IceCap Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Pardon? PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Given the past history, in order to make a case for the Rams staying put you must first believe either that the city and state will come through with a very generous stadium deal, or that Kroenke has a sentimental attachment which will override business concerns. Nobody's put forth a compelling case for either of those two scenarios. I thought I put forth a compelling case when I gave a bunch of reasonable estimations of dollar figures a few posts back. That post included significantly padded value numbers to account for the issue you raised. I'm sure it's not perfect, and we don't have access to information like radio contracts (though I sincerely doubt this would make a massive difference), but I think it's solid estimation. I suppose you found it meaningless. Oh well. As for the first, the Missouri legislature's deliberate decision to sabotage revenue collections indicates that the first just became much, much harder. This is still really yet to be seen. For one, we don't know that the stadium will require any major funding from the state itself. Additionally, there are ways to get that funding that could circumvent these revenue cuts. The initial money for the Dome came from selling bonds—this can still happen. And there is $12 million a year currently in the state budget to pay off the Dome through 2021. They could continue to budget that money in future years towards a new stadium payment. Should they win they're cutting other services due to this tax cut? Probably not. But if these politicians had reasonable priorities towards those services, this cut never would have happened. This wouldn't be the first time it's been jumped at tax cut news to make St. Louis keeping the Rams sound impossible. The argument used to be that the state cut the St. Louis 1% earnings tax, causing the city to be broke. The problem with that, of course, was that the state just voted to force St. Louis (and Kansas City) residents to vote if they wanted to keep their earnings tax. And city residents voted overwhelmingly (87%) in favor of the tax, rendering that whole thing null. There are plenty of ways for the public money to be raised if the funding is comparable to what other recent stadium projects have been. As for the second, only Silent Stan knows for sure. But he's given us precious little reason to believe it. Plus the governor's admission that Stan refused to return his calls (at least earlier this year) indicates a hardball negotiating stance out of synch with such a temperament. Where do you see that Governor Nixon admitted this. I don't recall that. All I recall is one small report from a Rams writer. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 So it bears repeating that the Clippers may have just been sold for $2 billion. We might want to add an extra billion or two to the hypothetical sale value of a Los Angeles Rams franchise. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Or is the NFL licking their lips over the expansion fee they could charge? After the Dodgers and Clippers prices, how can they stay out of that market much longer?Oh yeah, the Chargers say that moving a team to L.A. would be an attack on them by other owners. (Might be paraphrasing there.) EDIT: Here's the actual quote from Chargers owner Dean Spanos' general counsel:"We have to be cognizant of the fact that if three-quarters of the owners were to allow a team to move to Los Angeles, it would devastate us economically."So the NFL's not going to kill the Chargers over a measly $2 billion. Wait...(Side note to Gothamite and STL FANATIC: I started scrolling back to find the exact Chargers claim and instead found your conversation about Stan and the governor's phone habits right at the top of page 146. Just a few clicks of the "Prev" button away. Happy reading.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 If LA is so important to the Chargers' well being then they should move there. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hbgoo1975 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Is there a possibility that Kroenke still wants a third MLS team there if we DON'T get the Rams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 It is interesting to ponder what the absurd price of the Clippers tells us about the NFL and LA. Sure does seem like an NFL team there would fetch something insane. I still don't see a sale price being a big factor to Kroenke, though. He doesn't buy teams to flip them. Putting that aside, and along he same lines of what CFBM notes, Kroenke isn't the only owner noticing what the Clippers just went for. If an NFL team in LA is worth — I don't know — $2.5-3 billion on the open market, you think the other league's owners are going to let just a single individual reap that reward? I think we're looking at an insane (but apparently doable) expansion fee, or they're going to charge whichever owner moves their franchise one hell of a relocation fee. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EJ_Barlik Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 OK - so the NFL is eventually going to return to LA. Too many forces at work. Of the candidates, which is the best suited? And which logo would best fit with today's LA (as opposed to 20 years ago)? Buffalo, St. Louis, Oakland, or San Diego? Would you change the logo? Re-name the team?I think maybe the Raiders will be moving, considering their lease situation...it would be a worthy thing to rename them this time....fresh start as it were. I hereby nominate "LA Fire" as the new name, in deference to their weather and also to their location in the Pacific "Ring Of Fire". 5-time Defending NL East Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Rename a 50-year-old team with tremendous brand equity? And to a silly Arena League name? No thanks. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 how about no, I can see the rams, and to a lesser extent the chargers and raiders, and for any of those teams to change names is just not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Most likely? The Rams first, then either the Chargers or Raiders to have an AFC team in town as well. But none of those teams are going to re-brand (unless the Rams' move happens to coincide with the new unis they have in the works). The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WideRight Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 I am not going to weigh in on which city is most likely, but based on names...1. Rams or Raiders are obvious choices, a return to past glories.2. Jaguars works since the Jaguar Clan was one of the major Aztec warrior groups. You could do a very nice tie in with the Mexican/Mexican American community, but you would need to change the logo from a jaguar head to an Aztec warrior with the jaguar head helmet of battle. That could be very cool.3. Any other team should change their name. Do like the Browns and keep the name with the city, especially if it is a team with a 30+ year history like Buffalo, Minnesota, etc. If you have to create a new identity, I think something regional is best. Condors would be my personal favorite, and it would allow for a unique color combo. Black and white with just hints of a neon pink or orange (look at the coloring on a condor's head and you find these colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soarindude Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 I can't imagine the Raiders, Chargers or Rams would change their name if they moved to Los Angeles for obvious reasons.The Bills and Jaguars, I am not exactly sure. I don't think the historical premise of the Bills really fits LA, and I could totally see a change. The Jaguars are a fairly young team without a storied history, and if the surveys and what not were against keeping the Jaguar name, we could see an identity change.Name wise, Los Angeles would have to be careful about choosing their identity without sounding Arena-esque. The only name that'd I can think of that I would approve of:Los Angeles Aftershocks (Shocks as a nickname) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muggens Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Raiders have too much of an iconic brand weather they move or not or suck or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Los Angeles Aftershocks (Shocks as a nickname)That's worse than L.A. Fire. Or L.A. KISS.Imagine..."L.A. 'Shocks strut their stuff with win against Broncos." Clever, but pretty bad for an NFL team. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuordr Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 OK - so the NFL is eventually going to return to LA. Too many forces at work. Of the candidates, which is the best suited? And which logo would best fit with today's LA (as opposed to 20 years ago)? Buffalo, St. Louis, Oakland, or San Diego? Would you change the logo? Re-name the team?I think maybe the Raiders will be moving, considering their lease situation...it would be a worthy thing to rename them this time....fresh start as it were. I hereby nominate "LA Fire" as the new name, in deference to their weather and also to their location in the Pacific "Ring Of Fire".I stopped reading after the you suggested changing the Raiders name. Have you lost your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soarindude Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Los Angeles Aftershocks (Shocks as a nickname) That's worse than L.A. Fire. Or L.A. KISS.Imagine..."L.A. 'Shocks strut their stuff with win against Broncos." Clever, but pretty bad for an NFL team.Sounds fine to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(probably)notabandwagonfan Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Los Angeles Aftershocks (Shocks as a nickname) That's worse than L.A. Fire. Or L.A. KISS.Imagine..."L.A. 'Shocks strut their stuff with win against Broncos." Clever, but pretty bad for an NFL team.Sounds fine to me.Why not just Shockers? Aftershocks doesn't sound like an NFL team to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Los Angeles Aftershocks (Shocks as a nickname) That's worse than L.A. Fire. Or L.A. KISS.Imagine..."L.A. 'Shocks strut their stuff with win against Broncos." Clever, but pretty bad for an NFL team.Sounds fine to me.Cool. It's still a terrible NFL name. Not many NFL teams have names based on natural/Mother Nature/acts of G-d events. In fact, I think the number is one, tops. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soarindude Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Los Angeles Aftershocks (Shocks as a nickname) That's worse than L.A. Fire. Or L.A. KISS.Imagine..."L.A. 'Shocks strut their stuff with win against Broncos." Clever, but pretty bad for an NFL team.Sounds fine to me.Why not just Shockers? Aftershocks doesn't sound like an NFL team to me.Los Angeles Shockers does sound good too. And I would probably say it sounds better than Los Angeles Jaguars or Los Angeles Bills. (Which, by the way, naming the team Los Angeles Bills makes absolutely no sense... seeing as the name stems from Buffalo Bill.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.