OnWis97

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

That’s largely because the NFL was trying to keep Kroenke from moving to LA.  Easy to forget how hard the league fought him on that, forcing him to stay an extra year and Goodell personally intervening to help St. Louis keep the Rams in town.

 

If they couldn’t stop Stan, then at least they could force him to share the wealth with an owner everybody liked but who didn’t have the juice to seal the deal himself. 

 

The NFL set that condition, they could lift it just as easily.

 

Now, I don’t think it will happen.  But there’s no rule against it happening that can’t be undone with a simple vote. 

 

From what I read that had more to do with the fact that the NFL had 3 teams with two competing projects trying to move to LA, and wanting to have control over the process of it's return to the 2nd biggest market which it viewed as a 2 team market rather than any specific desire to keep the Rams in St. Louis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, colortv said:

From what I read that had more to do with the fact that the NFL had 3 teams with two competing projects trying to move to LA, and wanting to have control over the process of it's return to the 2nd biggest market which it viewed as a 2 team market rather than any specific desire to keep the Rams in St. Louis.

 

I think it was a little more than that. The Rams, after all, had a ludicrous lease in St. Louis, weighted unreasonably towards the team.  It’s very likely the NFL wanted to keep that precedent; they certainly prefer that to the privately-financed model Kroenke is using for his Inglewood stadium.

 

Goodell personally intervened to help St. Louis keep its team on at least two occasions we know of.  I’m not aware that he did anything of the sort for Oakland or San Diego. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, it's not fit to be a two-team market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 5:21 PM, the admiral said:

Of course, it's not fit to be a two-team market.

 

Yes it is. The league is about making money, and Los Angeles is a great football market in a sense that, every single week, that new stadium will be filled with people who like football. It doesn’t have to be the Rams, but here in LA, there’s literally a fan of every team out here somewhere. And when you have the opportunity to see the New England Patriots finally, instead of traveling up or down, they will show up. Idk how many seats the stadium will have, but if 80,000 people every single week, buying concessions, buying merchandise, inside of your gigantic store, 16x a season excluding playoffs... somebody is making money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, d11king said:

 

Yes it is. The league is about making money, and Los Angeles is a great football market in a sense that, every single week, that new stadium will be filled with people who like football. It doesn’t have to be the Rams, but here in LA, there’s literally a fan of every team out here somewhere. And when you have the opportunity to see the New England Patriots finally, instead of traveling up or down, they will show up. Idk how many seats the stadium will have, but if 80,000 people every single week, buying concessions, buying merchandise, inside of your gigantic store, 16x a season excluding playoffs... somebody is making money. 

 

These are relocations so you're only getting a nominal increase in revenues if you can out draw and upcharge. So let's assume a relo gives you that incremental increase, does that revenue increase exceed the ~$2 Billion capital expenditure for a new stadium and relocation fees? My back of the napkin guess says no. Local revenues are a distant secondary revenue source the revenue sharing that all 32 teams share equally. Lastly nobody is getting rich off of solely owning an nfl franchise. Look at the spanos and davis situations, both cash poor owners because the don't have any outside income to bring to the table. The majority of ownership got rich elsewhere, then bought their teams.

 

Edit: Feel free to poke a few holes in my argument as it's late on fri night and I have not looked up any recent #'s but the general concept is pretty much there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think you’re right.  Most of the benefit to Kroenke will come when he sells the team - its value is certainly greater now than it was in St. Louis.

 

And you’re also right that the added costs to relocation mean that he won’t see increased profit off the Rams for a very long time. He’s willing to pay for his own stadium in LA is because it will anchor a larger development that will make him a lot of money very quickly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2018 at 11:48 PM, the admiral said:

 

No wonder people don't take pre-Super-Bowl NFL seriously. "Hands off to the fullback, slips the tackle, here comes the linebacker, ope, no, he ran headfirst into a steel pole, touchdown Chicago Cardinals!"

 

The NFL was a tough sport back in the 60's.  There were fewer rules protecting offensive players.  There were fewer specialty players, so players played more downs.  The goal posts were just a part of the game.  In some ways it was preferable to the pass happy league of today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would offensive tackles spread just a little wider if the post was in between them and the guard?  A post in the field of play just seems absurdly unsafe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

So would offensive tackles spread just a little wider if the post was in between them and the guard?  A post in the field of play just seems absurdly unsafe.

 

Oh come on, does this look unsafe to you? 

jFteEHy.png

 

They even wrapped it in two inches of what's probably asbestos to keep it extra safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember Dolphins HOF fullback Larry Czonka powering up the middle for a TD in the early 70's, hitting the goal post in the process and making it sway.   That was football.  ? ? ? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TJSC said:
Could the Chargers move back to San Diego or to a completely different market if this continues to become a growing concern among the owners?

 

I’m sure Stan Kroenke would be willing to let the Chargers out of their commitment to play in his stadium.  For a nominal fee. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2018 at 8:54 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

So would offensive tackles spread just a little wider if the post was in between them and the guard?  A post in the field of play just seems absurdly unsafe.

The CFL still has the uprights at the goal line, with the post about two yards into the endzone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TJSC said:

https://sports.yahoo.com/least-shocking-news-ever-report-says-owners-discussing-chargers-viability-l-173917388.html

 

Could the Chargers move back to San Diego or to a completely different market if this continues to become a growing concern among the owners?

 

I think the only way the Chargers go back to San Diego is if Spanos sells and new owner is flush with cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rams in color rush jerseys this weekend. They need to do the right thing: wear white pants with blue socks and shoes. If they do, this will be one of the better looking games of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WSU151 said:

I think the only way the Chargers go back to San Diego is if Spanos sells and new owner is flush with cash.

 

Exactly. There's no way San Diego will want the Spanos family back.

 

If the Chargers moved back to San Diego that would open the LA market once again to be a threat to communities not wanting to build a new stadium tax/expense free. Sooooo, there's that ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kimball said:

 

Exactly. There's no way San Diego will want the Spanos family back.

 

If the Chargers moved back to San Diego that would open the LA market once again to be a threat to communities not wanting to build a new stadium tax/expense free. Sooooo, there's that ...

Could this be the conspiracy master plan... NFL didn't want the Raiders in LA due to the gang affiliations, so they let the Chargers move there forcing the Raiders to move to Las Vegas. Once the Raiders are in Vegas, do the Chargers then move back to San Diego since the Raiders would be stuck in Vegas? And do the Chargers get a hero's welcome home with a new San Diego stadium? Hmm....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now