NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[The_Admiral]

I've always thought of Los Angeles pizza as being very fresh and experimental. I've had New York pizza and it was just greasy and floppy. Chicago-style thin crust is the muhfuggin' truth.

Also true: the Rams should be free to move to Los Angeles.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

You fold it in half, watch the grease fall on the plate, and then go for it. New York pizza is just the best. Though I've never had proper Chicago pizza (because I've never been to Chicago).

I have had Louisville pizza. It sounds similar to St. Louis pizza in that you put a lot of :censored: on it:

[rams80]

Can we shut up about how Shahid Khan would have magically made everything better in St. Louis. In case you haven't noticed, the on field product for the Jaguars has been catastrophically bad and you have repeatedly said St. Louis needs a team that wins to succeed as a market.

[LMU]

To answer the question of what a Los Angeles style of pizza is, it's either barbecue chicken pizza or some transplant's version of New York pizza.

Serious question. Is California Pizza Kitchen pizza based on anything at all authentic to California? Or is it just the name of a place?

It's not just a name, no. The base is a New York style pizza (thin but bendable crust, etc) but with unique changes to the pizza, i.e. barbecue chicken. (BBQ instead of marinara, chicken instead of a beef, red onions and cilantro)

For CPK itself, it was founded in California by a Californian. It's HQ is in California. It's become its own brand and chain, but it was originally just California.

And if you want to get technical, California-style pizza also can encompass all the weird ass combinations that Wolfgang Puck dreams up at 2:00 AM. Smoked salmon and crème fraîche? It's California, I guess, but keep it the hell away from me.

[STL FANATIC]

I've always thought of Los Angeles pizza as being very fresh and experimental. I've had New York pizza and it was just greasy and floppy. Chicago-style thin crust is the muhfuggin' truth.

D'agostino's thin crust double crust is excellent. I don't know if anything about it is Chicago-style beyond being from Chicago. But it's great.

[STL FANATIC]

Can we shut up about how Shahid Khan would have magically made everything better in St. Louis. In case you haven't noticed, the on field product for the Jaguars has been catastrophically bad and you have repeatedly said St. Louis needs a team that wins to succeed as a market.

Gross oversimplification of what I've said.

I've said to build a strong fan base they need to be consistently competitive for a while and show a commitment to the city.

Shad Khan absolutely would have accomplished the former. Who knows if he would have accomplished the latter or not. I never said he was a magic fix, all I've said is that he would have tried and Kroenke never had visions on making it work.

[DustDevil61]

Looks like the Missouri Legislature approved $15 Million in tax credits for the stadium FWIW.

Snippets:

[T]he money wouldn’t be sent to new stadium planners until the board was assured the credits were a good deal for the state.

[A] “supermajority” of the state legislature sits in opposition to the use of tax credits in the construction of the riverfront stadium according to Missouri Rep. Jay Barnes, who presented a case to the board and asked for more information on the project’s financial ramifications for the state. State senator Rob Schaaf recently sent a letter to Gov. Jay Nixon promising to fillibuster “any appropriations bill” that includes stadium funding.

“If this board is serious about being responsible stewards of taxpayers' dollars, it cannot vote to allow these tax credits to go forward with only the contingency seen in the project today,” Barnes said.

The public entity that owns the Edward Jones Dome, where the St. Louis Rams now play, applied for the tax credits in July.

The Dome authority, under direction from Nixon’s stadium task force, is funding plans to build the $998 million arena. They have proposed to pay for construction with $450 million from the National Football League and the team that plays here, $201 million in bond proceeds from the state and the city of St. Louis, $160 million from the sale of seat licenses and $187 million in tax credits, according to the state application.

The finance board’s request is the first public tax credit application for the project. The authority is requesting $17.5 million more from the board next year and again in 2017. Task force leaders have said they will apply for other tax credits soon.

The finance board program gives tax credits in exchange for project donations, up to half the amount of the gifts. The task force hopes to land $100 million in donations.

The board’s executive director, Bob Miserez, recommended approval.

Miserez called the “vast majority” of the new stadium land “severely blighted.” A stadium, coupled with the renovation of the Gateway Arch grounds to the south, “would transform the most visible downtown riverfront area and provide substantial economic benefit to the City and State,” Miserez wrote in his recommendation.

Approval is contingent on the board’s receipt of $30 million in contributions credited to this year, plus evidence that the NFL has committed its share of the cash and that an NFL team has executed a 30-year lease at the proposed facility.

Only Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, a finance board member and a Republican, voted against the tax credits. Nixon, Kinder said, “has represented that he may go forward in binding taxpayers in the state of Missouri for repayment of debt for 30 years without the vote of anyone who has run for office.”

Board members didn’t answer Kinder when he asked if Nixon had given them assurance he would sign the financial agreement necessary for bonding.

[STL FANATIC]

That $15 million is probably $50 million, in reality. But it's something that technically has to be approved annually for the next few years. Initial approval makes future approval a near certainty, though.

[Gothamite]

Can we shut up about how Shahid Khan would have magically made everything better in St. Louis. In case you haven't noticed, the on field product for the Jaguars has been catastrophically bad and you have repeatedly said St. Louis needs a team that wins to succeed as a market.

Gross oversimplification of what I've said.

I've said to build a strong fan base they need to be consistently competitive for a while and show a commitment to the city.

Shad Khan absolutely would have accomplished the former. Who knows if he would have accomplished the latter or not. I never said he was a magic fix, all I've said is that he would have tried and Kroenke never had visions on making it work.

I think you mean Khan could have accomplished the latter; he certainly hasn't made the Jaguars competitive.

But if the market is truly that fragile, truly that fickle, then I'm not sure that it's worth the effort on the NFL's part to save.

Meanwhile, nearly 8,000 LA fans turned out to watch the Rams' practice in Oxnard. Which might not indicate a Packers-level of support, but is impressive nonetheless. Little things matter.

[Dexter Morgan]

I woke up in a cold sweat. I had a nightmare about provel cheese.

[TheOldRoman]

I've always thought of Los Angeles pizza as being very fresh and experimental. I've had New York pizza and it was just greasy and floppy. Chicago-style thin crust is the muhfuggin' truth.

Also true: the Rams should be free to move to Los Angeles.

Experimental? Meh. That just means niche. If they want to claim BBQ chicken pizza as their own, that's fine. It's a great pizza, although I think to most people it's not their "primary" pizza, but one they have once in a blue moon. But if your calling card is throwing random crap on pizza, it's not that impressive. My dad was making taco pizzas with ground beef, Pace salsa and sour cream 20 years ago. And they were surely disgusting, but they were different.

Also, maybe it's Chicago-style thin which I love. I just said thin crust generally, but now that I think of it, I've never eaten thin-crust pizza in other areas. Off the top of my head I believe all my pizza consuming has occurred within the boundaries of Illinois. I should eat pizza more on vacation.

[STL FANATIC]

Can we shut up about how Shahid Khan would have magically made everything better in St. Louis. In case you haven't noticed, the on field product for the Jaguars has been catastrophically bad and you have repeatedly said St. Louis needs a team that wins to succeed as a market.

Gross oversimplification of what I've said.

I've said to build a strong fan base they need to be consistently competitive for a while and show a commitment to the city.

Shad Khan absolutely would have accomplished the former. Who knows if he would have accomplished the latter or not. I never said he was a magic fix, all I've said is that he would have tried and Kroenke never had visions on making it work.

I think you mean Khan could have accomplished the latter.

Correct.

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

Off topic (slightly) but do you guys think Chicago could support 2 NFL teams like they did back in the day?

Lets say the Arizona Cardinals wanted to move back to Chicago. Would there be enough of a fanbase to support 2 teams in that city?

[2001mark]

Off topic (slightly) but do you guys think Chicago could support 2 NFL teams like they did back in the day?

Lets say the Arizona Cardinals wanted to move back to Chicago. Would there be enough of a fanbase to support 2 teams in that city?

Not sure. Soldier Field is the 2nd smallest capacity in the NFL (Minnesota playing at U of M doesn't count) for whatever that's worth.

[OnWis97]

Chicago may have enough people but I question whether the new team would have any fanbase. The Bears are a Chicago institution. Would a second team be able to gain any traction there? It's far different with the Cubs and White Sox, who have been around since the days when the North Side and South Side were much more distinct. The Bears and (new team) would have a hard time carving out geographic bases and I feel like it would take a long time before the new team could even play Clippers to the Bears' Lakers.

[sportstar1212]

I see it the same way as a second NHL team in Toronto: The population and the love for the game is there, but the current team is too much of an institution in the city for another team to build their own fanbase.

[oldschoolvikings]

I first moved to Detroit 25 years ago, only to find nothing but disappointment on the pizza front. Detroit is the birthplace of both Dominos and Little Caesars, which should tell you all you want to know about the generic nature of the product. Eventually I managed to find a couple of decent joints (Green Lantern in Mad Heights, Cloverleaf on the Eastside) but overall, not good. Also, I moved here from Columbus, which has (had?) a plethora of NY inspired mom n pop pizzerias to choose from, so my expectations were different.

On the plus side, in Detroit you can find an awesome coney dog easier than an open gas station, so there's that.

And can I freely admit that I want the Rams back in LA out of simple nostalgia for Vince Ferragamo's glorious facemask, and to relieve the bone deep depression I feel every time I see the navy and putty colored Rams in that dingy dome?

[TheOldRoman]

Chicago may have enough people but I question whether the new team would have any fanbase. The Bears are a Chicago institution. Would a second team be able to gain any traction there? It's far different with the Cubs and White Sox, who have been around since the days when the North Side and South Side were much more distinct. The Bears and (new team) would have a hard time carving out geographic bases and I feel like it would take a long time before the new team could even play Clippers to the Bears' Lakers.

This is true. Population wise, the Chicago area could support two teams easily. But Chicago is obsessed with the Bears, and for the people who aren't there's a large contingent of Packers fans, made up of descendants of Cardinals fans who hated the Bears and douchers who bandwagon-jumped in the '90s.

The Bears have spent a lot of time being bad over the last 30 years, and fans have been frustrated with them. So when the franchise was at rock bottom, be it 1999, 2003 or even after last year's disaster, a second team would have been welcome by some fans. It would obviously be the shiny new toy, so even diehard Bears fans would follow the team somewhat (and following them is really easy in football). If the Bears went into a prolonged awful period and the second team was successful, Chicago would get behind them big time. However, it's a Bears town. The second the Bears went 10-6 and made a Wild Card, Chicago would ignore team #2 and start acting like we were in the midst of a Bears dynasty.

[Mac the Knife]

Raiders/Chargers, which would happen if the Rams stay in St. Louis? That doesn't. It forces either the Raiders or Chargers to move to the NFC. Which is unacceptable for a multitude of reasons.

Not to them... and they're the only ones to whom it'll matter in the end.

The Chargers and Raiders are both original AFL teams. Neither should move to the NFC. The Chargers doing it will be bad enough. The Raiders though? Al Davis' team? The man who helmed the AFL itself against the NFL machine? His team? Leaving the AFC? That's as close to sacrilege as you can get in sports.

The Seattle Seahawks were in the NFC West for their original, 1976 season. They were realigned into the AFC West for 1977, then back to the NFC West 35 years later. The distinction of old AFL vs. old NFL teams ended on February 1, 1970, when the merger became official, and the biggest mistake Pete Rozelle & Co. made was trying to maintain somewhat separate identities via the AFC and NFC. It would've been smarter long-term to do maintain the then-existing Eastern Conference/Western Conference structure. It would've been even smarter to conduct playoff seeding league-wide and award wild-card berths without regard to conference, but I digress...

Ultimately I think if somehow it ends up being Chargers and Raiders going to L.A., it'll be the Chargers that are realigned. The real question though is what NFC West team gets sent over in trade. Arizona, San Francisco and Seattle will all balk at it, and the concept of the Rams losing out on the L.A. market *and* being asked to accommodate it by being realigned into the AFC is a non-starter.

[IceCap]

This is about football fans wanting a football team. Period.

The numbers suggest there aren't enough of those fans to make St. Louis a "must-have" market for the NFL.

I've given stats in the past that show St. Louis doesn't treat the Rams any worse than most markets facing terrible products over a sustained period.

Terrible attendance + stadium issues = the market isn't working. The Jags are the only team in a comparable situation, and the relocation rumours have stopped because attendance has been rising.

What happened to other markets with attendance issues doesn't matter. It just doesn't. The current situation in St. Louis is a team with one foot out the door, a fanbase that doesn't care, and civil government throwing hundreds of millions at a man who doesn't need or want it.

I don't understand how anyone can see this St. Louis deal as anything but absurd. Aside from "football fans liking football" that is. Even then? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to say "I like football, but it's not something our city needs to be spending millions on." Which they are because, again, status symbol. St. Louis doesn't want to be seen as a city that doesn't have a NFL team. Regardless of if anyone shows up or not.

I do realize how much it stunk. It's like the exact same thing. They had an antiquated stadium and drew terrible attendance because the team didn't put forth a respectable product. (Only the product in St. Louis has been worth and St. Louis invested in a brand new building just two decades ago something, something the LA market never did for them.)

In a perfect world LA never would have lost the Rams. And St. Louis would have had some other team—probably the Cardinals. I'd be all for fixing the wrong the Rams did to LA if it didn't take another wrong to accomplish it.

So you're willing to fix the wrong the Rams did to LA only if you get to keep your status symbol. Give me a break. If the move from LA to St. Louis was wrong, and you agree it is, then the return isn't wrong. At all. It's simply correcting a past wrong. Made all the easier by the fact that St. Louis' fanbase probably won't be all that broken up about it.

This is what's getting to me about this conversation. It's all the doublethink.

"I think relocation is wrong and what the Rams did to LA was wrong but simply reversing it is also wrong because I want my football team." It's an empty, meaningless sentiment you're tossing around to hide the fact that you only find the LA to St. Louis move wrong in restrospect.

Really, you've yet to prove how the Rams move to LA would be "wrong." Kroenke exercised his legally recognized right to buy the team. He's building his own stadium on his own land with his own money. His plan would save St. Louis hundreds of millions of dollars.

Aside from the sentimental attachment to keeping the Rams in St. Louis? How is any of this "wrong"?

And no, it's not false. C'mon man. I have opposed team relocation every single time it comes up. And I know that you know that.

Which is just silly. Relocation is unpleasant, and ideally unnecessary. That's not how things work though. Sometimes? Sometimes it's very necessary. Opposing it on principal is naive at best.

And these guys are free to do what they want with their teams right?

I think the guy building his own stadium on his own land ought to be able to move his team there, yes.

And that's ultimately what this comes down to. Your misread of the St. Louis market. I can't make you believe me even though I've given stats in the past that show St. Louis doesn't treat the Rams any worse than most markets facing terrible products over a sustained period. And I certainly can't surround you with everything I'm surrounded by that makes the intentions of the region entirely clear. You believe what you want to believe from afar. I'm telling you that you're flat out wrong.

You being there is part of the problem. You're wrapped up in it. Supporting a deal your city shouldn't make just so you can keep a distraction around that doesn't even want to stick around itself. And I'm not telling you anything you haven't proudly proclaimed yourself many times over. You're from St. Louis. You're proud of St. Louis. Which is fine. It's just that it means you're invested in the same sort of mentality I'm pointing out.

Now I'm not from St. Louis. I'm not from a city with a team that has a rivalry with a St. Louis team. When it comes to St. Louis? I'm neutral. You may not see it as such, but extremists always find those in the middle to be the ones on the fringe. I have, or should I say had, no pre-conceived notions of the city of St. Louis or its sports fanbase. All ideas I have about it have been derived from empirical data or how those who are part of the fanbase have acted. I'm an outsider telling you how St. Louis' fanbase comes off to me.

I mean noted, but you've called me a liar about ten different ways throughout this conversation, so I'm not sure I'm going to apologize for it.

You called my post something barely worth responding to before I started doing anything that could be construed as calling you a liar. You're the one who set the tone here, not me.

As for calling you a liar? Heh. No, I don't think you're a liar per say. I just think you're coming at this from a vary biased perspective and feel the conversation would be more honest if it were acknowledged. I have no loyalty to St. Louis or LA, and I see Kroenke's plan as the least messy of all plans available. The only problem with it, from your perspective, is that he wants the team to play in LA. Not St. Louis.