Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[Ridleylash]

10 minutes ago, the admiral said:

There have been no good Rams logos, ever. Great uniforms, great helmets, great wordmarks, nice color palettes (even the GSOT set had its moment), but whenever they've had to draw a male sheep it's looked like crap.

It's kinda bad the best ram logo the Los Angeles Rams have had didn't even come from when the team was in Los Angeles. It was 2000's as crap, sure, but at least it looked decent. This new ram, at least without a mouth or eyes, looks more like some cheap browser app logo or something rather then a professional gridiron football team.

 

And the LA-bolthornthing is just a flat-out abomination no matter which way you slice it. It's the inbred child of the Chargers and ASU logo. How someone thought that was A-OK as a primary logo is beyond me.

[mattb6]

I don’t hate the horn LA. I think the ram head is decent too. I’ve yet to see a tweak of either the LA mark or the ram head that looks better than what they’ve came out with, though. Sure, they could’ve gone in a different direction, but people’s tweaks are not better than what was released. 

[hawk36]

1 hour ago, mattb6 said:

I don’t hate the horn LA. I think the ram head is decent too. I’ve yet to see a tweak of either the LA mark or the ram head that looks better than what they’ve came out with, though. Sure, they could’ve gone in a different direction, but people’s tweaks are not better than what was released. 

I’d disagree. I’d say most are improvements. Almost like the next round of revisions Nike neglected to make. 

[IceCap]

9 hours ago, Gothamite said:

I don't know of anyone who blames Goodell particularly, except to the extent that he allowed the Chargers to move in an attempt to blunt Kroenke's new market power.  Afraid of letting Stan have a large market to himself, Goodell and some of the other owners thought that adding a second team would mean an even split of the windfall.  Whoops.

The NFL actively wanted to avoid the Raiders going back to LA, hence why Dean got first crack at being Kroenke's tenant. Ironically the Raiders would have been the better choice if the NFL was really dead-set on having a team that could keep up with the Rams. The Raiders still have a large and dedicated fanbase in LA. They were polling below the Rams among LA fans in the leadup to the league vote, but it was a respectable #2 and the craziness/passion can make up for a statically smaller fanbase. If the NFL wanted someone in LA to blunt Kroenke in the market? Well choosing the Chargers for the job over the Raiders is laughably bad.

[Ridleylash]

9 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I’d disagree. I’d say most are improvements. Almost like the next round of revisions Nike neglected to make. 

Or ones that Kroenke and Demoff decided weren't necessary.

  

6 minutes ago, IceCap said:

The NFL actively wanted to avoid the Raiders going back to LA, hence why Dean got first crack at being Kroenke's tenant. Ironically the Raiders would have been the better choice if the NFL was really dead-set on having a team that could keep up with the Rams. The Raiders still have a large and dedicated fanbase in LA. They were polling below the Rams among LA fans in the leadup to the league vote, but it was a respectable #2 and the craziness/passion can make up for a statically smaller fanbase. If the NFL wanted someone in LA to blunt Kroenke in the market? Well choosing the Chargers for the job over the Raiders is laughably bad.

And it's pretty clear at this point that the Chargers-in-LA experiment has been as much of a colossal joke as we expected it to be. LA is de-facto Raiders and Rams country, so the Chargers are the third fiddle in their own damn city; a city that the team had been in for a whopping one year prior to Dean Spanos royally butt:censored:ing the city of San Diego so he could play third-fiddle in Los Angeles.

 

I guarantee that Raiders games will have a buttload of LA transplants flocking to Vegas to watch them while the Chargers continue to flounder. And that'll be an even worse egg on the NFL's face in regards to letting the Chargers leave San Diego.

[colortv]

Chargers and Buccaneers have both committed to unveiling their uniforms within the the next month, meanwhile the Rams continue this YEARS long process of dragging everything out.

[IceCap]

12 minutes ago, colortv said:

Chargers and Buccaneers have both committed to unveiling their uniforms within the the next month, meanwhile the Rams continue this YEARS long process of dragging everything out.

It's obviously too late to change anything (they have warehouses full of the new jerseys ready to ship) but maybe they saw the backlash to their logos and are trying to rethink how they debut the uniforms? Find a way to make it as acceptable as possible.

[hawk36]

I hope they are trying to source the old ram horns for the helmet. 

[Ridleylash]

10 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I hope they are trying to source the old ram horns for the helmet. 

I'm imagining they'll use the new horns, most likely. Why have two inconsistent horns on the brand when you can unify under one?

[habsfan1]

Quote

 

Final grade for the new Rams logo:

 

[Pharos04]

38 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

I'm imagining they'll use the new horns, most likely. Why have two inconsistent horns on the brand when you can unify under one?

Except they already have inconsistent horns in the new branding . Having a 3rd set for the uniform would just complete the trifecta 

[Cujo]

In the end, cry all you want about how the Rams dropped the ball on their new identity -- nothing can be worse than what they previously had going.

 

 

[doctorpeligro]

3 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

Or ones that Kroenke and Demoff decided weren't necessary.

  

And it's pretty clear at this point that the Chargers-in-LA experiment has been as much of a colossal joke as we expected it to be. LA is de-facto Raiders and Rams country, so the Chargers are the third fiddle in their own damn city; a city that the team had been in for a whopping one year prior to Dean Spanos royally butt:censored:ing the city of San Diego so he could play third-fiddle in Los Angeles.

 

I guarantee that Raiders games will have a buttload of LA transplants flocking to Vegas to watch them while the Chargers continue to flounder. And that'll be an even worse egg on the NFL's face in regards to letting the Chargers leave San Diego.

 

I love San Diego as much as the next guy (I was a San Diego Chargers season ticket holder), but I don't think anyone in their right mind would have refused what Kroenke was offering:

 

1. The stadium was projected to cost $2.6 billion. Fortunately for Inglewood taxpayers, it’s a private deal so they’re not on the hook. But that also means we don’t know exactly how much it is costing. Reports have it at more than $5 billion.
2. To play there, the Chargers will pay $1 per year as part of a 20-year lease. The lease has TWO 10-year options the Chargers exclusively control. So, 40 years.
3. Both teams keep revenue from the games they host: tickets, parking, sponsorships, concessions, advertising, etc.
4. Each team took out a $200 million loan from the NFL. That $400 million goes to stadium construction.
5. For big-ticket items – naming rights, personal seat licenses, fancy corporate suites – each team gets an 18.75 percent cut. Remainder goes toward construction.
6. Neither team is required to sell PSLs. They can charge whatever they want.
7. Kroenke gets all non-football revenues. The Chargers have no role in the development of the 298 acres around the stadium.
8. The Rams bear all cost overruns with the stadium construction.
9. The NFL relocation fee is $550 million (or $650 million over 10 years) starting this year. With interest rates low, they can refinance some of it.

 

          The fun items in that list are Nos. 4 and 5. The Chargers get 18.75 percent of the money they raise selling PSLs to fans who want to buy season tickets.

          Check that line again: Neither team is required to sell PSLs and they can charge whatever they want for them if they do.

 

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/sports/nine-things-to-know-about-stan-kroenkes-chargers-predicament/

 

The CBA is so tilted toward ownership that the Chargers will have no trouble paying off their relocation fee even with small crowds.

[CaliforniaGlowin]

Somebody on reddit made this.  I wanna see this all over L.A.

[63Bulldogs63]

5 minutes ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

Somebody on reddit made this.  I wanna see this all over L.A.

Would that be crossing into 182 territory?

[colortv]

To everyone still belly aching about the Chargers move:

 

Quote

 

Yes, the NFL in its obsession with money and popularity is going let the Chargers move back to San Diego, reducing the Chargers potential fanbase from 20 million people to 3 million(roughly speaking) where a publicly funded stadium will never happen.

 

The Chargers will never be able to build a fanbase? Tell that to the Clippers who for 30 years were the biggest joke in sports run by the worst ownership ever.

 

There's a reason the Jets, Mets, White Sox etc. have never left despite being the secondary teams.

 

The league and owners(who control the league) will never "force" a team to leave a larger market for a smaller market for the dangerous precedent it would set...for themselves. 

 

You're ignoring the social, political, and most importantly economic facts of the situation.

 

That's just not the way the real world works, especially not with the NFL in the 21st century.

 

 

Quote

 

In an area with 20 million people, that supports 2 pro basketball teams, 3 baseball teams, 2 hockey teams, 2 soccer teams, which was able to support THREE NFL teams 30 years ago(before 2 terrible owners forced their way out of the area), in addition to countless minor and secondary teams, the Chargers won't be able to carve out a fanbase(Counting what they will retain from San Diego) and fill a stadium 8 times a year, got it.

 

No team is going to make more money being a San Diego team than it will an LA team, it's like saying water isn't wet.

 

I mean, that's the whole reason the Chargers moved in the first place..

 

 

Quote

 

I'm going to repeat what I said in the Angels thread.

 

The Chargers basically have a market from the Mexican border in the south to Santa Barbara in the North, stretching 230 miles North to South with 20 million people. 

 

20 million people.

 

With a brand new stadium being likened to the Death Star.

 

With the NFL's TV contact, and everything else that comes with being an NFL team.

 

They will not "fail".

 

 

Quote

People care about the Clippers, and they were run by the worst owner in history and the biggest joke in sports for 30 years.

 

This isn't a Clippers/Lakers thing, where you've got the most glamorous franchise in the league and the biggest joke in the league sharing the city for decades.

 

The Rams have history, but 20 years is a long time for people to forget things and they were never as successful as the Lakers.

 

That's not even factoring the whole "People can have an NFC team and an AFC team" thing.

 

You've got two basketball teams , two hockey teams, two baseball teams, hell 2 soccer teams all with good fanbases.

 

Chargers just need time.

 

People are judging a move which should be analyzed over decades based on 2 years.

 

Quote

Does it matter? As long as the money is green it doesn't make a difference to the bottom line.

 

The Chargers accountants aren't sitting there going, "Mr. Spanos, we looked at the books. Even though we've sold out our season tickets even with them being astronomically priced due to the size of Stubhub, it's a total disaster because not as high a proportion of Chargers fans bought tickets".

 

Building a fanbase takes time.

 

If anything, that should tell us that there are probably enough fans of every NFL team in the market to help sell plenty of tickets to fans of opposing teams for the 8 home games a year. They won't be paying with monopoly money.

 

Quote

 

Now for the Clippers. The Chargers aren't the Clippers for the reasons I outlined previously but let's say for argument's sake they are.

 

Let's say you guys are right, and I concede that the Chargers are destined to be the football equivalent of the Clippers.

 

That means they are destined to:

 

1. Be one of the 10 most valuable franchises in the league, and one of the most profitable.

 

2. Have a reliable fan base and move plenty of merchandise.

 

3. Be a team who is perennially top 10 in attendance in their good years and still fill over 90% capacity in their down years(looking at the last decade or so)

 

4. Stay in the market and begin planning their own stadium.

 

If that's the logic being applied here for the Chargers having a good chance of LEAVING, then I'd say merely being condescending is quite generous.

 

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

[Lights Out]

The Chargers couldn't even fill a soccer stadium with their own fans, not even when they went 12-4 and won a playoff game. Pretending that the relocation hasn't been a disaster of epic proportions is sticking your head in the sand. And claiming it "takes time to build a fanbase" is just an excuse. The Spanos family are incapable of building a fanbase because they have no appreciation for anyone who supports their team. Just ask the pre-built fanbase they used to have in San Diego.

 

Comparing their situation to the Clippers is also foolish. LA is a basketball town far more than an NFL town. Being the "second" NBA team in LA is less of an uphill battle than being the "second" NFL team. The Clippers also brought the unique selling point of cheaper tickets that allowed blue-collar families to enjoy NBA games live. In contrast, going to a Chargers game is more expensive than going to see actually successful franchises like the Niners, Ravens and Colts.

 

Moving the team back to San Diego with new ownership is a no-brainer. The Chargers have no future in LA, it's been an obvious failure from minute one and there's no reason to expect anything to change. They are not reaping the benefits of the larger market; they're a whopping 21st on the Forbes NFL valuation list, pretty much where they were in San Diego. It was a pointless relocation that nobody asked for and it was doomed to fail.

[colortv]

7 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

The Chargers couldn't even fill a soccer stadium with their own fans, not even when they went 12-4 and won a playoff game. Pretending that the relocation hasn't been a disaster of epic proportions is sticking your head in the sand. And claiming it "takes time to build a fanbase" is just an excuse. The Spanos family are utterly incapable of building a fanbase because they have zero appreciation for anyone who supports their team. Just ask the pre-built fanbase they used to have in San Diego who they treated poorly and then abandoned out of sheer greed.

 

Comparing their situation to the Clippers is also foolish. LA is a basketball town far more than an NFL town. Being the "second" NBA team in LA is less of an uphill battle than being the "second" NFL team. The Clippers also brought the unique selling point of cheaper tickets that allowed blue-collar families to enjoy NBA games live. In contrast, going to a Chargers game is more expensive than going to see actually successful franchises like the Niners, Ravens and Colts.

 

Moving the team back to San Diego with new ownership is a no-brainer. The Chargers have no future in LA, it's been an obvious failure from minute one and there's no reason to expect anything to change. They are not reaping the benefits of the larger market; they're a whopping 21st on the Forbes NFL valuation list, pretty much where they were in San Diego.

 

The Clippers have been in LA for 40 years and the vast majority of time were owned by arguably the worst owner in sports history, and still were extremely profitable. Why? Simply existing as a pro sports franchise in LA. The Rams and Raiders originally moved because Al Davis didn't want to share the stadium he was planning to build and the Rams owner was from St. Louis.

 

This isn't confined to the last few years under Balmer.

 

The Chargers tickets in Sofi will also be substantially cheaper than the Rams.

 

You responded to that post without reading what it actually said.

[Lights Out]

5 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

The Clippers have been in LA for 40 years and the vast majority of time were owned by arguably the worst owner in sports history, and still were extremely profitable. This isn't confined to the last few years under Balmer.

 

The Chargers tickets in Sofi will also be substantially cheaper than the Rams.

 

And again, even when the Clippers were the laughingstock of pro sports, they still filled a unique niche with their dirt-cheap ticket prices that enabled them to stick around in LA. The Chargers just have the inept ownership without the niche.

 

Just because the Chargers' prices won't be as expensive as the Rams doesn't mean they won't still be grossly overpriced for the fan experience and on-field product you're getting. If the Chargers were in a market that actually wanted them, it wouldn't matter, but alas, they moved to LA.

[TenaciousG]

4 hours ago, colortv said:

Chargers and Buccaneers have both committed to unveiling their uniforms within the the next month, meanwhile the Rams continue this YEARS long process of dragging everything out.

They must be using the same brand consultants as NHL Seattle