OnWis97

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

Recommended Posts

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. 

Look on the bright side: at least you saw them win a Super Bowl before they left town. Those of us here in San Diego are sans team and sans Super Bowl. :censored: you, Spanos.

Share this post


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

 

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.

 

No, I definitely get it from your perspective. The thing that always rubbed me the wrong way is that it never had to be STL vs SoCal. WE didn't steal your team, we were just happy to have them, and you didn't steal ours. I don't have anything bad to say about the fans there, even though tickets aren't exactly hard to get for Rams games now, and I'm sure it sucked when the team left in the 90's. We both got screwed by greedy businesspeople, which should be one hell of a wakeup call to fans everywhere. 

 

Like you said, the Rams are "home". But the Super Bowl is in St. Louis. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 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. 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. 

Sounds like some idiot that I know in Ohio . . . er, Calif . . . . he's around here somewhere!

Share this post


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

 

No, I definitely get it from your perspective. The thing that always rubbed me the wrong way is that it never had to be STL vs SoCal. WE didn't steal your team, we were just happy to have them, and you didn't steal ours. I don't have anything bad to say about the fans there, even though tickets aren't exactly hard to get for Rams games now, and I'm sure it sucked when the team left in the 90's. We both got screwed by greedy businesspeople, which should be one hell of a wakeup call to fans everywhere. 

 

Like you said, the Rams are "home". But the Super Bowl is in St. Louis. ?

Whereas they won the 1945 title in Cleveland and the 1951 title in LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank the heavens the Rams are most likely going to go with blue/yellow look and not white/navy long term as some here wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, LMU said:

Whereas they won the 1945 title in Cleveland and the 1951 title in LA.

We all know titles before the Super Bowl aren’t real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LMU said:

Whereas they won the 1945 title in Cleveland and the 1951 title in LA.

 

I mean it was a playful barb, but I was kinda trying to keep it within the boundaries of events that happened in most our lifetimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

Could teams not purposefully wear white at home to force the Rams to wear navy?

Jersey colors for NFL games are decided well in advance. Most were already determined before the Rams announced that they will be wearing the throwback as their home jersey. So any team that chose to wear white when LA comes to town will be seeing the Rams in royal blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 4_tattoos said:

Jersey colors for NFL games are decided well in advance. Most were already determined before the Rams announced that they will be wearing the throwback as their home jersey. So any team that chose to wear white when LA comes to town will be seeing the Rams in royal blue.

 

Isn't it that after the teams tell the league what colors they're wearing each week (which I think has already happened), if they want to make changes to that, they need the approval of the visiting team, and in this case, the Rams would simply either say no or see if the league would give them one more royal game?

Share this post


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

 

Isn't it that after the teams tell the league what colors they're wearing each week (which I think has already happened), if they want to make changes to that, they need the approval of the visiting team, and in this case, the Rams would simply either say no or see if the league would give them one more royal game?

They already did that by making the throwback jersey the new “home” jersey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, gothedistance said:

Are the Rams yellow color rush going to be treated the same way NBA teams with a yellow uniform do?

 

Are you implying a color vs. color? That's the idea with the Color Rush jerseys. But, the NBA is probably not a good example anymore thanks to Nike's new system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: So after this whole fiasco is done and they finally figure out what they want their uniforms to look like, will the be going white/navy or blue/yellow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cardsblues02 said:

Question: So after this whole fiasco is done and they finally figure out what they want their uniforms to look like, will the be going white/navy or blue/yellow.

The new unis they’ll unveil with the new stadium are going to be royal blue and athletic gold. At least I remember hearing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I understand right, the Rams' will be joining teams like the Vikings and Giants (and Cowboys, of course) of recent memory who had home and road jerseys that were completely different templates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, robbman21 said:

So if I understand right, the Rams' will be joining teams like the Vikings and Giants (and Cowboys, of course) of recent memory who had home and road jerseys that were completely different templates.

 

I think you can add the 2002 Redskins in there too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kimball said:

 

I think you can add the 2002 Redskins in there too?

 

Yeah, that was the last time a team wore a completely different uniform in general. I'm not even sure what the rule was for uniforms then but it was also the same year the NFL was allowing alternate jerseys for the first time officially.

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.