Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[BBTV]

Oh I definitely think there's a financial upside for the league to have a franchise in LA.  I don't know how this stuff works (paging the spirit of dfwabel), but I have to believe that having at least one team based there factors heavily in the TV contracts, and there's got to be a lot of local businesses and corporations that are now paying for licensing or sponsorships that benefit both the team and league.  

 

My guess is that with the way the business works now vs how it was in the early '90s, just the fact that there's a revenue-generating stadium and a large market to sell to networks makes it a financial success even before one human steps through the turnstyles, and even if local revenue isn't shared, there's got to be enough that is, which gets distributed to the have-nots and players, so everyone wins.

 

 

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, guest23 said:

Goodell played this like a champ

 

 

Goodell bungled it from start to finish.  He was literally colluding behind the scenes with St. Louis in a vain attempt to prevent Kroenke from moving, and ended up only broadcasting his own fecklessness.

[doctorpeligro]

St. Louis is almost certainly going to get a massive settlement.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2019/11/30/why-stan-kroenke-nfl-will-likely-be-singing-the-financial-blues-over-the-st-louis-lawsuit/

[guest23]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Oh I definitely think there's a financial upside for the league to have a franchise in LA.  I don't know how this stuff works (paging the spirit of dfwabel), but I have to believe that having at least one team based there factors heavily in the TV contracts, and there's got to be a lot of local businesses and corporations that are now paying for licensing or sponsorships that benefit both the team and league.  

 

My guess is that with the way the business works now vs how it was in the early '90s, just the fact that there's a revenue-generating stadium and a large market to sell to networks makes it a financial success even before one human steps through the turnstyles, and even if local revenue isn't shared, there's got to be enough that is, which gets distributed to the have-nots and players, so everyone wins.

 

 

 

The league was already getting super high ratings in the LA market so there was essentially no upside for the league to upsell national tv contracts. The local networks were able to pick the best games each sunday and cater to the massive amount of transplants and cycle though giants/eagles/cowboys/patriots. Plus you could air the raiders on the late game which also hit a target demo. Now they are stuck with having to program around the rams and chargers. If anything you've pushed home viewers to sunday ticket or the local bar to watch their favorite teams.

[cajunaggie08]

1 hour ago, guest23 said:

 

The league was already getting super high ratings in the LA market so there was essentially no upside for the league to upsell national tv contracts. The local networks were able to pick the best games each sunday and cater to the massive amount of transplants and cycle though giants/eagles/cowboys/patriots. Plus you could air the raiders on the late game which also hit a target demo. Now they are stuck with having to program around the rams and chargers. If anything you've pushed home viewers to sunday ticket or the local bar to watch their favorite teams.

 

Which is an even bigger win for the NFL execs pocket book

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, guest23 said:

The league was already getting super high ratings in the LA market so there was essentially no upside for the league to upsell national tv contracts.

People trotted out that excuse as to why the NHL shouldn't return to Winnipeg.

"Canadians already watch so much hockey, a team in Winnipeg wouldn't be a net increase."

 

Turns out the league is better off with a team in Winnipeg. Sometimes it pays to do the obvious thing. The Rams in LA is the obvious thing.

[Pa02]

15 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Not just allowing the Chargers to move, but almost requiring that they do.
 

All to spite Kroenke, the final attempt to punish him for moving the Rams back to LA.  As petty and silly as it sounds. 

I don’t think the NFL wants three city teams in California. I get the feeling for some reason they want it to be like NY. Two teams in the largest cities, one team elsewhere. LA and San Fran, NY and Buffalo.

[Ridleylash]

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

The Rams in LA is the obvious thing.

The obvious course of action, IMO, would've been to expand into St. Louis in 1995 rather than Jacksonville; that way the Rams don't need to move to STL at all, meaning there's no rush to force two teams into the LA market because it never gets left without one. That would likely also make it so the Chargers don't get shoehorned in with the Rams for no reason.

 

And it's not like having three teams in Florida is any better then having three teams in various parts of California. CAR/STL would've been a perfectly logical expansion class, IMO.

 

17 minutes ago, Newport said:

I don’t think the NFL wants three city teams in California. I get the feeling for some reason they want it to be like NY. Two teams in the largest cities, one team, elsewhere. LA and San Fran then NY and Buffalo.

Except obviously that's failed miserably because the Chargers aren't selling in the market and the Rams have far more historical value to LA then the Chargers ever have. If that's their idea, their idea is :censored:ing asinine.

 

LA-SD-SF would've been a perfect spread. Instead, we now have LA-LA-SF. They're literally cannibalizing themselves by forcing two teams into the LA market, which is why moving the Chargers there was such an asinine move. At least the Raiders had history there and the Niners already had a presence in the Bay Area, so you could justify moving them back down to LA. The Chargers had one year in LA. IN THE AFL.

[The_Admiral]

17 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

LA-SD-SF would've been a perfect spread. Instead, we now have LA-LA-SF. They're literally cannibalizing themselves by forcing two teams into the LA market, which is why moving the Chargers there was such an asinine move.

 

Don't forget Las Vegas, the furthest inland suburb of Los Angeles.

[Pizzaman7294]

On 4/30/2020 at 11:45 AM, ramsjetsthunder said:

 

Greatest comment in board history

 

I'm honored. 

 

I will say, I was giggling as I was posting it. 

[Claystation360]

14 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

The obvious course of action, IMO, would've been to expand into St. Louis in 1995 rather than Jacksonville; that way the Rams don't need to move to STL at all, meaning there's no rush to force two teams into the LA market because it never gets left without one. That would likely also make it so the Chargers don't get shoehorned in with the Rams for no reason.

 

And it's not like having three teams in Florida is any better then having three teams in various parts of California. CAR/STL would've been a perfectly logical expansion class, IMO.

 

Except obviously that's failed miserably because the Chargers aren't selling in the market and the Rams have far more historical value to LA then the Chargers ever have. If that's their idea, their idea is :censored:ing asinine.

 

LA-SD-SF would've been a perfect spread. Instead, we now have LA-LA-SF. They're literally cannibalizing themselves by forcing two teams into the LA market, which is why moving the Chargers there was such an asinine move. At least the Raiders had history there and the Niners already had a presence in the Bay Area, so you could justify moving them back down to LA. The Chargers had one year in LA. IN THE AFL.

Well the obvious case is Jacksonville got the team instead of St Louis because they had a more organized ownership group and the unknown factor of being the only game of town. Also remember StL was still less than a decade removed from a relocation.

 The Rams would've still moved even if The Stallions were in existence, just like the Browns would've as well. just the destination would change.   When the Rams were approved to move in the 95 offseason the Raiders were still trying to work a new stadium in Hollywood Park, they didn't move back Oakland until almost the cusp of the 95 season. 

[guest23]

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

People trotted out that excuse as to why the NHL shouldn't return to Winnipeg.

"Canadians already watch so much hockey, a team in Winnipeg wouldn't be a net increase."

 

Turns out the league is better off with a team in Winnipeg. Sometimes it pays to do the obvious thing. The Rams in LA is the obvious thing.

 

Very little similarity between nhl and nfl economics. People continue to overlook that the nfl's negotiated tv contract on average accounts ~80% of team revenue, non-shared revenue is such a small portion franchise location means very little. Bottom-tier nhl franchises on the other hand scrape by for financial viability and you can make a legitimate case for contraction because there aren't enough viable markets.

[IceCap]

11 minutes ago, guest23 said:

non-shared revenue is such a small portion franchise location means very little

You keep trotting this point out as if it means something. And it really doesn't. 

In what way was it a mistake to move a team to LA, considering the situation at the time (Kroenke privately financing his own stadium in LA as opposed to tax dollars to fund the plan in StL)? 

 

I mean I get it. You don't like the idea of the NFL in LA, but 1) it's a done deal and has been done for three years now and 2) St. Louis isn't the glowing football market so many people desperately pretend it was. 
Does the NFL need to be in LA? No. Does it make sense to trade StL out for LA. Yes. 

 

Edit- This discussion is only being permitted because the Rams are dragging their feet on their uni unveiling. All discussion on NFL relocation will be directed to the Sports in General thread once the unveiling happens. 

 

[Ridleylash]

1 minute ago, IceCap said:

Does the NFL need to be in LA? No. Does it make sense to trade StL out for LA. Yes. 

Unless you're the MLB and NHL, in which case the answer you'd get is thus;

[IceCap]

I do not get the appeal of St. Louis as a NFL market. They've lost two teams now. Come on. 

 

And before anyone brings up the Battlehawks? They got a lot support by playing up the "screw Kroenke" angle in a rebel league. That's good for the short term but there's nothing to suggest that level of anger could be transferred into long-term support for a team. 

[colortv]

The league has teams in backwaters like Buffalo and Jacksonville but LA shouldn't have teams...right.

[Ridleylash]

19 minutes ago, colortv said:

The league has teams in backwaters like Buffalo and Jacksonville but LA shouldn't have teams...right.

Buffalo supports their franchises with insane intensity. Jacksonville can easily go, but LA is absolutely a fleeting football town. If you don't win often, you're not going to be drawing flies in LA because there's so much other you can spend your time and money doing besides watching football.

 

Neither team has the cultural pull of the Dodgers in LA, and do not tell me they're close because they're not.

 

LA can support one team right now, but the NFL keeps pushing the market way further then it can actually go because the idea of one team occupying the LA market is apparently too scary for them. The Chargers should NEVER. EVER. have gone to LA. If you don't believe that, then take the homer glasses off. LA isn't a massive NFL city. It's not a massive football city. It doesn't NEED two teams.

 

And even if it could support two, the Chargers weren't even the franchise to move. It was just the owners collectively deciding that they wanted a second LA team without wanting to give Kroenke any actual competition in the market. The RAIDERS should be in LA, not the Chargers.

[Eszcz21]

12 minutes ago, colortv said:

The league has teams in backwaters like Buffalo and Jacksonville but LA shouldn't have teams...right.

Hahahahaha. Buffalo supports their teams and always shows out in full force.

[colortv]

1 hour ago, Ridleylash said:

Buffalo supports their franchises with insane intensity. Jacksonville can easily go, but LA is absolutely a fleeting football town. If you don't win often, you're not going to be drawing flies in LA because there's so much other you can spend your time and money doing besides watching football.

 

Neither team has the cultural pull of the Dodgers in LA, and do not tell me they're close because they're not.

 

LA can support one team right now, but the NFL keeps pushing the market way further then it can actually go because the idea of one team occupying the LA market is apparently too scary for them. The Chargers should NEVER. EVER. have gone to LA. If you don't believe that, then take the homer glasses off. LA isn't a massive NFL city. It's not a massive football city. It doesn't NEED two teams.

 

And even if it could support two, the Chargers weren't even the franchise to move. It was just the owners collectively deciding that they wanted a second LA team without wanting to give Kroenke any actual competition in the market. The RAIDERS should be in LA, not the Chargers.

 

Your bolding and underlining is accomplishing nothing, because the posting is devoid of logic.

 

The NFL is about one thing, making money.

 

A market of 20 million people will fill the stadium with fans(supporting or opposing) as easily as any team in the league. It's 8 games a year. It's market with 2 teams in every major professional sport.

 

The numbers just don't support your argument.

[flyersfan]

The Jaguars fans show up when they aren't bad.

But let me tell ya, they're usually bad.

 

Baseball I feel like has the same effect on crowds. Stadiums are empty when the team isnt good. (Outside of a few, NYY, BOS, CHC, LAD) but most teams aren't packing stadiums until they have relevance. Philly is crowded again with Harper because there is excitement. When the team is rolling out AAA guys and winning 70 games thats no fun for non-diehard fans.

 

So I bring this to LA. When the teams aren't good is not the time to see if they have attendance issues. When the team is competitive then we see a problem. The chargers had a good team last year (until injuries) but they played at the Galaxy stadium and it was bad, nobody was there. They shouldn't have moved. I *get* the raiders vegas move, but man oh man the chargers were a bad idea in practice, but seemed good on paper.