Goodbye Rams (1 Viewer)

[St. Louis Bob]

I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.

They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the Bradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.

All of this is just more evidence that St. Louis doesn't support the NFL. IT'S A BASEBALL TOWN!!!!!!

No, the real proof is the pictures at kickoff of the crowd that proves St. Louis is the only town that does not pack the stadium at the start of each game.

But they don't show up after kickoff, either.

When, exactly, do they finally arrive?

Or, do the attendance figures lie like the pictures do?

People don't want to spend their time and money on a team that is horrible on and off the field. Oh and they want to leave town. Shocking.

There were a lot of empty seats at that game last night. I guess New England doesn't have real fans either. Or perhaps its because the game sucks now in person. Unless you like constant flags, timeouts, replay reviews and the refs trying to figure out WTF the actual rules are.

Yeah, this team really gives the fans an incentive to come to the games. The owner dies, new owner buys controlling interest and then immediately starts gobbling up land to build a stadium across the country, then goes from covertly trying to move them to overtly doing everything in his power to move the team. GDogg could you honestly say you would show up for every game to support a team that was doing that? Be honest now.

No, I'm not saying that I would. And, as was pointed out, people didn't show up in Anaheim under the same or similar circumstances in 1994-95. And, that owner killed the previous, beloved owner, then moved the team back to her hometown against the wishes of the previous owner's adult children. I get it. That was only a 4 year period, though, and like now in St. Louis, the Rams, that final year, played under a cloud where they made it clear to the fans they were leaving.

But, you guys have claimed (perhaps tongue in cheek, I don't know) L.A./Anaheim doesn't support teams while saying that St. Louis does (you might have a point with Anaheim to be honest). But, it's been about 8 years (2007) since St. Louis was above #27 in the NFL in both attendance and percentage of capacity, usually slotting in at 29-31. St. Louis is now doubling the worst and only stretch for the Rams when they were in L.A./Anaheim when they ranked in the 20s in attendance.

I'm just asking for a little honesty and objectivity here. At what point are you guys just going to admit that St. Louis no longer supports the Rams (not necessarily the NFL or football)? They clearly aren't and it's not pictures that are lying. The numbers couldn't be more clear. Be it whether the Rams suck, the fans hate Kroenke, they didn't like Bradford (and now Foles and now Keenum) and his face, whatever the reason may be. Just admit that they don't support the Rams by going to games and haven't for a very long time.

L.A. gets a bad rap, but the truth is that fans of most franchises in almost any sport are fair-weather fans. Suck long enough and the fans will find something else to do. St. Louis is no different. And, if the Rams go back to L.A., St. Louis will have lost as many NFL teams as L.A. has.

Where did I post anything even remotely close to this?

The Rams haven't been bad, they've been awful. It's like they just got a bunch of big guys that never played the game before. If they were a MLB team, it would be like going to a game just to see every third pitch thrown go over the batters head. It has been that bad. Oh yeah, then there's that little issue of them being sold to Kroenke who bought the team for no other reason than to move them. He doesn't care if the team is good or if the fans have a good time. He doesn't.

Then, once again, their record.

2005 6-10

2006 8-8

2007 3-13

2008 2-14

2009 1-15

2010 7-9

2011 2-14

2012 7-8

2013 7-9

2014 6-10

2015 4-6

Even Cubs fans can go to a game and have a reasonable expectation that the Cubs could win and that they will watch professional players on the field. Rams fans, notsomuch.

 

[TheFanatic]

To echo StL Bob on how bad the Rams have been. Let's look at the last dozen years just at the starting QB's:

2015 Nick Foles (6) 2014 Austin Davis (8) / Shaun Hill (8) 2013 Kellen Clemens (9) / Sam Bradford (7) 2012 Sam Bradford (16) 2011 Sam Bradford (10) / A. J. Feeley (3) / Kellen Clemens (3) 2010 Sam Bradford (16) 2009 Marc Bulger (8) / Kyle Boller (4) / Keith Null (4) 2008 Marc Bulger (15) / Trent Green (1) 2007 Marc Bulger (12) / Gus Frerotte (3) / Brock Berlin (1) 2006 Marc Bulger (16) 2005 Marc Bulger (8) / Jamie Martin (5) / Ryan Fitzpatrick (3) 2004 Marc Bulger (14) / Chris Chandler (2) It's been a full dozen years since Kurt Warner threw a pass in a Rams uniform. And prior to Kurt Warner, here were the other Rams QB's since they moved to St. Louis:

1998 Tony Banks (14) / Steve Bono (2) 1997 Tony Banks (16) 1996 Tony Banks (13) / Steve Walsh (3) 1995 Chris Miller (13) / Mark Rypien (3) Marc Bulger had a couple nice seasons until the play calling and lack of protection gave him a permanent case of PTSD and happy feet. The rest of these guys couldn't get jobs dressing up as clowns and piling out of that little car. So basically about 3.5 years of Kurt Warner, a couple years of an effective Bulger and and 14.5 years of circus performers.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.

They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the gBradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.

All of this is just more evidence that St. Louis doesn't support the NFL. IT'S A BASEBALL TOWN!!!!!!

No, the real proof is the pictures at kickoff of the crowd that proves St. Louis is the only town that does not pack the stadium at the start of each game.

But they don't show up after kickoff, either.When, exactly, do they finally arrive?

Or, do the attendance figures lie like the pictures do?

People don't want to spend their time and money on a team that is horrible on and off the field. Oh and they want to leave town. Shocking.

There were a lot of empty seats at that game last night. I guess New England doesn't have real fans either. Or perhaps its because the game sucks now in person. Unless you like constant flags, timeouts, replay reviews and the refs trying to figure out WTF the actual rules are.

Yeah, this team really gives the fans an incentive to come to the games. The owner dies, new owner buys controlling interest and then immediately starts gobbling up land to build a stadium across the country, then goes from covertly trying to move them to overtly doing everything in his power to move the team. GDogg could you honestly say you would show up for every game to support a team that was doing that? Be honest now.

No, I'm not saying that I would. And, as was pointed out, people didn't show up in Anaheim under the same or similar circumstances in 1994-95. And, that owner killed the previous, beloved owner, then moved the team back to her hometown against the wishes of the previous owner's adult children. I get it. That was only a 4 year period, though, and like now in St. Louis, the Rams, that final year, played under a cloud where they made it clear to the fans they were leaving.

But, you guys have claimed (perhaps tongue in cheek, I don't know) L.A./Anaheim doesn't support teams while saying that St. Louis does (you might have a point with Anaheim to be honest). But, it's been about 8 years (2007) since St. Louis was above #27 in the NFL in both attendance and percentage of capacity, usually slotting in at 29-31. St. Louis is now doubling the worst and only stretch for the Rams when they were in L.A./Anaheim when they ranked in the 20s in attendance.

I'm just asking for a little honesty and objectivity here. At what point are you guys just going to admit that St. Louis no longer supports the Rams (not necessarily the NFL or football)? They clearly aren't and it's not pictures that are lying. The numbers couldn't be more clear. Be it whether the Rams suck, the fans hate Kroenke, they didn't like Bradford (and now Foles and now Keenum) and his face, whatever the reason may be. Just admit that they don't support the Rams by going to games and haven't for a very long time.

L.A. gets a bad rap, but the truth is that fans of most franchises in almost any sport are fair-weather fans. Suck long enough and the fans will find something else to do. St. Louis is no different. And, if the Rams go back to L.A., St. Louis will have lost as many NFL teams as L.A. has.

The big difference here that proves that St. Louis supports football and wants football here is that in less than 25 years, St. Louis is on the verge of building a second football stadium with no guarantee of an actual team being here. LA has had teams flirt with it for years and threaten to move only to be used as leverage to get a new stadium in ___________ team's current market. But if LA stepped to the plate and built a stadium, a team would've come running. LA needs to have Kroenke build a stadium for them in order to get behind football in that market. St. Louis is willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Would the current initiative pass a popular vote? If not, does it prove what you think it does. Maybe it proves a few politicians and financiers have a vested interest in keeping the NFL in state as it creates jobs and helps the economy, a separate issue.Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

 

[TheFanatic]

I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.

They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the gBradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.

All of this is just more evidence that St. Louis doesn't support the NFL. IT'S A BASEBALL TOWN!!!!!!

No, the real proof is the pictures at kickoff of the crowd that proves St. Louis is the only town that does not pack the stadium at the start of each game.

But they don't show up after kickoff, either.When, exactly, do they finally arrive?

Or, do the attendance figures lie like the pictures do?

People don't want to spend their time and money on a team that is horrible on and off the field. Oh and they want to leave town. Shocking.

There were a lot of empty seats at that game last night. I guess New England doesn't have real fans either. Or perhaps its because the game sucks now in person. Unless you like constant flags, timeouts, replay reviews and the refs trying to figure out WTF the actual rules are.

Yeah, this team really gives the fans an incentive to come to the games. The owner dies, new owner buys controlling interest and then immediately starts gobbling up land to build a stadium across the country, then goes from covertly trying to move them to overtly doing everything in his power to move the team. GDogg could you honestly say you would show up for every game to support a team that was doing that? Be honest now.

No, I'm not saying that I would. And, as was pointed out, people didn't show up in Anaheim under the same or similar circumstances in 1994-95. And, that owner killed the previous, beloved owner, then moved the team back to her hometown against the wishes of the previous owner's adult children. I get it. That was only a 4 year period, though, and like now in St. Louis, the Rams, that final year, played under a cloud where they made it clear to the fans they were leaving.

But, you guys have claimed (perhaps tongue in cheek, I don't know) L.A./Anaheim doesn't support teams while saying that St. Louis does (you might have a point with Anaheim to be honest). But, it's been about 8 years (2007) since St. Louis was above #27 in the NFL in both attendance and percentage of capacity, usually slotting in at 29-31. St. Louis is now doubling the worst and only stretch for the Rams when they were in L.A./Anaheim when they ranked in the 20s in attendance.

I'm just asking for a little honesty and objectivity here. At what point are you guys just going to admit that St. Louis no longer supports the Rams (not necessarily the NFL or football)? They clearly aren't and it's not pictures that are lying. The numbers couldn't be more clear. Be it whether the Rams suck, the fans hate Kroenke, they didn't like Bradford (and now Foles and now Keenum) and his face, whatever the reason may be. Just admit that they don't support the Rams by going to games and haven't for a very long time.

L.A. gets a bad rap, but the truth is that fans of most franchises in almost any sport are fair-weather fans. Suck long enough and the fans will find something else to do. St. Louis is no different. And, if the Rams go back to L.A., St. Louis will have lost as many NFL teams as L.A. has.

The big difference here that proves that St. Louis supports football and wants football here is that in less than 25 years, St. Louis is on the verge of building a second football stadium with no guarantee of an actual team being here. LA has had teams flirt with it for years and threaten to move only to be used as leverage to get a new stadium in ___________ team's current market. But if LA stepped to the plate and built a stadium, a team would've come running. LA needs to have Kroenke build a stadium for them in order to get behind football in that market. St. Louis is willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Would the current initiative pass a popular vote? If not, does it prove what you think it does. Maybe it proves a few politicians and financiers have a vested interest in keeping the NFL in state as it creates jobs and helps the economy, a separate issue.Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

How many stadium initiatives have been proposed in LA since the Rams and the Raiders left?

 

[TheFanatic]

The Rams were assigned a "home" game in London next year, which violates their lease agreement with their stadium. Adds an interesting wrinkle.

And the owner has to agree to and sign off on it before it becomes official

 

[GDogg]

They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the gBradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.

All of this is just more evidence that St. Louis doesn't support the NFL. IT'S A BASEBALL TOWN!!!!!!

No, the real proof is the pictures at kickoff of the crowd that proves St. Louis is the only town that does not pack the stadium at the start of each game.

But they don't show up after kickoff, either.When, exactly, do they finally arrive?

Or, do the attendance figures lie like the pictures do?

People don't want to spend their time and money on a team that is horrible on and off the field. Oh and they want to leave town. Shocking.

There were a lot of empty seats at that game last night. I guess New England doesn't have real fans either. Or perhaps its because the game sucks now in person. Unless you like constant flags, timeouts, replay reviews and the refs trying to figure out WTF the actual rules are.

Yeah, this team really gives the fans an incentive to come to the games. The owner dies, new owner buys controlling interest and then immediately starts gobbling up land to build a stadium across the country, then goes from covertly trying to move them to overtly doing everything in his power to move the team. GDogg could you honestly say you would show up for every game to support a team that was doing that? Be honest now.

No, I'm not saying that I would. And, as was pointed out, people didn't show up in Anaheim under the same or similar circumstances in 1994-95. And, that owner killed the previous, beloved owner, then moved the team back to her hometown against the wishes of the previous owner's adult children. I get it. That was only a 4 year period, though, and like now in St. Louis, the Rams, that final year, played under a cloud where they made it clear to the fans they were leaving.

But, you guys have claimed (perhaps tongue in cheek, I don't know) L.A./Anaheim doesn't support teams while saying that St. Louis does (you might have a point with Anaheim to be honest). But, it's been about 8 years (2007) since St. Louis was above #27 in the NFL in both attendance and percentage of capacity, usually slotting in at 29-31. St. Louis is now doubling the worst and only stretch for the Rams when they were in L.A./Anaheim when they ranked in the 20s in attendance.

I'm just asking for a little honesty and objectivity here. At what point are you guys just going to admit that St. Louis no longer supports the Rams (not necessarily the NFL or football)? They clearly aren't and it's not pictures that are lying. The numbers couldn't be more clear. Be it whether the Rams suck, the fans hate Kroenke, they didn't like Bradford (and now Foles and now Keenum) and his face, whatever the reason may be. Just admit that they don't support the Rams by going to games and haven't for a very long time.

L.A. gets a bad rap, but the truth is that fans of most franchises in almost any sport are fair-weather fans. Suck long enough and the fans will find something else to do. St. Louis is no different. And, if the Rams go back to L.A., St. Louis will have lost as many NFL teams as L.A. has.

The big difference here that proves that St. Louis supports football and wants football here is that in less than 25 years, St. Louis is on the verge of building a second football stadium with no guarantee of an actual team being here. LA has had teams flirt with it for years and threaten to move only to be used as leverage to get a new stadium in ___________ team's current market. But if LA stepped to the plate and built a stadium, a team would've come running. LA needs to have Kroenke build a stadium for them in order to get behind football in that market. St. Louis is willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Would the current initiative pass a popular vote? If not, does it prove what you think it does. Maybe it proves a few politicians and financiers have a vested interest in keeping the NFL in state as it creates jobs and helps the economy, a separate issue.Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

How many stadium initiatives have been proposed in LA since the Rams and the Raiders left?

Two this year alone.

ETA: I assume you are talking about L.A. County and the greater L.A. area and not simply within the city limits of Los Angeles, correct?

 

[Bob Magaw]

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

2) Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

 

[TheFanatic]

Two this year alone.

ETA: I assume you are talking about L.A. County and the greater L.A. area and not simply within the city limits of Los Angeles, correct?

After three teams pretty much agreed to move to LA. I mean before that. What has LA, and the surrounding area, done to get a team since they lost the Rams and the Raiders?

 

[St. Louis Bob]

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

2) Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

By who, a poster here?

My point was NATIONALLY there is criticism about the attendance in St. Louis because it's a "baseball town". No doubt in my mind that this propaganda was started by the Rams themselves because they want to move.

In the last 10 years the STL Cards have had one of the best runs, historically, in all of sports. They also are very visible in the community trying to improve it. By contrast, the last 10 years the Rams have had one of the worst runs in all of sports and does nothing in the community. The last person I remember doing anything was Steven Jackson. I honestly can't remember the last time I heard a Rams player, or anyone in the organization for that matter, interviewed on the radio tauting a charity or something they are involved in. Cardinals and Blues players are on all the time and have been for years.

LA isn't an enemy of mine. Nor is Oakland, SD or any other NFL city. Kroenke and the NFL is and at the least, the NFL should be your enemy too if you want a team in LA. There's nothing stopping them from putting an expansion team there. The NFL has been treating their customers like #### for a long time with the threats and extortion. Now they have destroyed the game to where I really don't care anymore. #### them.

 

[TheFanatic]

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

2) Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

The people voted into office are chosen to do the will of the people. Whether it goes to a popular vote or not is a moot point. What has the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....

 

[Bob Magaw]

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

2) Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

By who, a poster here?

My point was NATIONALLY there is criticism about the attendance in St. Louis because it's a "baseball town". No doubt in my mind that this propaganda was started by the Rams themselves because they want to move.

In the last 10 years the STL Cards have had one of the best runs, historically, in all of sports. They also are very visible in the community trying to improve it. By contrast, the last 10 years the Rams have had one of the worst runs in all of sports and does nothing in the community. The last person I remember doing anything was Steven Jackson. I honestly can't remember the last time I heard a Rams player, or anyone in the organization for that matter, interviewed on the radio tauting a charity or something they are involved in. Cardinals and Blues players are on all the time and have been for years.

LA isn't an enemy of mine. Nor is Oakland, SD or any other NFL city. Kroenke and the NFL is and at the least, the NFL should be your enemy too if you want a team in LA. There's nothing stopping them from putting an expansion team there. The NFL has been treating their customers like #### for a long time with the threats and extortion. Now they have destroyed the game to where I really don't care anymore. #### them.

Yes a poster here, not you.

I'm not being critical of St. Louis, per se. Just pointing out the obvious it is inconsistent to say poor record wasn't an excuse for poor attendance in LA, so they are bad fans, but allowing it as an excuse in the case of St. Louis. Either criticize or excuse equally, if it is for the exact same reason.

 

[Bob Magaw]

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

2) Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

The people voted into office are chosen to do the will of the people. Whether it goes to a popular vote or not is a moot point. What has the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....

Unless votes were cast at the time at the city, county and state level specifically with how representatives would vote on the stadium initiative, than in fact it may have been the furthest thing in mind for many voters, and have nothing to do with each other. In that case the popular vote question remains, and isn't moot. If the governor thinks it is good for the economy, and has the power to do so, he is going to jam it down the city of St. Louis and state of MO's collective throats whether they want it or not. So again, building a stadium may not mean what you think it means. It just means if a few politicians think it will be good for the economy, they are going to do everything in their power to preserve the economic boon.

This doesn't address the other point. You can't criticize LA for poor record related poor attendance, while making excuses for St. Louis. Criticize or excuse both if it is for the exact same reason. This isn't complicated.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

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

2) Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

By who, a poster here?

My point was NATIONALLY there is criticism about the attendance in St. Louis because it's a "baseball town". No doubt in my mind that this propaganda was started by the Rams themselves because they want to move.

In the last 10 years the STL Cards have had one of the best runs, historically, in all of sports. They also are very visible in the community trying to improve it. By contrast, the last 10 years the Rams have had one of the worst runs in all of sports and does nothing in the community. The last person I remember doing anything was Steven Jackson. I honestly can't remember the last time I heard a Rams player, or anyone in the organization for that matter, interviewed on the radio tauting a charity or something they are involved in. Cardinals and Blues players are on all the time and have been for years.

LA isn't an enemy of mine. Nor is Oakland, SD or any other NFL city. Kroenke and the NFL is and at the least, the NFL should be your enemy too if you want a team in LA. There's nothing stopping them from putting an expansion team there. The NFL has been treating their customers like #### for a long time with the threats and extortion. Now they have destroyed the game to where I really don't care anymore. #### them.

Yes a poster here, not you.

I'm not being critical of St. Louis, per se. Just pointing out the obvious it is inconsistent to say poor record wasn't an excuse for poor attendance in LA, so they are bad fans, but allowing it as an excuse in the case of St. Louis. Either criticize or excuse equally, if it is for the exact same reason.

Well yeah, but I never did that so not sure what you want from me.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Post #732 wasn't addressed to you? Like I said, it was referencing another poster (you can probably guess which one).

Sorry if I caused confusion.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What is the current % chance that none of the three teams move to L.A.?

 

[This_Guy]

Two this year alone.

ETA: I assume you are talking about L.A. County and the greater L.A. area and not simply within the city limits of Los Angeles, correct?

After three teams pretty much agreed to move to LA. I mean before that. What has LA, and the surrounding area, done to get a team since they lost the Rams and the Raiders?

This article has a good timeline of the efforts to bring a team to LA, including the Peter O'Malley plan to build a stadium next to Dodger Stadium, Anaheim working to move Seattle, NFL expansion team, Michael Ovitz's Carson Plan, AEG Farmers Field Plan, Rose Bowl Refurbishment Plan, LA Coliseum Refurbishment / Rebuild Plan & Ed Roski Industry Stadium Plan. Also steps various LA mayors and CA govenerors have taken to bring a team back.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-timeline-20150220-story.html

 

[TheFanatic]

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

2) Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

The people voted into office are chosen to do the will of the people. Whether it goes to a popular vote or not is a moot point. What has the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....

Unless votes were cast at the time at the city, county and state level specifically with how representatives would vote on the stadium initiative, than in fact it may have been the furthest thing in mind for many voters, and have nothing to do with each other. In that case the popular vote question remains, and isn't moot. If the governor thinks it is good for the economy, and has the power to do so, he is going to jam it down the city of St. Louis and state of MO's collective throats whether they want it or not. So again, building a stadium may not mean what you think it means. It just means if a few politicians think it will be good for the economy, they are going to do everything in their power to preserve the economic boon.

This doesn't address the other point. You can't criticize LA for poor record related poor attendance, while making excuses for St. Louis. Criticize or excuse both if it is for the exact same reason. This isn't complicated.

If this were possible, then we would just all vote collectively on everything. A pure democracy. But since this is pretty much completely impossible, and may be even the definition of moot as we don't re-elect our representatives every week, month, or even year, then we'll have to go with the hopes that the ones we do elect, will react to a new situation with their constituency's concerns in mind even if it's more than a couple months from the election cycle. But keep hanging your hat on the politician thing when the better term is representative (as in representing the people), alderman/alderwoman, governor, mayor, etc. They may be slimy politicians but they still represent the people.

And of course, I'll ask it again:

What have the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....

I have asked this question now three times. Care to address it any time soon?

 

[Madden Curse]

I'd love to see the NFL drop the hammer firmly, block a move by the Rams, and provoke Kroenke to sell off the team to someone who commits to staying in St. Louis and ending these shenanigans.

 

[Casting Couch]

I'd love to see the NFL drop the hammer firmly, block a move by the Rams, and provoke Kroenke to sell off the team to someone who commits to staying in St. Louis and ending these shenanigans.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program, based in 3D reality !!

 

[GDogg]

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

2) Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

The people voted into office are chosen to do the will of the people. Whether it goes to a popular vote or not is a moot point. What has the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....

Unless votes were cast at the time at the city, county and state level specifically with how representatives would vote on the stadium initiative, than in fact it may have been the furthest thing in mind for many voters, and have nothing to do with each other. In that case the popular vote question remains, and isn't moot. If the governor thinks it is good for the economy, and has the power to do so, he is going to jam it down the city of St. Louis and state of MO's collective throats whether they want it or not. So again, building a stadium may not mean what you think it means. It just means if a few politicians think it will be good for the economy, they are going to do everything in their power to preserve the economic boon.

This doesn't address the other point. You can't criticize LA for poor record related poor attendance, while making excuses for St. Louis. Criticize or excuse both if it is for the exact same reason. This isn't complicated.

If this were possible, then we would just all vote collectively on everything. A pure democracy. But since this is pretty much completely impossible, and may be even the definition of moot as we don't re-elect our representatives every week, month, or even year, then we'll have to go with the hopes that the ones we do elect, will react to a new situation with their constituency's concerns in mind even if it's more than a couple months from the election cycle. But keep hanging your hat on the politician thing when the better term is representative (as in representing the people), alderman/alderwoman, governor, mayor, etc. They may be slimy politicians but they still represent the people.

And of course, I'll ask it again:

What have the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....

I have asked this question now three times. Care to address it any time soon?

This_Guy gave you a link to an L.A. Times article that details much of what has gone on over the last 20 years.

 

[bulger2holt]

Sounds like most owners favor the Carson project. Stan has his few allies, but Spanos is very well liked and respected. STL is on the verge of approving the funding too. They won't be leaving.

 

[TheFanatic]

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

2) Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

The people voted into office are chosen to do the will of the people. Whether it goes to a popular vote or not is a moot point. What has the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....

Unless votes were cast at the time at the city, county and state level specifically with how representatives would vote on the stadium initiative, than in fact it may have been the furthest thing in mind for many voters, and have nothing to do with each other. In that case the popular vote question remains, and isn't moot. If the governor thinks it is good for the economy, and has the power to do so, he is going to jam it down the city of St. Louis and state of MO's collective throats whether they want it or not. So again, building a stadium may not mean what you think it means. It just means if a few politicians think it will be good for the economy, they are going to do everything in their power to preserve the economic boon.

This doesn't address the other point. You can't criticize LA for poor record related poor attendance, while making excuses for St. Louis. Criticize or excuse both if it is for the exact same reason. This isn't complicated.

If this were possible, then we would just all vote collectively on everything. A pure democracy. But since this is pretty much completely impossible, and may be even the definition of moot as we don't re-elect our representatives every week, month, or even year, then we'll have to go with the hopes that the ones we do elect, will react to a new situation with their constituency's concerns in mind even if it's more than a couple months from the election cycle. But keep hanging your hat on the politician thing when the better term is representative (as in representing the people), alderman/alderwoman, governor, mayor, etc. They may be slimy politicians but they still represent the people.

And of course, I'll ask it again:

What have the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....

I have asked this question now three times. Care to address it any time soon?

This_Guy gave you a link to an L.A. Times article that details much of what has gone on over the last 20 years.

First I've seen that article, but man that does not help your argument. Over and over lip service is played to bringing a team but nothing remotely resembling an actual plan emerges until Kroenke proposes to do it himself along with an investment group and two other teams have burned the bridges in their market. LA was promised the expansion team that became the Houston Texans. It was promised a team and couldn't get anything done:

March 1999

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

October 1999

With no agreement reached in Los Angeles, the NFL awards the expansion team to Houston to create the Texans.

So basically the team and a stadium has to be gift wrapped and placed in the laps of the residents of LA or they aren't going to do jack squat to bring a team back other than talk about it.The second biggest market in the country just has to build a stadium. If the 50th media market in the country (Jacksonville) can get a team, why can't LA? Because they won't lift a finger to do it and are only getting a team because one owner is planning on building his own stadium and the other two have exhausted every option in their own cities to get a new facility. That article really is an indictment of ineptitude and apathy about the NFL in LA, not something to be proud of.

 

[Casting Couch]

Sounds like most owners favor the Carson project. Stan has his few allies, but Spanos is very well liked and respected. STL is on the verge of approving the funding too. They won't be leaving.

There is no way that Kroenke won't have his Inglewood stadium housing the Los Angeles Rams.

I will wager large sums on this becoming a reality.

 

[bulger2holt]

Sounds like most owners favor the Carson project. Stan has his few allies, but Spanos is very well liked and respected. STL is on the verge of approving the funding too. They won't be leaving.

There is no way that Kroenke won't have his Inglewood stadium housing the Los Angeles Rams.

I will wager large sums on this becoming a reality.

Stan knows he's losing the battle that's why he just gor desperate and offered Spanos a 50-50 partnership in Inglewood. Spanos declined because he knows Carson is leading the fight. The LA relocation committee favors Carson and they are pro STL with their financing in place.

 

[Tau837]

Sounds like most owners favor the Carson project. Stan has his few allies, but Spanos is very well liked and respected. STL is on the verge of approving the funding too. They won't be leaving.

There is no way that Kroenke won't have his Inglewood stadium housing the Los Angeles Rams.

I will wager large sums on this becoming a reality.

Stan knows he's losing the battle that's why he just gor desperate and offered Spanos a 50-50 partnership in Inglewood. Spanos declined because he knows Carson is leading the fight. The LA relocation committee favors Carson and they are pro STL with their financing in place.

Disagree with this. Spanos declined because it wasn't a truly 50/50 split offered -- the offer did not include any revenues from development surrounding the stadium, nor any parking revenue. I think it is 95% likely that Kroenke is approved for Inglewood. What happens to Oakland and San Diego is still in doubt.

 

[Tau837]

Recapping the NFL Owners Meeting

 

[Casting Couch]

Potential Carson Stadium Land - UNAVAILABLE

By Conor Orr

Published December 6, 2015


Could the NFL's new destination in Los Angeles be smaller than expected?

Per NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport, a key piece of land initially viewed as parking and additional development space is no longer available.

Rapoport discussed the issue on NFL Network's GameDay First on Sunday morning:


"A 200-acre plot of land adjacent to the Carson project put forth by the Raiders and Chargers for a possible move is now viewed as no longer available to them, according to sources briefed on their situation. The land -- The Links at Victoria Golf Course -- would have been used for future long-term development and parking in the potential new stadium. It was one of the plots considered for acquisition in the event NFL owners approve the Carson project at the slated January meeting. But based on a number of factors, including some politics, it's now viewed as not happening. "

"What that means, according to those who have followed it closely, is that the Carson development may not be as large as some imagined."

Depending on who you talked to over the last six months, the Carson project -- one of two proposed stadium projects in the Los Angeles area --

was either viewed as MetLife Stadium-style joint effort, or something far more grandiose. The words "destination" and "league centerpiece"

were thrown around leaving many to believe that this would be a massive piece of architecture.

Still, those closely connected with the project don't seem concerned.

"We have our core piece of land, we don't need anything else," Carson project advocate Carmen Policy told Rapoport.

"We don't need any additional property. Obviously, if the league gives its approval, we'll be looking at other developments and expansion ideas in the entire area.

http://www.nfl.com/n...and-unavailable

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This news puts Kroenke's project as a virtual certainty to bring the Rams back to Los Angeles.

He is adding confusion to the Carson plan by inviting a 2nd team into his Inglewood project.

Looks like the Rams and Raiders or Rams and Chargers could be in Inglewood,

although Kroenke's initial offer for the second franchise tenant is less than attractive at this time.

I'm sure there will be quite a bit of negotiating from this point forward with both Mark Davis, and Spanos,

to see who will partner up with Kroenke.

 

[Bob Magaw]

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

2) Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

The people voted into office are chosen to do the will of the people. Whether it goes to a popular vote or not is a moot point. What has the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....

Unless votes were cast at the time at the city, county and state level specifically with how representatives would vote on the stadium initiative, than in fact it may have been the furthest thing in mind for many voters, and have nothing to do with each other. In that case the popular vote question remains, and isn't moot. If the governor thinks it is good for the economy, and has the power to do so, he is going to jam it down the city of St. Louis and state of MO's collective throats whether they want it or not. So again, building a stadium may not mean what you think it means. It just means if a few politicians think it will be good for the economy, they are going to do everything in their power to preserve the economic boon.

This doesn't address the other point. You can't criticize LA for poor record related poor attendance, while making excuses for St. Louis. Criticize or excuse both if it is for the exact same reason. This isn't complicated.

If this were possible, then we would just all vote collectively on everything. A pure democracy. But since this is pretty much completely impossible, and may be even the definition of moot as we don't re-elect our representatives every week, month, or even year, then we'll have to go with the hopes that the ones we do elect, will react to a new situation with their constituency's concerns in mind even if it's more than a couple months from the election cycle. But keep hanging your hat on the politician thing when the better term is representative (as in representing the people), alderman/alderwoman, governor, mayor, etc. They may be slimy politicians but they still represent the people.

And of course, I'll ask it again:

What have the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....

I have asked this question now three times. Care to address it any time soon?

1) This really doesn't have to be so convoluted. Obviously if you thought the answer was yes (a majority of St. Louis residents support the stadium initiative), you would have said so by now. So I'll take the repeated misdirection attempts as a tacit concession of the point and implicit but resounding no. Once again (for at least the third time), the overly simplistic point about stadium support = "better" fans didn't mean what you thought it did. Maybe it speaks to more desperate local and regional politicians, to want to further stuff the pockets of the second wealthiest owner in the NFL (worth a combined $10+ billion with his wife's income)?

2) You stopped addressing how excusing poor attendance because of a poor record in St. Louis but not LA isn't contradictory.

3) You can't answer a question with another question.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Sounds like most owners favor the Carson project. Stan has his few allies, but Spanos is very well liked and respected. STL is on the verge of approving the funding too. They won't be leaving.

Most of the information has been that both Spanos and Kroenke could have enough votes to block the other, and that nobody knows with certainty what the outcome will be. It is important to detach beliefs from desires in this process, wanting it so doesn't make it so. IMO, the recent PFT article below, including a quote from IND owner Irsay, more accurately depicts the indeterminate state of affairs.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/12/02/owners-plan-l-a-vote-no-consensus-yet-on-which-teams-will-move/

Owners plan L.A. vote, no consensus yet on which teams will move

Posted by Michael David Smith on December 2, 2015, 6:01 PM ESTReuters

The NFL’s owners will vote next month on the possibility of moving one or two teams to Los Angeles. But so far there’s no indication of what the outcome of that vote might be.

At the owners’ meeting today, the owners decided to convene again on January 12 and hold a vote on proposals for the Chargers, Raiders or Rams to move to Los Angeles. But Colts owner Jim Irsay said after today’s meeting that no team has the necessary support of three-fourths of the league’s owners.

“Right now it’s a little hard to see one of the proposals getting 24 votes,” Irsay said. “Things can change, but look: We’ve had this three-quarters rule that’s been in existence for a long time. It’s a strong foundation of our league. . . . If we were voting today, I don’t see anything getting 24 votes.”

Irsay indicated that to get three-fourths approval of the league, it may require two teams to move to Los Angeles together and share a stadium there. Irsay said he believes Rams owner Stan Kroenke would be willing to take on a partnership with either the Chargers or Raiders and make one of those teams an equal partner in a stadium.

“There’s a stronger feeling, probably, toward two,” Irsay said. “I don’t think anyone is averse to two.”

But which two teams will move — or if any two teams can get the necessary votes — remains to be seen.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Another great showing by the Rams and a guarantee to not have a winning record for the 11th consecutive season.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Another great showing by the Rams and a guarantee to not have a winning record for the 11th consecutive season.

51,115 tickets were distributed for the game

Going out on a limb - I'd say a few less than that were actually there.

 

[Abrantes]

Crazy that anyone shows up at all to see that product, honestly.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Another great showing by the Rams and a guarantee to not have a winning record for the 11th consecutive season.

51,115 tickets were distributed for the game

Going out on a limb - I'd say a few less than that were actually there.

Crazy that anyone shows up at all to see that product, honestly.

Seriously. It's perhaps the worst display of football ever for years at time. Oh and the owner hates the city and people. But it's all the fans fault because it's a baseball town.

 

[biju]

Still would love a team in the NFC West to actually be a West Coast team. Doesn't look like that's going to happen for whatever stupid reason...

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Still would love a team in the NFC West to actually be a West Coast team. Doesn't look like that's going to happen for whatever stupid reason...

Why is this so important to you?

 

[cstu]

Sounds like most owners favor the Carson project. Stan has his few allies, but Spanos is very well liked and respected. STL is on the verge of approving the funding too. They won't be leaving.

There is no way that Kroenke won't have his Inglewood stadium housing the Los Angeles Rams.

I will wager large sums on this becoming a reality.

Stan knows he's losing the battle that's why he just gor desperate and offered Spanos a 50-50 partnership in Inglewood. Spanos declined because he knows Carson is leading the fight. The LA relocation committee favors Carson and they are pro STL with their financing in place.

Disagree with this. Spanos declined because it wasn't a truly 50/50 split offered -- the offer did not include any revenues from development surrounding the stadium, nor any parking revenue. I think it is 95% likely that Kroenke is approved for Inglewood. What happens to Oakland and San Diego is still in doubt.

Allowing another team to be a tenant is no skin off Kroenke's back.

 

[TheFanatic]

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

2) Be that as it may, there was earlier criticism of LA for attendance when their record was bad, which is incoherent if excuses are to be made when the shoe is on the other foot. Either criticize both or excuse both on the same grounds, that would be less obviously biased.

The people voted into office are chosen to do the will of the people. Whether it goes to a popular vote or not is a moot point. What has the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....

Unless votes were cast at the time at the city, county and state level specifically with how representatives would vote on the stadium initiative, than in fact it may have been the furthest thing in mind for many voters, and have nothing to do with each other. In that case the popular vote question remains, and isn't moot. If the governor thinks it is good for the economy, and has the power to do so, he is going to jam it down the city of St. Louis and state of MO's collective throats whether they want it or not. So again, building a stadium may not mean what you think it means. It just means if a few politicians think it will be good for the economy, they are going to do everything in their power to preserve the economic boon.

This doesn't address the other point. You can't criticize LA for poor record related poor attendance, while making excuses for St. Louis. Criticize or excuse both if it is for the exact same reason. This isn't complicated.

If this were possible, then we would just all vote collectively on everything. A pure democracy. But since this is pretty much completely impossible, and may be even the definition of moot as we don't re-elect our representatives every week, month, or even year, then we'll have to go with the hopes that the ones we do elect, will react to a new situation with their constituency's concerns in mind even if it's more than a couple months from the election cycle. But keep hanging your hat on the politician thing when the better term is representative (as in representing the people), alderman/alderwoman, governor, mayor, etc. They may be slimy politicians but they still represent the people.

And of course, I'll ask it again:

What have the residents of LA and the surrounding area or those they elected to represent them done to bring a team to LA since the Rams and Raiders left? I'll hang up and listen....

I have asked this question now three times. Care to address it any time soon?

1) This really doesn't have to be so convoluted. Obviously if you thought the answer was yes (a majority of St. Louis residents support the stadium initiative), you would have said so by now. So I'll take the repeated misdirection attempts as a tacit concession of the point and implicit but resounding no. Once again (for at least the third time), the overly simplistic point about stadium support = "better" fans didn't mean what you thought it did. Maybe it speaks to more desperate local and regional politicians, to want to further stuff the pockets of the second wealthiest owner in the NFL (worth a combined $10+ billion with his wife's income)?

2) You stopped addressing how excusing poor attendance because of a poor record in St. Louis but not LA isn't contradictory.

3) You can't answer a question with another question.

1) The last time it was a public vote and it won, and that was with no guarantee of a team. Would it win this time? I don't know. It would be pretty close. Those that don't care won't show up to vote and those that do care are much more on the side of keeping football and they would show up. That being said, the earliest a public vote could take place is March and the NFL wants full proposals at the end of this month.

2) It's a double standard that I should not have used, although I would argue that the poor showing in St. Louis the last decade plus is greater than the poor showing in LA the 10 years before they left, but that would be quibbling over minutia

3) Still waiting on you to answer what LA Residents or elected leaders have done to get a team to LA since 1995? LA was promised the Houston Texans franchise, all they had to do was build a stadium and thus J. J. Watt plays in Texas instead of LA.

Using the poor record for poor attendance in St. Louis and not allowing LA to use the same argument was a mistake on my part. But asking what LA has done to get a team over the last two decades is a valid argument that you have danced around and around and around.

 

[biju]

Still would love a team in the NFC West to actually be a West Coast team. Doesn't look like that's going to happen for whatever stupid reason...

Why is this so important to you?

Because Seattle tends to travel way more than other teams and it takes its toll yearly. In a league where they strive for parity, it certainly doesn't seem like this one (along with scheduling and bye weeks) matters to them. Some teams (NFC East, AFC West) have chosen to keep rivalries, but for the most part everyone else makes geographical sense.

I'll bet the Patriots (just randomly picking a team, not trying to make it a Pats thing) travel 1/3rd of what Seattle does.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Still would love a team in the NFC West to actually be a West Coast team. Doesn't look like that's going to happen for whatever stupid reason...

Why is this so important to you?

Because Seattle tends to travel way more than other teams and it takes its toll yearly. In a league where they strive for parity, it certainly doesn't seem like this one (along with scheduling and bye weeks) matters to them. Some teams (NFC East, AFC West) have chosen to keep rivalries, but for the most part everyone else makes geographical sense.

I'll bet the Patriots (just randomly picking a team, not trying to make it a Pats thing) travel 1/3rd of what Seattle does.

It's football, they have a week between games. Now NHL, you would have a point. Not sure why a team plays in Toronto one night and Tampa the next.

 

[biju]

Still would love a team in the NFC West to actually be a West Coast team. Doesn't look like that's going to happen for whatever stupid reason...

Why is this so important to you?

Because Seattle tends to travel way more than other teams and it takes its toll yearly. In a league where they strive for parity, it certainly doesn't seem like this one (along with scheduling and bye weeks) matters to them. Some teams (NFC East, AFC West) have chosen to keep rivalries, but for the most part everyone else makes geographical sense.

I'll bet the Patriots (just randomly picking a team, not trying to make it a Pats thing) travel 1/3rd of what Seattle does.

It's football, they have a week between games. Now NHL, you would have a point. Not sure why a team plays in Toronto one night and Tampa the next.

To be clear, I'm coming at this from 100% a selfish point of view for me and the team I support. Seattle has had the Sonics ripped from them with far less going on so I get the concern from STL fans and I'm not trying to advocate for you to lose your team. I'm simply stating that if there is an imminent relocation to LA it would make more sense to make a move that objectively makes sense. Moving Oakland or SD to LA seems territorial instead of objective. The same in how NY could support two more teams but they don't relocate there because it disturbs the semi-monopoly those owners have.

 

[This_Guy]

3) Still waiting on you to answer what LA Residents or elected leaders have done to get a team to LA since 1995? LA was promised the Houston Texans franchise, all they had to do was build a stadium and thus J. J. Watt plays in Texas instead of LA.

Using the poor record for poor attendance in St. Louis and not allowing LA to use the same argument was a mistake on my part. But asking what LA has done to get a team over the last two decades is a valid argument that you have danced around and around and around.

As the article I posted showed there have been numerous privately financed plans for a stadium in Southern California. None of those private plans were willing to build a stadium without the promise of a team, which I think is a very reasonable outlook. They even sold the naming rights to one of those stadiums. The problem isn't the lack of desire or resources to build a stadium, it is the logistics and bureaucracy of matching a team and that team's owner's priorities with that of the financier.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Still would love a team in the NFC West to actually be a West Coast team. Doesn't look like that's going to happen for whatever stupid reason...

Why is this so important to you?

Because Seattle tends to travel way more than other teams and it takes its toll yearly. In a league where they strive for parity, it certainly doesn't seem like this one (along with scheduling and bye weeks) matters to them. Some teams (NFC East, AFC West) have chosen to keep rivalries, but for the most part everyone else makes geographical sense.

I'll bet the Patriots (just randomly picking a team, not trying to make it a Pats thing) travel 1/3rd of what Seattle does.

It's football, they have a week between games. Now NHL, you would have a point. Not sure why a team plays in Toronto one night and Tampa the next.

To be clear, I'm coming at this from 100% a selfish point of view for me and the team I support. Seattle has had the Sonics ripped from them with far less going on so I get the concern from STL fans and I'm not trying to advocate for you to lose your team. I'm simply stating that if there is an imminent relocation to LA it would make more sense to make a move that objectively makes sense. Moving Oakland or SD to LA seems territorial instead of objective. The same in how NY could support two more teams but they don't relocate there because it disturbs the semi-monopoly those owners have.

Nothing is stopping the NFL from just putting an expansion team in LA. They would rather be first class #######s instead pissing off customers in 3 markets.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Yesterday was fan appreciation day. They showed their appreciate by giving 1/2 off $8 hot dogs and discounted prices on St. Louis Rams merchandise.

 

[Casting Couch]

Sounds like most owners favor the Carson project. Stan has his few allies, but Spanos is very well liked and respected. STL is on the verge of approving the funding too. They won't be leaving.

There is no way that Kroenke won't have his Inglewood stadium housing the Los Angeles Rams.

I will wager large sums on this becoming a reality.

Stan knows he's losing the battle that's why he just gor desperate and offered Spanos a 50-50 partnership in Inglewood. Spanos declined because he knows Carson is leading the fight. The LA relocation committee favors Carson and they are pro STL with their financing in place.

Disagree with this. Spanos declined because it wasn't a truly 50/50 split offered -- the offer did not include any revenues from development surrounding the stadium, nor any parking revenue. I think it is 95% likely that Kroenke is approved for Inglewood. What happens to Oakland and San Diego is still in doubt.

Allowing another team to be a tenant is no skin off Kroenke's back.

Spanos declined the first offer because it wasn't in his best interest. If there is room for negotiation, I'm believe SPanos and Kroenke will strike a deal.

Having the Chargers and Rams, both original Los Angeles teams, back home would be perfect, and starting to look like the most likely scenerio.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Yesterday was fan appreciation day. They showed their appreciate by giving 1/2 off $8 hot dogs and discounted prices on St. Louis Rams merchandise.

Bob - I read on Twitter today the attendance of 17,xxx was the smallest NFL crowd in 40 years. Congrats!

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Yesterday was fan appreciation day. They showed their appreciate by giving 1/2 off $8 hot dogs and discounted prices on St. Louis Rams merchandise.

Bob - I read on Twitter today the attendance of 17,xxx was the smallest NFL crowd in 40 years. Congrats!

I don't know that there were that many people there. It's just so bad.

It would be like finding out that your ##### wife has been planning on leaving you for years. That isn't exactly incentive be buy her jewelry and some nice dinners. Oh not only is your wife a ##### she's also a fat and ugly POS.

 

[TheFanatic]

3) Still waiting on you to answer what LA Residents or elected leaders have done to get a team to LA since 1995? LA was promised the Houston Texans franchise, all they had to do was build a stadium and thus J. J. Watt plays in Texas instead of LA.

Using the poor record for poor attendance in St. Louis and not allowing LA to use the same argument was a mistake on my part. But asking what LA has done to get a team over the last two decades is a valid argument that you have danced around and around and around.

As the article I posted showed there have been numerous privately financed plans for a stadium in Southern California. None of those private plans were willing to build a stadium without the promise of a team, which I think is a very reasonable outlook. They even sold the naming rights to one of those stadiums. The problem isn't the lack of desire or resources to build a stadium, it is the logistics and bureaucracy of matching a team and that team's owner's priorities with that of the financier.

The NFL promised them the Texans franchised. They were absolutely promised a team and it didn't happen. They were gift wrapped a team. Couldn't make it happen. Sorry, but the LA market just doesnt give a #### about football...

 

[Casting Couch]

3) Still waiting on you to answer what LA Residents or elected leaders have done to get a team to LA since 1995? LA was promised the Houston Texans franchise, all they had to do was build a stadium and thus J. J. Watt plays in Texas instead of LA.

Using the poor record for poor attendance in St. Louis and not allowing LA to use the same argument was a mistake on my part. But asking what LA has done to get a team over the last two decades is a valid argument that you have danced around and around and around.

As the article I posted showed there have been numerous privately financed plans for a stadium in Southern California. None of those private plans were willing to build a stadium without the promise of a team, which I think is a very reasonable outlook. They even sold the naming rights to one of those stadiums. The problem isn't the lack of desire or resources to build a stadium, it is the logistics and bureaucracy of matching a team and that team's owner's priorities with that of the financier.

The NFL promised them the Texans franchised. They were absolutely promised a team and it didn't happen. They were gift wrapped a team. Couldn't make it happen. Sorry, but the LA market just doesnt give a #### about football.

When LA Rams attendance levels far surpass those of St Louis, then and only then will you realize football is indeed rabid in Los Angeles.

 

[TheFanatic]

2) You stopped addressing how excusing poor attendance because of a poor record in St. Louis but not LA isn't contradictory.

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

1989 - 11-5

1988 - 10-6

1987 - 6-9

1986 - 10-6

1985 - 11-5

1984 - 10-6

1983 - 9-7

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

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

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

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

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

The '14 Rams averaged 57,018 per home game.

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

Eagerly awaiting an encyclopedia response to this argument, but if the attendance numbers for the LA Rams from 83 to 89 are indeed under the St. Louis Rams numbers during the last 7 years years, coupled with the fact that an expansion team was gift wrapped to the LA market, then I stand by the fact that LA just doesn't care about football as much as those in St. Louis. Even when the Rams were good in LA, the far smaller St. Louis Market is more eager to have an NFL team than the LA residents.

 

[TheFanatic]

3) Still waiting on you to answer what LA Residents or elected leaders have done to get a team to LA since 1995? LA was promised the Houston Texans franchise, all they had to do was build a stadium and thus J. J. Watt plays in Texas instead of LA.

Using the poor record for poor attendance in St. Louis and not allowing LA to use the same argument was a mistake on my part. But asking what LA has done to get a team over the last two decades is a valid argument that you have danced around and around and around.

As the article I posted showed there have been numerous privately financed plans for a stadium in Southern California. None of those private plans were willing to build a stadium without the promise of a team, which I think is a very reasonable outlook. They even sold the naming rights to one of those stadiums. The problem isn't the lack of desire or resources to build a stadium, it is the logistics and bureaucracy of matching a team and that team's owner's priorities with that of the financier.

The NFL promised them the Texans franchised. They were absolutely promised a team and it didn't happen. They were gift wrapped a team. Couldn't make it happen. Sorry, but the LA market just doesnt give a #### about football.

When LA Rams attendance levels far surpass those of St Louis, then and only then will you realize football is indeed rabid in Los Angeles.

See my post just after this one you made. I was crafting it when you posted this. Frankly, the LA market is about 10 times that of St, Louis, but even when the LA Rams were kicking butt, the attendance was less than when the St. Louis Rams were in the midst of the worst run of a team in the NFL. Last I checked, the Coliseum holds more people than the Dome in St. Louis.