is a cheap place to see your team on the road and almost guaranteed a win...

In any case, St. Louis has ranked among the bottom three to four teams in attendance and percentage attendance for the last four seasons. I'm not seeing anything that supports the contention that St. Louis has a higher percentage of hardcore, quality fans than Los Angeles. If anything, it looks like they don't support their team at all compared to other NFL cities.

LA has lost two teams so the argument that St. Louis doesn't support teams is comical. They filled the stadium when the Arizona Cardinals were here, but a greedy owner took his ball and went home because he didn't get a stadium built with tax payer money despite being a billionaire.And let's talk about higher concentration of hardcore fans. How many people live in the City of LA (not the suburbs, just the city)? 3.7 million.

Same question for St. Louis? 319K

Link

I stand by my original assertion. LA is a lot of things. Movie capital of the world. Home of thousands of stars. Playground of the rich. On the coast, not far from Vegas. Not far from wine country. Not far from the mountains. Lots and lots of things.

St. Louis is a sports town and one of the best in the country. There is no denying that.

Really? Then, why have they been teetering on dead last in attendance the past four years? And, no, they didn't fill the stadium when the Cardinals were there. In the last season, the Cardinals averaged a pathetic 28,000 fans per game. They had a crowd of 11,795 fans for a game in 1987. And, it wasn't just that season. They consistently were among the worst in attendance from 1960 through 1987 (according to some blog, but I can't verify this).

Are you familiar with the Bidwell family and how big of a-holes they are? The Cardinals are the worst organization in professional sports. You do realize that the Cardinals already announced they were moving before the start of their last season in St. Louis right? They are 496-699 in their history. They moved to St. Louis in 1960 and had a 186-202 record while they were here and won ZERO playoff games. ZERO. Now throw in an owner that refuses to pay to keep quality players and certainly won't spend money on free agency, something that still goes on today, and it isn't shocking that there wasn't a ton of support.

Yes. And, I never said it was shocking there wasn't a ton of support. You're backing me up on this. My ONLY point was that there wasn't a ton of fan support. I couldn't care less why there wasn't. The Fanatic (and others), in the face of statistics to the contrary, kept trying to point out how great the support of the fans was compared to the Los Angeles fans and it simply isn't true, as you've illustrated above.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Stlouis is a great baseball town, and a decent hockey town, But I think they are about to lose their 2nd football franchise, (although, this looks like a terrible lease agreement, its no fault of the fans) and it looks like their attendance the past few season are terrible.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Their demands on the stadium remodel came out today. Link.

It looks like the last cards are being played so they can justify their exit from St. Louis. I'll repost my e-mail to Ram's Vice-President Kevin Demoff and his reply when they announce they are moving in 24-36 months. It will be funnier then.

Watching the Greatest Show On Turf in person was some of best times in my life. I'll be sad to see them go and always hate Belicheat & the Patriots for stealing the 2001 Superbowl. :(

 

[griff321]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a3ab0b/article/memo-a-sign-of-progress-for-nfl-moving-back-to-la?module=HP11_headline_stack

The league memo from Commissioner Roger Goodell regarding the conditions of moving a team to Los Angeles is well worth a read. Obtained by NFL Network's Steve Wyche on Friday, the document leaves one clear impression: The NFL is making real progress in moving back to Los Angeles.

The document laid forth the ground rules for applying to relocate to Los Angeles as soon as 2013. That doesn't mean there are any teams ready to move so soon, but this is a sign the league feels confident the city is finally ready. Here's the key passage:

"Stadium development in Los Angeles has advanced to the point where the prospects for a new facility are better than they have been in many years," the memo read.

Things are truly moving forward. The league is trying to make sure it controls the process of a team possibly moving.

We don't know what teams could possibly move, but fans in San Diego particularly can't feel too comfortable.

 

[bagger]

Their demands on the stadium remodel came out today. Link.

It looks like the last cards are being played so they can justify their exit from St. Louis. I'll repost my e-mail to Ram's Vice-President Kevin Demoff and his reply when they announce they are moving in 24-36 months. It will be funnier then.

Watching the Greatest Show On Turf in person was some of best times in my life. I'll be sad to see them go and always hate Belicheat & the Patriots for stealing the 2001 Superbowl. :(

people in st. louis will panic and pay for it with public money i bet.this is why no owners want a team in LA. they use it as leverage to hold all of their existing fans hostage.

no matter what the STL stadium is like, it is still 100X better than any option in LA.

 

[mobb_deep]

The whole LA and celebrity fans argument is just silly. Celebrities go to events in LA because celebrities live in LA! Not because they want their faces seen in TV or whatever. They represent a tiny percentage of a huge fan base. If celebrities lived in Cleveland they would be going to Browns and Indians games. Doesn't that guy from Price Is Right live in Cleveland? What about LeBron James?

 

[kinglochness]

If Roger Goodell wants football in St Louis, then there will be football in St Louis.

Pretty sure he wants football in LA and London just as much if not more.