Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[SFGiants58]

If anything, Arizona should’ve gotten an expansion team and the Cardinals would be playing in the Edward Jones Dome. 

[colortv]

38 minutes ago, 63Bulldogs63 said:

I love how people in this thread really mark out for team fan base etc. Bottom line is this, the owners dont really care if the sold out stadium is comprised of half visiting team fans.

 

The ket here is sold out. As long as tickets are sold, and fans are in attendance buying beer and concessions and paying for parking and shopping at the shops that are paying rent to be at Hollywood park, that's all that matters.

 

This is a real estate investment and the rams are just the anchor tenant to the project. No way they're gone in 20 years.

 

Yes, I mentioned this in that original post which no one bothered to read or is perhaps ignoring because it refutes all their arguments.

 

The NFL is a business. An entertainment business.

 

Where the vast majority of the revenue comes from the TV deals, which ensure profitability for the teams. 

 

If a team averages 20k home fans and 40k fans for the road team they don't care, because EVERYONE is paying the same money.

 

The sheer sizeof the market will ensure profitability and at the end of the day the money will be there because of that.

[colortv]

21 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Hot take (apparently): St. Louis is a bad NFL market and probably shouldn't have a team, considering they've lost two now.

Stan Kroenke was justified in moving the Rams back to LA. Partially because he was willing to build his own stadium with his own money and partially because the team should have never left LA in the first place. 

 

 St. Louis does seem to care about baseball more than anything else, though admittedly I don't know how the Blues do.

[colortv]

50 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

He COULD have, but he didn't WANT to build a stadium in St. Louis. Kroenke was chomping at the bit to get the Rams to LA, he outright shat all over St. Louis on the way out to try and salt the earth for gridiron football there; this is far from some hidden secret.

 

For a man who was born in that state and was literally named after two legends of St. Louis sports (Enos Slaughter and Stan Musial), Enos Stanley Kroenke did everything in his goddamned power to on his hometown as a football market just so he could go to LA.

 

That was just my point, Kroenke doesn't have a moral high ground in comparison to Spanos. They both just made business decisions.

[Quillz]

3 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

 St. Louis does seem to care about baseball more than anything else, though admittedly I don't know how the Blues do.

Given they just won the Stanley Cup and have always had a fan base, I'd say they do pretty well.

[Gothamite]

3 minutes ago, colortv said:

That was just my point, Kroenke doesn't have a moral high ground in comparison to Spanos. They both just made business decisions.

Of course Kroenke has the moral high ground.  St Lous failed to live up to their end of ten agreement, and then he paid for his own stadium.  Spanos was still trying to extort San Diego all the way out the door.
 

The only thing those two men share is a stadium. And even that isn’t the same. 

[IceCap]

5 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

 St. Louis does seem to care about baseball more than anything else, though admittedly I don't know how the Blues do.

The Blues are a conundrum. They almost always make the playoffs (and are the reigning Stanley Cup Champions), have good crowds, yet they always seem to be on the verge of financial ruin. 

[colortv]

5 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Of course Kroenke has the moral high ground.  St Lous failed to live up to their end of ten agreement, and he paid for his own stadium.  Spanos was still trying to extort San Diego all the way out the door. 
 

The only thing those two men share is a stadium. And even that isn’t the same. 

 

Kroenke pulled a team from it's home when he had the funds to build a stadium, and played in an existing stadium that was viable. Not to mention St. Louis had put together what was apparently a very viable plan for a new stadium. His move was purely about going to a bigger market and profitability. 

 

Which is what this all comes down to. Kroenke and Spanos both made business decisions in the interest of profitability.

 

If we're going to rip Spanos for demanding public funds for a stadium, then we need to rip every other owner who has done so. There seems to be particular vitriol for Spanos over that.

 

Kroenke moved his team to LA, which was the right business decision over moral obligations. Spanos did the exact same, and St. Louis fans can't drive 100 miles to see a game like San Diegans can.

[IceCap]

1 minute ago, colortv said:

Kroenke pulled a team from it's home when he had the funds to build a stadium

First off...

St. Louis was never the Rams' "home." I'd think a LA football partisan such as yourself would understand that. 
 

Secondly...

Tax payer money should NEVER be used to build a stadium for pro sports owners. Kroenke has the moral high ground for turning down tax payer money in Missouri so he could build his new stadium where he wanted with his own money. 

Again, all pro sports owners should be like Stan Kroenke in this regard. 

It's ultimately this second point that gives Kroenke the moral high ground. It also paints Missouri and St. Louis' local leaders as craven for willing to toss tax payer money at a man who didn't ask for it. 

 

5 minutes ago, colortv said:

Not to mention St. Louis had put together what was apparently a very viable plan for a new stadium.

That depended on public funds. Kroenke was right to turn it down. 

 

6 minutes ago, colortv said:

If we're going to rip Spanos for demanding public funds for a stadium, then we need to rip every other owner who has done so. There seems to be particular vitriol for Spanos over that.

Look buddy. You're so clued in on defending Dean Spanos/the Chargers that you've missed the fact that most people here criticize EVERY owner who pursues public funds. Dean Spanos is not unique in that regard.

 

Take off your own blinders for moment, ok? 

[Gothamite]

14 minutes ago, colortv said:

Kroenke pulled a team from it's home when he had the funds to build a stadium, and played in an existing stadium that was viable.  His move was purely about going to a bigger market and profitability.

 

Which is what this all comes down to. Kroenke and Spanos both made business decisions in the interest of profitability.

 

If we're going to rip Spanos for demanding public funds for a stadium, then we need to rip every other owner who has done so. There seems to be particular vitriol for Spanos over that.

You may have missed it a couple pages back, but I ripped my own teams - the Packers and Brewers - for doing it.  Spanos is a scumbag in many respects, but in this respect he’s far from alone.  We tear apart lots of owners for that.

 

The Rams were pulled from their home in 1995.  I’m not sure why St. Louis should think it has any more claim on them than Los Angeles.

[daniel75]

Both Kroenke and Spanos are greedy scumbags.

[IceCap]

Just now, daniel75 said:

Both Kroenke and Spanos are greedy scumbags.

Yes. 

One turned down tax payer money though. The other pursued it. The former (Kroenke) is the one with the moral high ground in this situation. 

[Indigo]

What's this thread called? Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion. As we all (should) understand, Kroenke wanted to move his team to LA, no matter what It took. He :censored:ted on his own hometown fanbase for a bigger market. It's called business. Spanos, however, :censored:ted on his VERY WELL BELOVED fanbase just so he could go to LA, which--on paper--looked like a good move financial-wise. Since he's an idiot, though, he decided to move to a market that already supports no one team, but another team that hasn't played in LA in over 25 years. Knowing he was going to be the 3rd fiddle, he moved them strictly for the money, which failed badly because nobody wanted the Chargers in LA. Now that he know the Chargers aren't doing well, he switched to a well beloved color scheme that San Diegans wanted for years

It should be:

Los Angeles Rams: Dark Royal and Gold

Oakland/Las Vegas Raiders: Silver and Black

San Diego Chargers: Powder and Yellow

So let's get back to discussing brands.

[IceCap]

9 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

What's this thread called? Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

And normally I'd do the mod thing and keep us on topic but the fact is there's nothing to discuss regarding either team's identity until the unis are unveiled. 

[colortv]

28 minutes ago, IceCap said:

First off...

St. Louis was never the Rams' "home." I'd think a LA football partisan such as yourself would understand that. 
 

Secondly...

Tax payer money should NEVER be used to build a stadium for pro sports owners. Kroenke has the moral high ground for turning down tax payer money in Missouri so he could build his new stadium where he wanted with his own money. 

Again, all pro sports owners should be like Stan Kroenke in this regard. 

It's ultimately this second point that gives Kroenke the moral high ground. It also paints Missouri and St. Louis' local leaders as craven for willing to toss tax payer money at a man who didn't ask for it. 

 

That depended on public funds. Kroenke was right to turn it down. 

 

Look buddy. You're so clued in on defending Dean Spanos/the Chargers that you've missed the fact that most people here criticize EVERY owner who pursues public funds. Dean Spanos is not unique in that regard.

 

Take off your own blinders for moment, ok? 

 

Oh, I'm in 100% agreement that public funds should never go to billionaire welfare for building stadiums.

 

However, what's the clause you cited that justified Kroenke in leaving? That St. Louis would be responsible for upkeep of the Edward Jones dome and if it didn't do so in keeping that facility in the top whatever percentage of NFL venues, then Kroenke could leave.

 

So in a way he was requesting public funds, rather than proactively forbidding them and using his own money.

 

You want to argue semantics, it's fine...but Kroenke wasn't going to use his own money to build a stadium there any more than Spanos was in San Diego.

[colortv]

25 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

You may have missed it a couple pages back, but I ripped my own teams - the Packers and Brewers - for doing it.  Spanos is a scumbag in many respects, but in this respect he’s far from alone.  We tear apart lots of owners for that.

 

The Rams were pulled from their home in 1995.  I’m not sure why St. Louis should think it has any more claim on them than Los Angeles.

 

I do think Kroenke righted a wrong in that sense, but the ends don't necessarily justify the means.

[IceCap]

4 minutes ago, colortv said:

However, what's the clause you cited that justified Kroenke in leaving? That St. Louis would be responsible for upkeep of the Edward Jones dome and if it didn't do so in keeping that facility in the top whatever percentage of NFL venues, then Kroenke could leave.

 

So in a way he was requesting public funds, rather than proactively forbidding them and using his own money.

Kroenke was holding St. Louis to the deal the city of St. Louis came up with themselves when they were wooing the Rams in the 90s. And it's clear that he never intended to to stay in St. Louis. He already had the land in LA for SoFi bought and payed for. He was merely demanding that from St. Louis as part of the legal process of getting out of the contract with the city.

So no, he wasn't really requesting public funds. He was going through the motions needed to satisfy the courts.

 

7 minutes ago, colortv said:

You want to argue semantics, it's fine...

I'm not arguing semantics, I'm arguing facts.

 

7 minutes ago, colortv said:

but Kroenke wasn't going to use his own money to build a stadium there any more than Spanos was in San Diego.

First off, Dean Spanos can't afford to build his own stadium. In LA or San Diego.

Secondly, yes. That's my point. It's Kroenke's team and his money. He ought to be able to build it wherever he damn well pleases. He's under no requirement to build it in St. Louis. St. Louis isn't entitled to the Rams, or even NFL football. Kroenke's grave sin, in your eyes, appears to be the fact that he simply didn't want to be in St. Louis. And I'm sorry. Considering he footed the bill for his stadium itself? He owed nothing to St. Louis and therefore was not morally wrong to leave.

That he returned the team to their proper home only aids him in achieving the moral highground here.

In short? St. Louis is romanticized as a great sports city but it's really not, and Kroenke was 100% right to get the team out of there.

 

Also I see you're just not addressing the fact that Dean Spanos isn't the only sports owner who's criticized for pursuing public funds. That's fine, but I hope your Spanos loyalty doesn't result in you assuming we're unfairly picking on Dean in the future.

[colortv]

1 hour ago, mattr1198 said:

I wouldn't say that. The Jets and Giants are probably the only complement in the NY sports landscape where the teams are just about equal in terms of popularity. The Yankees, Knicks, and Rangers are clearly more popular than the Mets, Nets, and Isles, but I know pretty much just as many Jets fans as I do Giants fans and the Jets had better attendance this year (it kind of flip-flops).

 

But on a more related note, it's important to note the NY and SF/Bay Area sports fans are very very different than LA fans, who have generally been far more fair-weather to the teams not named the Dodgers and Lakers, partially due to the constantly great weather and limitless options for entertainment in the area. The only exception I can think of are the Angels, who have generally put up decent attendance as of late in spite of zero playoff appearances.

 

That's quite surprising, I thought the Giants were a firm #1 over the Jets. Not too familiar with the intricacies of the market though.

[BroncoBuff]

2 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

What's this thread called? Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion. As we all (should) understand, Kroenke wanted to move his team to LA, no matter what It took. He :censored:ted on his own hometown fanbase for a bigger market. It's called business. Spanos, however, :censored:ted on his VERY WELL BELOVED fanbase just so he could go to LA, which--on paper--looked like a good move financial-wise. Since he's an idiot, though, he decided to move to a market that already supports no one team, but another team that hasn't played in LA in over 25 years. Knowing he was going to be the 3rd fiddle, he moved them strictly for the money, which failed badly because nobody wanted the Chargers in LA.

It should be:

Los Angeles Rams

Oakland/Las Vegas Raiders

San Diego Chargers

 

Sure looks that way. But it was pretty funny watching them play home games in that little community college stadium the past couple years, wasn't it?  With all those soccer stadium trumpets blaring all game long ...

 

 

Kroenke owns the Nuggets and Avalanche, too, along with the Pepsi Center/Elitch's Amusement Park complex. I haven't lived in Denver in 25 years, but people there say he's pretty a decent owner.

[raz]

1 hour ago, Quillz said:

Given they just won the Stanley Cup and have always had a fan base, I'd say they do pretty well.

Except for the time they almost moved to Saskatoon!