Goodbye Rams (1 Viewer)

[Bob Magaw]

Is land cheaper in St. Louis than LA? Ya think? What worked there wouldn't necessarily here.

Also, was it cheaper to do that decades ago than now, was it a different economic climate, was the political situation in the respective cities different, there could be a thousand variables you aren't accounting for. It wasn't happening here without a commitment from a team, and commitment from a team was complicated by lack of a viable stadium. Kroenke was the game changer, unifying those separate strands in one package.

If they move, tough on the fans, but I think of Frontiere (a MO native) as hijacking a team that never should have moved in the first place, they were in LA for nearly a half century.

 

[Gr00vus]

You think Angelenos want the teams more than those fans in San Diego, St. Louis, Jax, and Oakland want to keep theirs? Really?

Yes to the bolded.

They why didn't they build a stadium before this? St. Louis built a stadium and less than 25 years later is on their way to a second one. What have the Angelenos done? Whine that they keep being used as bait for teams to get stadiums in their own cities. Want a team? Build a stadium. But you had to wait until Kroenke started the project on his own which then prompted the Chargers and Raiders to dip their toes in that water.

I don't think people in Los Angeles care that much about having an NFL team. I know I don't. In fact I'd prefer it if we didn't get one. Having a team in Los Angeles isn't so much about what the people of Los Angeles want - it's more about what the league and the owners want. Seems like they're getting to the point where they're thinking they value the T.V. market more than having the constant threat of moving to Los Angeles to use to blackmail other cities into giving in to new stadium demands.

 

[Gr00vus]

I can't believe they're seriously considering moving teams to Inglewood and Carson. Only reason I ever went to Inglewood was to watch games at the Forum. I don't think I've ever been to Carson - may have driven through once or twice. I've lived in L.A. county my whole life.

And now the only reason you'll go there is to watch games at the Rams stadium.

Not if it's the Rams I won't. I'd only go to see the Chargers, and then only maybe once a season, if that. I'd rather the Chargers stay in S.D., that's where they belong. I'd be as likely to go down there to see a game as I would be to see them in Inglewood.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I don't know? The population of greater LA is something like 15 million. The opinion of one person may not be representative of everybody? I'd definitely go. I know for a fact the Rams would have an instant fan base here, I saw just a small part of it in Oxnard at the joint training camp practices with the Cowboys.

* No doubt TV is a big driving force, for the league. I'm not sure they would do it (or Kroenke) if they thought it was going to bomb and were this pessimistic.

 

[Gr00vus]

I don't know? The population of greater LA is something like 15 million. The opinion of one person may not be representative of everybody? I'd definitely go. I know for a fact the Rams would have an instant fan base here, I saw just a small part of it in Oxnard at the joint training camp practices with the Cowboys.

* No doubt TV is a big driving force, for the league. I'm not sure they would do it (or Kroenke) if they thought it was going to bomb and were this pessimistic.

I don't claim to represent the whole area. But there has been a general apathy about having an NFL team here for a while - it's part of what led the Rams and Raiders to move away in the first place. I think there is less enthusiasm here for an NFL team than there is in the current cities. You listen to the talk radio here, barely any callers talk about getting an NFL team. Whenever the NFL in Los Angeles thing gets yet another life, it's always a top down deal - local politicians and guys with money who think there should be a team here, it's not much of a grass roots sentiment or effort. There are serious Rams/Raiders/Chargers fans here - but not to any greater degree than in St. Louis, Oakland or San Diego, and I'd hazard a guess that they're a much smaller proportion of the overall population of Los Angeles than other cities. People will go to the games - if the team is winning. But I think in other places the team is much more wrapped up in the identity and spirit of the city than it would be here. It's not like Kansas City, Seattle, D.C. etc. A couple hundred yahoos showing up for summer walk throughs doesn't really mean much.

 

[TheFanatic]

Is land cheaper in St. Louis than LA? Ya think? What worked there wouldn't necessarily here.

Also, was it cheaper to do that decades ago than now, was it a different economic climate, was the political situation in the respective cities different, there could be a thousand variables you aren't accounting for. It wasn't happening here without a commitment from a team, and commitment from a team was complicated by lack of a viable stadium. Kroenke was the game changer, unifying those separate strands in one package.

If they move, tough on the fans, but I think of Frontiere (a MO native) as hijacking a team that never should have moved in the first place, they were in LA for nearly a half century.

Was it cheaper to do decades ago? Sure. Again, why didn't LA do it then? Land is cheaper here? Sure. Is there much MUCH more money in LA to build a stadium? Seems sort of a wash there.

I countered the argument that LA fans want football more than St. Louis fans. The citizens of St. Louis had a public vote and voted to use their tax dollars on a stadium without any guarantee of a team. Your argument that LA won't build a stadium unless they have a commitment of a team pretty much seals the argument in my favor. They only want to commit to football if they have a team. The citizens of St. Louis committed to football by paying to build a stadium without a team. We are committing to it again right now, but going ahead and building a stadium for an owner who is building a stadium in another city. Sorry, but the people of St. Louis want football MUCH more than the apathetic football fans of LA. If given to them, they will take it. If they have to fight for it, well, they just sit back and let every team in the league leverage their population for a new stadium rather than build one themselves. Had their been a viable stadium in LA there would've been a team in it within a year.

 

[Marauder]

Is land cheaper in St. Louis than LA? Ya think? What worked there wouldn't necessarily here.

Also, was it cheaper to do that decades ago than now, was it a different economic climate, was the political situation in the respective cities different, there could be a thousand variables you aren't accounting for. It wasn't happening here without a commitment from a team, and commitment from a team was complicated by lack of a viable stadium. Kroenke was the game changer, unifying those separate strands in one package.

If they move, tough on the fans, but I think of Frontiere (a MO native) as hijacking a team that never should have moved in the first place, they were in LA for nearly a half century.

Was it cheaper to do decades ago? Sure. Again, why didn't LA do it then? Land is cheaper here? Sure. Is there much MUCH more money in LA to build a stadium? Seems sort of a wash there.

I countered the argument that LA fans want football more than St. Louis fans. The citizens of St. Louis had a public vote and voted to use their tax dollars on a stadium without any guarantee of a team. Your argument that LA won't build a stadium unless they have a commitment of a team pretty much seals the argument in my favor. They only want to commit to football if they have a team. The citizens of St. Louis committed to football by paying to build a stadium without a team. We are committing to it again right now, but going ahead and building a stadium for an owner who is building a stadium in another city. Sorry, but the people of St. Louis want football MUCH more than the apathetic football fans of LA. If given to them, they will take it. If they have to fight for it, well, they just sit back and let every team in the league leverage their population for a new stadium rather than build one themselves. Had their been a viable stadium in LA there would've been a team in it within a year.

I get what you are saying but I think it's more correct to say that a higher percentage of the citizens of St. Louis are committed to having an NFL team than LA. It is much tougher to get a vote for public funding through in a city like LA, which is one of the most diverse cities in the country. A very large percentage of the population are immigrants from other countries who couldn't care less about football or immigrants from other US cities who are fans of their hometown teams. A very different dynamic than a city like St. Louis where the majority of the population is multi-generation Missouri natives. If you were to count the total number of people in each market who are committed to having a NFL team LA would certainly win but percentage-wise I'm sure you are correct. I'm not sure what difference this whole argument makes though. The bottom line is that an owner of a NFL team in LA will make more money than an owner of a NFL team in St. Louis.

 

[Bob Magaw]

re post 582 - You are making larger, sweeping claims, though, which may or may not be accurate, or representative of the larger population. The Rams were badly mismanaged at the time, and could be better positioned to succeed now. The Coliseum was not a good venue for the NFL, and moving to OC was imo a mistake. New management in a new stadium could change that. In both our cases, confirmation bias could be at work. You seem down on the idea, so see only evidence that bolsters that position. My recollection was that the Raiders attracted a thug element (no disrespect to our thug demographic ). I saw more fights in the few games I went to than all the Dodger games I went to in my life COMBINED (20-30 X more). A Steeler fan was almost murdered by being repeatedly kicked in the head by a fan with steel toed boots (I realize something like this happened at Dodger stadium, and they have great attendance, but that incident is far from the norm). Howie Long didn't even want his family there, and he PLAYED for the team. None of this exactly screamed family fun, no wonder attendance was impacted. The Raiders were a more recent transplant, and maybe the graft never took. The Rams came from Cleveland of course, but were here for a half century, so there is a real fan base. You see less enthusiasm, but are basing that partly on generalizations from the past that may no longer be valid. Again, you are down on the idea, so interpreting lack of talk radio in a way that fits that POV. LA has been jilted a lot over the years, is it really a huge surprise they aren't bombarding the switchboards with breathless fans chanting in unison, so are we getting a team, are we getting a team, are we getting a team? If they have an actual team, no doubt there will be more to talk about on the radio shows, and interest will pick up accordingly. I would expect more stations or segments devoted to local pro football, if we actually have local pro football to talk about, as opposed to not?? Your politician and guys with money comment is beside the point to me, that Kroenke has proven to be a savvy, shrewd businessman. I infer from the fact that he is committed to come here, he is convinced there is a fan base. No way he comes here if his information was anywhere close to as pessimistic as yours. I assume he has access to demographic info far more sophisticated than your off the cuff, informal observations. If the Rams turn their record around (for the record, I'm not talking about or concerned with the Chargers or Raiders, as far as relocation), and you have miscalculated potential future interest, he has a far larger populace to draw from in LA than St. Louis. We don't really have any idea in that scenario what the number of serious fans might be here relative to St. Louis. Given your pessimism, is it a surprise that you would downplay and minimize it (or that I would emphasize the positives, not exempting myself )? I'm not sure what the significance of proportion of a city population is, if they sell out in LA? There isn't any, as far as I can tell? What do KC, SEA and DC have to do with the Rams being in STL or LA? I think of STL as more of a baseball town, but at any rate, those other cities don't really bear on the two in question here. You were off by a yahoos order of magnitude, and as I noted, that was just a small part, the tip of the spear (with several orders of magnitude behind them). It was also 60-90 minutes away, and certainly not representative of what a turnout might have been like that was actually, you know, in LA.

 

[Casting Couch]

It was a catch 22.

Nobody was going to build a stadium without a team, and no way to attract a team without a stadium.

Kroenke was the game changer able to cut through that Gordian knot, with everything - team, money, land and desire/will to move.

This. Not that difficult

False. St. Louis built a stadium without a team. Lost out on the expansion Panthers and the Jaguars and then landed the Rams. This in a podunk town that can't support a team, right? That's a town committed to football without near the population of LA, built a stadium and got a team.

It was a catch 22.

Nobody was going to build a stadium without a team, and no way to attract a team without a stadium.

Kroenke was the game changer able to cut through that Gordian knot, with everything - team, money, land and desire/will to move.

This. Not that difficult

False. St. Louis built a stadium without a team. Lost out on the expansion Panthers and the Jaguars and then landed the Rams. This in a podunk town that can't support a team, right? That's a town committed to football without near the population of LA, built a stadium and got a team.

Kroenke understands the numbers more than you, I suspect.

LA would not only embrace a Rams return, but would sell out every game, guaranteed.

I live out here, I see the excitement building. I know it sucks to lose your team, but I just don't see a reason for them not to come home to LA.

 

[TheFanatic]

It was a catch 22.

Nobody was going to build a stadium without a team, and no way to attract a team without a stadium.

Kroenke was the game changer able to cut through that Gordian knot, with everything - team, money, land and desire/will to move.

This. Not that difficult

False. St. Louis built a stadium without a team. Lost out on the expansion Panthers and the Jaguars and then landed the Rams. This in a podunk town that can't support a team, right? That's a town committed to football without near the population of LA, built a stadium and got a team.

It was a catch 22.

Nobody was going to build a stadium without a team, and no way to attract a team without a stadium.

Kroenke was the game changer able to cut through that Gordian knot, with everything - team, money, land and desire/will to move.

This. Not that difficult

False. St. Louis built a stadium without a team. Lost out on the expansion Panthers and the Jaguars and then landed the Rams. This in a podunk town that can't support a team, right? That's a town committed to football without near the population of LA, built a stadium and got a team.

Kroenke understands the numbers more than you, I suspect.

LA would not only embrace a Rams return, but would sell out every game, guaranteed.

I live out here, I see the excitement building. I know it sucks to lose your team, but I just don't see a reason for them not to come home to LA.

I can see reasons for them to go to LA. I get the counter argument. To say that you don't see any reason for them not to come to LA tells me that discussing this with you is a complete waste of time because you just can't see the other side of the coin.

 

[Casting Couch]

It was a catch 22.

Nobody was going to build a stadium without a team, and no way to attract a team without a stadium.

Kroenke was the game changer able to cut through that Gordian knot, with everything - team, money, land and desire/will to move.

This. Not that difficult

False. St. Louis built a stadium without a team. Lost out on the expansion Panthers and the Jaguars and then landed the Rams. This in a podunk town that can't support a team, right? That's a town committed to football without near the population of LA, built a stadium and got a team.

It was a catch 22.

Nobody was going to build a stadium without a team, and no way to attract a team without a stadium.

Kroenke was the game changer able to cut through that Gordian knot, with everything - team, money, land and desire/will to move.

This. Not that difficult

False. St. Louis built a stadium without a team. Lost out on the expansion Panthers and the Jaguars and then landed the Rams. This in a podunk town that can't support a team, right? That's a town committed to football without near the population of LA, built a stadium and got a team.

Kroenke understands the numbers more than you, I suspect.

LA would not only embrace a Rams return, but would sell out every game, guaranteed.

I live out here, I see the excitement building. I know it sucks to lose your team, but I just don't see a reason for them not to come home to LA.

I can see reasons for them to go to LA. I get the counter argument. To say that you don't see any reason for them not to come to LA tells me that discussing this with you is a complete waste of time because you just can't see the other side of the coin.

At this point we have gone beyond the reasons, it's not a matter of "if" anymore, it's "when".

 

[Gr00vus]

re post 582 - You are making larger, sweeping claims, though,,,,

I guess my best evidence is that people don't even bother trying to bring public funding for football stadiums up for vote here - they know it won't happen. That's a pretty good insight into the overall priorities of people in this locale compared to a place like St. Louis which has already voted for public funding. A couple thousand people showing up to summer walk throughs is indicative of nothing in this area. In regard to selling out - If the team sucks, they're not selling out. I know that can be said of multiple locations, but nowhere will it be more true than here. And that's not conjecture - that's what actually happened.

 

[cstu]

I can see reasons for them to go to LA. I get the counter argument. To say that you don't see any reason for them not to come to LA tells me that discussing this with you is a complete waste of time because you just can't see the other side of the coin.

From a fan's POV of view I get it - St. Louis is willing to give the Rams more money than LA, which the voters seem fine with, and there are a higher percentage of Rams fans in STL than LA.

However, it comes down to money and what the owner wants to do. I don't believe STL or the NFL can stop him.

 

[Bob Magaw]

re post 583 - There is more AGGREGATE money in LA with a population of 15 million in the greater area, but it isn't like they pass around a hat and everbody chips in $100 (including babies and homeless people)?

Some dude with a billion in LA has no more than one in St. Louis. But if land costs a lot more, he would stand to lose a lot more on his investment, based on a maybe, with no commitment. In recent years, the two competing plans vying for support were real estate developer Ed Roski in Irwindale and rail/telecom magnate Philip Anschutz with Farmers Field, adjacent to the Lakers home, Staples Arena.

I'm not an expert on St. Louis, and suffice it to say, there may be a lot you don't understand about the social, cultural, political and economic complexities and realities of LA (which Marauder alluded to with a nice summarization) that make it problematic for you to generalize from your experience and assume everything is the same here relative to there, on some kind of a one-to-one correspondence.

Incidentally, I wasn't really addressing the who wants the Rams more question, just think you may be looking at it the wrong way and making mistaken inferences based on that. But if we flip your argument around, if St. Louis wanted the Rams so much more, why did they fail for so many years to honor and be in compliance with the top quarter venue clause/provision. It seems like they dropped the ball there. Was it apathy? They didn't negotiate in good faith for years, finally made a low ball offer when forced to, arbitration ruled a much higher figure than the lowball one, and they still didn't follow up. Only when Kroenke had already set in motion the move, and was determined and resolved to go ahead, than they scrambled. Too little, too late.

Do the people really want to spend tax money, or are the local and state politicians jamming it down their throat, whether they want it or not? Aren't they kind of doing it in a sneaky, back door way, unilaterally and without voting? If it was so popular, why not put it before a public vote, what are they afraid of (speaking of the bond issue)?

 

[cstu]

re post 582 - You are making larger, sweeping claims, though,,,,

I guess my best evidence is that people don't even bother trying to bring public funding for football stadiums up for vote here - they know it won't happen. That's a pretty good insight into the overall priorities of people in this locale compared to a place like St. Louis which has already voted for public funding. A couple thousand people showing up to summer walk throughs is indicative of nothing in this area. In regard to selling out - If the team sucks, they're not selling out. I know that can be said of multiple locations, but nowhere will it be more true than here.

And that's not conjecture - that's what actually happened.

When the team was in Orange County and the economy was bad.

 

[Bob Magaw]

590 - Regarding the current landscape, Kroenke makes public funding irrelevant. He is footing the bill.

I don't know all the ins and outs of local and state politics in St. Louis and MO, but it sounds like the Governor was doing his best to force a bond measure through without public approval, because he can, and has the power to do so (I could be wrong, and if so, stand corrected). St. Louis dragged its feet for years with compliance on top quarter venue terms. Why is that not "pretty good insight into the overall priorities of people" in that locale? Does interest always remain identical for perpetuity, does it wax and wane over time? Your analysis seems somewhat one sided, seeing all possible evidence about the Rams to LA in a uniformly negative light.

The couple thousand didn't turn up in this area, again, they were 60-90 minutes away. There is no doubt it would be much larger in LA, which absolutely would be indicative of broader interest, you are overlooking that. But again, that could be confirmation bias (I already said I'm not exempted, but I'm considering the possibility, and it isn't obvious you are). You are apathetic, and assume you are representative of others. The Coliseum was a dump, so again, you could be making false generalizations based on the past which may not be relevant to a state of the art stadium. Anyways, if the team doesn't suck, your concerns may be irrelevant. What happened before was with a horribly mismanaged team. With superior leadership, your pessimism could be off the mark.

You acknowledge attendance being in part a function of success could be said of other venues, but nowhere more so than here? Again, we are only comparing LA and St. Louis, that is all that matters. With a much larger population than St. Louis, there are many scenarios across a spectrum and continuum of record possibilities where they could be a bigger draw here. Has the population grown in two decades? Again, what was true before, may not be now, you seem to be assuming everything must by definition be identical in every respect to before, which could be far from the case.

You haven't addressed the fact that Kroenke almost certainly has access to demographic info you aren't privy to with your one person subjective impressions. Does he strike you as an incompetent person financially and investment-wise? Is it possible that if he is committed to come here, it is based on greater informational resources at his disposal than you do in doing a cost/benefit analysis? I'm no more of an expert than you, and freely acknowledge that, but I think this is an important point you are completely overlooking and failing to account for.

 

[Riversco]

My guarantee is that this will all resolve in some crazy way where the league makes a controversial decision that gets criticized for decades. And it will probably be a case where the league makes a money decision over a fan decision.

 

[TheFanatic]

Incidentally, I wasn't really addressing the who wants the Rams more question, just think you may be looking at it the wrong way and making mistaken inferences based on that. But if we flip your argument around, if St. Louis wanted the Rams so much more, why did they fail for so many years to honor and be in compliance with the top quarter venue clause/provision. It seems like they dropped the ball there.

Bob, for such a smart, and long winded guy, come on. You're better than this. The only way to comply with such a silly clause in the contract would be to spend half again as much on the stadium for a team that hadn't done squat since the early 90's other than write a book on how to hire terrible HC's, OR build a brand new stadium. The clause in the contract was moronic. And in just 30 years, here we are building a brand new stadium. How many proposals have gotten off the ground in LA in the last 30?

And while that clause was bad, Kroenke had no problem with the rest of the contract that made it the most lucrative stadium deal in the NFL for a couple of decades in a city that Kroenke is now lying through his teeth by telling the league that the NFL just doesn't work in St. Louis. It sure did for the last 30 years and he cashed a lot of checks because of it.

And while I didn't ask people to pass the hat in LA to get a team, that's pretty ridiculous as well, but how hard is it to wrangle up a few power brokers with enough cash between them to build a new stadium. Had there been a stadium built in LA there would've been a team there in short order. But unless it's handed to you, the LA fans aren't going to do what it takes to get a team which also means when that team stinks up the joint the fans are going to be elsewhere. You may be a rabid fan, but you are much in the minority.

 

[TheFanatic]

You acknowledge attendance being in part a function of success could be said of other venues, but nowhere more so than here? Again, we are only comparing LA and St. Louis, that is all that matters. With a much larger population than St. Louis, there are many scenarios across a spectrum and continuum of record possibilities where they could be a bigger draw here. Has the population grown in two decades? Again, what was true before, may not be now, you seem to be assuming everything must by definition be identical in every respect to before, which could be far from the case.

Yes, there is a much larger population in LA. There is no denying that. There is also way more to divide the entertainment dollars in LA than in St. Louis. Two baseball teams, a couple pro basketball teams, a couple college basketball teams, a couple of college football teams, and that's just with sports. The nearest college football is 90 miles away here and the only college basketball is SLU which is a biscuit above Div II.

Also, the weather is considerably better. In November there's not much to do here in St. Louis. I'm guessing there are a lot of convertible tops down in November in LA. How long of a drive is it to the mountains or Vegas?

So while the numbers are on your side, there are also way more slices of the entertainment pie to spend those dollars on in LA than in St. Louis.

 

[Gr00vus]

You acknowledge attendance being in part a function of success could be said of other venues, but nowhere more so than here? Again, we are only comparing LA and St. Louis, that is all that matters. With a much larger population than St. Louis, there are many scenarios across a spectrum and continuum of record possibilities where they could be a bigger draw here. Has the population grown in two decades? Again, what was true before, may not be now, you seem to be assuming everything must by definition be identical in every respect to before, which could be far from the case.

Yes, there is a much larger population in LA. There is no denying that. There is also way more to divide the entertainment dollars in LA than in St. Louis. Two baseball teams, a couple pro basketball teams, a couple college basketball teams, a couple of college football teams, and that's just with sports. The nearest college football is 90 miles away here and the only college basketball is SLU which is a biscuit above Div II.

Also, the weather is considerably better. In November there's not much to do here in St. Louis. I'm guessing there are a lot of convertible tops down in November in LA. How long of a drive is it to the mountains or Vegas?

So while the numbers are on your side, there are also way more slices of the entertainment pie to spend those dollars on in LA than in St. Louis.

And I'm pretty sure Bob is aware of all that but is disingenuously choosing to omit it from his responses. It's funny that he's accusing you and I of conjecture, when we actually have history on our side - L.A. has lost multiple NFL franchises due to apathy - while his position is pure supposition, anecdotal evidence, surmise, appeal to authority, etc.

 

[TheFanatic]

You acknowledge attendance being in part a function of success could be said of other venues, but nowhere more so than here? Again, we are only comparing LA and St. Louis, that is all that matters. With a much larger population than St. Louis, there are many scenarios across a spectrum and continuum of record possibilities where they could be a bigger draw here. Has the population grown in two decades? Again, what was true before, may not be now, you seem to be assuming everything must by definition be identical in every respect to before, which could be far from the case.

Yes, there is a much larger population in LA. There is no denying that. There is also way more to divide the entertainment dollars in LA than in St. Louis. Two baseball teams, a couple pro basketball teams, a couple college basketball teams, a couple of college football teams, and that's just with sports. The nearest college football is 90 miles away here and the only college basketball is SLU which is a biscuit above Div II.

Also, the weather is considerably better. In November there's not much to do here in St. Louis. I'm guessing there are a lot of convertible tops down in November in LA. How long of a drive is it to the mountains or Vegas?

So while the numbers are on your side, there are also way more slices of the entertainment pie to spend those dollars on in LA than in St. Louis.

And I'm pretty sure Bob is aware of all that but is disingenuously choosing to omit it from his responses. It's funny that he's accusing you and I of conjecture, when we actually have history on our side - L.A. has lost multiple NFL franchises due to apathy - while his position is pure supposition, anecdotal evidence, surmise, appeal to authority, etc.

What can we do? It's pretty clear that the St. Louis fans are much more focused on keeping football than LA fans are to getting football, but he wants football bad. I get that. He's a very passionate fan. But he's letting that passion cloud his judgement in this argument.

I don't get why Angelenos can't be content with the Raiders or the Chargers. I understand that SD is finally stepping up to the plate and trying to get something done on a stadium but didn't Spanos pretty much burn the bridge on the way out of town. And the Raiders have nothing in place. Nothing at all. Leave the Rams here in their new stadium. Put the Raiders in LA at a minimum and maybe the Chargers too if SD can't get anything done.

The Rams are not originally from LA. They had their most success here in St. Louis. St. Louis is stepping up for a second time in 20 years to give them a new stadium. What's the problem here?

 

[cstu]

I don't get why Angelenos can't be content with the Raiders or the Chargers.

An argument can be made why St. Louisians can't be content with the Raiders. They were only in LA for 13 seasons (compared to 40 for the Rams) and weren't really missed when they moved back to Oakland. Now the city of Oakland doesn't seem to care if they leave so why not go to St. Louis?

 

[cstu]

They had their most success here in St. Louis.

They had a great run for 5 years but haven't broken .500 in the other 15 seasons.

 

[cstu]

And I'm pretty sure Bob is aware of all that but is disingenuously choosing to omit it from his responses. It's funny that he's accusing you and I of conjecture, when we actually have history on our side - L.A. has lost multiple NFL franchises due to apathy - while his position is pure supposition, anecdotal evidence, surmise, appeal to authority, etc.

1. The city wouldn't build the Raiders a stadium he was happy with (as a single tenant).

2. The Rams moved to Orange County, away from their fan base, and then a major recession hit in the early 90's and they moved to STL.

 

[Marauder]

I don't get why Angelenos can't be content with the Raiders or the Chargers. I understand that SD is finally stepping up to the plate and trying to get something done on a stadium but didn't Spanos pretty much burn the bridge on the way out of town. And the Raiders have nothing in place. Nothing at all. Leave the Rams here in their new stadium. Put the Raiders in LA at a minimum and maybe the Chargers too if SD can't get anything done.

The Rams are not originally from LA. They had their most success here in St. Louis. St. Louis is stepping up for a second time in 20 years to give them a new stadium. What's the problem here?

I think most Angelenos would be content with the Raiders/Chargers. There is a relatively small but passionate group of LA Rams fans that desperately want the Rams to return but I think today there are probably more Raiders fans and more Chargers fans in LA than Rams fans.

It's not like LA is trying to steal the Rams from St. Louis, but if Kroenke wants to move here (which he clearly does) and build a stadium on his own dime, we're not going to turn him away. It seems to me, it's up to St. Louis to convince him that it is in his best interest to stay.

 

[Jail]

Is land cheaper in St. Louis than LA? Ya think? What worked there wouldn't necessarily here.

Also, was it cheaper to do that decades ago than now, was it a different economic climate, was the political situation in the respective cities different, there could be a thousand variables you aren't accounting for. It wasn't happening here without a commitment from a team, and commitment from a team was complicated by lack of a viable stadium. Kroenke was the game changer, unifying those separate strands in one package.

If they move, tough on the fans, but I think of Frontiere (a MO native) as hijacking a team that never should have moved in the first place, they were in LA for nearly a half century.

Was it cheaper to do decades ago? Sure. Again, why didn't LA do it then? Land is cheaper here? Sure. Is there much MUCH more money in LA to build a stadium? Seems sort of a wash there.

I countered the argument that LA fans want football more than St. Louis fans. The citizens of St. Louis had a public vote and voted to use their tax dollars on a stadium without any guarantee of a team. Your argument that LA won't build a stadium unless they have a commitment of a team pretty much seals the argument in my favor. They only want to commit to football if they have a team. The citizens of St. Louis committed to football by paying to build a stadium without a team. We are committing to it again right now, but going ahead and building a stadium for an owner who is building a stadium in another city. Sorry, but the people of St. Louis want football MUCH more than the apathetic football fans of LA. If given to them, they will take it. If they have to fight for it, well, they just sit back and let every team in the league leverage their population for a new stadium rather than build one themselves. Had their been a viable stadium in LA there would've been a team in it within a year.

The bolded part blows my mind. I wonder if maybe that is why St. Louis got itself into such a crappy contract with the guarantee clause.

I know you are a Rams fan, so your perspective may be hard to stand apart from, but I am still curious if that sentiment is still shared by the general population of St. Louis. I've read that the politicians moved to use funds without a public vote. If the matter were put to a public vote would it be expected to pass?

 

[Bob Magaw]

596 - You are being a little cavalier with the so called silly, moronic clause. It may have been a key selling point to the Rams. If the stadium authority didn't intend to honor it, they were lured under false pretenses, and the contract is null and void. If they intended to but couldn't for whatever reasons, tough luck, but it still renders the contract null and void. If it was an intractable problem (keeping the stadium in compliance going forward), the blame goes to those who structured an untenable contract that would lead to its terms being broken by being unable to remain in compliance.

If it is so obvious what the solution was, why not do it before it was too late instead of after? It is like if a spouse gets fed up and files for divorce. At that point the damage has been done (just a matter of figuring out if the kids are staying with the Mother or Father, and what the visitation rights will be ), it is too late to say, NOW I promise to change my ways. St. Louis literally had years to deal with it, and kept lowballing Kroenke or blowing him off. Now that he has bought land and is ready to break ground they want to do something? Again, too little, too late. What if the Rams were hypothetically trying to build a stadium to attract the Rams when St. Louis was dropping the ball. You were implying LA didn't have "real" fans by this lack. Yet you excused St. Louis for not doing something sooner because the team "hadn't done squat". If St. Louis should be excused for not doing something sooner, FOR A TEAM ALREADY IN THEIR CITY, certainly LA should. Fine if you are going to hold LA to the harsher apathy standard, but than hold St. Louis to the same for not doing something sooner. It is just about being consistent. The governor has already said he is pushing the bond through unilaterally, correct? If so, that doesn't exactly scream ground swell of popular support.

Regardless of what you or I think, Kroenke will move or not. If he does, than patience was a smart play to not have to use taxes earlier when Kroenke will pay for it out of his own pockets (not sure about league assistance?). If at one time the contract was favorable, but that status changes, St. Louis breaks the terms and contract is voided, it wasn't Kroenke's responsibility to be chained to a contract that was no longer enforced for perpetuity because it had once been favorable in the "good old days". Also, Kroenke didn't become the sole owner until 2010, so however lucrative it was "for a couple of decades or the last 30 years", it isn't like he was the sole beneficiary. Even if he had wanted to do something different, he couldn't have until much more recently anyways. I don't think it is a lie that Kroenke was willing to work with St. Louis earlier, than felt they weren't negotiating in good faith and at some point broke off negotiations. Which was his right. The contract was broken. They didn't make enough of an effort to remedy the situation sooner.

A few last thoughts. Everything you said below about the diversity of entertainment options in LA (which I'll address separately below) could be a reason that financing is viewed as riskier in LA than St. Louis. Like you said, there is less to do there, sports entertainment-wise, so that may have made it seem like a more sound investment there, and easier to secure financing, if it was seen as a safer ROI risk on that basis. If so, it could be a mistake to interpret not having a new stadium in LA sooner with apathy, if that is being conflated with simple regional differences at work impacting the mechanisms of financing based on variable risk in St. Louis and LA. Note that none of that means pro football can't succeed here. Just that greater uncertainty could complicate financing. St. Louis lost the Cardinals to Arizona. But the Rams had lost two teams in rapid succession, which may have given the appearance that LA can't support a team. But they did support the Rams for nearly 50 years. How many of the 32 teams have remained in a city continuously for a half century? How could that be possible if LA was so apathetic? As to the Raiders, they were a transplant, and it would be understandable if they never caught on here. If the Rams were to return, that would be a different scenario, having the half century built in pre-history. Why did they leave in the first place? The Coliseum was a horrible venue. If Kroenke builds a state of the art stadium, that solves that problem. The Rams moving to OC was imo a step in the wrong direction. Inglewood is in LA. Again, problem solved there. The Rams under Frontiere, Shaw, Zygmunt, etc. were horribly mismanaged. Kroenke, Snead, Fisher and Demoff have their act together to a far greater degree, and the Rams are clearly an ascendant team. Fears about chronic failure-related apathy will be mooted if the Rams are tracking to field a competitive team (youngest team in the league, top 3-5 defense stocked with like 10 first and second picks, finally found a QB, star RB, manageable cap situation, etc.). The arrow is pointed up. Seems like the timing would be impeccable and could hardly be better for moving now, to leverage the vastly greater potential fan base (populace-wise) and financial rewards that could await here. The risk could be great, but so could the reward. I've contended all along that Kroenke is a shrewd, savvy businessman, and he is in a much better position than any of us to assess the risks. Even if you find nothing but negatives, if Kroenke by his actions indicates he sees positives, I'm going to go with him over you.

The bottom line, to recap, if St. Louis had done something sooner, they wouldn't be at this impasse now. That isn't Kroenke's fault that they dragged their feet beyond the point he was willing to negotiate with them any longer. All this is an example of closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped.

 

[Bob Magaw]

597 - The LA entertainment diversity will doom the NFL

Because there are the Dodgers, Lakers, convertibles in the Fall, beaches, Vegas, blah, blah blah.

The answer could be contained in the question. If that were true, it would be impossible for the Dodgers and Lakers to succeed. But clearly that is wrong. So your critique must be a red herring. Diversity in and of itself isn't an intrinsic problem. Their success is a proof of concept pro sports can enjoy success here, if it is a well run organization (the Dodgers and Lakers had the O'Malleys and Buss's for many years), it will draw fans. Both have had ups and down, the Lakers more consistent success, with down years/cycles fewer and further between. The Dodgers have consistently been among the attendance leaders.

All this suggests to me that interest waned in the Rams for a few reasons (horrible venue, moving out of LA), but mainly that Frontiere and cronies such as Shaw and Zygmunt were horrifically and heinously incompetent. With infinitely better ownership and leadership in Kroenke, Snead, Fisher and Demoff, what held them back before won't necessarily now. That is at the heart of one of the main issues I have with the historical determinist argument. That history is doomed to repeat itself. Why? History is littered with accident. What if Rosenbloom hadn't drowned. What if Frontiere hadn't been so incompetent. What if they had a better venue. What if they hadn't moved to OC. A thousand things, that could be different this time. How they unfolded before, isn't necessarily how they will this time around. The last time the Rams started 2-0? In '01, the last time the GSOT was in the Super Bowl, nearly a decade and a half ago. Is that a long time? For fans it is, but seemingly not in conventional time. But that was the year Wikipedia went on line and Apple released the first iPod. Things change. Just because Frontiere was an abomination as an owner, doesn't mean Kroenke has to be. Just because she was inept, doesn't mean he has to be. Just because she drove the team into the ground, doesn't mean he couldn't achieve lift off here. Just because she alienated her fan base, doesn't mean he can't reignite. Just because the Rams were 15-65 for a miserable half decade stretch that was one of the worst in the history of North American professional sports, doesn't mean they can field a much more consistently competitive franchise going forward.

If you really can see the future, what revolutionary service/product analogous to Wikipedia or the iPod will be ubiquitous in the year 2030? See? It isn't always so easy to predict the future. How it actually unfolds, often isn't apparent by attempting to map the past onto it, and assume everything will always be exactly the same.

 

[Bob Magaw]

598 - "And I'm pretty sure Bob is aware of all that but is disingenuously choosing to omit it from his responses. It's funny that he's accusing you and I of conjecture, when we actually have history on our side - L.A. has lost multiple NFL franchises due to apathy - while his position is pure supposition, anecdotal evidence, surmise, appeal to authority, etc."

See above.

Stating the Rams and Raiders left is a fact. Making an assumption that because they failed here in the past all such possible future attempts are DOOMED to failure, imo, is a form of historical determinism (which I'm not a big fan of since reading Karl Popper demolish Marxism in The Open Society and It's Enemies). If some of the reasons and mechanisms that contributed to their earlier exit no longer apply, it could be a fallacy to make the assumption that the end result MUST unfold identically. The Raiders being a transplant and not having the history of a half century in LA relative to the Rams, the Coliseum being a dump as a venue (commissioned in '21, completed in '23), choosing to move to OC being counterproductive to attracting more LA fans, the incompetence of the Frontiere/Shaw/Zygmunt axis ALL contribute to a straightforward, face value interpretation of why the NFL failed here, that doesn't need to presuppose apathy.

If those earlier circumstances and factors are reversed (state of the art venue, in LA, with good ownership and management, fielding a good team), I see no rational explanation to maintain a position of rigidly dogmatic historical determinism. Do I know that if the Rams had a state of the art venue, in LA, with better ownership and fielded a product more consistently competitive than before, it will be successful? No. Do you know it won't? No. Is a previous history of an anachronistic venue leading to an exodus out of the city to OC fronted by an incompetent owner and management team fielding an inferior product a relevant guide for what to expect under a dramatically changed set circumstances? I can't think of any reason why it would be?

A fundamental difference between us is you say history is on your side. But if the circumstances change enough, that isn't necessarily true, and could be grossly irrelevant.

I never faulted you for conjecture. That would be ridiculous, since that also describes me (I just remain unconvinced that your conjecture is in some way better). I did use the phrase confirmation bias, but also included myself as not necessarily exempt. I hold a novel, controversial position. That humans are imperfect and can make mistakes. Out of the in some cases dozens/hundreds/thousands of things we could attend to, we focus on a few and ignore others. As you have said, you don't care about the NFL, you are apathetic. You actually don't want a team to come here. I'm not faulting you for that. I just don't think your apathy or actual negativity about the prospects makes you an ideal source of information. Have you checked out polls, had contact with fan organizations? But why would you care enough to do something like that and be informed, about something, which by your own admission, you don't care about. It is easier to make dismissive comments (few hundred yahoos). If you cite a reason that makes sense, I'll acknowledge it. Failure to sell out the 93,000 seat Coliseum as some kind of conclusive "evidence" of disinterest, is hard to take seriously.

Unless you just moved to LA, you know how screwed up some things are, such as the infrastructure, inner city schools, cities running at budget deficits, etc. A 10-15 million population major metro area, one of the largest in the world, isn't all rainbows, lollipops and puppy dogs. There is plenty of stuff that needs fixing that already isn't getting fixed for lack of money, taking hundreds of millions from the public coffers that could go to things like education, mental health, etc., seems reckless and irresponsible. Even if there are more than enough fans to support a local team, why should a larger majority be forced to fund something for which they have no interest? Would you want your tax dollars going to support the Rams? I think we know the answer to that. But imo, it is mistaken to think because the general populace may have no interest in funding a stadium initiative (and again, why should that be forced on them?), that the many real fans here "aren't real fans", or are "apathetic" or "not as good as St. Louis fans". Could Jerry Brown jam a stadium initiative bond funding down our throats like the MO governor Nixon seems to be doing in his state? I have my doubts. It may be our state government has more or different checks and balances that prevent it. If so, I'm glad of it. I'm not sure it is cause to crow about how much better the fans are in St. Louis.

Lets not kid ourselves, Nixon isn't doing this because he is a better fan than Jerry Brown. He may be desperate because he thinks it important for economic reasons. It is already part of their economy. If it goes away, that is subtractive to the bottom line. LA is used to not having pro football in the economy, it isn't in any way dependent on it. If it happens it would be additive, but it isn't like the local economy will implode without it.

 

[Bob Magaw]

You acknowledge attendance being in part a function of success could be said of other venues, but nowhere more so than here? Again, we are only comparing LA and St. Louis, that is all that matters. With a much larger population than St. Louis, there are many scenarios across a spectrum and continuum of record possibilities where they could be a bigger draw here. Has the population grown in two decades? Again, what was true before, may not be now, you seem to be assuming everything must by definition be identical in every respect to before, which could be far from the case.

Yes, there is a much larger population in LA. There is no denying that. There is also way more to divide the entertainment dollars in LA than in St. Louis. Two baseball teams, a couple pro basketball teams, a couple college basketball teams, a couple of college football teams, and that's just with sports. The nearest college football is 90 miles away here and the only college basketball is SLU which is a biscuit above Div II.

Also, the weather is considerably better. In November there's not much to do here in St. Louis. I'm guessing there are a lot of convertible tops down in November in LA. How long of a drive is it to the mountains or Vegas?

So while the numbers are on your side, there are also way more slices of the entertainment pie to spend those dollars on in LA than in St. Louis.

And I'm pretty sure Bob is aware of all that but is disingenuously choosing to omit it from his responses. It's funny that he's accusing you and I of conjecture, when we actually have history on our side - L.A. has lost multiple NFL franchises due to apathy - while his position is pure supposition, anecdotal evidence, surmise, appeal to authority, etc.

What can we do? It's pretty clear that the St. Louis fans are much more focused on keeping football than LA fans are to getting football, but he wants football bad. I get that. He's a very passionate fan. But he's letting that passion cloud his judgement in this argument.

I don't get why Angelenos can't be content with the Raiders or the Chargers. I understand that SD is finally stepping up to the plate and trying to get something done on a stadium but didn't Spanos pretty much burn the bridge on the way out of town. And the Raiders have nothing in place. Nothing at all. Leave the Rams here in their new stadium. Put the Raiders in LA at a minimum and maybe the Chargers too if SD can't get anything done.

The Rams are not originally from LA. They had their most success here in St. Louis. St. Louis is stepping up for a second time in 20 years to give them a new stadium. What's the problem here?

Why did STL wait until AFTER the Rams were able to exercise their right to opt out of the 30 year lease (signed '94?) in 2014, to begin to form plans to keep them, if they wanted to keep them so much? Wouldn't it have been better to do that BEFORE it lapsed?If the bond measure truly represents the popular will of all the great football fans in MO, why again does he have to force it without a vote?

I get that you want football bad, too, but think your passion is getting the best of your judgement.

I'm sure some fans would be OK with the Chargers or Raiders. Not Rams fans, obviously. Just like some MO fans would probably be OK with them. You weren't always Rams fans, right? The Cards were first. You got over them, and switched allegiance to the Rams. If they left and the Raiders came, same thing would happen. But you don't want the Raiders, you want LA to want them. Double standard. If Kroenke leaves, that will be the second NFL team to leave STL (serious question - why did the Cards leave MO for ARI?). Does that reflect on the STL fans. Of course not. It just means the owner sees an opportunity to be more successful in LA. Out of your control. Kind of like when Frontiere left Southern California, because she was lured with a sweetheart deal LA was unwilling or unable to match. But now that Kroenke is lured by an opportunity for something he couldn't get in STL, the chance for the Rams to jump in value from dead last to the top 5-10, that is wrong. Another double standard.

As to why LA Rams fans want to see them return. I can only speak for myself. My feeling, is they never should have left in the first place. They were kind of hijacked and stolen (borrowed?), so returning would be a case of being restored to their rightful place. You would feel bad if a team with roots two decades old is uprooted. All the more so for LA Rams fans who had a team with five decade old roots uprooted.

By the way, a partial answer to your question is that I saw a poll that suggested that prospective LA fans strongly favored the Rams and Chargers about equally, and the Raiders were a distant third. So return the Rams where they belong, never should have left in the first place if not for STL native Frontiere being seduced by a sweetheart deal that in the long run ended up being an empty promise, Chargers are welcome, too, if they can't work things out in their home town (though personally I have no interest). And the Raiders can go to STL. Problem solved. You can learn to love the Raiders, since you are so much better football fans, and there is nothing to do in the Fall, with no convertibles, or beach, or Vegas, or Dodgers, or Lakers, or Kings, USC or UCLA, you'll adapt in no time, like you did in shunting your allegiances from the Cards to the Rams, you could do it with the Raiders.

The Dodgers were transplanted from Brooklyn and the Lakers from Minneapolis, and that worked out OK, we are used to it. I'm sure the second time here with the Rams would be the charm. Believe it or not, the Rams had a rich history prior to the quaint, provincial outlook of the past few decades. Waterfield and Van Brocklin, the Fearsome Foursome, Eric Dickerson, Jack Youngblood, John Robinson, Chuck Knox, you may have heard of them? I attended the Super Bowl at the Rose Bowl against PIT. I think they won the division close to a decade straight at one point. Sure, STL enjoyed the GSOT, a Super Bowl win and another appearance, but also the stink of the worst in NFL history half decade 15-65 stretch. Haven't had a winning season or playoff appearance in how long? Change of scenery would do them good. I don't see the problem.

* BTW, just having fun, mirroring your logic back to you so you can see how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot. Seriously, if they stay, I'll be disappointed but happy for STL fans. If they come here, I'll be excited, but sympathetic for STL fans. Can you say the same? In my case, I continued to follow the Rams as it was the team I grew up with, so on one level, it doesn't matter that much, if they don't come, business as usual, I rooted for them before and still will. It would just be nice to see games in person, but I'm not going to smash my TV set if it doesn't transpire or materialize.

I have sort of a Buddhist outlook of non-attachment on this. It will happen or not regardless of what I think or feel. No need to get worked up. I just am interested in discussing it. If you aren't, sorry, we can discontinue this at any time. But it can be dispassionate and reasonable. Just because someone sees things differently, doesn't mean they have an agenda, just that they see things differently. Like you, you think of yourself as reasonable and non-agenda driven. Probably others are no different from you.

Holt wasn't dogging it that last season, he really was done, which was borne out and proven the next season (JAX). Sometimes we can be wrong despite a high level of conviction and even "certainty". Could be the same here?

 

[bjabrad]

Looks like it's going to happen unless Ray Donovan lands in prison.

 

[TheFanatic]

Wow, I would love to counter what Bob says, but my GOD, does he spout off at the keyboard. Seriously, Bob, hire a friggin editor. I'm sure you have some valid points, but I have to wade through thousands and thousands of words to get to them in not one blathering post, not two, but at least four, all in a row. Gotta move on. My time is too valuable for this...

 

[Junior McSpiffy]

Wow, I would love to counter what Bob says, but my GOD, does he spout off at the keyboard. Seriously, Bob, hire a friggin editor. I'm sure you have some valid points, but I have to wade through thousands and thousands of words to get to them in not one blathering post, not two, but at least four, all in a row. Gotta move on. My time is too valuable for this...

I know, right? I mean, it's why God invented bumper stickers: so we could learn all we need to know without having to read more than two lines.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Why didn't St. Louis organize the new stadium effort they are now, earlier, before it was too late? Is it a sign of apathy?

Why did the Cards leave? Was it apathy-related?

Why does the governor have to force the current bond measure through if it is so popular? Would it pass a vote?

Why was it OK after 50 years in LA for Frontiere to take the Rams to STL lured by more money, but not OK after 20 years in STL for Kroenke to take the Rams to LA lured by an instant surge in valuation? Is that a double standard?

 

[dutch]

Why didn't St. Louis organize the new stadium effort they are now, earlier, before it was too late? Is it a sign of apathy?

Why did the Cards leave? Was it apathy-related?

Why does the governor have to force the current bond measure through if it is so popular? Would it pass a vote?

This is how you write a post on a message board. Clear and to the point without all the folderol that that leads to scroll wheelitis. Thanks for the clarity, Bob.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Thanks, dutch.

Cont.

Why would the diversity of sports and entertainment options in LA (Dodgers, Lakers, Kings, USC, UCLA, convertibles in the Fall, the beach, Vegas, etc.) be a problem for the Rams, when it isn't for the Dodgers and Lakers, and they maintain their fan base even in down cycles - does that suggest diversity in itself wasn't the cause for earlier failure, but the incompetent Frontiere?

If Kroenke, Snead, Fisher and Demoff inspire more confidence than Frontiere and the Zygmunt/Shaw two headed monster (who brought you the 15-65, worst half decade in the history of US professional sports), why couldn't they be more succesful in LA? Why should they be tarred with the same brush of the failures of their bumbling predecessors?

 

[Casting Couch]

Why didn't St. Louis organize the new stadium effort they are now, earlier, before it was too late? Is it a sign of apathy?

Why did the Cards leave? Was it apathy-related?

Why does the governor have to force the current bond measure through if it is so popular? Would it pass a vote?

Why was it OK after 50 years in LA for Frontiere to take the Rams to STL lured by more money, but not OK after 20 years in STL for Kroenke to take the Rams to LA lured by an instant surge in valuation? Is that a double standard?

BOOM !!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why didn't St. Louis organize the new stadium effort they are now, earlier, before it was too late? Is it a sign of apathy?

Why did the Cards leave? Was it apathy-related?

Why does the governor have to force the current bond measure through if it is so popular? Would it pass a vote?

Why was it OK after 50 years in LA for Frontiere to take the Rams to STL lured by more money, but not OK after 20 years in STL for Kroenke to take the Rams to LA lured by an instant surge in valuation? Is that a double standard?

...

Why would the diversity of sports and entertainment options in LA (Dodgers, Lakers, Kings, USC, UCLA, convertibles in the Fall, the beach, Vegas, etc.) be a problem for the Rams, when it isn't for the Dodgers and Lakers, and they maintain their fan base even in down cycles - does that suggest diversity in itself wasn't the cause for earlier failure, but the incompetent Frontiere?

If Kroenke, Snead, Fisher and Demoff inspire more confidence than Frontiere and the Zygmunt/Shaw two headed monster (who brought you the 15-65, worst half decade in the history of US professional sports), why couldn't they be more succesful in LA? Why should they be tarred with the same brush of the failures of their bumbling predecessors?

It is more coherent, however if you go rhetorical question style, then:

- why did L.A. lose to Jacksonville, Houston and Charlotte when the NFL expanded on two different occasions? At that point the NFL was doing an independent, objective evaluation, why did L.A. fail where those cities, including two much smaller ones, succeed?

 

[Bob Magaw]

Lack of a viable stadium? The Coliseum was built before Charlie Chaplin broke out. That was a big reason the Rams and Raiders left.

Kroenke solves that problem.

Two teams having so recently left may have given the appearance it was a systemic problem, though there may have been many factors difficult to disentangle. Does anybody really have any idea what was going on in Al Davis head? Maybe it was Frontiere's incompetence. Maybe she just took the money and ran. Could have been a thousand things (unrelated to NFL being "intrinsically unsupportable" in LA).

I'd add, maybe the league made a mistake. HOU failed. JAX seems to struggle for support and has been linked with move rumblings for years.

Jokingly, maybe they wanted to preserve the threat of a vacant LA market as a stick to bully other cities into building new stadiums.

* Evidently the NFL is rethinking their position, as 1-2 teams are coming, it is imminent, that is more relevant to the immediate future than what didn't happen in the past.

 

[bulger2holt]

Why didn't St. Louis organize the new stadium effort they are now, earlier, before it was too late? Is it a sign of apathy?

Why did the Cards leave? Was it apathy-related?

Why does the governor have to force the current bond measure through if it is so popular? Would it pass a vote?

Why was it OK after 50 years in LA for Frontiere to take the Rams to STL lured by more money, but not OK after 20 years in STL for Kroenke to take the Rams to LA lured by an instant surge in valuation? Is that a double standard?

STL is on the verge of building its 2nd publically funded stadium for the Rams in 25 years. How many publically funded stadiums has LA built for them?

 

[Bob Magaw]

You can't answer a question with a question.

I was just mirroring back another apathy-themed line of questioning. All four of those are straightforward questions, though.

If Kroenke builds a stadium, than that ends up working out. Why should LA build one if he will. I'm a fan, but I'd hate to see money line the pockets of a the second richest owner in the NFL after Paul "Microsoft" Allen, that could go to more important things like schools. I'm not sure, but don't think our governor can unilaterally jam a bond measure down the throats of the public, as it seems is the case in MO.

Kroenke obviously agrees, as he knows he will get his investment back. The Rams will instantly jump in value from dead last to, conservatively, the top quarter franchises. Win-win. Bummer for STL after 20 years. Just like it was a bummer for LA after a half century. Seems like it evens out. This would be the second team leaving STL, so there is a pattern and precedent. Maybe if they had done more before leaving the door open for Kroenke to exercise the opt out clause. Seems like poor planning?

 

[bagger]

You acknowledge attendance being in part a function of success could be said of other venues, but nowhere more so than here? Again, we are only comparing LA and St. Louis, that is all that matters. With a much larger population than St. Louis, there are many scenarios across a spectrum and continuum of record possibilities where they could be a bigger draw here. Has the population grown in two decades? Again, what was true before, may not be now, you seem to be assuming everything must by definition be identical in every respect to before, which could be far from the case.

Yes, there is a much larger population in LA. There is no denying that. There is also way more to divide the entertainment dollars in LA than in St. Louis. Two baseball teams, a couple pro basketball teams, a couple college basketball teams, a couple of college football teams, and that's just with sports. The nearest college football is 90 miles away here and the only college basketball is SLU which is a biscuit above Div II.

Also, the weather is considerably better. In November there's not much to do here in St. Louis. I'm guessing there are a lot of convertible tops down in November in LA. How long of a drive is it to the mountains or Vegas?

So while the numbers are on your side, there are also way more slices of the entertainment pie to spend those dollars on in LA than in St. Louis.

And I'm pretty sure Bob is aware of all that but is disingenuously choosing to omit it from his responses. It's funny that he's accusing you and I of conjecture, when we actually have history on our side - L.A. has lost multiple NFL franchises due to apathy - while his position is pure supposition, anecdotal evidence, surmise, appeal to authority, etc.

What can we do? It's pretty clear that the St. Louis fans are much more focused on keeping football than LA fans are to getting football, but he wants football bad. I get that. He's a very passionate fan. But he's letting that passion cloud his judgement in this argument.

I don't get why Angelenos can't be content with the Raiders or the Chargers. I understand that SD is finally stepping up to the plate and trying to get something done on a stadium but didn't Spanos pretty much burn the bridge on the way out of town. And the Raiders have nothing in place. Nothing at all. Leave the Rams here in their new stadium. Put the Raiders in LA at a minimum and maybe the Chargers too if SD can't get anything done.

The Rams are not originally from LA. They had their most success here in St. Louis. St. Louis is stepping up for a second time in 20 years to give them a new stadium. What's the problem here?

it has nothing to do with stadiums. It has nothing to do with fans. It has nothing to do with football.If the Rams move to LA the franchise value doubles overnight netting the owner hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more.

It has to do simply with one thing. Greed.

 

[bagger]

Why didn't St. Louis organize the new stadium effort they are now, earlier, before it was too late? Is it a sign of apathy?

Why did the Cards leave? Was it apathy-related?

Why does the governor have to force the current bond measure through if it is so popular? Would it pass a vote?

Why was it OK after 50 years in LA for Frontiere to take the Rams to STL lured by more money, but not OK after 20 years in STL for Kroenke to take the Rams to LA lured by an instant surge in valuation? Is that a double standard?

STL is on the verge of building its 2nd publically funded stadium for the Rams in 25 years. How many publically funded stadiums has LA built for them?

just think how much better St. Louis will be using that money for something that actually benefits everyone. Maybe they can pass a smaller bond that gives everyone the Sunday ticket to watch the Rams in la.

 

[QuizGuy66]

619 - Has Bob Magaw introduced the numbered Hipple to FBG?

-QG

 

[Toomuchnv]

For the Rams fans that hope their team stays in St. Louis....it is not always about who has the most money....I know this is an NBA example....but it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Sacramento Kings were going to Seattle because there was "more money" there. But the city of Sacramento rallied around their team, put together a good arena plan and they are still there with the new arena under construction.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Why didn't St. Louis organize the new stadium effort they are now, earlier, before it was too late? Is it a sign of apathy?

Why did the Cards leave? Was it apathy-related?

Why does the governor have to force the current bond measure through if it is so popular? Would it pass a vote?

Why was it OK after 50 years in LA for Frontiere to take the Rams to STL lured by more money, but not OK after 20 years in STL for Kroenke to take the Rams to LA lured by an instant surge in valuation? Is that a double standard?

...

Why would the diversity of sports and entertainment options in LA (Dodgers, Lakers, Kings, USC, UCLA, convertibles in the Fall, the beach, Vegas, etc.) be a problem for the Rams, when it isn't for the Dodgers and Lakers, and they maintain their fan base even in down cycles - does that suggest diversity in itself wasn't the cause for earlier failure, but the incompetent Frontiere?

If Kroenke, Snead, Fisher and Demoff inspire more confidence than Frontiere and the Zygmunt/Shaw two headed monster (who brought you the 15-65, worst half decade in the history of US professional sports), why couldn't they be more succesful in LA? Why should they be tarred with the same brush of the failures of their bumbling predecessors?

It is more coherent, however if you go rhetorical question style, then:

- why did L.A. lose to Jacksonville, Houston and Charlotte when the NFL expanded on two different occasions? At that point the NFL was doing an independent, objective evaluation, why did L.A. fail where those cities, including two much smaller ones, succeed?

LA had two teams when the Jax and Charlotte franchises were awarded

 

[Bob Magaw]

I don't know the financial details with the Kings, how analogous was it?

Was it a comparably dramatic difference as would be entailed by the Rams going from dead last in NFL franchise valuation to potentially top 5 in a move to LA?

 

[bulger2holt]

Why didn't St. Louis organize the new stadium effort they are now, earlier, before it was too late? Is it a sign of apathy?

Why did the Cards leave? Was it apathy-related?

Why does the governor have to force the current bond measure through if it is so popular? Would it pass a vote?

Why was it OK after 50 years in LA for Frontiere to take the Rams to STL lured by more money, but not OK after 20 years in STL for Kroenke to take the Rams to LA lured by an instant surge in valuation? Is that a double standard?

STL is on the verge of building its 2nd publically funded stadium for the Rams in 25 years. How many publically funded stadiums has LA built for them?

just think how much better St. Louis will be using that money for something that actually benefits everyone. Maybe they can pass a smaller bond that gives everyone the Sunday ticket to watch the Rams in la.

The bonds can't be used for anything other than a new stadium.

 

[Bob Magaw]

What if the Rams leave?

 

[seahawk 17]

What if the Rams leave?

They will beat Seattle once a season, but never make the playoffs.