duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

That and I think the Raiders object to entering Vegas in anything but the ideal new stadium situation. You don’t half ass entry to a new market. You end up with the Rams or even worse the Chargers situation.

 

Between the Raiders brand and all the tickets the casinos will buy up and traveling fans for a weekend in Vegas etc. they shouldn't have a problem printing money.

 

Vegas isn't going to be your typical franchise/city situation. They are going to be more of a theme park type attraction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Sweet. The Chargers have an out if they can come up with the cash to buy out their lease in LA.

 

So between the hundreds of millions they would likely lose(NFL G-4 loan for the LA stadium, LA relocation fee, moving costs to LA then San Antonio, overall money invested in LA) plus funding for a stadium in San Antonio when one is being built in LA etc. they would do all that in order to move from the 2nd largest market to the 25th?

 

Makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

So between the hundreds of millions they would likely lose(NFL G-4 loan for the LA stadium, LA relocation fee, moving costs to LA then San Antonio, overall money invested in LA) plus funding for a stadium in San Antonio when one is being built in LA etc. they would do all that in order to move from the 2nd largest market to the 25th?

 

Makes sense.

I said that mostly tongue in cheek, but the Chargers in LA has not worked out so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San-Ann-Tone-Yo Super Chargers! Charge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need to stop romanticizing over how much of a hit LA#1 (Rams) is in LA.  They're 11th in average home attendance, despite having arguably the best team, and having one of the largest stadiums (that they're filling to 75% capacity).  We can keep talking about a Lakers/Clippers situation, but it's more like a Clippers/Chargers deal.  At the end of the day, the masses really don't care about either team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah attendance is not the best number to look at when you consider how awful the colosseum is to watch a pro game anyone that has been to a Rams game since they have come back will tell you that and that and when you look at the ratings you'll see that people absolutely do care about the Rams here in LA.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

We really need to stop romanticizing over how much of a hit LA#1 (Rams) is in LA.  They're 11th in average home attendance

 

Yes, but that is a very misleading stat, since #2 and #11 are separated by just a few thousand fans per game.

 

36 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

At the end of the day, the masses really don't care about either team.

 

71,000 fans per game is really nothing to sneer at.   Twenty-one teams woud trade places with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, colortv said:

 

Between the Raiders brand and all the tickets the casinos will buy up and traveling fans for a weekend in Vegas etc. they shouldn't have a problem printing money.

 

Vegas isn't going to be your typical franchise/city situation. They are going to be more of a theme park type attraction. 

 

Well again that's why they won't go early and play in Boyd. It's the anti-theme park. They need the new stadium to be ready to provide that "Vegas" experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yes, but that is a very misleading stat, since #2 and #11 are separated by just a few thousand fans per game.

 

 

71,000 fans per game is really nothing to sneer at.   Twenty-one teams woud trade places with them.

 

Hell half the league can't average that much due to their stadium size. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yes, but that is a very misleading stat, since #2 and #11 are separated by just a few thousand fans per game.

 

 

71,000 fans per game is really nothing to sneer at.   Twenty-one teams woud trade places with them.

 

That and the Rams limit the capacity to around 75,000 (which after being there personally for that first preseason game with 90,000 in attendance, I wholeheartedly agree with that decision).

 

ESPN still thinks that the Coliseum seats 90,000+, which gives us that 75% capacity when in reality it’s actually near 95%. 

 

Make no mistake, Los Angeles has really re-embraced the Rams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, there’s construction limiting how many seats the Rams can sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet, I was just able to go to their site, and find plenty of $84 tickets available for this week's game vs Seattle, and plenty of $111 tickets for their SNF game against the reigning, defending, Super Bowl Champion Philadelphia Eagles - a game that, in the beginning of the year, many would have picked as a GOTY candidate, and a game for which thousands of Philadelphians have tickets for, meaning that the figure for tickets sold to Rams fans is actually lower.  Oh, and the Rams are an 8-0 team that looks on their way to the Super Bowl.

 

Say all you want about capacity, limits, etc., but the facts show that they're in the second largest market in the country, have no competition, and there is no demand for tickets.  If they're not selling 100K tix, and legit limiting it to 75K, then this is an embarrassment.  If they are limiting to 100K, that's still an embarrassment, because they should be able to draw more than 71K considering how good the team is, and the high-profile nature of their upcoming games.

 

This is simply fantasy that people have wanted to be true for so long now - that the Rams are the Lakers of football in LA (I believe that point has been made a few times).  They're doing OK - maybe even better than some (including me) anticipated - but it is simply not the case that they're killing it in the market.  It's not fair to cast full judgement until the stadium opens, but again, it's an 8-0 team that's fun to watch, and has a showdown with the champs coming up... and lots of people don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said "Lakers of football"? I think the argument from pro-NFL-in-L.A. people like myself -- back when this was a hot-button discussion and some people were very insistent that the NFL wouldn't and indeed couldn't go back -- was that interest in one team would be good-not-great by Los Angeles standards but still represent a marked improvement over St. Louis or Jacksonville. I think that's what we ended up getting with the Rams, albeit in the post-any-desire-to-actually-attend-NFL-games era, and that's fine enough. Los Angeles as a football market presents a lot of challenges: 20 years that the league screwed with you, the prominence of USC during many of those years, transplants from all around the country who stay loyal to their teams, a lunatic fringe insisting that the Los Angeles Raiders were the only true NFL team the city ever had, and the fact that it's a big pleasant place with lots of fun stuff to do besides sit inside and yell at the TV like a bunch of snowed-in Buffalonians.

 

Still, the Rams can overcome all that just enough to justify dicking over St. Louis (though that'll never take much for me!). But "Lakers of football" is a problem because that's an unrealistic goal, and because there should not be a Clippers of football for anyone to be the Lakers to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, colortv said:

 

Two thoughts... the first being that their mayor at least recognizes that the Alamodome will never be a permanent home to a potential NFL team, and that a new facility would be required.

 

The second is that he isn't simply blowing sunshine out his *** on this.  Over the next decade there are a lot of NFL teams whose stadium deals either end or at least allow them an option to bail.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to see any one of a number of teams - at this point most likely among them, the Cincinnati Bengals - from making that move.  And no, I'm not knocking Cincinnati as a market at all; it's just that within the next decade the circumstances will be ripest for them to move (more than likely an ownership change, a stadium deal with an opt-out or expiration, etc.)

 

13 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

We really need to stop romanticizing over how much of a hit LA#1 (Rams) is in LA.  They're 11th in average home attendance, despite having arguably the best team, and having one of the largest stadiums (that they're filling to 75% capacity).  We can keep talking about a Lakers/Clippers situation, but it's more like a Clippers/Chargers deal.  At the end of the day, the masses really don't care about either team.

 

The Rams don't have to be romanticized.  Part of what the team's current draw is based on nostalgia.  But when they move into that new stadium?  The revenue streams from it are going to propel the Rams financially ahead of everyone else in the league, and do so for at least a quarter century.  From a revenue perspective anyway, it won't be a Lakers > Clippers environment.  It'll be a Rams > Lakers one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my perspective, the story has been much more that the Chargers are not wanted than the Rams are the second coming of Jesus. I expect the Rams to do well (starting PSLs at twice what the Vikings did seems about right), and I expect the Chargers to be “entertaining”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things nobody gets about the Coliseum:

 

*It’s in a God awful part of town

*There’s hardly any parking (people living a half mile away charge a hundred bucks to use their front lawns)

*There’s no shade whatsoever, which is great for a 90° 1:30 PM kickoff

*Concessions are so lacking that they’ve run out of water several times

*The stadium is a construction nightmare

*The light rail options, while there, require multiple transfers for most people and most rail lines snake through even worse parts of town (if I went I’d have to drive 5 miles to the Green Line then take that to the Blue Line to the Expo Line)

 

And you wonder why they’re not leading the league in attendance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, the admiral said:

there should not be a Clippers of football for anyone to be the Lakers to.

Yeah, the Jets are already that?

Or are they closer to being the football Mets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LMU said:

Things nobody gets about the Coliseum:

 

*It’s in a God awful part of town

*There’s hardly any parking (people living a half mile away charge a hundred bucks to use their front lawns)

*There’s no shade whatsoever, which is great for a 90° 1:30 PM kickoff

*Concessions are so lacking that they’ve run out of water several times

*The stadium is a construction nightmare

*The light rail options, while there, require multiple transfers for most people and most rail lines snake through even worse parts of town (if I went I’d have to drive 5 miles to the Green Line then take that to the Blue Line to the Expo Line)

 

And you wonder why they’re not leading the league in attendance?

 

So... they're the Tampa Bay Rays of football. 

 

That's obviously hyperbole, but an 8-0 exciting team in a market that hasn't had a great (or, well, any) NFL team for >20 seasons should be able to sell 75K tickets despite any logistical hurdles.  It's one out of every 14 days.

 

What will the excuse be in the new stadium?

 

My point isn't that they're failing (they're not), or that it was a mistake to move back (it wasn't), just that some on here act like LA had been pining for this for decades, and they're beloved and have rock solid roots now, when that's just not the reality.

 

Also - I never said "the Lakers of the NFL", though I understand the confusion due to the poor wording.  I said the Lakers of "football in LA", meaning their relationship to the Chargers.  While I get that the Chargers are insignificant and unwanted, I disagree with the comparison because the Rams don't seem to have anywhere near the loyal and devotion from their fanbase as the Lakers.  

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.