NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Is there anybody who could make the case for Rams fans actually showing pretty good support considering the historically bad product that you wouldn't just dismiss? Just curious.

Buffalo Bills. Worse team. Worse record. Worse environment (well, kind of). But they still manage to make it work.

[rams80]

Additionally, in 20 years, the Rams do have one Super Bowl win and a trip to a second, and 5 playoff trips. They may have fallen in a 6 year span, but it hasn't been 20 years of failure either.

[IceCap]

Cleveland Browns.

[TheOldRoman]

Is there anybody who could make the case for Rams fans actually showing pretty good support considering the historically bad product that you wouldn't just dismiss? Just curious.

Buffalo Bills. Worse team. Worse record. Worse environment (well, kind of). But they still manage to make it work.

I don't think the Bills are even close to the Rams. Over the twenty years the Rams have been in St. Louis (obviously counting the GSOT era), the Rams have won 135 games to the Bills' 144, so just about a half a game worse per year. The Bills have two seasons with 4 or fewer wins in that span to the Rams' five. Over the last ten years, the Rams have won 14 fewer games than the Bills. I think we should consider that pretty much all of Buffalo was raised as Bills fans, while St. Louis had the Cardinals, then nothing, then the Rams. The Bills are a cultural institution in Buffalo, and probably more of a college-like atmosphere. Because of that, the Bills games provide a fun atmosphere, even when in the elements. It sucks freezing your ass off, but it's fun when it's in the middle of a blizzard. I'd rather get two feet of snow dumped on me than watch a game in the awful EJD.

So I'd say the only thing the Rams have on the Bills is having won a single Super Bowl, and that's obviously a big deal. The Bills have had the better record, better stadium and better environment. But that's not to excuse the Rams or their fans. The Rams could have done more to make the dome a better atmosphere and could have done more fan outreach. The fans could have smiled while asking for a second helping of the plates of steaming crap the team was offering up because, hey, it's pro football. They're still to blame here.

[TheOldRoman]

Cleveland Browns.

Yes. Having a team which was a Super Bowl favorite in 1995, then having that season unravel and the team move immediately afterwards. Sitting for three years without a team, then getting a team back which has been awful. Watching many of the former Browns' players winning a Super Bowl in 2000. Making the playoffs once in that span and losing a heartbreaker to your most hated rival. Going through a laundry risk of awful draft picks, bust QBs and QBs who shouldn't have even seen a pro roster. Occasional reasons for optimism which are almost immediately crushed by reality. And now they wear the worst uniforms in football. I don't think any other fans have had it nearly as bad as Clevelanders.

[Gothamite]

At this point, the Rams should be a local institution. They've been in St. Louis for twenty years. That means we're starting a second generation, as kids who were too young to remember them moving are now old enough to start having kids of their own.

[The_Admiral]

Is there anybody who could make the case for Rams fans actually showing pretty good support considering the historically bad product that you wouldn't just dismiss? Just curious.

Rams fans couldn't reasonably be expected to support this team well and they haven't supported the team well.

[STL FANATIC]

Is there anybody who could make the case for Rams fans actually showing pretty good support considering the historically bad product that you wouldn't just dismiss? Just curious.

Rams fans couldn't reasonably be expected to support this team well and they haven't supported the team well.

To the degree that attendance determines support, this is a statement that is impossible to argue with.

It's not one that most people here seem willing to embrace, though.

I get it, by the way, if you think the Super Bowl is a huge deal that should have magically and automatically cemented a fan base. I don't agree, but I get it.

But realize that just because the Rams haven't been the total suck over the last 3 years doesn't mean there have been a bunch of worse teams with better support. Over the last decade, only the Raiders have been worse. And in the 5 years prior to the last 3, there was NOBODY IN HISTORY that had been worse.

[HedleyLamarr]

Is there anybody who could make the case for Rams fans actually showing pretty good support considering the historically bad product that you wouldn't just dismiss? Just curious.

You having just 8 opportunities in a year to see the local NFL team play, in a league where a higher percentage (compared to other leagues) of playoff team turnover happens annually.

"You don't know what a good thing you have until it's gone."

[rxmc89]

Cleveland Browns.

Yes. Having a team which was a Super Bowl favorite in 1995, then having that season unravel and the team move immediately afterwards. Sitting for three years without a team, then getting a team back which has been awful. Watching many of the former Browns' players winning a Super Bowl in 2000. Making the playoffs once in that span and losing a heartbreaker to your most hated rival. Going through a laundry risk of awful draft picks, bust QBs and QBs who shouldn't have even seen a pro roster. Occasional reasons for optimism which are almost immediately crushed by reality. And now they wear the worst uniforms in football. I don't think any other fans have had it nearly as bad as Clevelanders.

The Buccaneers switched back to their old uniforms?

[HedleyLamarr]

Cleveland Browns.

Yes. Having a team which was a Super Bowl favorite in 1995, then having that season unravel and the team move immediately afterwards. Sitting for three years without a team, then getting a team back which has been awful. Watching many of the former Browns' players winning a Super Bowl in 2000. Making the playoffs once in that span and losing a heartbreaker to your most hated rival. Going through a laundry risk of awful draft picks, bust QBs and QBs who shouldn't have even seen a pro roster. Occasional reasons for optimism which are almost immediately crushed by reality. And now they wear the worst uniforms in football. I don't think any other fans have had it nearly as bad as Clevelanders.

You didn't have to type this out...that photo of that lady Browns fan's jersey with all the QB's listed would have said it all.

[colortv]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/08/26/mike-florio-growing-sense-that-it-will-be-chargers-rams-that-end-up-in-l-a-with-raiders-left-out/

[The_Admiral]

Am I nuts for thinking there's going to be a hard eleventh-hour push from San Diego to keep the Chargers? Soliciting responses from people who aren't bosrs1.

[Still MIGHTY]

Am I nuts for thinking there's going to be a hard eleventh-hour push from San Diego to keep the Chargers? Soliciting responses from people who aren't bosrs1.

Nah, I'm with you too.

If the Chargers really valued LA or saw it as a jewel of their season ticket base, they would've already signed the papers and left. At least that's always been my thought on it. The only reason they got into action was seeing the Rams move in on it.

The Chargers would still much rather bleed San Diego dry. In my mind.

[The_Admiral]

Granted, I'm not saying that San Diego is going to succeed in keeping the Chargers (though I hope that they do) with the way the NFL seems to be nudging the team to Los Angeles, just that they're not going to sit there with their dicks in their hands as the team packs up and leaves. I mean, St. Louis is still making some rickety push to keep the Rams, and their situation is more doomed and less important.

Again, if the NFL were serious about "managing the process" in Los Angeles, they would not be managing it in such a way that two teams could be thrust upon a promising but still sensitive market at the same time. Could L.A. support two teams right now? Yeah, probably, but let's make sure they can support one first.

[Mac the Knife]

Am I nuts for thinking there's going to be a hard eleventh-hour push from San Diego to keep the Chargers? Soliciting responses from people who aren't bosrs1.

If the Chargers really valued LA or saw it as a jewel of their season ticket base, they would've already signed the papers and left. At least that's always been my thought on it. The only reason they got into action was seeing the Rams move in on it.

Neither Spanos, Kroenke, or Mark Davis are Al Davis, guys. None of them is going to just up and say "We're moving to L.A." without completing the NFL's relocation application process first. In fact come to think of it, not even Al Davis did that - he applied, was rejected, then moved and sued the NFL to win the right in court.

[FiddySicks]

Am I nuts for thinking there's going to be a hard eleventh-hour push from San Diego to keep the Chargers? Soliciting responses from people who aren't bosrs1.

No you're not nuts at all. It's what should probably happen, too.

Having the Chargers move to LA ahead of the Rams or Raiders would make both the Spanos family and the NFL look incredibly shortsighted and stupid. Sacrificing the San Diego market for EITHER Oakland or St. Louis makes about as much sense as putting an NHL team in Las Vegas ahead of putting one in Quebec.

[Gothamite]

Why do you think the Chargers will move to LA ahead of the Rams? That scenario would almost certainly involve them becoming tenants in Kroenke's building. Worst case is they announce both moves simultaneously.

[Gothamite]

Another legislative hurdle? I thought this was all taken care of.

http://www.foxsports.com/midwest/story/lawmaker-opposition-casts-doubt-on-new-st-louis-stadium-082615

Lawmaker opposition casts doubt on new St. Louis stadium

AUG 26, 2015 AT 6:09P ET

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Missouri's legislative budget leaders said they oppose spending taxpayer money on a new St. Louis football stadium, casting serious doubts on whether supporters can cobble together enough money for the facility before an approaching NFL vote on whether to relocate the Rams.

House Budget Chairman Tom Flanigan sent a letter Wednesday to Gov. Jay Nixon warning that he will block any effort to put money in the state budget for payments on a new stadium unless the Legislature or voters first approve the additional debt.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer told The Associated Press he doesn't believe there is legislative support for using taxpayer money for a new St. Louis stadium.

Their reluctance further complicates an already fragile plan that requires buy-in from a number of public and private entities to pay for the estimated $998 million stadium.

Nixon, a Democrat, and the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority are working to piece together money for a new stadium as a counterproposal to efforts by Rams owner Stan Kroenke to move the team to the Los Angeles area.

Plans include $135 million from the state to help the sports authority make payments on bonds for the stadium. Missouri still is paying $12 million a year for debt service and maintenance at the Edward Jones Dome, which opened as the Rams' home about two decades ago. The plan includes extending bond debt to pay for the new stadium and assumes lawmakers will continue budgeting annual payments.

But Flanigan's letter calls for Nixon first to ask lawmakers for authority for additional debt before requesting that the Legislature set aside more money to pay for a stadium.

Schaefer and Flanigan's opposition is significant. While several legislators have recently promised to filibuster attempts to include payments on bonding for a new stadium in Missouri's budget, Schaefer and Flanigan, both Republicans, have substantial influence in what actually makes it into the state's spending plan for each fiscal year.

Setting aside money for bonding will be challenging without them. On top of that, Republican Senate Majority Leader Ron Richard said he's backing Schaefer and doesn't believe there's enough legislative support for the project.

What legislative resistance means for the future of the project is unclear.

A spokesman for Nixon did not immediately comment on the letter from Flanigan and opposition from Schaefer. A message left with the sports authority seeking comment on it was not immediately returned.

A Rams spokesman declined comment.

Substantive, or show? What am I missing?

[STL FANATIC]

Right or wrong, this is probably just for show. Or for leverage. But probably not anything that would actually block the stadium at this point.

They're basically playing chicken with each other. Nixon has the right to issue the bonds. The legislature has the right to pay off the bonds. If first happens without the second, then Missouri's credit rating takes a big hit.

So they're basically standing there telling the other that they'll be responsible for hurting the credit rating of the state.

The legislature says they WON'T pay for the bonds if Nixon just issues them on his own, so he better not. And Nixon (though he's never literally said this) is essentially saying yes you will because you're not really going to risk the state's credit rating over this.

I think Nixon is right on that. He's got the legislature over a barrel. That's why they're making the fuss now because they know ultimately they'll have no choice. That doesn't make the legislature wrong for doing it. This shouldn't all happen just on the Governor's word. (Although the legislature is made up of a bunch of idiots who also can't be trusted to decide anything.) But the Governor does indeed have that power, and I think this is a mostly futile attempt by some legislature's to scare him into not using it.

Why do you think the Chargers will move to LA ahead of the Rams? That scenario would almost certainly involve them becoming tenants in Kroenke's building. Worst case is they announce both moves simultaneously.

Did the Carson plan just magically disappear?

If you meant "more likely at this point," I can follow. But you said "almost certainly." Not sure anything is almost certain concerning this mess right now.