Goodbye Rams (2 Viewers)

[bagger]

Celebrities go to events in LA because celebrities live in LA! Not because they want their faces seen in TV or whatever.

 

[sharptongued1]

Is that stadium they are building in LA going to seat more than 30K? If not, I guess the home games will never be televised due to the blackout rules.

The Rams have SUCKED hard for years and they still pack close to 60K in that dome every home game. They won't pack the house in LA for a good team, if the Rams are only mediocre, it's going to be tumbleweed in the aisles for the LA Rams.

LA is a lot of things, but a sports town isn't one of them. St. Louis is not a lot of things, but it is one of the best sports towns in the country.

Really ?you don't have a basketball team.

Lakers sell out the Staples, Kings sell out the Staples.

Dodgers have a huge fan base. Not understanding your point.

I think you meant Clippers, not Kings. The confusion is understandable, since nobody talked about, or went to Clippers games prior to two seasons ago. The Kings for the last decade or so are about average (vs. the rest of the NHL) in attendance percentage.

The Los Angeles Rams were in Anaheim, big difference from DTLA.

If Farmers Field gets built in DTLA next to the Staples Center,

that stadium will be filled to capacity, weekly.

Until they suck, then it'll be a ghost town.

 

[sharptongued1]

Is that stadium they are building in LA going to seat more than 30K? If not, I guess the home games will never be televised due to the blackout rules.

The Rams have SUCKED hard for years and they still pack close to 60K in that dome every home game. They won't pack the house in LA for a good team, if the Rams are only mediocre, it's going to be tumbleweed in the aisles for the LA Rams.

LA is a lot of things, but a sports town isn't one of them. St. Louis is not a lot of things, but it is one of the best sports towns in the country.

Really ?you don't have a basketball team.

Lakers sell out the Staples, Kings sell out the Staples.

Dodgers have a huge fan base. Not understanding your point.

The Los Angeles Rams were in Anaheim, big difference from DTLA.

If Farmers Field gets built in DTLA next to the Staples Center,

that stadium will be filled to capacity, weekly.

People that don't live in LA don't understand that Anaheim might as well be the moon to Angelenos.

Can you elaborate for someone who hasn't been to LA? Why is that? It looks like they are only about 15 miles apart. In Houston, 15 miles from downtown won't even necessarily get you out of the city limits.

It's 30 miles from Staples Center (which is where Farmers Field is going) to Anaheim Stadium (where the Rams used to play). From West L.A., it's 41 miles. It can take anywhere from 1 hour on a good day to 2.5 hours to get to Anaheim Stadium.It's also in Orange County. L.A. residents, particularly on the westside, just don't travel that far south other than to continue on down to San Diego for a weekend vacation.

Because they're not diehard sports fans, which is what TheFanatic is saying.

 

[mad sweeney]

Is that stadium they are building in LA going to seat more than 30K? If not, I guess the home games will never be televised due to the blackout rules.

The Rams have SUCKED hard for years and they still pack close to 60K in that dome every home game. They won't pack the house in LA for a good team, if the Rams are only mediocre, it's going to be tumbleweed in the aisles for the LA Rams.

LA is a lot of things, but a sports town isn't one of them. St. Louis is not a lot of things, but it is one of the best sports towns in the country.

Really ?you don't have a basketball team.

Lakers sell out the Staples, Kings sell out the Staples.

Dodgers have a huge fan base. Not understanding your point.

I think you meant Clippers, not Kings. The confusion is understandable, since nobody talked about, or went to Clippers games prior to two seasons ago. The Kings for the last decade or so are about average (vs. the rest of the NHL) in attendance percentage.

The Los Angeles Rams were in Anaheim, big difference from DTLA.

If Farmers Field gets built in DTLA next to the Staples Center,

that stadium will be filled to capacity, weekly.

Until they suck, then it'll be a ghost town.

Kings have been sold out every game I've gone to the last 3 years (30+ games). 18,175 I believe.

 

[mad sweeney]

Is that stadium they are building in LA going to seat more than 30K? If not, I guess the home games will never be televised due to the blackout rules.

The Rams have SUCKED hard for years and they still pack close to 60K in that dome every home game. They won't pack the house in LA for a good team, if the Rams are only mediocre, it's going to be tumbleweed in the aisles for the LA Rams.

LA is a lot of things, but a sports town isn't one of them. St. Louis is not a lot of things, but it is one of the best sports towns in the country.

Really ?you don't have a basketball team.

Lakers sell out the Staples, Kings sell out the Staples.

Dodgers have a huge fan base. Not understanding your point.

The Los Angeles Rams were in Anaheim, big difference from DTLA.

If Farmers Field gets built in DTLA next to the Staples Center,

that stadium will be filled to capacity, weekly.

People that don't live in LA don't understand that Anaheim might as well be the moon to Angelenos.

Can you elaborate for someone who hasn't been to LA? Why is that? It looks like they are only about 15 miles apart. In Houston, 15 miles from downtown won't even necessarily get you out of the city limits.

It's 30 miles from Staples Center (which is where Farmers Field is going) to Anaheim Stadium (where the Rams used to play). From West L.A., it's 41 miles. It can take anywhere from 1 hour on a good day to 2.5 hours to get to Anaheim Stadium.It's also in Orange County. L.A. residents, particularly on the westside, just don't travel that far south other than to continue on down to San Diego for a weekend vacation.

Because they're not diehard sports fans, which is what TheFanatic is saying.

Two hours in LA traffic is enough to kill any fun you'll have anywhere. If a team goes down that far south it'll be OC's team, not LA's. The AEG stadium would be ideal, public transportation all over the place to get there.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Is that stadium they are building in LA going to seat more than 30K? If not, I guess the home games will never be televised due to the blackout rules.

The Rams have SUCKED hard for years and they still pack close to 60K in that dome every home game. They won't pack the house in LA for a good team, if the Rams are only mediocre, it's going to be tumbleweed in the aisles for the LA Rams.

LA is a lot of things, but a sports town isn't one of them. St. Louis is not a lot of things, but it is one of the best sports towns in the country.

Really ?you don't have a basketball team.

Lakers sell out the Staples, Kings sell out the Staples.

Dodgers have a huge fan base. Not understanding your point.

I think you meant Clippers, not Kings. The confusion is understandable, since nobody talked about, or went to Clippers games prior to two seasons ago. The Kings for the last decade or so are about average (vs. the rest of the NHL) in attendance percentage.

The Los Angeles Rams were in Anaheim, big difference from DTLA.

If Farmers Field gets built in DTLA next to the Staples Center,

that stadium will be filled to capacity, weekly.

Until they suck, then it'll be a ghost town.

I go to Kings games regularly, they're at capacity.

 

[sharptongued1]

Is that stadium they are building in LA going to seat more than 30K? If not, I guess the home games will never be televised due to the blackout rules.

The Rams have SUCKED hard for years and they still pack close to 60K in that dome every home game. They won't pack the house in LA for a good team, if the Rams are only mediocre, it's going to be tumbleweed in the aisles for the LA Rams.

LA is a lot of things, but a sports town isn't one of them. St. Louis is not a lot of things, but it is one of the best sports towns in the country.

Really ?you don't have a basketball team.

Lakers sell out the Staples, Kings sell out the Staples.

Dodgers have a huge fan base. Not understanding your point.

I think you meant Clippers, not Kings. The confusion is understandable, since nobody talked about, or went to Clippers games prior to two seasons ago. The Kings for the last decade or so are about average (vs. the rest of the NHL) in attendance percentage.

The Los Angeles Rams were in Anaheim, big difference from DTLA.

If Farmers Field gets built in DTLA next to the Staples Center,

that stadium will be filled to capacity, weekly.

Until they suck, then it'll be a ghost town.

I go to Kings games regularly, they're at capacity.

Not according to the numbers provided by ESPN. If those number are inaccurate then my apologies.

 

[sharptongued1]

Two hours in LA traffic is enough to kill any fun you'll have anywhere. If a team goes down that far south it'll be OC's team, not LA's. The AEG stadium would be ideal, public transportation all over the place to get there.

Not to be contrarian, but I and others routinely wait two plus hours to get into the Truman Sports Complex, and I've waited that long getting to other stadiums across the country also. I can think of worse things to do than sit in Southern California weather for two hours waiting to see a professional sports team play.

 

[GDogg]

Is that stadium they are building in LA going to seat more than 30K? If not, I guess the home games will never be televised due to the blackout rules.

The Rams have SUCKED hard for years and they still pack close to 60K in that dome every home game. They won't pack the house in LA for a good team, if the Rams are only mediocre, it's going to be tumbleweed in the aisles for the LA Rams.

LA is a lot of things, but a sports town isn't one of them. St. Louis is not a lot of things, but it is one of the best sports towns in the country.

Really ?you don't have a basketball team.

Lakers sell out the Staples, Kings sell out the Staples.

Dodgers have a huge fan base. Not understanding your point.

The Los Angeles Rams were in Anaheim, big difference from DTLA.

If Farmers Field gets built in DTLA next to the Staples Center,

that stadium will be filled to capacity, weekly.

People that don't live in LA don't understand that Anaheim might as well be the moon to Angelenos.

Can you elaborate for someone who hasn't been to LA? Why is that? It looks like they are only about 15 miles apart. In Houston, 15 miles from downtown won't even necessarily get you out of the city limits.

It's 30 miles from Staples Center (which is where Farmers Field is going) to Anaheim Stadium (where the Rams used to play). From West L.A., it's 41 miles. It can take anywhere from 1 hour on a good day to 2.5 hours to get to Anaheim Stadium.It's also in Orange County. L.A. residents, particularly on the westside, just don't travel that far south other than to continue on down to San Diego for a weekend vacation.

Because they're not diehard sports fans, which is what TheFanatic is saying.

No, that's not why. And, it doesn't explain why St. Louis fans are not diehard football fans.

 

[GDogg]

Two hours in LA traffic is enough to kill any fun you'll have anywhere. If a team goes down that far south it'll be OC's team, not LA's. The AEG stadium would be ideal, public transportation all over the place to get there.

Not to be contrarian, but I and others routinely wait two plus hours to get into the Truman Sports Complex, and I've waited that long getting to other stadiums across the country also. I can think of worse things to do than sit in Southern California weather for two hours waiting to see a professional sports team play.

With all due respect, you are showing a little ignorance here. Sitting in traffic is not the same as sitting outside enjoying the Southern California sun. SoCal traffic is horrible. Awful. It sucks the life out of you.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Is that stadium they are building in LA going to seat more than 30K? If not, I guess the home games will never be televised due to the blackout rules.

The Rams have SUCKED hard for years and they still pack close to 60K in that dome every home game. They won't pack the house in LA for a good team, if the Rams are only mediocre, it's going to be tumbleweed in the aisles for the LA Rams.

LA is a lot of things, but a sports town isn't one of them. St. Louis is not a lot of things, but it is one of the best sports towns in the country.

Really ?you don't have a basketball team.

Lakers sell out the Staples, Kings sell out the Staples.

Dodgers have a huge fan base. Not understanding your point.

I think you meant Clippers, not Kings. The confusion is understandable, since nobody talked about, or went to Clippers games prior to two seasons ago. The Kings for the last decade or so are about average (vs. the rest of the NHL) in attendance percentage.

The Los Angeles Rams were in Anaheim, big difference from DTLA.

If Farmers Field gets built in DTLA next to the Staples Center,

that stadium will be filled to capacity, weekly.

Until they suck, then it'll be a ghost town.

I go to Kings games regularly, they're at capacity.

Not according to the numbers provided by ESPN. If those number are inaccurate then my apologies.

Your numbers show 100% capacity for the Los Angeles Kings at home. I don't want to split hairs here, but the main point which may be missed

is that unlike the Los Angeles of 15-20 years ago, Angelino's of today support their sports franchises.

I think using fan support of the LAKings, as and argument against a DTLA football team is a non sequitur.

.

 

[Sake-Bombers]

This LA vs St. Louis stuff seems like a complete red herring. Only reason relocation being discussed is because the team can via the lease. They are going to leverage that to get a first-rate facility, mostly because they can.

If somehow the whole thing goes pear-shaped in STL with the CVC negotiations, then Kroenke will find a place to take the team that has the most agreeable terms. He's not moving them or threatening to move then because people go to hockey games. He's going to get the best situation for him and the franchise.

And from my understanding of the requirement for AEG to become majority holder if any team in LA, I'm not so sure LA is actually that appealing to Kroenke.

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Recieved the following e-mail this morning from Kevin Demoff:

We wanted to let our season ticket holders know that in an effort to focus on the Edward Jones Dome First Tier Process with the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission, the St. Louis Rams are withdrawing our commitment to play a home game in London in each of the 2013 and 2014 seasons. We are looking forward to playing in London this season as the NFL’s international series offers a unique opportunity to grow the American football audience, expand the Rams’ brand to international fans and enhance St. Louis on the global stage. However, moving forward, we believe our attention needs to be on the ongoing First Tier process. We appreciate your continued loyalty and look forward to an exciting 2012 season beginning this Saturday at the Edward Jones Dome when we host the Kansas City Chiefs in the Governor’s Cup! Sincerely, Kevin

They had to do this to avoid violating the current contract in place, they received permission for the game this year. Rams.

 

[bulger2holt]

The Rams did this to show commitment to staying in St.Louis. I just heard the Demoff interview. The Rams are going nowhere. Move on

 

[Sheriff Bart]

The Rams did this to show commitment to staying in St.Louis. I just heard the Demoff interview. The Rams are going nowhere. Move on

No, if the violate the terms of the lease agreement by playing those games in London, then they can't go anywhere.

 

[bulger2holt]

The Rams are using LA like a cheap whore to get their stadium issue resolved in St.Louis

 

[GDogg]

Welcome home, Rams! It will be like they never left.

 

[bulger2holt]

Welcome home, Rams! It will be like they never left.

Cleveland already has a team

 

[Judge Smails]

The Rams belong back in LA.

No NFL Teams belong in LA. How many times does that city have to prove they arent NFL fans?

Complete and total BS. It has been about the stadium situation since I was a kid. I used to go to watch the Rams at Anaheim Stadium (baseball field, horrible stadium for football) and then the Raiders at the Coliseum (decent enough for USC I guess, but bad outdated stadium in a horrible part or town). So for the past few years I've gone to Qualcomm Stadium to watch the Chargers, but no more. What a horrible stadium that is.Here's the deal. Downtown LA is making a huge comeback. LA Live, Staples Center, the new Grand park, tons of restaurants, etc. When Anschutz builds the stadium it will be sold out for decades.

 

[Judge Smails]

By the way - I don't want the Rams

 

[mad sweeney]

By the way - I don't want the Rams

You'll take what you get and you'll like it!

 

[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.

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.

Yes, you do support more teams. You also have 10 times the population. So until you support 30 teams, St. Louis is still a better sports town and always will be. We have to be. Not much else to do besides sports, beer and BBQ..

 

[cobalt_27]

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.

Yes, you do support more teams. You also have 10 times the population. So until you support 30 teams, St. Louis is still a better sports town and always will be. We have to be. Not much else to do besides sports, beer and BBQ..

Los Angeles is an awful sports city. Yes, they can muster enough sports fans to fill stadiums. But, on a per capita basis, average Joe Schmo fan? LA is so incredibly uneducated and uninspired. I don't think STL is much more than a baseball town, with occasional hockey/football fascinations. But, LA is second only to MIA as having the worst fan base in the country.

 

[bulger2holt]

I don't think STL is much more than a baseball town, with occasional hockey/football fascinations

The Blues have a HUGE following and the Rams sell out nearly every game. Don't say such idiotic things that you know nothing about. St.Louis is one of the best sports towns in the US.

 

[GDogg]

Welcome home, Rams! It will be like they never left.

Cleveland already has a team

This makes no sense.

 

[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.

Yes, you do support more teams. You also have 10 times the population. So until you support 30 teams, St. Louis is still a better sports town and always will be. We have to be. Not much else to do besides sports, beer and BBQ..

Maybe by some definition that you can craft out of thin air, but it sure isn't based on any objective measure or the city's ability to support a sports team.You guys talk a nice game, though, and have convinced a lot of media that it's a great sports town. I guess the lights shining off the empty seats must be blinding reporters to the ghost town inside St. Louis stadiums.

 

[bulger2holt]

Welcome home, Rams! It will be like they never left.

Cleveland already has a team

This makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense

 

[GDogg]

Welcome home, Rams! It will be like they never left.

Cleveland already has a team

This makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense

Nope. None.

 

[bulger2holt]

The Rams just finished 15-65, the worst stretch in NFL history and the stadium is still nearly filled each week and people have the audacity to say St.Louis doesn't support the Rams ?

 

[GDogg]

The Rams just finished 15-65, the worst stretch in NFL history and the stadium is still nearly filled each week and people have the audacity to say St.Louis doesn't support the Rams ?

Audacity? It's a fact. Link, Link and Link. St. Louis doesn't support the Rams. Unless, of course, you have a rather unique definition of support that has nothing to do with attending the games the Rams play at home.Only Cincinnati had fewer fans. But, a greater percentage of the stadium was filled than Cincinnati, Miami, Washington, Buffalo and Tampa Bay. So, you've got that going for you.

Which is nice.

 

[bulger2holt]

The Rams just finished 15-65, the worst stretch in NFL history and the stadium is still nearly filled each week and people have the audacity to say St.Louis doesn't support the Rams ?

Audacity? It's a fact. Link, Link and Link. St. Louis doesn't support the Rams. Unless, of course, you have a rather unique definition of support that has nothing to do with attending the games the Rams play at home.Only Cincinnati had fewer fans. But, a greater percentage of the stadium was filled than Cincinnati, Miami, Washington, Buffalo and Tampa Bay. So, you've got that going for you.

Which is nice.

56,000 and 86% capacity for a 15-65 team is pretty damn good. Imagine what it would be if they were even an average team ? Kroenke will see to it they are a good team in the very near future. He has put the pieces in place.

 

[bulger2holt]

Welcome home, Rams! It will be like they never left.

Cleveland already has a team

This makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense

Nope. None.

Then I guess you don't know where the Rams originated.

 

[GDogg]

Welcome home, Rams! It will be like they never left.

Cleveland already has a team

This makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense

Nope. None.

Then I guess you don't know where the Rams originated.

Of course I do. But, I don't live in Cleveland and Cleveland is not where the Rams franchise was located for the vast majority of its existence. Los Angeles is the Rams' home.

 

[bulger2holt]

Welcome home, Rams! It will be like they never left.

Cleveland already has a team

This makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense

Nope. None.

Then I guess you don't know where the Rams originated.

Of course I do. But, I don't live in Cleveland and Cleveland is not where the Rams franchise was located for the vast majority of its existence. Los Angeles is the Rams' home.

They have been in St.Louis for almost 20 years. They are home. LA can have an expansion team if they want a team.

 

[Sweet Love]

Did anyone even go to Rams games in LA before they left? I mean aside from the ones who wore watermelons on their heads? LA doesn't need an NFL franchise. They had 2 and couldn't keep either one.http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-05/sports/sp-35038_1_ram-defense

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but couldn't that have been the problem? Could STL, or any market besides NY (which really is unique since the teams play on the NY/NJ border) support two NFL teams? They left at the same time basically and the city did not have a chance to support just one team.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Los Angeles is an awful sports city. Yes, they can muster enough sports fans to fill stadiums. But, on a per capita basis, average Joe Schmo fan? LA is so incredibly uneducated and uninspired. I don't think STL is much more than a baseball town, with occasional hockey/football fascinations. But, LA is second only to MIA as having the worst fan base in the country.

Not sure how old you are, but I grew up outside of Boston.Now I live in Southern California, for the past 20yrs. The fan base, and knowledge levelof the fans in Los Angeles now, compared to that of 20 yrs ago is night and day.Total passion and knowledge of the game in all sports, especially hockey and basketballsold out stadiums on a nightly basis.Not sure how you can make the stretch that we have the second worst fan base in the country,especially when you live 3000 miles away. I'm in the middle of it and I can tell you,it is the exact opposite of your claim.

 

[Sake-Bombers]

Any move has nothing to do with fan bases. It has everything to do with money, contracts and stadium deals. Is it in Rams, NFL's and Kroenke's best financial interest to leave St. Louis and join the LA group? That's all this is about, and we're here because dome lease allows them to explore options.

 

[TheFanatic]

Welcome home, Rams! It will be like they never left.

Cleveland already has a team

This makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense

Nope. None.

Then I guess you don't know where the Rams originated.

Of course I do. But, I don't live in Cleveland and Cleveland is not where the Rams franchise was located for the vast majority of its existence. Los Angeles is the Rams' home.

Sure you do. If you knew that the Rams came from Cleveland then it would've made a little since rather than none. But nice hedge there to make it seem like you had any idea what he was talking about.Let;s see, 10 times the population supports:2 baseball teams2 basketball teams2 hockey teams1 college football teamSt. Louis supports 3 teams. Yeah, per capita it isn't even remotely close. But I can't expect someone to understand stats if he doesn't even know where the Rams originated from...

 

[GDogg]

Welcome home, Rams! It will be like they never left.

Cleveland already has a team

This makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense

Nope. None.

Then I guess you don't know where the Rams originated.

Of course I do. But, I don't live in Cleveland and Cleveland is not where the Rams franchise was located for the vast majority of its existence. Los Angeles is the Rams' home.

Sure you do. If you knew that the Rams came from Cleveland then it would've made a little since rather than none. But nice hedge there to make it seem like you had any idea what he was talking about.Let;s see, 10 times the population supports:

2 baseball teams

2 basketball teams

2 hockey teams

1 college football team

St. Louis supports 3 teams.

Yeah, per capita it isn't even remotely close. But I can't expect someone to understand stats if he doesn't even know where the Rams originated from...

I've been a Ram fan a lot longer than any of the St. Louis Ram "fans." I know all about the Rams history and have suffered through a great deal more than you or the Frontiere-loving Rams "fans" in St. Louis have. I'm sorry, but I will never consider Cleveland their "home."And, no, it made no sense because I welcomed the Rams "home." I don't live in Cleveland. I could not welcome anyone to Cleveland because I don't live there (and have never been there). Now, do you understand how it made no sense?

And, actually 6 times the population supports:

2 baseball teams

2 basketball teams

2 hockey teams

2 college football teams

2 college basketball teams

2 soccer teams

And, soon it will also support two NFL teams, including the Los Angeles Rams. At that point, St. Louis will be in a much better place to be able support the two major franchises left in that city in a way they deserve. As you've shown me, St. Louis is simply too small a place to support the NFL. The Cardinals already have shown us that and the Rams are shouting it from the top of that sweet ### arch in your sleepy little town.

 

[Judge Smails]

Los Angeles is an awful sports city. Yes, they can muster enough sports fans to fill stadiums. But, on a per capita basis, average Joe Schmo fan? LA is so incredibly uneducated and uninspired. I don't think STL is much more than a baseball town, with occasional hockey/football fascinations. But, LA is second only to MIA as having the worst fan base in the country.

Not sure how old you are, but I grew up outside of Boston.Now I live in Southern California, for the past 20yrs. The fan base, and knowledge levelof the fans in Los Angeles now, compared to that of 20 yrs ago is night and day.Total passion and knowledge of the game in all sports, especially hockey and basketballsold out stadiums on a nightly basis.Not sure how you can make the stretch that we have the second worst fan base in the country,especially when you live 3000 miles away. I'm in the middle of it and I can tell you,it is the exact opposite of your claim.

Exactly - look at the attendance for Lakers/Clippers, Dodgers/Angels, Kings/Ducks then say it's an awful sports city. That being said - we do have a life. It's not all we do. I don't know what the favorite pie of Carlos Beltran's grandmother is like a St. Louis fan might. As soon as that new stadium in downtown gets the green light you'll see how LA can support a football team. And don't be jealous of all the SuperBowls we'll host either.

 

[bulger2holt]

Sources confirm Kroenke wants Rams in St. Louis: Bet on it

When the news broke Monday afternoon that the Rams decided to dial back a little on their ambitious global marketing plan to become the British Empire's Team, it sparked an immediate rash of disparate speculation from astute political tea-leaf readers, rabid stadium-ologists, panicky Chicken Littles and generic local worrywarts about what it all meant.

Because it had to mean something, right?

Something big. Something bad. Something suspicious. Something conspiratorial. Something layered in political intrigue or smothered in diabolical suspense, right?

It had to be a part of some sinister plot that somehow ultimately frees Stan Kroenke to take his team back to Los Angeles, or at the very least was some covert quid pro quo in the stadium-lease negotiations, right?

Well, actually no, not really.

Sometimes, the most obvious reason something happens is actually the most obvious reason something happens. And in this case, what motivated the Rams to end their enterprising plans to play a home game in London for three consecutive years was simple as this:

It just wasn't worth the time, aggravation or expense.

No plots. No mysteries. No conspiracies. Just simple economics.

In the grand scheme of things, more than likely the money they thought they would rake in by marketing themselves as the British Isles' favorite American football team looked a lot better in concept than it now does in reality.

The reality is, when you add the potential loss of ticket sales from some skeptical season-ticket holders who are nervous that their team might be short-timers in St. Louis, plus the added expenses of paying local stadium workers for missed wages for that one lost home game, multiplied by the time, strain and wear and tear on a rebuilding team that needs every conceivable advantage it can get just to be competitive, going to London appears to be one of those best-laid plans that may have gone astray.

So this was a strategic re-boot philosophically for the Rams, because in terms of their overall business plan, everything leads us to their ultimate goal, which is finding the best way to put this football team in a new state-of-the-art stadium in the near future. And perhaps now that the team has quietly and not-so-quietly explored all its available options (Los Angeles. London. Did someone say Montreal?), surprisingly, St. Louis may have finally crystallized as the best choice after all.

If you read between the lines in Kevin Demoff's comments in Monday afternoon's briefing, the Rams' executive vice president pretty much spells it out for you.

"I think each of you saw that we announced today that we're withdrawing our commitment for playing home games in London in 2013 and 2014," Demoff told reporters at Rams Park. "(It was) not an easy decision to make given the time we invested in playing those games and wanting to be part of the (NFL) International Series. However, I think it's the right decision at this time for our organization and what we're trying to become. We want to grow globally but we need to make sure that we're on solid footing first here in St. Louis and in this region. I think we're taking the right steps to do that each way. While this is something that we believe in and we continue to believe in and I hope at future points we'll be able to play in London, this was just not the right timing for the organization and for our fans, and I think that today's announcement reflects that."

The Rams organization wants to get the stadium issue resolved, and this seems to be another logical step toward that process. This is part of the same process I've been talking about for months. Over the past few months, one of the biggest unknowns in these negotiations was what exactly Kroenke wants to do.

Well, now we seem to be getting a better glimpse of his intentions. Several well-placed sources with intimate knowledge of the dome-lease negotiations have once again confirmed to me that once the dust settles on this arbitration process, it will be fairly obvious that Kroenke wants to stay in St. Louis regardless of what the panicky Chicken Littles, generic political worrywarts and narrow-minded political doomsayers predict.

Smarter progressive minds with a new vision for the St. Louis region are going to find a way to come up with a solution that keeps the Rams in St. Louis.

Can I put it any stronger than that?

How's this: Bet on it.

Taking the London games off the table for 2013 and 2014 was a savvy public-relations olive branch by the Rams. It doesn't affect the course of the dome negotiations, but it should buy some reasonable and good public faith with the ticket-buying consumers.

One final thought to those who believe nothing would make the CVC happier than to lose the Rams, freeing them of a demanding tenant and opening up dates for the dome to host all the monster truck pulls and folksy small-time conventioneers it can handle:

Be careful what you wish for.

Let's suppose that with the CVC's favor, Kroenke was given a green light to build his own fabulous sports palace in the county (with the help of a $200 million grant from the NFL, Kroenke's matching funds and some creative state-wide public financing) that would rival the most attractive sports venues in the country. Wouldn't that also give Kroenke's retractable-roofed palace an edge over the CVC's outdated dome on every bit of potential sports business proposed for the city?

And if Kroenke were to build his own domed stadium nice enough to attract the Final Four, bowl games, SEC football and basketball championships, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the venue would also be a rather formidable competitor to the CVC for some of the bigger convention business it aspires to lure to St. Louis in the future?

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bryan-burwell/burwell-no-plots-are-afoot-in-switch-by-rams/article_8091525c-730f-5b12-bb10-9def7743dc61.html

 

[cstu]

Vinny Bonsignore: Could the Rams move to Los Angeles?By Vinny Bonsignore
Posted: 07/10/2013 06:11:37 AM PDT
Updated: 07/10/2013 06:23:57 AM PDT

The NFL-to-L.A. carousel is spinning again

Round and round it goes, up and down, side to side, where it stops no one knows.

Ah, what would we do without the never-ending NFL-to-Los Angeles merry-go-round?

For more than 16 years running, teams jumping on and off, millionaires, billionaires, pretenders, imposters, a host of potential sites, our heads spinning and our hearts breaking as each new proposal or rumor ultimately crashes down to earth, the burning remains emitting the unquestionable stench of being used.

By now we're accustomed to it. Even expect it.

But just when we want to give up, along comes yet another tantalizing possibility to pull us back in.

And the latest one is a whopper.

In case you missed it amid the recently concluded Dwight Howard soap opera, the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission informed the NFL's Rams it cannot, and will not, come up with the $700 million needed to renovate the Edward Jones Dome -- the Rams' home for the past 18 years.

And that is significant,because when the Rams fled Los Angeles for St. Louis in 1995, they had the foresight to negotiate a provision that stipulated come the end of the 2014 season, the Edward Jones Dome had to be among the top-tier NFL stadiums. If not, they were free to break their lease and move wherever they liked.

St. Louis, determined to pry the Rams from Los Angeles, naively agreed to the clause, underestimating how dramatically different the NFL stadium landscape would change between 1995 and 2014.

Or how high costs would soar.

Back then, the Philadelphia Eagles still played at Veterans Stadium, the New England Patriots at Foxboro Stadium, the Denver Broncos at Mile High, the Washington Redskins at RFK, the Giants and Jets at the Meadowlands, the Cincinnati Bengals at Riverfront, the Pittsburgh Steelers at Three Rivers, the Seattle Seahawks at the Kingdome and the Dallas Cowboys at Texas Stadium.

Today, every one of those teams play in beautiful new stadiums.

In fact, since the Rams moved to St. Louis, 17 new stadiums have been built in the NFL. Many within the last decade.

As a result, the Edward Jones Dome is now among the bottom third of NFL stadiums. Hence, the hefty $700 million price tag arbitrators ruled St. Louis needed to come up with to remake it into a top-tier venue.

The problem being, St. Louis doesn't have that kind of money lying around to sink into an NFL stadium.

A message was conveyed to the Rams by Kathleen "Kitty" Ratcliffe, president of the CVC -- which operates the stadium -- via letter in which she wrote her agency is "not in a position" to pay for a $700 million renovation.

Not long after, Jeff Rainford, chief of staff for St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, told The Associated Press that city leaders were on the same page with the CVC and the Sports Complex Authority, which owns the stadium.

"It was a no-brainer," Rainford said. "There was nobody in St. Louis who thought that the Rams' proposal was a good idea, other than the Rams."

In doing so, the Rams immediately vaulted into the favorite's seat to relocate to Los Angeles, or in their case return home, to play at either the proposed Farmers Field or a site to be determined.

Because, well, that's what happens every time an NFL team begins a fight for a new stadium -- the words Los Angeles tucked away in the pockets of NFL leaders and readily available whenever pressure needs to be applied to get politicians to comply with their wishes.

Which is why I caution long-suffering Los Angeles Rams fans about dusting off their Eric Dickerson jerseys just yet. And to keep in mind the CVC's decision was hardly a surprise, as it simply marks the beginning of the Rams' journey to find a new home.

In fact, some believe with the Rams now essentially freed from the Edward Jones Dome, they will turn their attention on negotiating a deal with Missouri leaders for a brand-new stadium, the financing being shared by the Rams, the NFL and the state.

That is what Atlanta and the Falcons and Minnesota and the Vikings have done to secure new stadiums within the last year.

As such, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon appears to be taking the reins at this point, emailing a statement last Friday that said: "I look forward to hearing from the Rams about their long-term plans."

More likely, the Rams and state leaders will hammer out a deal for a new stadium to keep them in the St. Louis area.

And Los Angeles goes back to square one.

On the other hand, there are too many dots connecting Rams owner Stan Kroenke to Los Angeles to completely dismiss the possibility he'd relocate here.

Remember, it was Kroenke who made a run at the Dodgers when they were up for sale two years ago -- a quest most assumed was the first move in a two-tier effort to secure both the Dodgers and an NFL team in Los Angeles.

Kroenke also owns a home in the Los Angeles area and has a working relationship with Anschutz Entertainment Group president Phil Anschutz, the mastermind and financier behind AEG's proposed downtown Farmers Field project.

And it is Kroenke who has been slow to respond to the recent stadium developments in St. Louis, leaving everyone in St. Louis to wonder what exactly he has up his sleeve.

All they really know is, the Rams can walk away from their lease at the Edward Jones Dome as early as the end of the 2014 season.

And whether they want to believe it or not, a privately-funded, politically-backed stadium project in downtown Los Angeles is ready to be built. The last remaining hurdle is a team agreeing to move there.

To think otherwise would be a grave mistake.

The last time I spoke to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, he looked me in the eye and assured me the NFL considered Farmers Field a viable option and flicked away reports his league considered it a dead deal.

Prior to that, Anschutz told me he was motivated to bring the NFL back to Los Angeles and that a deal to make it happen would not be complicated.

Not saying the Rams are moving here. Just saying there is a privately funded stadium ready to be built at a Los Angeles site NFL leaders find appealing.

Meanwhile, St. Louis doesn't have the money to renovate the Edward Jones Dome and there is no deal in place to secure a new stadium there.

And the Rams are now free to leave after the 2014 season.

In other words, here we go again.

 

[TheFanatic]

There's only one problem with that last article. The field proposed for LA is nothing more than a proposal. I don't believe the land has been purchased yet. It will be years before the ever break ground. Look for the Jags to go to London and the Rams to stay put.

No team is going to LA until there is a stadium built. The notion that they are simply going to start as soon as they agree to get a team is pretty funny. If the Rams announce today that they are moving to LA the stadium here would be a ghost town until they finally left town. That means the 2013 season will be crushed with lack of ticket sales. That would likely bleed over into 2014 because I'm not sure if they broke ground right now they could build the stadium in LA in the next 14 months.

All this speculation about LA needs to stop until a feasible NFL facility is built. Because until there is, we have to acknowledge the billion dollar and logistical nightmare of a white elephant in the room...

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

I want the Rams in L.A. so that I can bring my old L.A. Rams pennant from when I was 10 out of storage.

 

[massraider]

Apologies if this has been covered, but it seems weird that the $700 mill renovation is dead, but a new stadium seems to be possible. How's that work?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Apologies if this has been covered, but it seems weird that the $700 mill renovation is dead, but a new stadium seems to be possible. How's that work?

I didn't see anything on the table for a new stadium in St Louis. But AEG already has a $700 million, 30 year naming rights deal in place for a proposed stadium in downtown LA. That kind of dough could go a long way toward building a new stadium.

 

[GregR]

There's only one problem with that last article. The field proposed for LA is nothing more than a proposal. I don't believe the land has been purchased yet. It will be years before the ever break ground. Look for the Jags to go to London and the Rams to stay put.

No team is going to LA until there is a stadium built. The notion that they are simply going to start as soon as they agree to get a team is pretty funny. If the Rams announce today that they are moving to LA the stadium here would be a ghost town until they finally left town. That means the 2013 season will be crushed with lack of ticket sales. That would likely bleed over into 2014 because I'm not sure if they broke ground right now they could build the stadium in LA in the next 14 months.

All this speculation about LA needs to stop until a feasible NFL facility is built. Because until there is, we have to acknowledge the billion dollar and logistical nightmare of a white elephant in the room...

It would seem like common sense that a team wouldn't be willing to take such a revenue hit as you mention above.

Of course, common sense and reality aren't always the same thing. The Oilers did exactly what you describe. They announced before the 1996 season that they would be moving to Tennessee in 1998. They played both '96 and '97 in front of empty seats at home.

I'm not saying the Rams definitely go to LA. But I don't think what you mention is a deal breaker. If they think it is to their ultimate, long term financial gain, they could still do it.

 

[TheFanatic]

Apologies if this has been covered, but it seems weird that the $700 mill renovation is dead, but a new stadium seems to be possible. How's that work?

The $700 million renovation would come pretty much from the city/state. The money isn't there. And no way to get it there before 2014

But if they were building a new stadium, the NFL would kick in $200 million. They would go to the state for some money (sell bonds, raise taxes, etc) and Kronke would kick in the rest. The added benefit for Kronke is that St. Louis hosts a lot of Final 4 games and even things like the Big 12 championship game. Build his own stadium with a retracteable roof and they would no longer be held at the Dome downtown and he would rake that revenue too...

 

[butcher boy]

Can't wait for the Rams to move to LA and see all the Dodger fans show up mid 2nd quarter.

 

[TheFanatic]

Apologies if this has been covered, but it seems weird that the $700 mill renovation is dead, but a new stadium seems to be possible. How's that work?

I didn't see anything on the table for a new stadium in St Louis. But AEG already has a $700 million, 30 year naming rights deal in place for a proposed stadium in downtown LA. That kind of dough could go a long way toward building a new stadium.

Going rate for a kick ### venue is about a billion. If they have that much in place, why isn't this a done deal? The NFL generally kicks in $200 million for new stadiums too. If I had $900 million in my pocket, I could probably square away the financing for the other $100 million despite being a tech geek in St. Louis with a grilling blog. Something doesn't add up there...