NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[Mac the Knife]

Not posting this with any agenda as it supports some of the things I say, and could be viewed as an argument against the others. But here's a great blast from the past read that seems relevant again:

St. Louis Is Game--but Are the Rams? : Sports: Officials in the much-maligned football town are pulling together to entice team away from O.C.

November 01, 1994 | Mike DiGiovanna | Los Angeles Times

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-11-01/ ... tball-town

It's interesting to think about how different things might be if Kroenke had either gotten the expansion team or the Patriots and moved them to St. Louis (that's mentioned in the article, I have no familiarity with that situation at all) without the necessity of the sweetheart lease.

Maybe football would be thriving in St. Louis, a new stadium would be discussed but not yet a necessity, and Kroenke would be loved rather than despised. Or maybe none of those things. Weird to think about, though.

Kroenke was only peripherally (if at all) involved in the aborted Patriots-to-St. Louis move. If Orthwein had succeeded with that plan, the potential scenarios that could have played out stagger the mind... including one where the Rams wind up in Baltimore rather than St. Louis for 1995, which would've been the ultimate irony given that Robert Irsay traded the Rams to Carol Rosenbloom for the Colts 23 years earlier.

[STL FANATIC]

Kevin Demoff (Rams COO, Kroenke's right-hand man) speaks. And it's frankly kind of weird.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2015/09/30/rams-exec-on-relocation-no-matter-what-we-are.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2015-09-30&u=lJcoWdDhDM9kWyeSg01CnQ0f822b04&t=1443646112

[TheOldRoman]

Unless I've missed something, this is a revelation. Haven't the Rams completely avoided the topic of relocation to date? Obviously we've been reading about it for a while, but I thought even Kroenke's proposed LA stadium was officially "multi-use entertainment stadium intended for no team in particular." I figured the Rams haven't talked about it and made no threats because they have no intentions of staying in STL and their move is already a done deal.

[DaytonBlue]

To me, his "feel responsible for it" is lip service. He might feel responsible but I doubt Demoff is losing much sleep over it. And at this point, any silence can only be bad news to me (as a St. Louis Rams fan).

And I don't believe Tom Stillman is genuine either. A good chunk of the Rams corporate support might flow the way of the Blues if the NFL leaves.

Teams in different sports in the same city act like buddies but are really competitors.

[Gothamite]

Teams in different sports in the same city act like buddies but are really competitors.

Absolutely. The Blues only stand to gain if the Rams move.

[The_Admiral]

Demoff said he thinks it’s important for an owner, particularly in the St. Louis market, to have “that element of personification,” traits St. Louis sports fans have typically seen with the DeWitts or Stillman.

Huh? I mean, I'm cognizant of who owns both teams, but I thought one of the assets of the Cardinals was that they had relatively low-profile ownership that didn't strut around making a hash out of everything so that people know who's boss. And I know Stillman owns the Blues because I'm a hockey junkie and I know these things, and he was in the news when he was hocking the Peoria Rivermen to stay afloat, but again, I don't think he's much of a persona, either. In fact, I think the most visible current owner in St. Louis sports has been Stan Kroenke all along.

[STL FANATIC]

Unless I've missed something, this is a revelation. Haven't the Rams completely avoided the topic of relocation to date? Obviously we've been reading about it for a while, but I thought even Kroenke's proposed LA stadium was officially "multi-use entertainment stadium intended for no team in particular." I figured the Rams haven't talked about it and made no threats because they have no intentions of staying in STL and their move is already a done deal.

I don't know that this is totally accurate. I think Demoff has alluded to it a couple of different times. This MIGHT be the most open they've been about it (which tells you something), but he's commented somewhere around it before, I think.

[STL FANATIC]

Teams in different sports in the same city act like buddies but are really competitors.

Absolutely. The Blues only stand to gain if the Rams move.

Tom Stillman is a St. Louis sports fan. I don't think he's lying at all.

The Blues may stand to gain, but he's genuine in his support of St. Louis and his desire to see the Rams stay.

Now, DeWitt, who already has the market cornered and makes his primary home in Cincinnati, may not actually care all that much. (Although I wouldn't say he's lying either.)

The Cardinals and Blues support each other a lot. I'm confident they'd love to have the Rams be part of that family, but the Rams haven't attempted to do so.

[STL FANATIC]

Demoff said he thinks it’s important for an owner, particularly in the St. Louis market, to have “that element of personification,” traits St. Louis sports fans have typically seen with the DeWitts or Stillman.

Huh? I mean, I'm cognizant of who owns both teams, but I thought one of the assets of the Cardinals was that they had relatively low-profile ownership that didn't strut around making a hash out of everything so that people know who's boss. And I know Stillman owns the Blues because I'm a hockey junkie and I know these things, and he was in the news when he was hocking the Peoria Rivermen to stay afloat, but again, I don't think he's much of a persona, either. In fact, I think the most visible current owner in St. Louis sports has been Stan Kroenke all along.

I think you're misinterpreting the idea of having a "personality" as having a BIG personality. That's not what they're saying.

Both DeWitt and Stillman stay out of the way and let their front offices run the on-field portion of the teams, but both are also visible at games, out and about in the community, and talking to the fans at events. They have an honest relation with the community.

Stan Kroenke is the most famous owner of the three. He is nowhere near the most visible of the three. Certainly not to the St. Louis community.

And mean heck. Look at the context of that article. These guys were speaking at a panel in the community. Bill DeWitt showed up. Tom Stillman showed up. Stan Kroenke sent Kevin Demoff.

[DaytonBlue]

If it wasn't reported that Stan was at the first game, I would have thought he hadn't set foot in Missouri in years.

[Mac the Knife]

Kevin Demoff (Rams COO, Kroenke's right-hand man) speaks. And it's frankly kind of weird.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2015/09/30/rams-exec-on-relocation-no-matter-what-we-are.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2015-09-30&u=lJcoWdDhDM9kWyeSg01CnQ0f822b04&t=1443646112

Yeah, Demoff suffers from the delusion that St. Louis has a rabid base of fans for football. They don't.

Remember when Fart Modell announced he was moving the Browns without warning? Imagine if the Rooneys suddenly announced they were looking into moving to LA, or Timbuktu for that matter. There were (and would be) protests and near-riots in the streets, lawsuits left and right, etc.

Did that happen when the football Cardinals were rumored to go here, there, and everywhere before winding up in Phoenix? No.

Is that happening now, when the Rams are reportedly destined to return to Los Angeles? No.

Rabid fan bases care enough to fight, bitch and moan about their teams, win, lose or draw; and they care enough to fight, bitch and moan even if their relocation is a lost cause. That's not happening in St. Louis.

[Gothamite]

Kevin Demoff (Rams COO, Kroenke's right-hand man) speaks. And it's frankly kind of weird.http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2015/09/30/rams-exec-on-relocation-no-matter-what-we-are.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2015-09-30&u=lJcoWdDhDM9kWyeSg01CnQ0f822b04&t=1443646112

Yeah, Demoff suffers from the delusion that St. Louis has a rabid base of fans for football. They don't.

Remember when Fart Modell announced he was moving the Browns without warning? Imagine if the Rooneys suddenly announced they were looking into moving to LA, or Timbuktu for that matter. There were (and would be) protests and near-riots in the streets, lawsuits left and right, etc.

Did that happen when the football Cardinals were rumored to go here, there, and everywhere before winding up in Phoenix? No.

Is that happening now, when the Rams are reportedly destined to return to Los Angeles? No.

Rabid fan bases care enough to fight, bitch and moan about their teams, win, lose or draw; and they care enough to fight, bitch and moan even if their relocation is a lost cause. That's not happening in St. Louis.

Haven't you heard? The Rams haven't won enough games lately. They don't deserve to be in St. Louis, and they certainly don't deserve the Best Fans in Football TM.

Heck, they don't even get out of bed for less than twelve wins a season....

[STL FANATIC]

I get that you guys still dismiss this as a valid reason, and you're entitled to, but to be clear, this isn't about winning lately.

It's about the fact that neither team spent much more than a generation or two (I don't know how long a generation is, you could argue the Cardinals were pushing 3) and were pretty much gigantic losers their entire tenure. (Before Ice posts it again, I realize the Rams were really, really good for a few years before reverting back to laughing stock.)

The institutions you're comparing them to are exactly that—institutions. Because despite quite a bit of ineptness, they started in their community long, long ago, were committed, and built a great deal of goodwill along the way.

Hey, I get it. You don't think that's a valid enough reason. I can accept your stance on that. But please don't pretend that you're talking apples to apples when you bring out the Browns and Steelers in a discussion about the football Cardinals and Rams.

[TheOldRoman]

Just as spitball here. I think often times with expansion/relocated teams, immediate success can hurt the franchise in the long run. If you're an immediate contender and win a title in the first few years, the fandom becomes more about "we are watching only to win championships" and not about watching and appreciating the sport. I think a lot of them become fans for the wrong reasons. I think a few years of ineptitude for such teams does the fanbase good and helps it to build organically, while having an immediately good team can kill the franchise when they stop winning and all the fans who had never seen a loser decide to give up. Like when the Jaguars, Rams, Diamondbacks or Avalanche started sucking, fans could easily say, "Well, screw this. I only cared because they were winning."

I felt the same way about the Blackhawks. They were resurgent in 2009. Wirtz was dead, the games were back on TV, we had young stars and were really good. Well, everybody jumped on the bandwagon. Some of them were because of people discovering or rediscovering the great sport of hockey, but some were just people rooting for a winner just because it's fun to do. The Hawks lost to the hated Red Wings in the WCF that year, and I think it helped build the franchise. Had they won the cup that year, the bandwagoners would have been immediately rewarded, and only a title would suffice, so they'd jumped as soon as the going got tough. But I feel that the loss to the Red Wings left the fans wanting more, and built a crescendo towards their championship the next year. And I feel that probably built a good number of additional hockey fans and not people who were watching just to see a winner. I could be way off here. Just a theory I have.

[rams80]

The wins saved the Rams (temporarily). Attendance was plummeting by 1998.

[Gothamite]

The wins saved the Rams (temporarily). Attendance was plummeting by 1998.

If that's true, then it doesn't speak well of the market. But what are the figures?

[rams80]

The wins saved the Rams (temporarily). Attendance was plummeting by 1998.

If that's true, then it doesn't speak well of the market. But what are the figures?

Wikipedia helpfully went with reported attendance numbers in 1998:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_St._Louis_Rams_season

[TheOldRoman]

The wins saved the Rams (temporarily). Attendance was plummeting by 1998.

That may be. And the Rams went from bad to worse 1995-98. So the new car smell wore off and fans were largely turned off before 1999 happened. Then everybody jumped on the bandwagon and it was probably more about winning at something than about the Rams for football (with the Blues never having won a cup and the Cards not winning since 82).But I think if the Rams would have built something slowly, say winning 4-5-6-7 games in succession through 98 instead of the reverse, more lifer fans would have been built which would have helped them better survive the post-relevance drought. And like I said, I'm not trying to defend the Rams or their fans. It's just a theory I have.

Also, looking at the link you provided reminded me of a horrific Rams-Bears game (which it turns out happened in 1997). The teams combined for ten turnovers, including 2 on one play. It was the single worst football game I've seen.

[DustDevil61]

It may be St. Louis spin, it may be the NFL being the NFL, but apparently owners are "nervous" about the Los Angeles market and may kick this can another year down the road.

I don't know how involved Spanos would be, but as I've said before, Kroenke has the car (Rams), has the garage (Inglewood stadium land/plan), and he's paving the road (further alienation of the St. Louis market, one way or another). Why not rip off the band-aid and let him move?

[STL FANATIC]

I think you're probably right TOR. And maybe that means St. Louis isn't an amazing football market. In fact it probably does.

But I think the point I've been trying to get across is that I don't think there are very many amazing (insert sport here) markets in general. There may be a handful. But even those probably had to grow into it over time under the right circumstances.

The Rams happen to have an opening in their lease, and perhaps because St. Louis isn't one of those amazing markets, it makes sense to let them go to a better market. (Though I don't think LA is a better football market—I think their own struggles with teams prove that, but it is undeniably a better financial market.)

Maybe it's the opportunistic thing for the NFL to do. But I think, if we could separate the timing of the lease situation from it, and the NFL is a 30 market league, St. Louis probably ought to be one of those 30 markets.

But the NFL may be a league that could work in 45 different markets. So they may not care if they lose a market in the 20-35 range if they're trading it for the second largest market in the country.

That line of reasoning I totally get. (I have other reasons for believing that's not how they ought to conduct themselves, but I certainly understand it.) Totally writing St. Louis off as a bad football market is something I take issue with, though. At the same time, though, I'm becoming less and less likely to put up a big detailed case for it, because damn this is getting old.

Hurry up and decide, the NFL.