NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, see also the NHL's Greensboro disaster, which gave way to the NHL's Raleigh milk-spill.

I don't think hiring Jeff Fisher has that much to do with whether the Rams will return home. It just says that they're willing to be a competent team while terms for a new stadium here or there are negotiated. It just seems like a commitment to St. Louis because we're watching the Jaguars go into Operation Shutdown so hard that somewhere on a yacht Derek Bell is like "hey, I never thought of that."

[STL FANATIC]

At the Fisher press conference yesterday, there was more nothing, but enough nothing that those who want to speculate certainly will.

When asked about the stadium/location issue Kroenke started by re-stating his roots and his previous dedication to the city and football in the city. But then he wouldn't say much else only saying that there's a process in place and ongoing and we'll see how it plays out.

When Fisher was asked about it (and this would be relevant because re-location was supposedly a major concern of his), he basically said little more than the short-term future of the franchise in St. Louis. At a side interview, however, he noted that he thought the team would be in St. Louis.

Again, basically nothing of note here. Kroenke holds the cards, and he's keeping those close to his vest. One way or another, he's not spoiling his leverage. And whatever he told Fisher, he told him not to say much about it, I'm sure.

The best part I got from all this is that I've seen more clarification of dates come out. Feb. 1 is when the CVC/City will make their proposal to the Rams. May 1 is when Kroenke will have to accept or counter-propose by. If his purchasing process (exercising his right of refusal) is any indication, Kroenke will use all three months before announcing his plans. June 1 is then the date when this will either need to be agreed upon or it will go to arbitration.

That's what I understand anyways, I could be wrong.

Nevermind. I was close, but not quite right. See below for the accurate dates.

[STL FANATIC]

Here's the actual dates.

Key dates for the Dome in 2012

Feb. 1 Deadline for Convention and Visitors Commission to present Rams plans to make Dome "first tier."

March 1 Deadline for Rams to accept or reject plan.

May 1 Rams must make counteroffer by this date if they reject CVC plan.

June 1 CVC must decide whether to accept Rams' counteroffer.

June 15 If no deal is struck, the two sides begin meeting in arbitration.

Dec. 31 Intended date for arbitration to be completed.

[Gothamite]

Very cool - thanks!

[CubsFanBudMan]

Not sure how this fits in the grand scheme of things, but the Rams are playing one game in London for the next three years. The AP story said they were trying to establish themselves as London's "home" team:

http://qctimes.com/sports/football/rams-to-play-nfl-games-in-london-for-next-years/article_d14b9411-3e99-52b3-98bd-2fd93ee48690.html

And thanks for those dates. That will help us follow along if they stick to them.

EDIT: St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted their story in the time it took me to type the above:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/st-louis-rams-to-play-home-game-in-london/article_dd9d3468-4330-11e1-aa72-001a4bcf6878.html

[Saintsfan]

Not sure how this fits in the grand scheme of things, but the Rams are playing one game in London for the next three years. The AP story said they were trying to establish themselves as London's "home" team:

http://qctimes.com/sports/football/rams-to-play-nfl-games-in-london-for-next-years/article_d14b9411-3e99-52b3-98bd-2fd93ee48690.html

And thanks for those dates. That will help us follow along if they stick to them.

EDIT: St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted their story in the time it took me to type the above:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/st-louis-rams-to-play-home-game-in-london/article_dd9d3468-4330-11e1-aa72-001a4bcf6878.html

Interesting. I am not sure that the Rams are the best placed NFL team to gain a fan base in the UK, especially if the Patriots are there opponents next year. Unless of course the Rams are considering relocating to London?

[STL FANATIC]

Stan Kroenke does also own Arsenal. It's interesting.

It's just more "maybe means something, probably means nothing" specs of information to ponder over while we wait for the stuff of real substance to happen.

[STL FANATIC]

Not sure how this fits in the grand scheme of things, but the Rams are playing one game in London for the next three years. The AP story said they were trying to establish themselves as London's "home" team:

http://qctimes.com/sports/football/rams-to-play-nfl-games-in-london-for-next-years/article_d14b9411-3e99-52b3-98bd-2fd93ee48690.html

And thanks for those dates. That will help us follow along if they stick to them.

EDIT: St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted their story in the time it took me to type the above:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/st-louis-rams-to-play-home-game-in-london/article_dd9d3468-4330-11e1-aa72-001a4bcf6878.html

Interesting. I am not sure that the Rams are the best placed NFL team to gain a fan base in the UK, especially if the Patriots are there opponents next year. Unless of course the Rams are considering relocating to London?

I know in the red vs. blue uniform argument we go back and forth over how much the history behind a name really matters, but... are fans living in England really excited about picking a team named after the American Patriots that fought against them as their team? Or does the star power and success of that squad just make the name irrelevant?

[bosrs1]

It definitely is an odd wrinkle in the whole Rams situation that they're not bowing out of 3 home game in St. Louis out of 24 over the next 3 years. Particularly since fan bases generally aren't all that fond of their teams playing overseas if it means losing home games, to say nothing of 3.

[Gothamite]

I know in the red vs. blue uniform argument we go back and forth over how much the history behind a name really matters, but... are fans living in England really excited about picking a team named after the American Patriots that fought against them as their team? Or does the star power and success of that squad just make the name irrelevant?

I don't know if anybody there is terribly concerned about it. Just like white fans don't have much of a problem following teams with Native fans (although that could just be the magnanimousness of victory).

And there are two clubs in England, Plymouth Argyle FC and Boston United FC, named "Pilgrims" after people who left the country. I don't think the English are quite as hung up on these things as we are.

It's just more "maybe means something, probably means nothing" specs of information to ponder over while we wait for the stuff of real substance to happen.

It means that the Rams aren't considered a prime draw in St. Louis, if the team and league are willing to forego one home game a season. Beyond that, we can only speculate.

[waltere]

I know in the red vs. blue uniform argument we go back and forth over how much the history behind a name really matters, but... are fans living in England really excited about picking a team named after the American Patriots that fought against them as their team? Or does the star power and success of that squad just make the name irrelevant?

Gotta think it's that, bandwagoners are bandwagoners, regardless of where they're based

[Saintsfan]

Not sure how this fits in the grand scheme of things, but the Rams are playing one game in London for the next three years. The AP story said they were trying to establish themselves as London's "home" team:

http://qctimes.com/sports/football/rams-to-play-nfl-games-in-london-for-next-years/article_d14b9411-3e99-52b3-98bd-2fd93ee48690.html

And thanks for those dates. That will help us follow along if they stick to them.

EDIT: St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted their story in the time it took me to type the above:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/st-louis-rams-to-play-home-game-in-london/article_dd9d3468-4330-11e1-aa72-001a4bcf6878.html

Interesting. I am not sure that the Rams are the best placed NFL team to gain a fan base in the UK, especially if the Patriots are there opponents next year. Unless of course the Rams are considering relocating to London?

I know in the red vs. blue uniform argument we go back and forth over how much the history behind a name really matters, but... are fans living in England really excited about picking a team named after the American Patriots that fought against them as their team? Or does the star power and success of that squad just make the name irrelevant?

Most NFL fans in England who don't already follow a particular team are going to follow a winning team. Give a casual fan Brady to cheer for and they'd be quite happy! That and the historical links between the UK and Boston.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Well, they are also named New *England*. Maybe that outweighs the nickname.

[WSU151]

Not sure how this fits in the grand scheme of things, but the Rams are playing one game in London for the next three years. The AP story said they were trying to establish themselves as London's "home" team:

http://qctimes.com/sports/football/rams-to-play-nfl-games-in-london-for-next-years/article_d14b9411-3e99-52b3-98bd-2fd93ee48690.html

And thanks for those dates. That will help us follow along if they stick to them.

EDIT: St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted their story in the time it took me to type the above:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/st-louis-rams-to-play-home-game-in-london/article_dd9d3468-4330-11e1-aa72-001a4bcf6878.html

Interesting. I am not sure that the Rams are the best placed NFL team to gain a fan base in the UK, especially if the Patriots are there opponents next year. Unless of course the Rams are considering relocating to London?

I know in the red vs. blue uniform argument we go back and forth over how much the history behind a name really matters, but... are fans living in England really excited about picking a team named after the American Patriots that fought against them as their team? Or does the star power and success of that squad just make the name irrelevant?

Most NFL fans in England who don't already follow a particular team are going to follow a winning team. Give a casual fan Brady to cheer for and they'd be quite happy! That and the historical links between the UK and Boston.

Plus, it's been over 220 years, so I don't think people are as outraged over American "Patriots" as they might have been back in the day. The Patriots actually have a large following when it comes to NFL fanbases in England.

[Saintsfan]

Stan Kroenke does also own Arsenal. It's interesting.

It's just more "maybe means something, probably means nothing" specs of information to ponder over while we wait for the stuff of real substance to happen.

This is another reason for a certain coolness to the Rams amongst London NFL fans. If you are a Tottenham Hotspur or Chelsea fan, amongst others, that's a definite black mark against the Rams.

[STL FANATIC]

I know in the red vs. blue uniform argument we go back and forth over how much the history behind a name really matters, but... are fans living in England really excited about picking a team named after the American Patriots that fought against them as their team? Or does the star power and success of that squad just make the name irrelevant?

I don't know if anybody there is terribly concerned about it. Just like white fans don't have much of a problem following teams with Native fans (although that could just be the magnanimousness of victory).

And there are two clubs in England, Plymouth Argyle FC and Boston United FC, named "Pilgrims" after people who left the country. I don't think the English are quite as hung up on these things as we are.

It's just more "maybe means something, probably means nothing" specs of information to ponder over while we wait for the stuff of real substance to happen.

It means that the Rams aren't considered a prime draw in St. Louis, if the team and league are willing to forego one home game a season. Beyond that, we can only speculate.

When I posted, I was unaware this was a three year agreement.

That's QUITE disturbing to me.

It questions the future in St. Louis. And it builds momentum towards a London move.

Now, on the other hand. And this isn't really positive news on my end just news... it almost certainly means the Rams are not moving to LA in the next three years. Can't imagine they'd give up a home game early in the Los Angeles tenure. Still, though, they could move after that (if they don't buy it out they're supposed to be in STL for the next three years anyways per the lease), and again, this calls into question a move to London.

[The_Admiral]

As for giving up a game in LA, I'm sure they could negotiate a buyout or use some loophole or just have Goodell say "we're not going to do that anymore, the end" like he seems to like to do. Such is life in sports.

I don't like this development. I rag on how bad Rams telecasts look, but Wembley is such a dead zone, it makes the Jones Dome look like a college game. Stop force-feeding these people our dumb football.

[IceCap]

There will never be a UK-based NFL team.

[Gothamite]

Not until they can get a transatlantic flight from New York under two hours. And even then, television rights would cause havoc.

The NFL isn't really interested in a London team. They're interested in the English market, for merchandise and broadcasts. For that, they don't need a permanent team.

I'm not sure that this means the Rams couldn't move to LA. If they can get out of the St. Louis lease, surely they could transfer a home game or two to another team?

[rams80]

I know in the red vs. blue uniform argument we go back and forth over how much the history behind a name really matters, but... are fans living in England really excited about picking a team named after the American Patriots that fought against them as their team? Or does the star power and success of that squad just make the name irrelevant?

I don't know if anybody there is terribly concerned about it. Just like white fans don't have much of a problem following teams with Native fans (although that could just be the magnanimousness of victory).

And there are two clubs in England, Plymouth Argyle FC and Boston United FC, named "Pilgrims" after people who left the country. I don't think the English are quite as hung up on these things as we are.

It's just more "maybe means something, probably means nothing" specs of information to ponder over while we wait for the stuff of real substance to happen.

It means that the Rams aren't considered a prime draw in St. Louis, if the team and league are willing to forego one home game a season. Beyond that, we can only speculate.

Also it would possibly antagonize season ticket holders, since I doubt you'll see a 1/8 price cut on season tickets for 2013 and 2014.