Jump to content

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion


OnWis97

Recommended Posts

On 5/1/2020 at 5:31 PM, Claystation360 said:

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. 

I like the one team in LA,  San Diego,  and two teams in the bay format...they did it For years and enjoyed the spread in 2016 for one season until chaos ensued 

tigersallstars092.png

steelcurtain.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 12k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 5/1/2020 at 5:53 PM, IceCap said:

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. 

Two bad owners........st.louis is a great sports town...baseball is obviously number 1 ....they had 2 teams for 20 plus years...sometimes ownership is t9 blame form the misfortunes

tigersallstars092.png

steelcurtain.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2020 at 9:47 PM, Ridleylash said:

The Bills are owned by a man with a net worth of $5 billion dollars, just slightly less than Arthur Blank of the Falcons. I don't imagine that there'll be much issue with funding a new stadium in a market that's proven itself more than capable of consistently supporting an NFL franchise. The team's solidly middle of the pack in attendance, so there's not even a low attendance justification. They're in a TV market larger then the Packers, too, so TV market doesn't play into it. What exactly is the problem with Buffalo?

 

Meanwhile, the Chargers are dead last in the NFL in attendance and in a market that is seemingly 1000% apathetic towards them, but has embraced their roommates with open arms. People barely show up to their games, and those that do are usually transplant fans of teams other than the Chargers. Dean Spanos is worth a billion flat, less than Terry Pegula and FAAAAAAR less than Stan Kroenke.

 

There's ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that the Bills move before the Chargers yeet themselves back to San Diego with their tails between their legs. Just because a market is small doesn't make it bad.

Given how the owners seem to have become concerned over the Chargers' rather poor reception in LA? I wouldn't be surprised if they do shunt the team back to San Diego once Dean either sells or croaks. At least they can capture a different TV market there.

Eventually they will force the spanos to sell like the nba did to sterling 

tigersallstars092.png

steelcurtain.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2020 at 12:15 PM, 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.

For the opposing team fans.....it's gonna be a real treat....it was a nightmare in carson......it was a nightmare in SD at the end with opposing team fans (when San Diego people gave up on the chargers after the countless relocation threats after relocation threats) before then chargers hasd a base in San Diego. Now they are barely behind or ahead of the sparks in popularity not only in the market but the county...county

tigersallstars092.png

steelcurtain.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, scraw28 said:

Two bad owners........st.louis is a great sports town...baseball is obviously number 1 ....they had 2 teams for 20 plus years...sometimes ownership is t9 blame form the misfortunes

St. Louis seems entitled to me. 

And being a good baseball town doesn't mean it's a good football town. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

This thread is annoying.

Back to in market on topic......I hope they had to redesign the uniforms or made tweaks...based on the logo ...I am pessimistic about the look 

tigersallstars092.png

steelcurtain.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, scraw28 said:

Back to in market on topic......I hope they had to redesign the uniforms or made tweaks...based on the logo ...I am pessimistic about the look 

I wonder if they'll follow the Chargers lead and simply get rid of TV numbers on the jerseys to show off the horn.

km3S7lo.jpg

 

Zqy6osx.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scraw28 said:

Owners gets some blame for letting not having a team in LA go for a long time

 

Owners strategically held LA as a relocation threat, which likely contributed to many teams getting billions in public dollars to get new stadiums built.  Wasn't Minnesota even mentioned in the same breath as LA before their new stadium got approved?  As long as there was no team in LA, every owner could use it to extort money from their city.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Wasn't Minnesota even mentioned in the same breath as LA before their new stadium got approved? 

The team literally just put up one of the many LA stadium proposal renderings with a purple endzone and the local authorities caved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that the Rams new logos necessarily tell us much about the new unis. 

 

The Rams have had a lot of great unis, but have they ever had a great logo? For a long time, their logo was just their helmet.

 

And teams don't always have a ton of design similarities between the logos and unis. For example, Pittsburgh has classic, clean unis. The Steelers unis and logo don't necessarily match but they do work together.

 

When the Rams announced their new colors/logos, Demoff said this to Rich Hammond at The Athletic:

 

"I think all of this comes to, the uniforms are separate from the logo and colors in the sense that they carry their own look and feel. There are certainly elements of the colors, logos and fonts. The brand identity as a whole, you will feel it throughout the uniform and you will recognize that, but they are not necessarily all one and the same. What you see today, you can expect color-wise, to some degree, but I wouldn’t lean into too many design elements based on what you see today, although they will be thematically somewhat the same."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, IceCap said:

St. Louis seems entitled to me. 

And being a good baseball town doesn't mean it's a good football town. 

Glad SOMEONE finally said it. Many in that city appeared to had forgotten that the Rams had had almost 50 years of history in Los Angeles. Many also forgot how they treated LA when we lost the Rams. So I had NO sympathy for them.

jersey-signature03.pngjersey-signature04.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, IceCap said:

St. Louis seems entitled to me. 

And being a good baseball town doesn't mean it's a good football town. 

In fairness, he only pointed out that baseball is the obvious #1 sport there, not that the fandom would translate to football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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