Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't understand why the NFL can't cut the same deal with the Chargers, who ALSO have been offered $350 million in public (extorsion) funds. Wouldn't it be a better idea to save the San Diego market at less of a cost to the league, and have the Raiders share a building with the Rams or even 49ers? That seems like a fairly amicable solution to all three problems.

But, no. We'll probably ONLY see the Chargers move for next year because this league specializes in poor decision making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe. Offenses frozen in the wind on the foot of Ohio. I watched bolo ties glitter in the dark in the press conference room.

All those moments will be lost... in time... like... bolts... in the rain.

Time... to die.

GjpQwDF.gif

Holy :censored: .

My eyeballs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I get the anger that STL Fanatic has right now (believe me, I know how it feels to lose a team I love), the fans could have been the "swing vote" this year in the public stalemate between the team and the local politicians....at least in convincing the NFL's Relocation Committee and the other teams' owners to vote in favor of the Rams staying in St. Louis. This was the chance...remember, they were a little deep in talks about the Rams leaving after the 2014 season...for the fans to show big support for the Rams in 2015.

Now I'm willing to toss out the Thursday night game because that's not your typical game for all your fans to come out. But there were seven other games to show their support. That 7th Sunday game....Fan Appreciation Day, held on a normal weekend at the normal noon kickoff...a chance for the fans to make their Closing Argument in convincing the league to keep the Rams in St. Louis....this was their crowd at kickoff:

CWH9oXIUwAEjk0i.jpg

Only 18,000 fans could be bothered to show up for a game. Now I can partially agree with the team being so bad for so long playing a part, but the NFL views their games as events for the city, and their expectations are that these events be heavily popular. The NFL doesn't want to be second-fiddle to anyone. If college games in Columbia can get 50,000+, the NFL wants to see way more than 18,000 at their games, a game featuring the best of the best in football talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to hand hundreds of dollars to an owner who wants to take my team away from me, unless there's some guarantee that 70k other people are also going to show up and that money would go toward a statement, rather than being one guy just sitting in a sea of empty seats. It's a double whammy of the team being unwatchable, and the owner being unsupportable. I don't think STL is a great NFL market, but I really can't blame the fans for not showing up this year. It's really an unsalvageable situation now. What if the league doesn't approve him and STL commits to building this stadium - how do you support an owner that said all that (albeit it's all probably true) about your city and tried to move the team? How do you spend $50K on a PSL to a stadium that you are footing a good portion of the bill for and will make that guy even richer? I don't know the mentality of a STL fan, but I would think that the only way the team can stay at this point is if he sells them, or does some kind of franchise swap and ends up in LA with some other club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blaming the Rams fans for not showing up these last few games is like blaming a woman for not sucking up to her husband after she's already found lipstick on his collar.

I'll give St. Louis Rams fans that, but I feel that, unless Kroenke gets his wish and is allowed to move to Los Angeles, the meddling NFL will be primarily to blame. Had Spanos not thrown a fit and contradicted his own "The teams that left Los Angeles want to move back!!!1!!1!}" statement by partnering with Mark Davis,* Kroenke would've been going for certain and the band-aid would already have been pulled off quickly. At least in that scenario (as much as it sucks for StL fans), there would be quick closure and St. Louis could at least move on with their lives.

Instead, we have a situation that's just as painless as pulling off a band-aid from someone with the arm hair thickness of Robin Williams, and the band-aid may be haphazardly be put back on, only for the rest to be taken off slowly (again).

*Not to mention, in that case, one of the teams (both of which are charter members of the AFL) shifting to the NFC. Gosh, Dean Spanos is such a spiteful, reactionary hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What team is more valuable -

a. Rams in St. Louis with the new stadium deal (not sure if it's really as bad as Kroenke made it out to be... maybe it is)

b. CHargers in SD in current stadium

c. Raiders in OAK in current stadium

If a isn't at the bottom, then could they orchestrate some kind of franchise swap between Kroenke and whatever team is below a? In this scenario it would be advantageous for that owner to own a team in a new stadium in STL vs whatever team he owns, and Kroenke is going to LA regardless, so does he really care who the 53 players he's taking with him are? I'm not sure that the Rams brand is worth fighting to keep if the league said "OK Stan, we'll let you move without a fight, but you're going to be the LA Raiders and not the LA Rams"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signs still point to L.A. resolution next week

Posted by Mike Florio on January 6, 2016, 8:47 PM EST

No one knows what it will be. But it likely will be something.

After more than 20 years with no team in Los Angeles, the NFL is closing on a solution to the situation. The solution could involve one team or two. It definitely won’t involve three. And it most definitely won’t involve none.

Via Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune, Patriots owner Robert Kraft (a member of the NFL’s six-person Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities) said after an eight-hour meeting on Wednesday regarding whether a resolution is expected next week in Houston, “That’s for sure.”

Added Chargers owner Dean Spanos, “It looks like we’ll get it done next week.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/06/signs-still-point-to-l-a-resolution-next-week/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I get the anger that STL Fanatic has right now (believe me, I know how it feels to lose a team I love), the fans could have been the "swing vote" this year in the public stalemate between the team and the local politicians....at least in convincing the NFL's Relocation Committee and the other teams' owners to vote in favor of the Rams staying in St. Louis. This was the chance...remember, they were a little deep in talks about the Rams leaving after the 2014 season...for the fans to show big support for the Rams in 2015.

I have been saying this for years. Fans have more power than they realize, if they choose to yield it.

Now, I understand that fans might not have wanted to give the possibly-wandering owner any money. That's a totally legitimate choice, but it is indeed a choice.

St. Louis had an opportunity to weigh in and make their case. They decided not to, which is totally their right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a isn't at the bottom, then could they orchestrate some kind of franchise swap between Kroenke and whatever team is below a? In this scenario it would be advantageous for that owner to own a team in a new stadium in STL vs whatever team he owns, and Kroenke is going to LA regardless, so does he really care who the 53 players he's taking with him are? I'm not sure that the Rams brand is worth fighting to keep if the league said "OK Stan, we'll let you move without a fight, but you're going to be the LA Raiders and not the LA Rams"

I'm gonna jump back in here for a second just to weigh in on this (unlikely, I think) possibility.

This is just one former fans perspective, but if I were still invested in this team, I'd — with some regret — be happy to turn over the Rams brand to whatever owner has their team in LA on the contingency that St. Louis didn't simply get someone else's preexisting brand.

As much as 21 years invested in a brand is meaningful — including a Super Bowl — I'm tired of so many fans in LA feeling attached to the brand. I know it's not always the case, but to me being a fan of a team is about that team representing your city. And when you do adopt a team for whatever reason from another city, then you should adopt a place for that city in your heart too.

I'd want a brand that is St. Louis', not somebody else's. Especially after this has all gone down.

Find a way to let St. Louis keep and embrace the history of our past 21 years and the Super Bowl that was won by our team. But if LA wants the Rams brand let them have it. If the NFL is staying in St. Louis, it's time to give us a team that is undeniably ours.

Perhaps the simple fact that LA would have its teams would be enough to begin breaking the LA ties of the brand. I don't know. But I'd prefer to accelerate the process by re-branding.

Ultimately I find any outcome like that quite unlikely. But that's an interesting hypothetical, so I figured I'd offer up my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blaming the Rams fans for not showing up these last few games is like blaming a woman for not sucking up to her husband after she's already found lipstick on his collar.

Except in this case, St. Louis is more like a husband who's decided not to sleep with wife any more, and after a couple years of rejection she starts to look around for someone who would appreciate her.

Not to mention that all the while the husband's been flirting with a certain red-headed floozy downtown. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternate scenario: pull a Hornacats/Pelicans. Chargers move to LA, Rams stay in STL, Rams rename themselves to the Archers/Jorts/Ravioli Toasters, Chargers rebrand to the LA Rams. In a league where we're forced to believe that the Cleveland Browns franchise went on a three-year sabbatical and aren't a two-time Super Bowl champion what's to prevent another wool-over-eyes situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternate scenario: pull a Hornacats/Pelicans. Chargers move to LA, Rams stay in STL, Rams rename themselves to the Archers/Jorts/Ravioli Toasters, Chargers rebrand to the LA Rams. In a league where we're forced to believe that the Cleveland Browns franchise went on a three-year sabbatical and aren't a two-time Super Bowl champion what's to prevent another wool-over-eyes situation?

I may see it happening if this hypothetical Rams/Chargers ownership switch were to happen. But I'd rather see the teams keep their names. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL could just expand with 8 more teams and put realignment talk to bed forever at 40. Give Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Portland, San Antonio, Orlando, Memphis, Salt Lake City and Columbus teams and call it a day.

Yeah, because why bother with a mere one or two failed markets, when you could have five or six more besides? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.