Jump to content

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion


OnWis97

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

Maybe the problem with teams moving is that they have owners?

 

If teams didn’t have owners, they’d be less likely to move. 

They would be less likely to operate as well without someone being willing to venture the capital so the team can make a profit. The way the NFL works now you could probably not have owners but then the league would need to buyout all of the owners because they are not just going to give away a billion dollar entity. I would not anyway at least not all of it. Then you have to take into account if the leagues popularity waned then what money would be there to invest , etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

1.  Billionaires don't like to spend their own money on stadiums.


project-pegula-ice-6.ashx?h=451&la=en&w=
 

Sure, it was only $100 million of his own money, and he probably got a nice little tax break out of it, but there’s precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:


They’re still trying to “figure out” how to release them? All the other teams figured it out pretty quick. The Browns had a photoshoot in a garage, for Pete’s sake. This isn’t hard.

 

Even beyond the botched logos, the Rams seem to really be overthinking this whole thing to substantial degrees.

 

Notice that Siciliano said that his information was a week to two weeks old. In other words, he hadn't spoken to Rams sources about it for maybe 10 days or so. Perhaps in the interim, they finally figured it out.

 

Either way, the Rams have put themselves in a tight spot, PR wise.

 

They planned a split reveal, which seems to be a questionable decision even in a non-pandemic world. Now, it looks like a worse decision. 

 

They can't have the big uniform unveil event that they wanted a few months ago. 

 

But they've waited so long, they have to do something different/unique to justify the wait. 

 

And now, all eyes are on them. Rams fans are anxious because of the logos being so unpopular. NFL fans and media are waiting to pounce if the uniforms and/or the reveal aren't amazing.

 

Rumor is the schedule will come out next week. Maybe the Rams will reveal the unis next week so that if it doesn't go great, the league's collective attention gets diverted by the schedule release? Maybe, if they're very confident, they release the unis after the schedule comes out, getting more of the spotlight to themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some Rams fans are wondering if the team is altering the uniforms based on the negative public reaction to the logos.

 

I assume last-minute changes wouldn't be that easy for the Rams or any team because of the NFL's involvement. I'm thinking that once the NFL approves a new uniform, then the team can choose when to release it publicly, but they can't change it much from what the NFL approved. Paul Lukas said there's likely such a cutoff, but he doesn't know how long the time period is. For example, in a Uni-Watch blog this week, Lukas noted the Patriots new uniforms are different than what was on a proof six months ago.

 

Does anybody know details about such a cutoff for NFL teams changing uniforms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, auguststaley said:

Some Rams fans are wondering if the team is altering the uniforms based on the negative public reaction to the logos.

 

I assume last-minute changes wouldn't be that easy for the Rams or any team because of the NFL's involvement. I'm thinking that once the NFL approves a new uniform, then the team can choose when to release it publicly, but they can't change it much from what the NFL approved. Paul Lukas said there's likely such a cutoff, but he doesn't know how long the time period is. For example, in a Uni-Watch blog this week, Lukas noted the Patriots new uniforms are different than what was on a proof six months ago.

 

Does anybody know details about such a cutoff for NFL teams changing uniforms?


There are never last minute changes. Uniforms in the NFL require a 2+ year process and in order to prepare for mass production, they need to have everything finalized well ahead of release. I don’t know the exact timelines, but as you said, it just isn’t feasible to bail out within a month of releasing a uniform publicly because it would mean halting production and destroying the current product, then altering the production for the new product. This would result in millions of dollars in costs.

 

Even if we ignore the above, it seems far-fetched that the team would retain its logos but then halt everything and change the rest of the identity last minute. 
 

I think the real reason the Rams are waiting is they want their big party and celebration they originally had planned, but was halted by the Coronavirus, and they’re hoping the stay at home orders get lifted early enough to release them at a public event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, IceCap said:

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. 

 

 

It's my position that while there are millions of nfl fans in the southland, LA has never needed it's own nfl franchise. I believe what would have been perfect should have been a London style series at a remodeled Coliseum.  I am also taking the contrary position to many that have simplified LA + nfl = Profit when the economics of the nfl suggest little upside from a tv revenue standpoint. Now Kroeneke has to generate $6 billion in profit (not revenue) just to offset construction. You can use the Packers' financials as a approximation benchmark for how many decades that will take. So there was a huge opportunity cost to relocate and from a pure business standpoint relocating the franchise at such a steep cost does not really pencil out. Then again I am not married to a Walton so what do I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

Well duh.  Their old stadium only holds 27K!  This is a new stadium and a new beginning for the Chargers, let's give them a chance.

27k and it still was empty when it wasn’t a well traveling fan base going to watch. We gave them 3 years which is plenty amount of a chance for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hugevolsfan said:

They would be less likely to operate as well without someone being willing to venture the capital so the team can make a profit. The way the NFL works now you could probably not have owners but then the league would need to buyout all of the owners because they are not just going to give away a billion dollar entity. I would not anyway at least not all of it. Then you have to take into account if the leagues popularity waned then what money would be there to invest , etc....


Any Packer fans want to comment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, dont care said:

27k and it still was empty when it wasn’t a well traveling fan base going to watch. We gave them 3 years which is plenty amount of a chance for them.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance . This is exactly what I mean when I say people here don’t bother looking up the numbers or just plain don’t understand them, Chargers attendance/tickets sold

is over 100 percent capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, colortv said:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance . This is exactly what I mean when I say people here don’t bother looking up the numbers or just plain don’t understand them, Chargers attendance/tickets sold

is over 100 percent capacity.

Considering they're playing in a venue with a capacity of 27,000, that's not nearly as big a sign of the Chargers being a smash hit in LA as you'd think it was. They're still by far the lowest-attended team in the NFL, over capacity in a soccer stadium or not.

 

It'll only look worse when they get their shiny new arena and it turns into a cavernous hall of nothing. That, or it'll be this on an even worse scale;

spacer.png

spacer.png

Both of these are Chargers home games. Where exactly are the Chargers fans here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

Considering they're playing in a venue with a capacity of 27,000, that's not nearly as big a sign of the Chargers being a smash hit in LA as you'd think it was. They're still by far the lowest-attended team in the NFL, over capacity in a soccer stadium or not.

 

It'll only look worse when they get their shiny new arena and it turns into a cavernous hall of nothing.

You keep repeating the same nonsense, it’s a simple matter of capacity. Are you expecting people to watch the game sitting in the parking lot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, colortv said:

You keep repeating the same nonsense, it’s a simple matter of capacity. Are you expecting people to watch the game sitting in the parking lot?

And you keep ignoring the fact that those games were filled with opposing team's fans.

 

When they move into SoFi and their games are either half-empty or filled with opposing fans (like they are now) will you finally relent and admit the Chargers' move was a mistake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, QCS said:

And you keep ignoring the fact that those games were filled with opposing team's fans.

 

When they move into SoFi and their games are either half-empty or filled with opposing fans (like they are now) will you finally relent and admit the Chargers' move was a mistake?

Am I missing something or do opposing fans not pay money? Money is what the nfl cares about. There could be 5 chargers fans in there but if the team is making money that’s all the nfl cares about. Its a for profit entertainment business not a civic institution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, colortv said:

Am I missing something or do opposing fans not pay money? Money is what the nfl cares about. There could be 5 chargers fans in there but if the team is making money that’s all the nfl cares about. Its a for profit entertainment business not a civic institution.

I mean, there's multiple reports saying that owners in the NFL are growing more and more concerned with the lack of attendance and beginning to realize that the Chargers were a terrible fit for the Los Angeles market. 

 

It's almost as if they should've moved the Raiders to LA along with the Rams, if anybody, because at least there are actually Raiders fans in Los Angeles. The team has had more than enough time in their little soccer venue to really take the charge and prove themselves in LA, and they've completely blown it. They're now the Los Angeles NFL Clippers, a second-rate attraction in their own building that people don't care much for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

It's my position that while there are millions of nfl fans in the southland, LA has never needed it's own nfl franchise. I believe what would have been perfect should have been a London style series at a remodeled Coliseum.  I am also taking the contrary position to many that have simplified LA + nfl = Profit when the economics of the nfl suggest little upside from a tv revenue standpoint. Now Kroeneke has to generate $6 billion in profit (not revenue) just to offset construction. You can use the Packers' financials as a approximation benchmark for how many decades that will take. So there was a huge opportunity cost to relocate and from a pure business standpoint relocating the franchise at such a steep cost does not really pencil out. Then again I am not married to a Walton so what do I know.

 

Source on the economics? You don't think the NFL will see increases from Latin media? You don't think Kroenke will have a lot more events at his stadium than just football? I mean the Super Bowl will be played there every six years or so...the Packers don't have that recurring event. I'm sure we'll see college bowl games, NCAA Final Fours and probably some NBA exhibitions, maybe during the day with good weather, plus maybe more NHL events. LA's climate gives this venue a lot more opportunities for huge events other than just football. 

 

I mean...this article from WaPo before the SoFi naming deal happened says "At a cost estimated at more than $5 billion, the development — its formal name is the LA Stadium & Entertainment District at Hollywood Park — includes a 70,240-seat stadium and 6,000-seat performance center under one roof that will anchor a 298-acre complex of office buildings, shops, restaurants, residential units, hotels and parks" shows that Kroenke's $6 billion investment is not just reliant on football. 

 

And Kroenke (and his partners that own Hollywood Park Casino, on the same site) spent $6B...but he now owns an asset worth $6 billion on land that will appreciate. It's kinda how assets/liabilities work. When he eventually sells the stadium, he's not going to give it away at no charge and then rely on $6B in football profits to cover the cost. He'll get money back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

I mean, there's multiple reports saying that owners in the NFL are growing more and more concerned with the lack of attendance and beginning to realize that the Chargers were a terrible fit for the Los Angeles market. 

 

It's almost as if they should've moved the Raiders to LA along with the Rams, if anybody, because at least there are actually Raiders fans in Los Angeles. The team has had more than enough time in their little soccer venue to really take the charge and prove themselves in LA, and they've completely blown it. They're now the Los Angeles NFL Clippers, a second-rate attraction in their own building that people don't care much for.

Why don’t you lookup the clippers franchise value and attendance figures and get back to me on if that’s considered a failure. The fact that you think it’s utterly impossible an nfl team will able to build any sort of fanbase and be massively profitable in a market of 20 million people is absolutely laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, colortv said:

Why don’t you lookup the clippers franchise value and attendance figures and get back to me on if that’s considered a failure. The fact that you think it’s utterly impossible an nfl team will able to build any sort of fanbase and be massively profitable in a market of 20 million people is absolutely laughable.

Funny, they've been in LA for four years and yet there's been no massive influx of Chargers faithful pouring out of Los Angeles and swarming games to show their pride. In fact, the stadium tends to be overrun by fans of other teams, making their home games actually feel more like extra road games.

 

If there was such love for the Chargers in Los Angeles, I think it probably should've begun showing up by now. The team's made the second round of the playoffs and yet things still felt like a road game. The Rams have had massive success in LA despite being gone for a while, so shouldn't the Chargers also be doing rather well right now in the market instead of having to essentially give away PSLs and be the Rams' deadbeat roomie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ltjets21 said:

Even before the blues won the cup they were 2nd? Asking out of general curiosity because even in big hockey towns, hockey is usually at the bottom of the barrel.

Blues had a generation head start, 28 years since they were created in 1967, a lot of time to build a fan base

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kroenke is gonna be fine in LA. It's completely a real estate investment and not some civic pride bull :censored: people keep going on about. The Olympics will be at the stadium. Concerts. Final 4, Wrestlemania...probably ufc...etc... 

 

 

  NFL is big business. San Diego didnt want to play ball to keep the chargers. Now granted the Spanos family really screwed that up. As long as tickets are sold to chargers games and concessions are bought it's not gonna really matter. People will fly in to LA to catch a game and go to disney or universal etc... it's why superbowls are played in destination locations and not green bay or Cincinnati. 

 

It's why Vegas will succeed with the nfl just like its succeeded with nhl so far. There is a healthy locals fanbase that will embrace the team. It's also a great destination for a game and vacation. I would rather hop on a flight book a hotel in vegas than drive an hour and a half down the road to oakland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

Funny, they've been in LA for four years and yet there's been no massive influx of Chargers faithful pouring out of Los Angeles and swarming games to show their pride. In fact, the stadium tends to be overrun by fans of other teams, making their home games actually feel more like extra road games.

 

If there was such love for the Chargers in Los Angeles, I think it probably should've begun showing up by now. The team's made the second round of the playoffs and yet things still felt like a road game. The Rams have had massive success in LA despite being gone for a while, so shouldn't the Chargers also be doing rather well right now in the market instead of having to essentially give away PSLs?

Lying again, they’ve played 3 seasons. You’re commenting on an economic mater when you have absolutely zero conception of economics. Go lookup the franchise values and attendance figures of the “#2” LA teams and see where they stand relative to their leagues: Clippers Angels Ducks Kings LAFC or Galaxy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IceCap locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.