duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

Well it all depends on if their owner, a Missouri native who was a minority owner who bought the team to help keep them in St. Louis, decides too. As far as I see, it's about 50/50. But all of you just keep bringing up how they want to see the Rams back in LA so it seems more like you guys automatically think it's a forgone conclusion that he'll get out if it. Looks to me like you guys are the ones jumping he gun here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to me, it looks like you'd rather not face reality. Fair enough, except you're the one complaining about our posts.

Blame Missouri voters, who decided to stick it to KC and Missouri and made the Rams' move almost certain. Unless you can show any demonstrable likelihood of the owner spending billions of his own money (and foregoing untold millions more) just out of some sort of "hometown discount".

When was the last time an owner said "Nah, on second thought, forget the contract. You guys don't have to build me a new stadium after all. This one's on me."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it all depends on if their owner, a Missouri native who was a minority owner who bought the team to help keep them in St. Louis, decides too. As far as I see, it's about 50/50. But all of you just keep bringing up how they want to see the Rams back in LA so it seems more like you guys automatically think it's a forgone conclusion that he'll get out if it. Looks to me like you guys are the ones jumping he gun here.

He could buy sole ownership of a very portable NFL team for what...a couple hundred thousand last year? Yeah, if you've got the financial wherewithal for that, you're pulling the trigger on that deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame Missouri voters, who decided to stick it to KC and Missouri and made the Rams' move almost certain. Unless you can show any demonstrable likelihood of the owner spending billions of his own money (and foregoing untold millions more) just out of some sort of "hometown discount".

This is as good a point as any to mention that the Rams weren't even moved to raise a finger in protest or take out an ad pointing out that Missouri could be losing an NFL team if that measure passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's true. Not that they didn't take out an ad, but I'm pretty sure they expressed some concern about the consequences. But I don't have it in front of me, I'll have to look it up later.

Still, not surprising. Very few teams want to wade into political battles that don't immediately affect them. Especially when it could look like they're blackmailing strapped public entities in a terrible economy while raking in profits. Bad PR to start that fight so far in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if money is tight in the state of Missouri they could always build in the Metro-Eahahahahahahahaha no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to me, it looks like you'd rather not face reality. Fair enough, except you're the one complaining about our posts.

Blame Missouri voters, who decided to stick it to KC and Missouri and made the Rams' move almost certain. Unless you can show any demonstrable likelihood of the owner spending billions of his own money (and foregoing untold millions more) just out of some sort of "hometown discount".

When was the last time an owner said "Nah, on second thought, forget the contract. You guys don't have to build me a new stadium after all. This one's on me."?

Both sides of the subject at this point. The difference is inat least post some relevant evidence for my view. A local owner who says he intends to keep them here. Yours? Other owners have done it. Yes you have the right to laugh, just as I have the right to call out the flaws in your logic. Your views are no less speculation than mine except when the all you in your little clique get together you vet this "coolest guys in school" mentality and act like everyone elses opinions don't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if money is tight in the state of Missouri they could always build in the Metro-Eahahahahahahahaha no

They could stick it right next to Barad-dur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old Chrysler plant in Fenton is the most discussed location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to me, it looks like you'd rather not face reality. Fair enough, except you're the one complaining about our posts.

Blame Missouri voters, who decided to stick it to KC and Missouri and made the Rams' move almost certain. Unless you can show any demonstrable likelihood of the owner spending billions of his own money (and foregoing untold millions more) just out of some sort of "hometown discount".

When was the last time an owner said "Nah, on second thought, forget the contract. You guys don't have to build me a new stadium after all. This one's on me."?

Both sides of the subject at this point. The difference is inat least post some relevant evidence for my view. A local owner who says he intends to keep them here. Yours? Other owners have done it. Yes you have the right to laugh, just as I have the right to call out the flaws in your logic. Your views are no less speculation than mine except when the all you in your little clique get together you vet this "coolest guys in school" mentality and act like everyone elses opinions don't matter.

Never said that. Quite the contrary, actually.

But we are free to say that your position seems to stem more from wishful thinking than an objective analysis of the facts.

When was the last time an owner let a municipality off the hook for a stadium they were contractually obligated to build?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to me, it looks like you'd rather not face reality. Fair enough, except you're the one complaining about our posts.

Blame Missouri voters, who decided to stick it to KC and Missouri and made the Rams' move almost certain. Unless you can show any demonstrable likelihood of the owner spending billions of his own money (and foregoing untold millions more) just out of some sort of "hometown discount".

When was the last time an owner said "Nah, on second thought, forget the contract. You guys don't have to build me a new stadium after all. This one's on me."?

Both sides of the subject at this point. The difference is inat least post some relevant evidence for my view. A local owner who says he intends to keep them here. Yours? Other owners have done it. Yes you have the right to laugh, just as I have the right to call out the flaws in your logic. Your views are no less speculation than mine except when the all you in your little clique get together you vet this "coolest guys in school" mentality and act like everyone elses opinions don't matter.

Never said that. Quite the contrary, actually.

But we are free to say that your position seems to stem more from wishful thinking than an objective analysis of the facts.

When was the last time an owner let a municipality off the hook for a stadium they were contractually obligated to build?

I have made numerous points to help back up my opinion. Is some of it wishful thinking? Yes. But so is yours. Thing is you present more "pure speculation" than I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last couple pages, you've only cited "some rumblings that Kroenke might privately fund a stadium" and speculation that he'd be interested in giving a hometown discount. I've offered a specific example of a team buying out its lease in order to move.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to say that I don't see that opinion fitting the actual facts.

It is unprecedented for an owner to let a municipality off the hook for a stadium they were contractually obligated to build. On the other hand, it is far more common for teams to buy or otherwise leverage their way out of the remaining few years of a lease in an outdated stadium.

This isn't about what I want to happen, or what I think should happen, but what I see as the reality in Missouri. I just don't see how they can afford to live up to their obligations, and without doing so I don't see how they keep the Rams in the face of an open LA spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last couple pages, you've only cited "some rumblings that Kroenke might privately fund a stadium" and speculation that he'd be interested in giving a hometown discount. I've offered a specific example of a team buying out its lease in order to move.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to say that I don't see that opinion fitting the actual facts.

It is unprecedented for an owner to let a municipality off the hook for a stadium they were contractually obligated to build. On the other hand, it is far more common for teams to buy or otherwise leverage their way out of the remaining few years of a lease in an outdated stadium.

This isn't about what I want to happen, but what I see as the reality in Missouri.

I've pointed out how the owner said he intends to keep them here. I've pointed out how other teams are in worse situations that may allow them to beat them to LA. I've pointed out how their lease doesn allow them to leave for nearly four years. I've brought up those rumblings yes.

But what's yours? "Other owners have done it". Ok. Where has been stated tha this owner has said he would? I'm not saying I'm right. I'm not saying you're wrong. But if mine is laughable then so is yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"intends to" is in no way the same as "will.". What makes you think he will tear up the contract with St. Louis? And do you think the NFL would let him do so, even if so inclined? That would kill the leverage they currently enjoy over other cities.

Yes, there are other teams in similar straits. Jacksonville also has major problems with its fanbase. But if you think the couple years left on the Rams' lease really ties them to Missouri, then you can't consider the Jags serious relocation candidates.

But that's really beside the point. There is only one other NFC that can be considered serious competition for the Rams in getting to the LA market. And I think it's more likely that the Vikings will be able to pull out a stadium deal than the Rams, if only because St. Louis' hands are cuffed by the funding restrictions.

I see the Rams, Vikings, Jags and Chargers as likely candidates for LaLaLand. The Vikes are getting a little bit of motion in their stadium push. Not a lot, but certainly more than the other three teams. So as I see it, it's really a race between the Jags and Chargers to see who joIns the Rams in their shiny new playground. That could well change based on future developments, but this is where we are today.

Now, you could say that the NFL would realign, move teams across conferences, etc. But given how happy they seem with the current system, that seems about as likely as the Rams' owner deciding that he'll spend his own billion dollars instead of spending somebody else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"intends to" is in no way the same as "will.". What makes you think he will tear up the contract with St. Louis? And do you think the NFL would let him do so, even if so inclined? That would kill the leverage they currently enjoy over other cities.

Yes, there are other teams in similar straits. Jacksonville also has major problems with its fanbase. But if you think the couple years left on the Rams' lease really ties them to Missouri, then you can't consider the Jags serious relocation candidates.

But that's really beside the point. There is only one other NFC that can be considered serious competition for the Rams in getting to the LA market. And I think it's more likely that the Vikings will be able to pull out a stadium deal than the Rams, if only because St. Louis' hands are cuffed by the funding restrictions.

I see the Rams, Vikings, Jags and Chargers as likely candidates for LaLaLand. The Vikes are getting a little bit of motion in their stadium push. Not a lot, but certainly more than the other three teams. So as I see it, it's really a race between the Jags and Chargers to see who joIns the Rams in their shiny new playground. That could well change based on future developments, but this is where we are today.

Now, you could say that the NFL would realign, move teams across conferences, etc. But given how happy they seem with the current system, that seems about as likely as the Rams' owner deciding that he'll spend his own billion dollars instead of spending somebody else's.

See, while I disagree, at least here you chose to make some point as to why you believe what you do. Still don't see how it makes mine laughable other than it's different from yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please excuse my foolish choice of words. I still don't think you've been able to support your assertion, but I shouldnt have called it laughable. It wasn't helpful.

Again, this isn't what I want to see happen. But looking at the facts, it appears the most likely outcome by far.

Frontier, for all her St. Louis hometown spirit, set the city up for a massive fall. And Missouri voters pushed it off the cliff last fall.

I mentioned it in passing, but I wonder if the NFL would even let Kroenke tear up the agreement, were he so inclined. Would set a very bad precedent for future stadium negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frontier, for all her St. Louis hometown spirit, set the city up for a massive fall. And Missouri voters pushed it off the cliff last fall.

+ pi

Setting aside the lease and the stadium....

They had a chance to carve out a viable niche and actual vitally sustainable fanbase beyond metro St. Louis in the early 2000s when they had the GSOT going and the Bears, Packers, and Chiefs were all at relative nadirs. Unfortunately this involved spending money on promoting the team, so it didn't happen. And it never will, since you'll never see such a fortuitous coincidence again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that what it was?

I had heard that the Rama have failed to secure a regional fanbase, but I didn't know it was about not wanting to spend the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that what it was?

I had heard that the Rama have failed to secure a regional fanbase, but I didn't know it was about not wanting to spend the money.

Having lived in Central Illinois during the time frame/window in question and knowing some of the other infamous lengths Frontiere went to to avoid spending moolah ("we didn't sell the old astroturf because it cost money to remove it from the stadium" anyone?), I have trouble constructing any other rational explanation as to why the Rams never bothered to market themselves (or sell crap in) in my vicinity outside of a perfunctory "Hey y'alls, we have training camp in Macomb if you feel like joining us".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.