STL FANATIC Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The Blackhawks lately have been more popular than TWO baseball teams in Chicago if you base it on the engagement of the fan base. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Chargers hint strongly at litigation to keep Rams out of LA: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/12/chargers-hint-strongly-at-litigation-to-keep-rams-out-of-la/ JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The Blackhawks lately have been more popular than TWO baseball teams in Chicago if you base it on the engagement of the fan base.Yeah, I'd say they've worked their way up to #2 behind America's greatest squanderer of goodwill and resources. All it took was both baseball teams hitting the skids (which both are due to come out of this summer), Derrick Rose pissing everybody off, and two championships with the expectation of a third. I thought we've gone over the Chargers' legal threats before and arrived at the conclusion that they don't have a claim to Los Angeles. I'm getting tired of their squatting. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (You could throw Pittsburgh in there, too, which is doing well for now but the Penguins are always a hair's breadth from nobody caring about them.) You just lost all credibility when talking about professional sports markets. I can't think off-hand of any other market with at least 3 of the 4 major sports in which the hockey team is more popular than its baseball or football counterpart... and the Pens are received a helluva lot better than the Pirates, even with the latter's recent winning.Detroit had the Red Wings ahead of the Tigers for a while, I'm sure.And pretty much every U.S. hockey market has shown itself to be capable of having the bottom drop out. Washington and Boston had runs as ghost towns. Detroit had the Dead Things. St. Louis and Pittsburgh have been on the brink. Minnesota lost a team. Enough has been said about Chicago. The only place I can think of that hasn't had a dangerously bad run is Philadelphia.Ok now I've never been to Pittsburgh, but has there ever really been a time where the Penguins have been more popular than the Steelers? I find that hard to believe.And, Mac, if you mean simply more popular than the baseball OR football counterpart, well, yeah. OF COURSE the Penguins have had stretches where they've been more popular than the Pirates. The Pirates had a stretch of futility that came close to rivaling time served for some murder convictions.I would imagine the early 90s when the Pens were winning cups and the Steelers were the drizzling sh~ts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I don't think that was a thing that happened. The Steelers haven't had sustained badness since the '60s. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I thought we've gone over the Chargers' legal threats before and arrived at the conclusion that they don't have a claim to Los Angeles. I'm getting tired of their squatting. They don't have a claim on LA, and I don't think that's what the case would be about. I think the claim about be about the lack of enforcement of league rules. Or that's what it should be anyways. They'll lose any case quickly where they claim LA is their territory. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 There's nothing stopping the Rams from moving without league approval though. Sure they'd lose financial assistance (which they wont need) and Super Bowl bids (which the NFL will crack on, because there's no way they're keeping the Super Bowl out of LA). The Chargers can cry about it, but there's nothing that says the Rams absolutely can't move without league approval. Just that they lose certain perks if they do. 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 January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 There's nothing stopping the Rams from moving without league approval though. Sure they'd lose financial assistance (which they wont need) and Super Bowl bids (which the NFL will crack on, because there's no way they're keeping the Super Bowl out of LA). The Chargers can cry about it, but there's nothing that says the Rams absolutely can't move without league approval. Just that they lose certain perks if they do. Sort of. They'd be violating NFL by-laws. The question is, do those hold up for anything. The answer is probably not if so challenged, but we'd have to see. We haven't seen a challenge since these rules were put in place in response to the Rams and Raiders leaving LA two decades ago. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I don't think that was a thing that happened. The Steelers haven't had sustained badness since the '60s.I just looked it up... they were 9-7 in 1990 and 7-9 in 1991. Not quite as bad I remembered them.They did have a run from 1985-1988 where they only finished over .500 once, and that was 8-7 in 1987 with replacement games. That was right around the time when Mario Lemeiux joined the team, so... maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I thought we've gone over the Chargers' legal threats before and arrived at the conclusion that they don't have a claim to Los Angeles. I'm getting tired of their squatting. They don't have a claim on LA, and I don't think that's what the case would be about. I think the claim about be about the lack of enforcement of league rules. Or that's what it should be anyways. They'll lose any case quickly where they claim LA is their territory. No, any Charger legal challenge is going to be based on their LA claim. The fact that LA is treated as a "secondary" market for them is their angle to claim injury. 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...
rams80 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The Oakland TV market is covered by San Francisco, and St. Louis is a larger media market than San Diego. I'm not saying I just won the argument, but it's not a difficult one to make. Well.....the Bay Area is more than twice the size of St. Louis and San Diego IS larger than St. Louis now, so yeah... 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...
STL FANATIC Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The Oakland TV market is covered by San Francisco, and St. Louis is a larger media market than San Diego. I'm not saying I just won the argument, but it's not a difficult one to make. Well.....the Bay Area is more than twice the size of St. Louis and San Diego IS larger than St. Louis now, so yeah... Does the first point matter? The point is they already have a team that would capture the attention of that market. And to your second point, I'm not sure what you mean. The rankings I'm finding put the St. Louis media market at 21 and San Diego at 27. Neither of these are the end all be all, but like I said, it's a reasonable case for why they might like to stick around in St. Louis IF there is indeed a half publicly-funded stadium on the table. It's weird to me how much your against the notion that St. Louis MIGHT be a market the NFL would put SOME value in with a new publicly financed facility being dangled. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Because it's crapped out so catastrophically in the past. The results of both the Big Red and the Rams indicate St. Louis within the ring road cannot support an NFL team. It needs extended regional support. However, that regional support is already firmly spoken for by 3 other teams. You might have a window if you had a really good St. Louis team and the Bears, Packers, and Chiefs all entered prolonged tailspins, but that probably only happens once every 3 or 4 decades...if that. Admittedly the Rams did have that window, but Frontiere and Shaw pissed it away and probably cost St. Louis any credible chance of keeping the Rams in the process. (Or at least making a go of turning it into a "Sonics/Browns-type" situation.) 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...
STL FANATIC Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Okay. Well fair enough. I mean I disagree with you 100%, but I guess at least I know where you're trying to come at it from. I'd suggest like any market you have to build a fan base, and St. Louis football history is such that they'd have struggled to build a fan base in any market (referring to both franchises). But that's a rinse and repeat conversation. So. Fair enough. I don't think the NFL will see it the way you do. (But that doesn't mean they'll keep St. Louis as one of their markets either.) JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Chargers hint strongly at litigation to keep Rams out of LA: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/12/chargers-hint-strongly-at-litigation-to-keep-rams-out-of-la/“The Rams voluntarily left the Los Angeles and Orange County markets, and some owners may question whether they deserve to return — especially if it means that the stadium situations of the two California teams remain unresolved,” an unnamed team official told Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal.To which the retort would be: "You mean, like the Chargers voluntarily left the Los Angeles and Orange County markets back in 1961?"There's nothing stopping the Rams from moving without league approval though.Actually, there is... the potential of a whopping legal mess that would combine elements of Davis v. NFL with a Don Sterling-like effort to revoke the franchise. That kind of violation of the NFL's Constitution and Bylaws would virtually force the league to take steps in that direction, and to file suit for damages associated with deliberately harming the NFL's popularity in St. Louis. What the outcome would be is entirely speculative, but if the Rams unilaterally moved anywhere, without a vote of the owners, you wouldn't need a road map to see where it all went next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Chargers hint strongly at litigation to keep Rams out of LA: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/12/chargers-hint-strongly-at-litigation-to-keep-rams-out-of-la/“The Rams voluntarily left the Los Angeles and Orange County markets, and some owners may question whether they deserve to return — especially if it means that the stadium situations of the two California teams remain unresolved,” an unnamed team official told Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal.To which the retort would be: "You mean, like the Chargers voluntarily left the Los Angeles and Orange County markets back in 1961?"There's nothing stopping the Rams from moving without league approval though.Actually, there is... the potential of a whopping legal mess that would combine elements of Davis v. NFL with a Don Sterling-like effort to revoke the franchise. That kind of violation of the NFL's Constitution and Bylaws would virtually force the league to take steps in that direction, and to file suit for damages associated with deliberately harming the NFL's popularity in St. Louis. What the outcome would be is entirely speculative, but if the Rams unilaterally moved anywhere, without a vote of the owners, you wouldn't need a road map to see where it all went next.I get the feeling that the NFL would probably try to come to some sort of compromise with the Rams before it ever got that far. Both parties want a team in the Los Angeles market, and both parties have basically said that the Rams make a good deal of sense to be one of those teams. I can't see the Chargers, of all teams, really holding up the process because it may hurt their non existent fantasy leverage they think they have over the city of San Diego . On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I see two scenarios if the NFL "bans" Super Bowls from LA:- a few years pass, and Kroenke agrees to pay some kind of penalty (probably a lot of money, but not really punitive) to settle the matter- Kroenke basks in the glow of bringing the team to LA and a new stadium, then cashes out for a gazillion dollars. The new owner and the NFL work out some kind of deal, because the "bad guy" is no longer around and "the only people being hurt are the good people of LA" or some such BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I see two scenarios if the NFL "bans" Super Bowls from LA:- a few years pass, and Kroenke agrees to pay some kind of penalty (probably a lot of money, but not really punitive) to settle the matter- Kroenke basks in the glow of bringing the team to LA and a new stadium, then cashes out for a gazillion dollars. The new owner and the NFL work out some kind of deal, because the "bad guy" is no longer around and "the only people being hurt are the good people of LA" or some such BS.I agree with this, particularly the latter. The NFL clearly wants two teams in a new LA stadium, but it wants to control all aspects of this. They'd love to have a Super Bowl in LA, but just as a status symbol (like having one in NY/NY). From a purely Super Bowl perspective, they're not leaving much if any money on the table by not having it in LA. They rake in cash with Super Bowls no matter where they are held. If Kroenke goes against them, I can see the NFL refusing to give him a Super Bowl, and even going as far as building the LA Live complex for a second team, then moving league facilities there, forcing one of the networks to broadcast the studio shows from there and holding the drafts there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Jerry Jones saying Jerry Jones things (go half way or so through): http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/sports/football/buffalo-bills-make-it-official-rex-ryan-is-their-coach.html It's nothing that hasn't already been discussed by all speculative parties, but this is the most recognizable league owner saying "yeah, bylaws, whatever." JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 San Diego did just fine when there were 2 teams in LA before, and now the NFL is an even bigger financial juggernaught.I can't imagine the "cutting into revenues" argument will hold much weight when the NFL as a whole stands to make much more with a team or teams in LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.