duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

Wait, is STL Fanatic really trying to argue that the Rams have made HUGE strides to improve their team from what they had last season? Mike Sims-Walker, Brady Poppinga, and Cadillac freaking Williams were their big name additions. HA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they've worked this out - can we take this off the Rams's on-field expectations now and back to relocation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they've worked this out - can we take this off the Rams's on-field expectations now and back to relocation?

So California and Missouri's legal barriers to ponying up the cash for stadia are known. Is there any chance Minnesota has similar legislation already or in the works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

In fact, the Arden Hills plan calls for the team to put up 400 million, the county 350 million and the state 300 million. And it seems as though that may actually happen, although they have yet to demonstrate the political will.

I think the problem in California has more to do with empty coffers than a legal barrier, right? Similar to St. Louis, although the "screw the cities" ballot measure went a long way towards making sure they won't have the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

In fact, the Arden Hills plan calls for the team to put up 400 million, the county 350 million and the state 300 million. And it seems as though that may actually happen, although they have yet to demonstrate the political will.

I think the problem in California has more to do with empty coffers than a legal barrier, right? Similar to St. Louis, although the "screw the cities" ballot measure went a long way towards making sure they won't have the money.

Exactly.

If the money was there or easily obtainable, you bet that California would pull some more money out of the nothingness. But they've finally started to enact some cuts at least in that area. It's one of the same issues that the 49ers are having with a Santa Clara stadium and the Oakland A's with getting any new stadium as well.

And for the record as a SoCal resident, of all these teams, I want the LA Rams back. I (and a majority) don't really want the Raiders back. When the Rams were playing in Anaheim, they were the team that my family would go see and support. But as Georgia Frontierre napalmed the place and ripped the Rams out, my family really dropped professional football. There was never any attachment to the Raiders, (My grandpa attended one single Raider game at the Coliseum and never wanted to go back ever.) and the Chargers have always just kinda been there. We've never truly latched onto them. All the male members of the family (me, grandpa, uncles, cousins) would take the train from OC down to SD for one game a year, but we never got attached.

I was only 5 when the Rams left, but I probably would have been a Rams fan had they stayed. Knowing that they were the football team of my area and family, there is some slight nostalgia for them. And now when I see old highlights, see the current situation, and even hear the old name, Los Angeles Rams just feels right. And I'd probably pick up the Rams. I might even drop the Colts if I could finally have the LA Rams back. (Probably not completely drop the Colts though. I've invested too much in them at this point haha.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

In fact, the Arden Hills plan calls for the team to put up 400 million, the county 350 million and the state 300 million. And it seems as though that may actually happen, although they have yet to demonstrate the political will.

I think the problem in California has more to do with empty coffers than a legal barrier, right? Similar to St. Louis, although the "screw the cities" ballot measure went a long way towards making sure they won't have the money.

By legal barriers I meant Prop 13 and the Constitutional hurdles it places on taxation. I don't think coffers are going to fill up the conventional way any time soon for California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, gotcha.

Apparently not. Missouri and California are specifically disadvantaged in this regard. Which is a fully-funded stadium for the taking will be very tempting to teams currently in those states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A non-scientific poll at the Los Angeles Times shows that 26.64% of readers want the Rams to come home, followed by 20.41% for the Chargers. The Raiders are next, followed by "we don't need football," the Jaguars, the Vikings, Another Team, and the Bills. Kind of a dubious achievement for the Bills. At least the vultures aren't circling when you're losing to "anyone else" and "no one."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

In fact, the Arden Hills plan calls for the team to put up 400 million, the county 350 million and the state 300 million. And it seems as though that may actually happen, although they have yet to demonstrate the political will.

I think the problem in California has more to do with empty coffers than a legal barrier, right? Similar to St. Louis, although the "screw the cities" ballot measure went a long way towards making sure they won't have the money.

Exactly.

If the money was there or easily obtainable, you bet that California would pull some more money out of the nothingness. But they've finally started to enact some cuts at least in that area. It's one of the same issues that the 49ers are having with a Santa Clara stadium and the Oakland A's with getting any new stadium as well.

And for the record as a SoCal resident, of all these teams, I want the LA Rams back. I (and a majority) don't really want the Raiders back. When the Rams were playing in Anaheim, they were the team that my family would go see and support. But as Georgia Frontierre napalmed the place and ripped the Rams out, my family really dropped professional football. There was never any attachment to the Raiders, (My grandpa attended one single Raider game at the Coliseum and never wanted to go back ever.) and the Chargers have always just kinda been there. We've never truly latched onto them. All the male members of the family (me, grandpa, uncles, cousins) would take the train from OC down to SD for one game a year, but we never got attached.

I was only 5 when the Rams left, but I probably would have been a Rams fan had they stayed. Knowing that they were the football team of my area and family, there is some slight nostalgia for them. And now when I see old highlights, see the current situation, and even hear the old name, Los Angeles Rams just feels right. And I'd probably pick up the Rams. I might even drop the Colts if I could finally have the LA Rams back. (Probably not completely drop the Colts though. I've invested too much in them at this point haha.)

As a Niner fan I want the "Real" 49ers-Rams rivalry back. No offense to St. Louis but the 49ers-Rams rivalry died when the team moved to Missouri and the 49ers became lousy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know that, but it makes sense. The rivalry was about the cities as much as the teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A non-scientific poll at the Los Angeles Times shows that 26.64% of readers want the Rams to come home, followed by 20.41% for the Chargers. The Raiders are next, followed by "we don't need football," the Jaguars, the Vikings, Another Team, and the Bills. Kind of a dubious achievement for the Bills. At least the vultures aren't circling when you're losing to "anyone else" and "no one."

It may be non-scientific, but you can bet AEG is looking at similar polls that probably have similar results. One thing they're going to need with this stadium is a definite draw team that fills it regularly as they pay the stadium off. They'll not only pick the easiest team to acquire lease wise/ownership wise but also the team that will help them pay off their stadium the best. And it makes sense that the Rams would be the front runner being that they're really LA's 1946 vintage team who still have somewhat of an active fan base in LA and an even bigger latent fanbase that will start rooting for them again if they came back. The Chargers too fit both bills as a team easy to move and with high interest in LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presuming for the minute that there will be two teams in the new stadium, I think that either the Rams or Chargers would be well positioned to be the second team.

If, say, the Rams move in 2014 and the Jaguars in 2015, the Jags will always be second-fiddle in an established market. But the Chargers and Rams have enough of a presence in LA that they could be the second to arrive and have an immediate fanbase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Rams-Niners is basically just a rivalry in name. Which brings up an additional point. The NFL really puts the St. Louis market in a bind as far as developing strong rivalries. I think rivalries are a bit overplayed, especially the ones by location, so I don't consider this a large factor. But how many Seahawks, Niners, or Cardinals fans do you think a Rams fan walks by in a week? The NFL was trying to protect old rivalries, but really ended up losing any rivalry. We know we're supposed to "hate" those teams, so we do.. but you know? The Cardinals is probably as close as it comes since they left STL, but a lot of people actually still have fond feelings for them. And when the Rams were winning 4 games in three years and the Cardinals were going to the Super Bowl with the guy that many felt the Rams treated unfairly, Kurt Warner, that only increased those positive feelings for the Cardinals. So there's really not a good strong rivalry for the Rams. In time they might be able to overcome the distance (Dallas-NYG, Dallas-Washington... those cities obviously aren't neighbors), but it hasn't happened just yet. Mostly, I suppose, because rivalries need to start by having two teams competing over something, and none of the teams in this division have competed for much lately.

Just a quick note since I never really responded to the questions. I'm not sure the Rams drafted or signed a single "playmaker" that you're going to see in the highlight reels after every game (although, I like the Quinn pick, I think he'll be good, and while they're TEs, I think we have about 3 who could be of the playmaking variety in Kendricks, Hoomanawanui and Onobun). But a lot of young guys--most importantly Sam Bradford--have a year under their belt. AND we have a tremendous amount of depth now. Don't underestimate the impact of having a couple of legitimate backup running backs to spell Jackson. And we just cut David Vobora who had been a decent player for us for the last few years, because we've improved the depth at LB so greatly. Depth is huge in football as injuries and regular wear and tear pile up. The Rams had very little last year, they have lots right now. And lastly, games are frequently won or lost from line play, and they've upgraded the DL and as I just mentioned added important depth to both lines.

I never claimed huge strides, I only claimed natural strides and a great free agency period that fell under the radar because it wasn't flashy. I don't care about "they'd only win X number of games if they were in X division." They're not, they're in the West, and they're poised for a good season with somewhere between 8 and 11 wins. The Rams won 4 (FOUR!) games in 3 (THREE!) years going into last year. They've made tremendous strides in the past year and a half, and they continue to make strides into this year.

As for the other post I keep promising, I'm in the middle of a move, so I haven't had time to sit and do the research. It will come, though, I promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to the football fans of St. Louis they were stuck with two of the worst owners in modern sports history (Bidwell & Frontiere). You don't wish that on anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, and bare with me for a moment here, hypothetically if it were the Chargers and Jaguars to LA, and with the Rams taking the Jags spot in the AFC South, as far as St. Louis goes, that would help them with the rivalry situation. You'd have a division with Indy and Tennessee and even Houston, which would regionalize their divisional opponents a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, and bare with me for a moment here, hypothetically if it were the Chargers and Jaguars to LA, and with the Rams taking the Jags spot in the AFC South, as far as St. Louis goes, that would help them with the rivalry situation. You'd have a division with Indy and Tennessee and even Houston, which would regionalize their divisional opponents a lot more.

Theoretically yes that could work. Unfortunately it is dependent on the team least likely to move to LA, moving to LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, and bare with me for a moment here, hypothetically if it were the Chargers and Jaguars to LA, and with the Rams taking the Jags spot in the AFC South, as far as St. Louis goes, that would help them with the rivalry situation. You'd have a division with Indy and Tennessee and even Houston, which would regionalize their divisional opponents a lot more.

Theoretically yes that could work. Unfortunately it is dependent on the team least likely to move to LA, moving to LA.

I wasn't talking about the Bills. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, and bare with me for a moment here, hypothetically if it were the Chargers and Jaguars to LA, and with the Rams taking the Jags spot in the AFC South, as far as St. Louis goes, that would help them with the rivalry situation. You'd have a division with Indy and Tennessee and even Houston, which would regionalize their divisional opponents a lot more.

Theoretically yes that could work. Unfortunately it is dependent on the team least likely to move to LA, moving to LA.

I wasn't talking about the Bills. B)

Actually the Bills have more of a chance to move than the Jags, particularly if the 93 yr old Wilson kicks the bucket. Jags can't leave until 2029 without incurring huge penalties, and that assumes they have an owner who would want to move, which they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a few more details coming out of San Diego today. Apparently what AEG is looking for is deal to buy a minority stake in a team now (ie: in the next 12 months) and get the agreement to move to LA. But they also would like to have that minority stake become an option to buy a controlling stake within 5 years. This has severely weakened the likelihood that it will be the Chargers moving to LA because despite their stadium woes the Spanos family has made it clear they have no intention of giving up a controlling interest, and now are not sure they even want to deal with AEG as a minority partner. I suspect this may end up being the rub with many of the other teams as well since their current owners are all quite happy owning the teams but which may open the Bills up to be the front runner when their 93 yr old owner passes and the team is put up for auction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll have to drip that request - they're not getting it from any of the teams likely to relocate.

I thought that was the difference between AEG and Roski's group, who had previously made a controlling interest a condition of the stadium.

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.