Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma

Recommended Posts

For the record, LA does not need a team because they have shown in the past that they do not support them.

Goth already addressed this, but something's bugging me.

The "Market A lost Team X so they obviously don't deserve another team" is one of most ludicrous arguments trotted out in sports. It was ridiculous when people said "why should Winnipeg get an NHL team back, they obviously didn't care enough about the Jets" and it's ridiculous when people say "why should LA get another NFL team? They couldn't keep the Rams and Raiders."

Teams leave markets for a variety of reasons. Most of those reasons have little to no baring on a market's ability to support a team. Sometimes the current owners want out, and the best offer to buy the team has intentions elsewhere. Sometimes the team and city can't agree on a deal to build a new arena or stadium. Sometimes *cough*North Stars*cough* the owner just needs to get out of town. Sure, lack of fan interest does factor into teams relocating in a lot of cases, but when you look at the reasons why a team might move, possibilities that have no barring on a fanbase's ability to support a team outnumber possibilities that do factor in a lack of fan support. The Rams and Raiders left LA due to stadium disputes. That has nothing to do with whether or not the market can support a team (or two). It just means that, at the time, factors arose which meant LA couldn't work in the NFL at that time. Now the city seems ready to deal with those factors and build a stadium. Which means the primary reason the Rams and Raiders left will no longer count against LA as a NFL market.

Look at the Winnipeg Jets 2.0. That team's been a cash cow for the league since moving to a city that apparently couldn't support a NHL franchise.

The NFL has done great without a team in LA for a many of years and hopefully it continues to stay that way. Now if a team does relocate, I hope it is either the Raiders or the Chargers because I really do not want to see Minnesota lose another team to LA or a team like the Rams moving back to their previous location because it just seems stupid to me. Finally, I really hope the Jaguars stay in place due to having to re-align the league again because they still will not do it the right way.

I'm sorry, but none of this makes sense.

You think it's stupid for the Rams to move back? Why is it stupid? I don't see how it it's stupid. If LA can offer the Rams a better deal on a stadium then St. Louis, it makes sense to move back. Nothing stupid about it.

Furthermore you think it's stupid for the Rams to go back to their previous location, but you're fine with the Raiders or Chargers moving to LA? Both of those teams used to play in LA to. As far as moving back to previous locations they're in the same boat as the Rams. Pick one. Is it ok for the Chargers, Raiders, or Rams to move back to LA or is it ok for the Chargers, Raiders, or Rams to move to LA?

Finally Jacksonville has proven to be an unreliable market, at best. Saying "realignment would get screwed up" is not a valid reason to keep them in a market that just isn't working as well as LA would. You want a realignment scenario that works with the Jags in LA? Jags go to LA, and move to the NFC West. The Rams move to the NFC South. The Panthers move to the AFC South. Problem solved.

So someone cannot have an opinion anymore? Well here we go.... The Rams to the NFC South and Panthers to the AFC South and the Jags to LA to the NFC West does not fix realignment. It is a temporary fix, the real problem with alignment is that regionally speaking all teams would benefit from a new realignment not just three.

If a team leaves a city and moves across the country for a new stadium (Rams) then they should stay there and make it work and not just pack up and move back to that city 10-15 years later. No NFL team should ever pack up and move that easily, this is not the minor leagues. The NFL should do everything possible to keep teams in their current location and not relocate franchises. However, I know that some team will move to L.A. and the reason I think the Raiders should is because they would be the best fit for a new stadium, they are close to the area, and finally because they already have fans there.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody's saying that you can't have an opinion.

But when your opinion appears goofy and somewhat arbitrary, you'll get called on it. Forcing teams to stay in a bad market that perhaps they shouldn't have moved to in the first place in order to maintain the lineup with which you're familiar is both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody's saying that you can't have an opinion.

But when your opinion appears goofy and somewhat arbitrary, you'll get called on it. Forcing teams to stay in a bad market that perhaps they shouldn't have moved to in the first place in order to maintain the lineup with which you're familiar is both.

Well if that market was so bad, then the NFL is at fault for allowing the team to move there in the first place. But you have to understand why I am against relocation...if you have ever read any of my posts, then you should know I grew up LOVING the Cleveland Browns and when they moved it destroyed me and my feelings for rooting for one team ever again. So I try to sympathize with other fans for teams talking about relocation. It simply sucks when your love leaves town!

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it does. I've spent a good deal of my life in and around Milwaukee and Brooklyn, two teams which still bear the scars of their baseball team leaving town (even though 1 1/2 of them later got a new team).

But now I think I understand your argument. The catch is that not every relocation means that a market was "bad." Sometimes it does, but not always. Brooklyn wasn't necessarily a bad baseball market. Houston wasn't necessarily a bad football market.

in LA's case, it wasn't a bad football market at all. The Raiders and Rams left because they got ridiculous sweetheart stadium deals from other cities. And when the Rams leave St. Louis, it will be because the city couldn't afford to keep up its stadium obligations first and foremost, not necessarily because it's a bad football market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if that market was so bad, then the NFL is at fault for allowing the team to move there in the first place.

One thing unmentioned where the NFL is concerned is that, where franchise relocation is concerned, the league's hands by and large were tied until just a few years ago. The Al Davis lawsuit against the NFL thirty years ago basically gutted the league's ability to prevent its franchisees from relocating, allowing the likes of the Raiders (twice), Cardinals, Rams, Oilers and Browns to bolt for greener financial pastures.

In that case the courts told the NFL: you need to justify denying a relocation. And it's just been within the past 5 years or so that they've gotten around to putting together standardized relocation criteria. In short, the process is far different now than it was then. I only wish it'd been in place before that :censored: Art Modell moved to Baltimore. I can't wait to piss on his grave - or :censored: in his urn, whichever I get the chance to do.

nav-logo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, LA does not need a team because they have shown in the past that they do not support them.

Goth already addressed this, but something's bugging me.

The "Market A lost Team X so they obviously don't deserve another team" is one of most ludicrous arguments trotted out in sports. It was ridiculous when people said "why should Winnipeg get an NHL team back, they obviously didn't care enough about the Jets" and it's ridiculous when people say "why should LA get another NFL team? They couldn't keep the Rams and Raiders."

Teams leave markets for a variety of reasons. Most of those reasons have little to no baring on a market's ability to support a team. Sometimes the current owners want out, and the best offer to buy the team has intentions elsewhere. Sometimes the team and city can't agree on a deal to build a new arena or stadium. Sometimes *cough*North Stars*cough* the owner just needs to get out of town. Sure, lack of fan interest does factor into teams relocating in a lot of cases, but when you look at the reasons why a team might move, possibilities that have no barring on a fanbase's ability to support a team outnumber possibilities that do factor in a lack of fan support. The Rams and Raiders left LA due to stadium disputes. That has nothing to do with whether or not the market can support a team (or two). It just means that, at the time, factors arose which meant LA couldn't work in the NFL at that time. Now the city seems ready to deal with those factors and build a stadium. Which means the primary reason the Rams and Raiders left will no longer count against LA as a NFL market.

Look at the Winnipeg Jets 2.0. That team's been a cash cow for the league since moving to a city that apparently couldn't support a NHL franchise.

The NFL has done great without a team in LA for a many of years and hopefully it continues to stay that way. Now if a team does relocate, I hope it is either the Raiders or the Chargers because I really do not want to see Minnesota lose another team to LA or a team like the Rams moving back to their previous location because it just seems stupid to me. Finally, I really hope the Jaguars stay in place due to having to re-align the league again because they still will not do it the right way.

I'm sorry, but none of this makes sense.

You think it's stupid for the Rams to move back? Why is it stupid? I don't see how it it's stupid. If LA can offer the Rams a better deal on a stadium then St. Louis, it makes sense to move back. Nothing stupid about it.

Furthermore you think it's stupid for the Rams to go back to their previous location, but you're fine with the Raiders or Chargers moving to LA? Both of those teams used to play in LA to. As far as moving back to previous locations they're in the same boat as the Rams. Pick one. Is it ok for the Chargers, Raiders, or Rams to move back to LA or is it ok for the Chargers, Raiders, or Rams to move to LA?

Finally Jacksonville has proven to be an unreliable market, at best. Saying "realignment would get screwed up" is not a valid reason to keep them in a market that just isn't working as well as LA would. You want a realignment scenario that works with the Jags in LA? Jags go to LA, and move to the NFC West. The Rams move to the NFC South. The Panthers move to the AFC South. Problem solved.

So someone cannot have an opinion anymore?

It would be a pretty dull board if people weren't allowed to disagree.

I am not convinced that LA is a good market for pro football per se, however it is a good market for the NFL, as in the league. The marketing money and the glamor that LA brings with it is important to the NFL on the west coast.

What I will say is that I am not sure they had a good stadium for pro football. A well designed stadium, built for the NFL would put an end to that.

Wembley-1.png

2011/12 WFL Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed Saintsfan.

There's plenty of reason to wonder if fans will show up to support one team in Los Angeles, let alone two, if the teams play bad football. Outside of the first few of seasons when football games would be the hip thing to attend in the glitzy city of LA, I highly doubt that the Rams of the past five years would do much of a job selling tickets.

While fan attendance wasn't why LA lost it's teams (the owners seemed intent on moving due to stadium issues, and as a result didn't field very good teams), LA wasn't going crazy over bad football either. Few cities do or will.

But the NFL can market LA in different ways, and if the football IS good? Well, the potential for that market is very, very substantial. And that's why ultimately a team will give it a try with the backing of the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it does. I've spent a good deal of my life in and around Milwaukee and Brooklyn, two teams which still bear the scars of their baseball team leaving town (even though 1 1/2 of them later got a new team).

But now I think I understand your argument. The catch is that not every relocation means that a market was "bad." Sometimes it does, but not always. Brooklyn wasn't necessarily a bad baseball market. Houston wasn't necessarily a bad football market.

in LA's case, it wasn't a bad football market at all. The Raiders and Rams left because they got ridiculous sweetheart stadium deals from other cities. And when the Rams leave St. Louis, it will be because the city couldn't afford to keep up its stadium obligations first and foremost, not necessarily because it's a bad football market.

I also largely attribute the relocations of the Rams and Raiders from LA to the owners. In the case of the Rams, Georgia Frontiere scorched the fanbase in LA and got her own happy ending in St. Louis*. Al Davis was Al Davis and it doesn't surprise me that he returned to Oakland when given the chance (with stadium issues and the like).

The fact that both LA owners at the time were eccentric to say the least largely led to both teams bolting at practically the same time. If just one of the owners of the two former LA teams weren't busy either (1) Blaming astrology for the team's misfortune or (2) Being Al Davis and gave a damn about the market, I feel that something could have been worked out and one team would have remained in LA.

I won't lie; losing a team must suck^. However, there's a reason why relocation is an option for just about any North American sports team*^, as a market might, in fact, fail to support it. That said, there have been markets worth saving that were sabotaged (LA Rams, Seattle Supersonics, Montreal Expos, Vancouver Grizzlies) or largely killed by venue issues (LA Raiders, Cleveland Browns 1.0, Baltimore Colts, Winnipeg Jets 1.0, Charlotte Hornets). Just because a market loses its team doesn't mean that the market itself has failed.

I'm probably beating a dead horse, but that's what I think about the lack of the NFL in LA and relocation in general.

*At least until 2003 or so, when things blew up.

^I haven't experienced it first-hand; No major Utah team has left or folded since the ABA's Stars, and that was before I was born.

*^Unless it's the Green Bay Packers or the staple teams of MLB, NFL, NBA, or NHL.

EDIT: Added asterisk lines for clarification.

Pyc5qRH.gifRDXvxFE.gif

usu-scarf_8549002219_o.png.b2c64cedbb44307eaace2cf7f96dd6b1.png

AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter

LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners moved the team and they should stick to the city they are in.

Not to torch your logic or anything but the owner who moved the Rams is dead. And the team is no longer in the possession of her family.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if that market was so bad, then the NFL is at fault for allowing the team to move there in the first place.

Oh the NFL knew St. Louis was not as good a market as Los Angeles. That's why the Rams' PSL money counts toward the "gate" for revenue distribution. The league forced that concession out of Frontiere.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners moved the team and they should stick to the city they are in.

Not to torch your logic or anything but the owner who moved the Rams is dead. And the team is no longer in the possession of her family.

Hate to go off topic, but this is the reasoning many people here in the DC area think the Washington Wizards should go back to using the Bullets name.

I tend to agree. Once the Rams are no longer legally obligated to stay in St. Louis, they have the right to relocate their franchise where ever they want. They don't have to honor the wishes of a ghost.

Hotter Than July > Thriller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL should do everything possible to keep teams in their current location and not relocate franchises.

Ask the NHL how that plan is working out.

Agreed Saintsfan.

There's plenty of reason to wonder if fans will show up to support one team in Los Angeles, let alone two, if the teams play bad football. Outside of the first few of seasons when football games would be the hip thing to attend in the glitzy city of LA, I highly doubt that the Rams of the past five years would do much of a job selling tickets.

While fan attendance wasn't why LA lost it's teams (the owners seemed intent on moving due to stadium issues, and as a result didn't field very good teams), LA wasn't going crazy over bad football either. Few cities do or will.

But the NFL can market LA in different ways, and if the football IS good? Well, the potential for that market is very, very substantial. And that's why ultimately a team will give it a try with the backing of the league.

Bingo. Well that and the NFL can already add to the crazy leverage they have over networks come contract renewal time with a team or two in the country's second largest media market.

The "well we don't know LA will be a good market" argument, however? I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I've seen it pulled before. "Well there's no guarantee Winnipeg will be a stable NHL market."

I get it, franchise relocation sucks, and it's nice to pull out these sentimental arguments about keeping teams where they are and underhandedly trying to devalue markets that are showing an interest in getting a team. Ideally every league would have teams in all the markets they should, none in the ones they shouldn't, and no one would ever move. Sadly, that's not reality. Reality, for better or worse, says that sometimes teams relocate whether we like it or not.

Trying desperately to devalue LA as a potential market is, above all else, rather silly. Given the size of the media market alone it will be more valuable to the NFL then St. Louis, Oakland, San Diego, or Jacksonville. Not to mention that the city has been without NFL football for over a decade. It's rather naive to assume that there's little or no interest there.

There will be a stadium built in greater Los Angeles. A team, possibly two, will relocate there. The NFL wants it, and teams with stadium or attendance issues in their current locales see it as an easy fix. It's going to happen. So lets stop with the "feel good by poo-pooing LA" argument. It only serves to distract us from the fact that a relocation (again, possibly two) is coming.

The only real thing left to discuss is what team or teams will make the move. Rams, Raiders, Chargers, or Jaguars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners moved the team and they should stick to the city they are in.

Not to torch your logic or anything but the owner who moved the Rams is dead. And the team is no longer in the possession of her family.

Hate to go off topic, but this is the reasoning many people here in the DC area think the Washington Wizards should go back to using the Bullets name.

I tend to agree. Once the Rams are no longer legally obligated to stay in St. Louis, they have the right to relocate their franchise where ever they want. They don't have to honor the wishes of a ghost.

But I think the Bullets are different due to the high crime rate in D.C.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL should do everything possible to keep teams in their current location and not relocate franchises.

Ask the NHL how that plan is working out.

Agreed Saintsfan.

There's plenty of reason to wonder if fans will show up to support one team in Los Angeles, let alone two, if the teams play bad football. Outside of the first few of seasons when football games would be the hip thing to attend in the glitzy city of LA, I highly doubt that the Rams of the past five years would do much of a job selling tickets.

While fan attendance wasn't why LA lost it's teams (the owners seemed intent on moving due to stadium issues, and as a result didn't field very good teams), LA wasn't going crazy over bad football either. Few cities do or will.

But the NFL can market LA in different ways, and if the football IS good? Well, the potential for that market is very, very substantial. And that's why ultimately a team will give it a try with the backing of the league.

Bingo. Well that and the NFL can already add to the crazy leverage they have over networks come contract renewal time with a team or two in the country's second largest media market.

The "well we don't know LA will be a good market" argument, however? I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I've seen it pulled before. "Well there's no guarantee Winnipeg will be a stable NHL market."

I get it, franchise relocation sucks, and it's nice to pull out these sentimental arguments about keeping teams where they are and underhandedly trying to devalue markets that are showing an interest in getting a team. Ideally every league would have teams in all the markets they should, none in the ones they shouldn't, and no one would ever move. Sadly, that's not reality. Reality, for better or worse, says that sometimes teams relocate whether we like it or not.

Trying desperately to devalue LA as a potential market is, above all else, rather silly. Given the size of the media market alone it will be more valuable to the NFL then St. Louis, Oakland, San Diego, or Jacksonville. Not to mention that the city has been without NFL football for over a decade. It's rather naive to assume that there's little or no interest there.

There will be a stadium built in greater Los Angeles. A team, possibly two, will relocate there. The NFL wants it, and teams with stadium or attendance issues in their current locales see it as an easy fix. It's going to happen. So lets stop with the "feel good by poo-pooing LA" argument. It only serves to distract us from the fact that a relocation (again, possibly two) is coming.

The only real thing left to discuss is what team or teams will make the move. Rams, Raiders, Chargers, or Jaguars?

I know the big talk is about media marketing and urban population per city and it would be wise for the NFL to move a team to Los Angeles based on this standpoint. The urban population numbers for Los Angeles is 16,584,700 and 1,092,400 for Jacksonville with a difference being 15,492,300 which cannot be argued for in terms of media market size. St. Louis at 2,656,800 is still 13,927,900 less than L.A. While Minneapolis is 2,970,300 it still does not pair in comparison. Finally, San Diego has 1,260,000 people and it still fails to compare to L.A.

However, as far as the NHL, if media markets and urban populations are so critical then why does it fail. The urban population for Atlanta is 3,988,900 vs 706,700 for Winnipeg with difference of 3,282,200. For me, I know why they left town and they should have never returned once the flames left town, but just because a city is bigger, it does not prove they are better. Therefore, you are right to say that it did not work out for the NHL, but in the long run Ii believe the smaller city size will work out just fine for the NHL.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL and NHL are two different sports.

We talk about the Big Four Sports, but the NHL really oughtn't be lumped in with the NBA, NFL and MLB. Hockey is better described (in the United States) as the largest of the second-tier sports, and should be focused on areas that love the sport rather than trying to create the biggest possible footprint for itself. So Winnipeg over Atlanta makes a lot of sense for them, trading an uninterested large market for a deeply passionate small one.

The NFL, on the other hand, is a national television sport, first and foremost (which is a little irritating for those of us who actually go to the games and have to suffer endless brakes while commercials play). Has been for nearly fifty years. Market size matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL and NHL are two different sports.

We talk about the Big Four Sports, but the NHL really oughtn't be lumped in with the NBA, NFL and MLB. Hockey is better described (in the United States) as the largest of the second-tier sports, and should be focused on areas that love the sport rather than trying to create the biggest possible footprint for itself. So Winnipeg over Atlanta makes a lot of sense for them, trading an uninterested large market for a deeply passionate small one.

The NFL, on the other hand, is a national television sport, first and foremost (which is a little irritating for those of us who actually go to the games and have to suffer endless brakes while commercials play). Has been for nearly fifty years. Market size matters.

I completely agree with you and that is what I was trying to say in my last post. I am glad the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners moved the team and they should stick to the city they are in.

Not to torch your logic or anything but the owner who moved the Rams is dead. And the team is no longer in the possession of her family.

Hate to go off topic, but this is the reasoning many people here in the DC area think the Washington Wizards should go back to using the Bullets name.

I tend to agree. Once the Rams are no longer legally obligated to stay in St. Louis, they have the right to relocate their franchise where ever they want. They don't have to honor the wishes of a ghost.

But I think the Bullets are different due to the high crime rate in D.C.

In 2011 DC had it's lowest murder rate in decades. BRING BACK THE BULLETS!!!!!

Hotter Than July > Thriller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners moved the team and they should stick to the city they are in.

Not to torch your logic or anything but the owner who moved the Rams is dead. And the team is no longer in the possession of her family.

Hate to go off topic, but this is the reasoning many people here in the DC area think the Washington Wizards should go back to using the Bullets name.

I tend to agree. Once the Rams are no longer legally obligated to stay in St. Louis, they have the right to relocate their franchise where ever they want. They don't have to honor the wishes of a ghost.

But I think the Bullets are different due to the high crime rate in D.C.

In 2011 DC had it's lowest murder rate in decades. BRING BACK THE BULLETS!!!!!

I would like to see the Bullets name return, but I just don't see it happening with all the "politically correct" thing to do these days. Besides according to the 2010 crime ranking from CQ Press, Washington, D.C. is still ranked high at the 22nd position.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners moved the team and they should stick to the city they are in.

Not to torch your logic or anything but the owner who moved the Rams is dead. And the team is no longer in the possession of her family.

Hate to go off topic, but this is the reasoning many people here in the DC area think the Washington Wizards should go back to using the Bullets name.

I tend to agree. Once the Rams are no longer legally obligated to stay in St. Louis, they have the right to relocate their franchise where ever they want. They don't have to honor the wishes of a ghost.

But I think the Bullets are different due to the high crime rate in D.C.

Or because Yitzhak Rabin pissed off an ultra-orthodox Jew.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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