NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[STL FANATIC]

That just makes it all the more angering that the NFL allowed Khan to be pushed aside in St. Louis in favor of an owner who was and remains in violation of league ownership rules.

You didn't seem to care when there was the belief that he might try to make things work in St. Louis.

I don't know what I said HERE, but I promise you I cared. In fact, it was one reason I trusted Kroenke. I PROMISE you I was saying things to the extent of "there's no way the NFL could cut deals to approve an owner if he wasn't going to keep the team in St. Louis, when there was one on the table who definitely would have."

I may have been wrong about that. But you're assumption that I didn't care about the situation is certainly wrong, too.

[Gothamite]

I'm really wary of trying to interpret the state of mind of other posters. Best to just take each other at face value.

But as to the statement that "there's no way the NFL could cut deals to approve an owner if he wasn't going to keep the team in St. Louis, when there was one on the table who definitely would have", the NFL didn't cut any deals. Kroenke had a contractual right to buy majority share, and he exercised that. Far from facilitating his purchase, NFL was powerless to stop him. Regardless of who any other bidders were or what their plans were.

[rams80]

Yeah, seriously, Kroenke had the legal right to match any bid for the other 60% of the franchise. And the NFL would have had a real hard time convincing any judge that a guy who had already been approved for 40% of the team and said right to match for the other 60% should not now be allowed to buy the other 60%.

[Gothamite]

Of course, they weren't sure at the time that he'd actually exercise his right, so they had to vet Khan and treat his bid seriously. But as it turns out, they could have let Limbaugh bid after all, with no worry that they'd actually be stuck with him as an owner.

[Buster]

Do the Stallions get a second chance at life if the Rams move, and the NFL gives expansion a serious look in the future?

It would be a 3rd chance actually, the Cardinals also left St. Louis.

Personally, I don't like the idea of giving these major markets like LA and STL multiple chances when they keep provong they do not have the ability to support a pro team. LA has lost the Chargers, Ram, Raiders...it's obvious that the population out there has better things to do than go to an NFL game. Same with St. Louis, although their issue is likely more economic than demographic-related.

Lets give some fresh cities a chance. They'd likely embrace and support an NFL team if they have not had one before.

Look how successful the replacement Cleveland Browns have been. The circumstances of losing their team was horrible for the fans, but the end result of fixing the situation has not exactly been great for the league. The new Browns only make the news when their players get arrested or suspended.

Same with Seattle and their quest to get a replacement Sonics team. Sometimes history doesn't go your way. It's life. You didn't go to the games when you had a team...and wonder why the owner wants to move to another market? You had your chance.

I know it's a money game and L.A. is a gigantic TV market that the league feels it needs to tap into, but they've blown it so many times with an NFL franchise, I don't believe we need to keep trying and repeating history.

p.s. LA has lost 4 teams if you count the 1926 LA Buccaneers

[cajunaggie08]

Do the Stallions get a second chance at life if the Rams move, and the NFL gives expansion a serious look in the future?

It would be a 3rd chance actually, the Cardinals also left St. Louis.

Personally, I don't like the idea of giving these major markets like LA and STL multiple chances when they keep provong they do not have the ability to support a pro team. LA has lost the Chargers, Ram, Raiders...it's obvious that the population out there has better things to do than go to an NFL game. Same with St. Louis, although their issue is likely more economic than demographic-related.

Lets give some fresh cities a chance. They'd likely embrace and support an NFL team if they have not had one before.

Look how successful the replacement Cleveland Browns have been. The circumstances of losing their team was horrible for the fans, but the end result of fixing the situation has not exactly been great for the league. The new Browns only make the news when their players get arrested or suspended.

Same with Seattle and their quest to get a replacement Sonics team. Sometimes history doesn't go your way. It's life. You didn't go to the games when you had a team...and wonder why the owner wants to move to another market? You had your chance.

I know it's a money game and L.A. is a gigantic TV market that the league feels it needs to tap into, but they've blown it so many times with an NFL franchise, I don't believe we need to keep trying and repeating history.

p.s. LA has lost 4 teams if you count the 1926 LA Buccaneers

Well I wouldn't count the Chargers against LA. They were a first year AFL team when they moved to San Diego.

When it comes to teams moving in the last 20 years, it typically comes down to an owner wanting some new taxpayer funded stadium and a city either caving in or throwing in the towel on said ownership and another more desperate city catering to said owners' wishes. When the Oilers moved from Houston it was due to the owner wanting a new stadium just 5 years after he got the county to renovate the Astrodome for him.

When both LA teams left 20 years ago, both franchises found new/renovated stadiums to take their teams to since deals weren't made in LA. LA is fully capable of supporting a team. But I can't fault them for wanting to fund a billion dollar stadium either.

[Gothamite]

Exactly. Claiming that LA lost its teams for lack of support betrays an historical ignorance.

The Chargers moved because the AFL in its first years was a low-level minor league, and they couldn't compete with the established Rams.

The Raiders moved because they couldn't get a stadium built at Hollywood Park (the same land Kroenke now owns). The NFL offered to help, but would have required them to share, which Davis didn't want to do.

The Rams left because St. Louis gave them the single most lopsided stadium deal in American sports history. And that's saying something.

You might as well say that LA was such a good market for the Rams that it took a deal so sweet St. Louis couldn't even live up to it to drag them away.

[leopard88]

Do the Stallions get a second chance at life if the Rams move, and the NFL gives expansion a serious look in the future?

Lets give some fresh cities a chance. They'd likely embrace and support an NFL team if they have not had one before.

Look how successful the replacement Cleveland Browns have been. The circumstances of losing their team was horrible for the fans, but the end result of fixing the situation has not exactly been great for the league. The new Browns only make the news when their players get arrested or suspended.

1. The NFL tried that approach in Jacksonville and the result has been mixed . . . at best.

2. Counter that with Baltimore, where the NFL's return has been a pretty resounding success, on the field and at the gate. Also, the Browns have generally drawn pretty well even when the team has been lousy.

Bottom line -- every situation is unique. A new city isn't a guaranteed success and an old one isn't a guaranteed failure.

[sportsfan]

If the St.Louis Rams do move back to their old home Los Angeles in 2016 and if people are asking questions Will the NFL ever return to St.Louis and Will St.Louis Get another NFL Team here are my replies i'll say if this happens.

No St.Louis simply does not support NFL.

No way why a third chance of St.Louis getting another NFL Franchise when two of St.Louis Franchises have relocated to Phoenix And Los Angeles where people like most of the United States actually care about Football where it doesn't have to take a backseat for Baseball,Basketball,Hockey and Soccer. Although these aforementioned sports are popular in the US.

No St.Louis doesn't deserve a third chance at an NFL Franchise both the Football Cardinals and Rams had to move because of bad attendance, playing in old stadiums and because of baseball's popularity in St.Louis along with Soccer's Popularity and to some extant Hockey and Basketball.

Los Angeles is a better Football Town than St.Louis and that the St.Louis Rams should move back to Los Angeles where they played there for 49 years

[ddub53]

If the St.Louis Rams do move back to their old home Los Angeles in 2016 and if people are asking questions Will the NFL ever return to St.Louis and Will St.Louis Get another NFL Team here are my replies i'll say

No St.Louis simply does not support NFL.

No way why a third chance of St.Louis getting another NFL Franchise when two of St.Louis Franchises have relocated to Phoenix And Los Angeles where people like most of the United States actually care about Football where it doesn't have to take a backseat for Baseball,Basketball,Hockey and Soccer. Although these aforementioned sports are popular in the US.

No St.Louis doesn't deserve a third chance at an NFL Franchise both the Football Cardinals and Rams had to move because of bad attendance, playing in old stadiums and because of baseball's popularity in St.Louis along with Soccer's Popularity and to some extant Hockey and Basketball.

Los Angeles is a better Football Town than St.Louis and that the St.Louis Rams should move back to Los Angeles where they played there for 49 years

I would disagree St. Louis doesn't support pro football. There was plenty of support until around 2007-2008. When you go a decade without a winning record, nobody should expect to have fans crazy about your team unless you are the only game in town. The Rams, however, will always be third behind the Cardinals and Blues. Support always drops off during long periods of mediocrity. even in St. Louis, the baseball Cardinals didn't have great attendance from 1990-1995. But the combination of the team's success and the McGwire era since 1996 that has dramatically boosted annual average attendance. The bottom line is, if the Rams get turned around, more fans will want to go. You just can't continuously support financially organizations that don't strive to create championship teams.

[STL FANATIC]

Let's be clear. I'm talking about a very specific league rule that the league is still pretending matters to them by "waving" it temporarily rather than just repealing. And that's the cross-ownership rule.

Maybe NFL rules don't matter. Maybe they'd have no legal standing. But the NFL sure goes to a lot of trouble having them, so it's not like I'm entirely off-base here. They had a way to block Kroenke (it's not like leagues have never blocked owners before), they just didn't do it. And I'd suggest what they did do was indeed cutting a deal with him.

I'm not surprised they didn't do it. But I'm not talking crazy here. Kroenke, as an owner, violates a very basic ownership rule of theirs. They didn't have to approve him.

[Cardsfan124]

If the St.Louis Rams do move back to their old home Los Angeles in 2016 and if people are asking questions Will the NFL ever return to St.Louis and Will St.Louis Get another NFL Team here are my replies i'll say

No St.Louis simply does not support NFL.

No way why a third chance of St.Louis getting another NFL Franchise when two of St.Louis Franchises have relocated to Phoenix And Los Angeles where people like most of the United States actually care about Football where it doesn't have to take a backseat for Baseball,Basketball,Hockey and Soccer. Although these aforementioned sports are popular in the US.

No St.Louis doesn't deserve a third chance at an NFL Franchise both the Football Cardinals and Rams had to move because of bad attendance, playing in old stadiums and because of baseball's popularity in St.Louis along with Soccer's Popularity and to some extant Hockey and Basketball.Los Angeles is a better Football Town than St.Louis and that the St.Louis Rams should move back to Los Angeles where they played there for 49 years

10 years of terrible football will kill a fan base. Also, the Big Red would have never left if the political powers at the time (Vince Schoemel the Mayor and Gene McNary the County Executive) could have played nice and agreed on a stadium. Bill Bidwell left because of the stadium issue, Stan Kroenke is most likely going to do the same.

[Gothamite]

Well, I do believe that fans have an obligation to show up once relocation talk starts, or risk exposing the market as bad.

[Gothamite]

Maybe NFL rules don't matter. Maybe they'd have no legal standing.

Of course they don't. And of course they don't.

They're guidelines. Able to be changed when it suits the league, and exemptions are able to be given when it suits the league. That's why I hear things like "NFL rules won't let Kronke move the Rams" and roll my eyes. These aren't acts of a legislature, or sacred stone tablets. They're a set of preferred business practices among partners, and the partners can collectively enforce them, amend them or ignore them.

I don't think one could seriously make the case that an existing minority owner could be denied his contractual right to purchase additional shares when they become available. Especially if Pat Bowden doesn't object (and we have no reason to believe he has). At the very least, they had to give Kronke a reasonable amount of time to resolve the conflict which, considering we're taking about over a billion dollars' worth of assets, could take years to reasonably dispose of.

You could make the argument that they shouldn't have given him an extension on that original time to resolve. And I would probably agree with you on that. But no grace period at all? Not letting him buy the additional shares? The notion is more than an invitation to a lawsuit, it's absurd.

[sportsfan]

Well after the 2008 St Louis Rams season ended support for the St Louis Rams started to fade and look at the recent issue fan support and attendance is terrible and that the Rams are playing in a aging,old and awful facility Edward Jones Dome

Both the Rams and Football Cardinals had bad fan support and they had mostly losing seasons and playing in aging stadiums

The St Louis Rams have only made the playoffs 5 times and were in two Super Bowls which their first Super Bowl over the Tennesese Titans but in their Second Super Bowl Apperance The Rams to the New England Patriots

The St Louis Football Cardinals only made the playoffs 4 times and that attendance for the St Louis Football Cardinals was terrible and that in their last season in St Louis The Cards attendance was at an all time low which had the Football Cardinals movie to Arizona because of bad fan support, terrible attendance,playing in an aging stadium and because of baseball's popularity and being over shadowed by the St Louis Baseball Cadinals and to some extant The St Louis Blues of the NHL. St.Louis could lose two NFL Franchises to cities in the Southwest that are larger than St Louis.Phoenix is the 6th largest and Los Angeles is the 2nd Largest.

[sportsfan]

Of Course Stan Kroenke is going to have his Rams leave St Louis for their old home Los Angeles,California

because since the Inglewood NFL Stadium is most likely going to get approved

Rams move to Los Angeles is Going to Happen Most Likely.

[sportsfan]

St.Louis is a Bad Football Town because due to Baseball,Soccer and to some extant Hockey and Basketball popularity

St Louis will most likely have two chances at having NFL Franchise and Fail Twice.

[IceCap]

That just makes it all the more angering that the NFL allowed Khan to be pushed aside in St. Louis in favor of an owner who was and remains in violation of league ownership rules.

You didn't seem to care when there was the belief that he might try to make things work in St. Louis.

I don't know what I said HERE...

Well I'm unaware of what you may have said elsewhere.

...but I promise you I cared. In fact, it was one reason I trusted Kroenke. I PROMISE you I was saying things to the extent of "there's no way the NFL could cut deals to approve an owner if he wasn't going to keep the team in St. Louis, when there was one on the table who definitely would have."

I may have been wrong about that. But you're assumption that I didn't care about the situation is certainly wrong, too.

My point is that you're going on about how Kroenke violates the NFL's own ownership rules (technically he doesn't) only now that it's clear that he's headed to LA. You never brought up this supposed breach of the NFL's rulebook when there seemed like a good chance that he would keep the team in St. Louis. I have to ask whether you'd be harping on this point (that isn't even technically true) if it seemed like he was close to making it work with St. Louis.

[bosrs1]

Sure seems like it's down to a race in LA now. The Chargers all but admitted they're gone today basically giving the city of San Diego an ultimatum that a city funding scheme that gets 2/3rd voter approval will need to be passed. Which of course will never happen. And rumors of talks with AEG have flared back up.

[CubsFanBudMan]

"Simply put, it would not be fair to the Chargers -- a team that has worked for 14 years to find a stadium solution in San Diego County -- to allow other teams that themselves abandoned the LA market to now return and gut the Chargers local revenue stream," the Chargers told the committee, which has no power over whether teams other than the Chargers move to L.A.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/16/chargers-message-to-san-diego-put-up-or-shut-up/