Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Gupti said:

Exactly. The uniform rules are in place for specific reasons, and the Rams want special permission to subvert them only for their own selfish marketing purposes (NOT for normal relocation purposes, which was never the issue since they’d already been wearing the St Louis set forever anyways)? That opens the floodgates way harder than the league should be forced to deal with. 

How so, exactly? No doubt the Rams are asking for special treatment, but they're in a special circumstance. If, say, the Cleveland Browns ask for a similar treatment after screwing up their next set of uniforms the league can easily shut them down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

They've been wearing this jersey since the early 00's... they can change any season they want.

With two years' notice, yes. Evidently they had a one-time window to change in 2016 with no notice but once that passed they became subject to the same two-year rule as everyone else, from what I understand. So I don't believe the team could simply rebrand for next season if they chose to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, threesox84 said:

With two years' notice, yes. Evidently they had a one-time window to change in 2016 with no notice but once that passed they became subject to the same two-year rule as everyone else, from what I understand. So I don't believe the team could simply rebrand for next season if they chose to. 

It's been said that it's a two-year process, but it's not hard and fast rules every step of the way for when you need to notify the league of changes. We have someone on the boards that works for the Dolphins, and they did not need to meet deadlines for every step for their changes this offseason. Five year rule, two year* process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lbj273 said:

So the Rams are just gonna eat fines for wearing an alternate too many times or what?

They claim to have an exemption from the league during this "transitional" period, similar to the Jaguars' 2012 situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a league that clearly doesn’t enforce their own relocation rules, I find it funny that they’d be so stringent on the 2-year and alternate rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are they wearing the blue and yellow helmet with the all white (with navy and gold) uniforms, which would look mismatched, or is the NFL allowing them to wear 2 different helmets, which they don’t allow anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Fjm said:

So are they wearing the blue and yellow helmet with the all white (with navy and gold) uniforms, which would look mismatched, or is the NFL allowing them to wear 2 different helmets, which they don’t allow anyone else?

 

They are "two different helmets" but the decals are swapped out so it's the same exact helmet shell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BelfourThibault said:

For a league that clearly doesn’t enforce their own relocation rules, I find it funny that they’d be so stringent on the 2-year and alternate rule. 

 

How were the relocation rules not enforced in the case of the Rams again?

 

Also, huzzah, and hopefully this is a sign about what direction they'll be going for the new uniforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good move on the Rams. Just can't help but wonder why not go all in and wear the throwbacks at all this season's home games?

 

SN: If the Rams wanted to, could they wear their "home helmets", white jerseys & yellow pants together? I think that wouldn't look too bad. Especially if worn with navy blue socks.

Share this post


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

So are they wearing the blue and yellow helmet with the all white (with navy and gold) uniforms, which would look mismatched, or is the NFL allowing them to wear 2 different helmets, which they don’t allow anyone else?

 

Several teams wear a throwback helmet that’s different from their main one. As long as the shell is the same color, it’s compliant.

 

The Rams basically just got permission to wear a mix of throwback, regular road uniform, and maybe Color Rush for their 8 home games instead of their regular home uniform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should throw the gold horns back on for the white games, so at least there's some continuity between helmet and jersey.

 

I'm not old enough to know the navy/white version of the LA Rams, and I'd wager that neither are most of their current fans, so there's no reason for them to go out of their way to be the Padres of the NFL.

\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rams80 said:

 

How were the relocation rules not enforced in the case of the Rams again?

 

Also, huzzah, and hopefully this is a sign about what direction they'll be going for the new uniforms.

 

I posted that after having a few too many...sodas...last night, and I'm not trying to reignite a war. I'm genuinely happy for fans in LA that got their team back. To answer your question, Kroenke did everything he could to sabotage his own home town so that he could move the team. It was a pretty transparent process on his part. I mean Rams fans in St. Louis routinely filled the dome for some pretty historically awful teams, and after about a decade of missing the playoffs and it was apparent that Stan's whole plan was to pull a Major League, of course they stopped going to games. For him to then state that the Rams had no fan support was at best disingenuous when he was the one who created the problem. He did not negotiate in good faith with the city, as is written in the NFL's own relocation rules. He also violates the rule about owning multiple teams in different cities. If I'm bitter, it's only because I adopted the Rams when they moved to STL in '95, went to a ton of games with my dad, saw some great teams and even more bad. I understood them going back "home", I just thought it was extremely dirty in the way that they did it. 

Share this post


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

 

I posted that after having a few too many...sodas...last night, and I'm not trying to reignite a war. I'm genuinely happy for fans in LA that got their team back. To answer your question, Kroenke did everything he could to sabotage his own home town so that he could move the team. It was a pretty transparent process on his part. I mean Rams fans in St. Louis routinely filled the dome for some pretty historically awful teams, and after about a decade of missing the playoffs and it was apparent that Stan's whole plan was to pull a Major League, of course they stopped going to games. For him to then state that the Rams had no fan support was at best disingenuous when he was the one who created the problem. He did not negotiate in good faith with the city, as is written in the NFL's own relocation rules. He also violates the rule about owning multiple teams in different cities. If I'm bitter, it's only because I adopted the Rams when they moved to STL in '95, went to a ton of games with my dad, saw some great teams and even more bad. I understood them going back "home", I just thought it was extremely dirty in the way that they did it. 

 

The Rams also papered the house in the late 90s to get "sellouts" and the first blackout was in Linehan's first season (2006).  I've been a fan of the team as long as you, for the record.

Share this post


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

 

I posted that after having a few too many...sodas...last night, and I'm not trying to reignite a war. I'm genuinely happy for fans in LA that got their team back. To answer your question, Kroenke did everything he could to sabotage his own home town so that he could move the team. It was a pretty transparent process on his part. I mean Rams fans in St. Louis routinely filled the dome for some pretty historically awful teams, and after about a decade of missing the playoffs and it was apparent that Stan's whole plan was to pull a Major League, of course they stopped going to games. For him to then state that the Rams had no fan support was at best disingenuous when he was the one who created the problem. He did not negotiate in good faith with the city, as is written in the NFL's own relocation rules. He also violates the rule about owning multiple teams in different cities. If I'm bitter, it's only because I adopted the Rams when they moved to STL in '95, went to a ton of games with my dad, saw some great teams and even more bad. I understood them going back "home", I just thought it was extremely dirty in the way that they did it. 

 

Replace Stan Kroenke with Georgia Frontierre and replace St. Louis with LA/Anaheim.

 

I have no sympathy.

 

The Rams are home, AND they're going to look right too now.

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.