Goodbye Rams (1 Viewer)

[msommer]

Welcome, the STL Jaguars!

 

[bulger2holt]

Chargers and Raiders to Carson and Rams stay in STL with new stadium is gaining huge momentum.

 

[cstu]

Chargers and Raiders to Carson is gaining huge momentum.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/sep/12/lead-backer-for-chargers-carson-stadium-in-hot/

 

[Bob Magaw]

The STL Raiders seems like a natural. It will make the half century tradition of the Raiders and Chiefs an in-state rivalry!

Just win baby!​

STL will learn to love their adopted new team, with a nucleus of young, up 'n coming talent, such as Khalil Mack and Amari Cooper.

 

[imjackdupp]

I'll be so happy when the Rams finally move just so the thread title can finally change. Weve been saying Goodbye to the Rams for far to long.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So per the link above the mayor of Carson is under investigation for residency and ethics form filings. Let's guess, not everyone in Carson is thrilled about the stadium idea?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There are several threads, like 3-4, with titles about the Chargers moving to L.A. dating to 2006 but they are archived, they can't be bumped. But that rumor has been around longer than the St Louis one.

 

[Toomuchnv]

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?

It wasn't the exact same situation....in the Kings situation the Maloofs were selling the team...the Seattle offer was more money....but the league ultimately voted for the lesser offer from an ownership group that would keep the Kings in Sacramento because the city of Sacramento put together, approved and is now building a state of the art arena in downtown Sacramento.

 

[Bob Magaw]

When the weather turns in MO in the Fall, the STL Raiders will ride in with the Autumn Wind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPLmxtiVOe0

​

 

[TheFanatic]

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?

Let me clear this up right now. When Kroenke bought the Rams, the city was in violation of the agreement and had been for many years. The Dome was not in the top echelon in the league. Prior ownership didn't care because the stadium deal was the most lucrative in the league for about 10-12 years. Not until we saw the new palaces going up did a better stadium deal arise but it was still damn good.

Kroenke decides to exercise his right to void the 30 year deal and go year to year. This is seen as a ploy to get a new stadium after playing less than two decades in this one.

The city hears rumblings that this may not be a simple ploy and he may be moving the team to LA. The city proposes a $250 facelift for the stadium. Kroenke counters with a $700 million facelift. The original stadium cost about $500 million when it was built. Seems like a dress on a pig scenario.

Kroenke ups the ante and buys land in California (but not quite enough for a stadium). Power players in St. Louis are amassed to look into a new stadium.

Kroenke buys enough land for the stadium.

St. Louis power players find land on the river front, get the taxes for the Dome converted over to pay for a stadium, the Governor gives his blessing, the unions give their blessings and so far nobody has filed suit for those taxes to go somewhere else rather than the dome (at least not that I've heard).

Was any of this a sign of apathy? Let's see what we have on both sides of the Apathy ledger.

What St. Louis has Done to Get/Keep an NFL Team

Early 90's Builds stadium without a team

1995 Lures Rams with such a lucrative offer that the Titans and the Ravens move to new cities in search of the "St. Louis" Deal

Just a couple years ago, St. Louis offers a quarter of a billion dollars to fix up a stadium that only coast a half bill to construct

At present St. Louis offers to build a brand new river front stadium about 2 decades after building the last one

What LA has Done to Get an NFL Team







I think that pretty much sums it up.

We can close the book on who has the apathetic fan base.

It's not St. Louis.

 

[bulger2holt]

This man speaks the truth

On another note, Vinny B. says his sources are telling him the owners are favoring the Carson project over Kroenke's Inglewood.

 

[GDogg]

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.

Show up more than St. Louis fans have?

No citizenry is building a stadium. Politicians are putting forth agendas. St. Louis isn't building the rams a stadium. They want hundreds of millions of dollars of Stan's money to build one.

 

[GDogg]

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.

So would I. I wouldn't go to see the raiders or chargers, though, but a lot of people would.

 

[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.

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

yes, so people won't be taxed as much when they are gone.

 

[GDogg]

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.

Yes.

 

[GDogg]

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.

It's true pretty much everywhere as the super loyal st. Louis fans have shown.

Kansas city might be an exception.

 

[GDogg]

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.

Also, the Dodgers and Lakers have shown this isn't really true.

 

[TDorBust]

Why does the NFL want two teams in one city? Makes more sense to spread them out instead of having the teams cannibalize each other's fan base as well as it would drive higher ticket prices in LA.

Why not have SD and Oakland move elsewhere like:

Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, Portland all come to mind to drive NFL growth and in two of those cities eat in to the NCAAs pockets.

 

[Gr00vus]

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.

 

[GDogg]

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.

Hasn't st. Louis lost franchises, too? In fact, they'll be down to two sports right?

What an asinine argument with regard to these two cities. Gee, which city has more pro and college teams (two per sport/school), and they all do well in attendance? Which has, what three total, and one of them struggles worse than almost all of the teams in its sport?

 

[Gr00vus]

Hasn't st. Louis lost franchises, too? In fact, they'll be down to two sports right?

What an asinine argument with regard to these two cities. Gee, which city has more pro and college teams (two per sport/school), and they all do well in attendance? Which has, what three total, and one of them struggles worse than almost all of the teams in its sport?

You mean which city has more competition for entertainment dollars? Los Angeles by a landslide. Thanks for helping me make my point.

 

[GDogg]

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?

No joke, but this may have captured my feelings as well as my own words. Thank you, Bob.

 

[GDogg]

Hasn't st. Louis lost franchises, too? In fact, they'll be down to two sports right?

What an asinine argument with regard to these two cities. Gee, which city has more pro and college teams (two per sport/school), and they all do well in attendance? Which has, what three total, and one of them struggles worse than almost all of the teams in its sport?

You mean which city has more competition for entertainment dollars? Los Angeles by a landslide. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Which city is so gigantic that it clearly doesn't matter? Thanks for not understanding economics, rube!

 

[Gr00vus]

Hasn't st. Louis lost franchises, too? In fact, they'll be down to two sports right?

What an asinine argument with regard to these two cities. Gee, which city has more pro and college teams (two per sport/school), and they all do well in attendance? Which has, what three total, and one of them struggles worse than almost all of the teams in its sport?

You mean which city has more competition for entertainment dollars? Los Angeles by a landslide. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Which city is so gigantic that it clearly doesn't matter? Thanks for not understanding economics, rube!

What doesn't matter? That the Rams and Raiders left town because they didn't draw? Pretty sure that matters, and that economics was a factor in the decision to leave in both cases. Also, lest we forget, Los Angeles has actually lost 3 NFL teams (well o.k. the Chargers were in the AFL at the time) - guess why? No attendance.

 

[cstu]

Hasn't st. Louis lost franchises, too? In fact, they'll be down to two sports right?

What an asinine argument with regard to these two cities. Gee, which city has more pro and college teams (two per sport/school), and they all do well in attendance? Which has, what three total, and one of them struggles worse than almost all of the teams in its sport?

You mean which city has more competition for entertainment dollars? Los Angeles by a landslide. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Which city is so gigantic that it clearly doesn't matter? Thanks for not understanding economics, rube!

What doesn't matter? That the Rams and Raiders left town because they didn't draw? Pretty sure that matters, and that economics was a factor in the decision to leave in both cases. Also, lest we forget, Los Angeles has actually lost 3 NFL teams (well o.k. the Chargers were in the AFL at the time) - guess why? No attendance.

Are you saying that you think the 6 billion dollar man is being a fool with his money by moving to Los Angeles?

 

[Gr00vus]

Hasn't st. Louis lost franchises, too? In fact, they'll be down to two sports right?

What an asinine argument with regard to these two cities. Gee, which city has more pro and college teams (two per sport/school), and they all do well in attendance? Which has, what three total, and one of them struggles worse than almost all of the teams in its sport?

You mean which city has more competition for entertainment dollars? Los Angeles by a landslide. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Which city is so gigantic that it clearly doesn't matter? Thanks for not understanding economics, rube!

What doesn't matter? That the Rams and Raiders left town because they didn't draw? Pretty sure that matters, and that economics was a factor in the decision to leave in both cases. Also, lest we forget, Los Angeles has actually lost 3 NFL teams (well o.k. the Chargers were in the AFL at the time) - guess why? No attendance.

Are you saying that you think the 6 billion dollar man is being a fool with his money by moving to Los Angeles?

Probably not. T.V. revenue and advertising revenue are completely different than they were when the Rams and Raiders (and Chargers) left town. In the large, I think it's really tough to lose money with a big 3 sports franchise in the U.S. You have to really screw up to do that. I think most of those saying they're losing money are either getting tricky with the accounting, or doing it on purpose to move their franchise somewhere else. Particularly in the NFL. I mean, the Jags have been a horrible franchise for nearly 2 decades and they'd give the owner a tidy profit if they wanted to sell the team.

I'm mostly trolling here. I do think you'll see plenty of empty seats if the team(s) stink. Probably not to any significantly greater degree than it would be elsewhere.

In a discussion of which potential fan base wants/needs it more - I'd probably take any place other than Los Angeles, for lots of reasons. My point there is that it's not some grass roots fan campaign that's driving this stuff - it's a few super rich guys and politicians. There are some die hard fans that really want their team, but (and I know this is totally anecdotal) I see zero Rams swag anywhere I go in my area of L.A. county (Pasadena and environs). I see more Pats swag than I do Rams. Some Chargers swag around. Raiders are still pretty big down here. They should probably be the team to move back if you're talking existing fan base.

My main deal is that Inglewood and Carson are crummy places to put teams. They should put them downtown. Inglewood is slightly less crummy than Carson because it's so close to the airport, which is good for out of towners. Carson is a straight up drive through/past area. People will go wherever they put the stadium, sure, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be a little more selective about it. A Super Bowl weekend centered on downtown Los Angeles/Hollywood would be incredible - much better than having the additional hike to Inglewood or Carson.

Secondarily I'd really like to see the Chargers stay in SD. Apart from them really being from there, it's just a great location for an NFL team, the city should be a permanent fixture in the Super Bowl rotation, as should Los Angeles. No more superbowls in NY in sub freezing outdoor conditions.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Hasn't st. Louis lost franchises, too? In fact, they'll be down to two sports right?

What an asinine argument with regard to these two cities. Gee, which city has more pro and college teams (two per sport/school), and they all do well in attendance? Which has, what three total, and one of them struggles worse than almost all of the teams in its sport?

You mean which city has more competition for entertainment dollars? Los Angeles by a landslide. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Which city is so gigantic that it clearly doesn't matter? Thanks for not understanding economics, rube!

What doesn't matter? That the Rams and Raiders left town because they didn't draw? Pretty sure that matters, and that economics was a factor in the decision to leave in both cases. Also, lest we forget, Los Angeles has actually lost 3 NFL teams (well o.k. the Chargers were in the AFL at the time) - guess why? No attendance.

Wouldn't it make more sense to use Los Angeles Rams attendance figures to make generalizations about the Los Angeles Rams?

The Chargers played one season in LA in 1960. How big of a loyal fan base were you expecting in one year?

They were an afterthought at the time because of the Rams. A team with an established fan base for a half century returning, is nothing like a team that only stayed one year, because they didn't want to compete with the Rams. That was also the first year of the AFL when it was in its infancy, in comparison to the already established NFL. Not to mention, the NFL is just a WEE bit more popular in 2015 than over a half century ago. There are too many reasons that make this example problematic, we don't need to spend any more time on it.

http://losangelesrams.org/about/statistics/attendance.html

Average Attendance/NFL Average/Rank - Again, keep in mind this is a stadium that was built in the early '20s, and had to be one of the worst venues in the NFL, how much higher could they have been in a state of the art one such as Kroenke will build? Any attendance figures after 1979 were after the Rams had already alienated their Los Angeles fan base by moving to OC. Attendance dwindled at the end and the Rams were unable to secure a new stadium, but that was at a time when there were massive defense sector layoffs. Regional economic differences can complicate trying to make sweeping historical comparisons.

1966 - 49,776 - 45,732 - 10/24 (Watts Riots in '65, don't know if lingering concern impacted attendance, 70,000+ from '69-'74, doesn't dip into the 40,000s again until 1987)

1967 - 60,000 - 48,606 - 6/25

1968 - 65,127 - 48,777 - 4/26

1969 - 71,242 - 51,053 - 3/26

1970 - 71,347 - 54,375 - 2/26

1971 - 72,453 - 56,935 - 3/26

1972 - 72,461 - 58,416 - 4/26

1973 - 74,168 - 55,339 - 2/26

1974 - 75,492 - 52,098 - 2/26

1975 - 65,284 - 52,754 - 4/26

1976 - 63,141 - 53,983 - 4/26

1977 - 53,585 - 52,711 - 10/28

1978 - 53,388 - 53,983 - 14/28

1979 - 52,970 - 55,960 - 17/28

1980 - 62,550 - 56,667 - 8/28 (first season in Anaheim Stadium, Orange County)

1981 - 60,503 - 57,665 - 11/28

1982 - 51,690 - 52,527 - 16/28

1983 - 52,780 - 54,364 - 15/28

1984 - 54,455 - 55,528 - 17/28

1985 - 56,242 - 55,408 - 15/28

1986 - 59,285 - 56,872 - 10/28

1987 - 47,356 - 48,639 - 18/28

1988 - 54,469 - 56,727 - 17/28

1989 - 58,846 - 57,257 - 11/28

1990 - 59,920 - 59,665 - 12/28

1991 - 51,586 - 58,926 - 22/28

1992 - 47,811 - 58,734 - 25/28

1993 - 45,401 - 59,352 - 25/28

1994 - 43,312 - 60,107 - 28/28

* If the sports diversity argument was a death blow to the prospects of a relocated Rams, because of the popularity of the Dodgers, Lakers, USC, UCLA, etc., why isn't it a problem for the Dodgers, Lakers, USC, UCLA, etc.?

 

[Gr00vus]

I imagine Bob writing all his posts in this thread while wearing a Jack Youngblood uniform with "Ram It" playing in an endless loop in the background.

@ Bob - See post 654 for my real take on all this.

PS. As a native angelino growing up in the 70's, I was a Rams fan in my youth, but once I got an eyeful of Air Coryell, the Chargers became my favorite team. So it's not like I have it in for the Rams or anything.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I imagine Bob writing all his posts in this thread while wearing a Jack Youngblood uniform with "Ram It" playing in an endless loop in the background.

@ Bob - See post 654 for my real take on all this.

You did admit you were mostly trolling (I appreciate the candor).

I just think looking at more recent, actual LA Rams attendance figures makes more sense than citing the LA Chargers, a new team, from a new league, that was only here one year, over a half century ago. But maybe that's just me?

At time of writing this - Jimi Hendrix Experience - Are You Experienced shirt, Rockford Files in background (if I had a Rams shirt, which I don't, it would be Eric Dickerson)

I imagine GrOOvus writing all his posts in this thread while wearing a wizard hat, cape and elf shoes (with HATE RAMS tattooed on his right and left fingers, ala Robert Mitchum's LOVE/HATE in Night of the Hunter) with Songs For Swingin' Sellers in mono playing in an endless loop in the background.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wogie3WEhwg

​

 

[cstu]

Average Attendance/NFL Average/Rank - Again, keep in mind this is a stadium that was built in the early '20s, and had to be one of the worst venues in the NFL, how much higher could they have been in a state of the art one such as Kroenke will build?

The Coliseum was 56 years old during the last season the Rams played there. When the Raiders moved it was 71 years old. The only renovations were in 1964 and relatively minor $15M renovation in 1993 the season before the Raiders left.

Compare that to the current outdated stadiums in use:

Chargers - 1967 (48 years old)

Raiders - 1966 (49 years old) - had a $300M (in today's dollars) renovation in 1995.

Lambeau was built in 1957 and was 44 years old when the remodel started.

The only stadium with a longer time before renovation was Soldier Field, which was 64 years old when they started renovations in 1978.

 

[cstu]

I imagine Bob writing all his posts in this thread while wearing a Jack Youngblood uniform with "Ram It" playing in an endless loop in the background.

@ Bob - See post 654 for my real take on all this.

PS. As a native angelino growing up in the 70's, I was a Rams fan in my youth, but once I got an eyeful of Air Coryell, the Chargers became my favorite team. So it's not like I have it in for the Rams or anything.

You're welcome to root for both when they aren't playing the Chargers. That's what I plan to do.

 

[Gr00vus]

I imagine Bob writing all his posts in this thread while wearing a Jack Youngblood uniform with "Ram It" playing in an endless loop in the background.

@ Bob - See post 654 for my real take on all this.

PS. As a native angelino growing up in the 70's, I was a Rams fan in my youth, but once I got an eyeful of Air Coryell, the Chargers became my favorite team. So it's not like I have it in for the Rams or anything.

You're welcome to root for both when they aren't playing the Chargers. That's what I plan to do.

That's what I did until they moved to O.C. Chargers always came first.

 

[Gr00vus]

I imagine Bob writing all his posts in this thread while wearing a Jack Youngblood uniform with "Ram It" playing in an endless loop in the background.

@ Bob - See post 654 for my real take on all this.

You did admit you were mostly trolling (I appreciate the candor).

I just think looking at more recent, actual LA Rams attendance figures makes more sense than citing the LA Chargers, a new team, from a new league, that was only here one year, over a half century ago. But maybe that's just me?

At time of writing this - Jimi Hendrix Experience - Are You Experienced shirt, Rockford Files in background (if I had a Rams shirt, which I don't, it would be Eric Dickerson)

I imagine GrOOvus writing all his posts in this thread while wearing a wizard hat, cape and elf shoes with Songs For Swingin' Sellers plying in an endless loop in the background.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wogie3WEhwg

​

Love the Rockford files - do any of the streaming services have episodes of that available? Dickerson was my fourth guess for you, behind Ferragamo, and Merlin Olson.

You pretty much nailed my current outfit, as long as the wizard hat has stars on it. I am currently listening to "Sketches Of Spain" in your honor though.

I wasn't really serious about the leaving town/attendance stuff. For instance, Cleveland and Baltimore both lost teams - had nothing to do with their fan base or attendance. Same here. The Rams left here because that's what Georgia wanted. The Raiders left because the Colosseum was ancient. That said, I still think the people of St. Louis probably want it a little more than the people of Los Angeles. Which has pretty much zero impact on whatever decision will ultimately be made - whatever the league/owners think will make them the most money, that's what will happen.

I've just seen this show so many times here since the NFL left town that I'm totally cynical. Until a team is actually here, I can't believe it's going to happen.

 

[dschuler]

Only one team should be in LA. If the Raiders move, keep the Rams in STL. If the Rams move, move the Raiders to a city like Stl, Louisville, Portland, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Vancouver, or Salt Lake City.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Peace, GrOOvus.

Yeah, it is on Netflix, though I have it set to series record from MeTV (20 on DirecTV), it airs around noon weekdays.

Rockford Files - Nice Guys Finish Dead, Season 6 - Episode 7 (one of my favorite episodes, Tom Selleck the year before Magnum PI, lot of humor - "The mind is a wonderful thing, Jim.", "How would you know?" It also has Simon Oakland, who was Darren McGavin's boss on The Night Stalker, he is a recurring character, in another episode, he punches Rockford and puts him on the ground unprovoked, when Rockford reverses the situation, he asks, "What's the problem, Verne, rabies?" ).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dQyt0DGWtI

I got the mono box set with Kind of Blue and Sketches of Spain a few years ago, they started from scratch with the original tapes and the sound is pristine, immaculate (mono seems retrograde, but early stereo recordings were ping pongy, gimmicky and thin sounding, Columbia had one of the greatest recording studios in the world, and a great mono recording could have a very full and rich sound). Great choice, I'll have to put that on later, thanks for the reminder and cheers (I also really enjoy jazz from the Blue note label circa 50's & 60's).

I didn't know you were from Pasadena, I'm just a few miles East. I've never been to Lucky Baldwin's, but heard they have hundreds of imported beers on tap. I'll buy the first round if the Rams ever return.

The Rams also left LA because of the Coliseum, and moving to Orange County was the beginning of the end before Rosenbloom's widow Frontiere departed for St. Louis (where she was from). To me, they left because St. Louis represented more money. Now Kroenke wants to return because Los Angeles represents more money. To me, saying LA is stealing their team, rings a little hollow (world's smallest violin playing), when they stole it. Like if somebody stole something, and than it is in turn stolen from him, and he complains, stealing is wrong!

I completely understand being cynical. This time feels different. The NFL is coming, probably two teams. Something didn't feel right about traditional enemies Chargers cozying up with the Raiders, seemingly just to block the Rams. I was happy to hear the league will probably have to "manage" the solution, as the thinking is both Spanos and Kroenke can block each other with 9 against votes. The league originally vetoed Frontiere's move, but they relented when she threatened to sue. IMO, the league wants to maximize the chances of the new teams succeeding. Everybody thinks the Chargers are coming. The Rams seem to me like a more stable franchise than the Raiders, today I would pick their owner/front office combo, and think the league may see it the same way. Ultimately, I think the NFL breaks up the Chargers/Raiders shotgun wedding and dissolves the unholy union, forcing Spanos to shake hands with Kroenke.

* I was just goofing you about the Mitchum, Night of the Hunter reference (classic noir, BTW). Air Coryell was prolific, I remember Fouts, Winslow, Joiner, Jefferson, Chandler, Muncie (first three in HOF). Jefferson had some of the sickest, most underrated hands in league history, he was playing in the Matrix before it had even been invented.

Welcome to the Dark Side. "I am your father, Pink Panther."

From Night of the Hunter, the sound bulger will make if the Rams move back to LA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UklDhlsTyUk

​

 

[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?

Let me clear this up right now. When Kroenke bought the Rams, the city was in violation of the agreement and had been for many years. The Dome was not in the top echelon in the league. Prior ownership didn't care because the stadium deal was the most lucrative in the league for about 10-12 years. Not until we saw the new palaces going up did a better stadium deal arise but it was still damn good.

Kroenke decides to exercise his right to void the 30 year deal and go year to year. This is seen as a ploy to get a new stadium after playing less than two decades in this one.

The city hears rumblings that this may not be a simple ploy and he may be moving the team to LA. The city proposes a $250 facelift for the stadium. Kroenke counters with a $700 million facelift. The original stadium cost about $500 million when it was built. Seems like a dress on a pig scenario.

Kroenke ups the ante and buys land in California (but not quite enough for a stadium). Power players in St. Louis are amassed to look into a new stadium.

Kroenke buys enough land for the stadium.

St. Louis power players find land on the river front, get the taxes for the Dome converted over to pay for a stadium, the Governor gives his blessing, the unions give their blessings and so far nobody has filed suit for those taxes to go somewhere else rather than the dome (at least not that I've heard).

Was any of this a sign of apathy? Let's see what we have on both sides of the Apathy ledger.

What St. Louis has Done to Get/Keep an NFL Team

Early 90's Builds stadium without a team

1995 Lures Rams with such a lucrative offer that the Titans and the Ravens move to new cities in search of the "St. Louis" Deal

Just a couple years ago, St. Louis offers a quarter of a billion dollars to fix up a stadium that only coast a half bill to construct

At present St. Louis offers to build a brand new river front stadium about 2 decades after building the last one

What LA has Done to Get an NFL Team







I think that pretty much sums it up.

We can close the book on who has the apathetic fan base.

It's not St. Louis.

I find a history and narrative one-sided in which the Rams are 100% at fault, and the stadium authority 0% at fault. It's too pat. Things don't usually work that way in real life. Kroenke exercised the opt out clause in 2014. They knew there were problems before that. They made a lowball offer which probably antagonized the owner and made the relationship poisonous and irreparable. The arbitrator sided with the Rams, backing a $700 million plan over their $120 million offer (big difference), making it look like they were negotiating in bad faith. If they had no intention of fixing the old stadium, why go down that path? Why submit to arbitration, if there was no intention to honor the decision? They kicked the can for too long, thinking they could get away with it, and nothing would happen. He just wanted a new stadium, so they stalled, and did nothing until they had to, but by then it was far too late. They had already incurred toxic levels of ill will and alienated Kroenke. More action, or at least legitimate steps towards it, involving a path to an actually viable, workable solution (instead of a sham plan and negotiations with no hope for a positive resolution), earlier in the process, maybe could have prevented the state to which negotiations degenerated and ceased all together. That does describe to me a situation characterized by elements of apathy from the principals. I find it hard to believe it isn't possible they could have done more sooner, or that everything is Kroenke's fault, though I'm sure that is the narrative the local and state officials would like St. Louis and MO to believe. If the Rams leave at the cost of a lot of money to the local economy, naturally they aren't going to want to take responsibility, they will do everything they can to demonize Kroenke and shift all the blame to him, to deflect attention from themselves. I can understand their motive, but not the belief that they share no complicity or culpability.

What was the deal with the Arizona Cardinals. Was that apathy?

If sports/entertainment diversity in LA were really a problem for the Rams because of the Dodgers, Lakers, USC, UCLA, why wouldn't it be for, well, you know, the Lakers and Dodgers.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Imagine my surprise to come in here and see people lauding one of the all time TV greats, The Rockford Files. Nothing like doing a high speed J-turn in a copper mist Pontiac Firebird Esprit.

 

[Bob Magaw]

James Garner generally did his own driving and stunts (I think he seriously torqued his knee and had to have multiple surgeries due to complications or reinjuries).

Reportedly the Secret Service teach that evasive maneuver in their defensive driving classes, and indeed call it the J turn, in honor of the Rockford Files, where it was popularized. Pretty cool to have something like that named after him.

 

[cstu]

James Garner generally did his own driving and stunts (I think he seriously torqued his knee and had to have multiple surgeries due to complications or reinjuries).

Reportedly the Secret Service teach that evasive maneuver in their defensive driving classes, and indeed call it the J turn, in honor of the Rockford Files, where it was popularized. Pretty cool to have something like that named after him.

Local drivers do it all the time.

 

[Tau837]

REPORT: NFL might only move one team to Los Angeles

Cliff notes:

- Carson is dead.

- League will back Kroenke in move to LA and no other team will move to LA.

- Kroenke will pay huge ($2B) relocation fee.

- Chargers and possibly Raiders will get substantial funding from Kroenke relocation fee to assist in getting new stadiums in their current cities.

This all seems plausible enough IMO.

 

[TheFanatic]

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?

Let me clear this up right now. When Kroenke bought the Rams, the city was in violation of the agreement and had been for many years. The Dome was not in the top echelon in the league. Prior ownership didn't care because the stadium deal was the most lucrative in the league for about 10-12 years. Not until we saw the new palaces going up did a better stadium deal arise but it was still damn good.

Kroenke decides to exercise his right to void the 30 year deal and go year to year. This is seen as a ploy to get a new stadium after playing less than two decades in this one.

The city hears rumblings that this may not be a simple ploy and he may be moving the team to LA. The city proposes a $250 facelift for the stadium. Kroenke counters with a $700 million facelift. The original stadium cost about $500 million when it was built. Seems like a dress on a pig scenario.

Kroenke ups the ante and buys land in California (but not quite enough for a stadium). Power players in St. Louis are amassed to look into a new stadium.

Kroenke buys enough land for the stadium.

St. Louis power players find land on the river front, get the taxes for the Dome converted over to pay for a stadium, the Governor gives his blessing, the unions give their blessings and so far nobody has filed suit for those taxes to go somewhere else rather than the dome (at least not that I've heard).

Was any of this a sign of apathy? Let's see what we have on both sides of the Apathy ledger.

What St. Louis has Done to Get/Keep an NFL Team

Early 90's Builds stadium without a team

1995 Lures Rams with such a lucrative offer that the Titans and the Ravens move to new cities in search of the "St. Louis" Deal

Just a couple years ago, St. Louis offers a quarter of a billion dollars to fix up a stadium that only coast a half bill to construct

At present St. Louis offers to build a brand new river front stadium about 2 decades after building the last one

What LA has Done to Get an NFL Team







I think that pretty much sums it up.

We can close the book on who has the apathetic fan base.

It's not St. Louis.

I find a history and narrative one-sided in which the Rams are 100% at fault, and the stadium authority 0% at fault. It's too pat. Things don't usually work that way in real life. Kroenke exercised the opt out clause in 2014. They knew there were problems before that. They made a lowball offer which probably antagonized the owner and made the relationship poisonous and irreparable. The arbitrator sided with the Rams, backing a $700 million plan over their $120 million offer (big difference), making it look like they were negotiating in bad faith. If they had no intention of fixing the old stadium, why go down that path? Why submit to arbitration, if there was no intention to honor the decision? They kicked the can for too long, thinking they could get away with it, and nothing would happen. He just wanted a new stadium, so they stalled, and did nothing until they had to, but by then it was far too late. They had already incurred toxic levels of ill will and alienated Kroenke. More action, or at least legitimate steps towards it, involving a path to an actually viable, workable solution (instead of a sham plan and negotiations with no hope for a positive resolution), earlier in the process, maybe could have prevented the state to which negotiations degenerated and ceased all together. That does describe to me a situation characterized by elements of apathy from the principals. I find it hard to believe it isn't possible they could have done more sooner, or that everything is Kroenke's fault, though I'm sure that is the narrative the local and state officials would like St. Louis and MO to believe. If the Rams leave at the cost of a lot of money to the local economy, naturally they aren't going to want to take responsibility, they will do everything they can to demonize Kroenke and shift all the blame to him, to deflect attention from themselves. I can understand their motive, but not the belief that they share no complicity or culpability.

What was the deal with the Arizona Cardinals. Was that apathy?

If sports/entertainment diversity in LA were really a problem for the Rams because of the Dodgers, Lakers, USC, UCLA, why wouldn't it be for, well, you know, the Lakers and Dodgers.

The city of St. Louis kicked the can too long? Kroenke opted out of the lease in 2014 and went year to year. That's ONE YEAR AGO. It's 2015 and there is practically a deal in place for a brand new stadium. Yeah, they really drug their feet on that one!

As for the Football Cardinals leaving. Simple. The owner was an idiot. He demanded a new stadium but the city wasn't going to build him a palace for a team that he ran into the ground. The guy literally called down to the draft and said, "I like this guy. Draft him first." And they drafted a guy in the first who probably would've gone in the 10th round.

The team moved to Arizona where the new city didn't build them a new stadium for close to 2 decades. Even the new city didn't want to build them a stadium. So it seems more than one city decided not to cater to Bill Bidwell. Finally the doofus handed the reins over to the son who greatly improved the team and got the new stadium.

Tell me more about the apathy of a city that built a stadium without a team, took less than a year to get a stadium plan in place for a team that might not be here compared to a city that has done absolutely nothing to get an NFL team for the last two decades.

 

[TheFanatic]

I find a history and narrative one-sided in which the Rams are 100% at fault, and the stadium authority 0% at fault. It's too pat.

I'm sorry, where did I say this? The top echelon clause was a moronic clause to put into the deal. And while it was moronic, and gave the owner an easy out, the owner never once complained about the deal when it paid him millions as the most lucrative stadium deal on the league for more than a decade. This is not the first time I have stated this. And pretty much I've written it the same way every time. Never once did I say the Rams were 100% at fault in that stadium deal.

 

[TheFanatic]

REPORT: NFL might only move one team to Los Angeles

Cliff notes:

- Carson is dead.

- League will back Kroenke in move to LA and no other team will move to LA.

- Kroenke will pay huge ($2B) relocation fee.

- Chargers and possibly Raiders will get substantial funding from Kroenke relocation fee to assist in getting new stadiums in their current cities.

This all seems plausible enough IMO.

This actually does seem extremely plausible. Spanos probably will never get the money he needs from SD, but if he can fill the gap with Stans money then he gets what he wants and Stan gets what he wants.

All that being said, I don have one issue with the article. Dallas is the most valuable franchise in the US of any sport at around $4 billion. And they expect the new LA team to be 25% more valuable than Dallas on day one? Seems a bit of a stretch. Dallas makes a killing in apparel sales all over the world. Even moving to LA will not make that happen for the Rams to the degree of Dallas. And while the Rams will get a ton of corporate support, it's not like corporations shy away from Dallas.

 

[Bob Magaw]

There were clearly big problems they didn't do enough to resolve before Kroenke availed himself of the opt out clause. That was why he opted out. So that was a few years before a year ago. Letting it get to that point was a tactical blunder.

How long has it been since the stadium deal was one of the most lucrative in the NFL? Kroenke wasn't the primary owner for much/all of that time. Frontiere cut the sweetheart deal, she reaped most of the benefit. Kroenke wasn't beholden to it for perpetuity, because Frontiere once made most of the money on it. Anyways, lucrative was supposed to be the deal, that is what lured the team from LA. In the end, long term, it was a false hope and empty promise.

Fair enough on the 100%. I was commenting on what you wrote immediately above, in recent years, where I saw no criticism of how the Rams handled negotiations. All I have said, is what they are attempting now (building a new stadium), after it is too late, might have worked at a more appropriate time in the sequence of events. It was pretty obvious $48 million, $120 million band-aids weren't going to placate Kroenke. I used the analogy before, but waiting until a spouse is so alienated they file for divorce and find somebody else is probably too late to then patch things up with flowers and candy. And as in that situation, realistically there is probably some form of warning beforehand, it isn't a complete surprise.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That Bolts article makes total sense. What's funny (or sad) is that it sounds like just the Chargers could get a payoff and a new stadium (in SD) but the Raiders would be left out the cold. ---->>> Hello, St. Louis, then?

 

[Bob Magaw]

Carson is deader than black and white TV and rotary phones.

 

[GDogg]

Hasn't st. Louis lost franchises, too? In fact, they'll be down to two sports right?

What an asinine argument with regard to these two cities. Gee, which city has more pro and college teams (two per sport/school), and they all do well in attendance? Which has, what three total, and one of them struggles worse than almost all of the teams in its sport?

You mean which city has more competition for entertainment dollars? Los Angeles by a landslide. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Which city is so gigantic that it clearly doesn't matter? Thanks for not understanding economics, rube!

What doesn't matter? That the Rams and Raiders left town because they didn't draw? Pretty sure that matters, and that economics was a factor in the decision to leave in both cases. Also, lest we forget, Los Angeles has actually lost 3 NFL teams (well o.k. the Chargers were in the AFL at the time) - guess why? No attendance.

The Rams and Raiders left town because of stadium issues, not attendance.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Hope they get a new stadium in san diego. Even if stan has to pay for it

 

[Bob Magaw]

1% of the relocation fee is slated for a much needed Mark Davis hair style makeover.

 

[Jail]

REPORT: NFL might only move one team to Los Angeles

Cliff notes:

- Carson is dead.

- League will back Kroenke in move to LA and no other team will move to LA.

- Kroenke will pay huge ($2B) relocation fee.

- Chargers and possibly Raiders will get substantial funding from Kroenke relocation fee to assist in getting new stadiums in their current cities.

This all seems plausible enough IMO.

I have a hard time believing Kroenke would let himself get fleeced for a $2B relocation fee. Especially when Al Davis already did all the dirty work to establish that he can move his team wherever he wants.

The linked article above sources PFT, which mentions the fact that there may just be only 1 team. However, it says nothing about a $2B relocation fee. That number is just the writer throwing numbers around with no basis in reality or sourcing. He is just doing some wishful thinking, hoping the the Bolts stay in SD. At the end he says:

Does any of this mean anything?I guess? I mean, it's just a report added to some of my own assumptions,