Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[guest23]

15 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

Not sure the issue was as big in the early 90s as it is today.  There were no league-wide exclusive contracts; identity planning didn't need two years.  Remember, the Pats had four different home and road jerseys from '92-95.  1994 was a league-wide throwback celebration (and really was the first block of the throwback craze). "No don't keep wearing throwbacks during this throwback year" probably would have been an odd thing for Tags to say.

 

The team petitioned the league in the middle of the season to keep wearing the uniforms since they were popular with fans and the team took to them as being their lucky uniforms. Given the 75th promotion and the fact that there was essentially uniform overload between the throwbacks and the cowboys unveiling the double stars mid season the league approved the petition.

 

I'm pretty sure this was the season that really got the nfl properties and centralized uniform approvals going in full swing which ultimately led to the league wide supplier contracts. I don't think the league was remotely aware of the double star uniform before they took the field. Then the following year the cowboys signed rogue deals with nike/pepsi which did not go over well.

[guest23]

35 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

The NFL could fine a team, but it can't unilaterally take away revenue sharing.  There is a difference. It would take substantial spin to proclaim the Rams are not acting in the best interest of the league by wearing throwback uniforms.  

 

Withholding a portion of revenue sharing equal to amounts owed in fines is not "unilaterally taking aware revenue sharing". It's basically an enforcement mechanism to ensure that a franchises pays its fines which is perfectly reasonable. I have no idea if that exists in the bylaws but after dealing with Al Davis for 40+ years I'd have to think something like that exists.  The trick with the nfl is that it's a de facto cartel that is ultimately run by its members, they can change their bylaws as frequently as they like depending on what suits their best interests.

[WSU151]

32 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

Withholding a portion of revenue sharing equal to amounts owed in fines is not "unilaterally taking aware revenue sharing". It's basically an enforcement mechanism to ensure that a franchises pays its fines which is perfectly reasonable. I have no idea if that exists in the bylaws but after dealing with Al Davis for 40+ years I'd have to think something like that exists.  The trick with the nfl is that it's a de facto cartel that is ultimately run by its members, they can change their bylaws as frequently as they like depending on what suits their best interests.

 

I'm pretty sure the NFL legally (and technically) can't withhold any revenue sharing.  Full shares are distributed, then fines and other league expenses are paid.  Mathematically it would be the same as you said, but legally and for accounting basis, an owner must get a full share unless otherwise approved by the owners. I think we're pretty much on the same page.

[aawagner011]

Been saying this for a while but the Rams just need to become the Lakers of the NFL and essentially go without a white jersey. Wear the blue throwback at home and the yellow Color Rush jersey when a white away jersey would usually be worn. You'd be hard pressed to find a uniform that would clash with yellow. And if it did, just wear the blue.

 

Granted, I'd like for them to have a white jersey, but my solution would prevent them from having to wear the St. Louis gear for a few years until the new designs are ready by 2019.

[oldschoolvikings]

The yellow isn't a road uniform. Nor should it be. Yellow would never work on the road, it's a terrible idea.

 

On thr other hand, the yellow would make a spectacular home jersey, as it has in the past.

 

 

(No, this picture can NEVER be posted too much.)

[guest23]

6 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

The yellow isn't a road uniform. Nor should it be. Yellow would never work on the road, it's a terrible idea.

 

On thr other hand, the yellow would make a spectacular home jersey, as it has in the past.

 

 

(No, this picture can NEVER be posted too much.)

 

Yellow was their primary home and road for quite some time according to the GUD. This was before the mandated white jersey era of course. I think it could be doable but alas won't happen.

[guest23]

4 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

I'm pretty sure the NFL legally (and technically) can't withhold any revenue sharing.  Full shares are distributed, then fines and other league expenses are paid.  Mathematically it would be the same as you said, but legally and for accounting basis, an owner must get a full share unless otherwise approved by the owners. I think we're pretty much on the same page.

 

I think we are for the most part. I'm inclined to think there are line items of deductions that are taken out of each revenue sharing check for various league expenditures and fines could be a part of that but I could be wrong.

[Gothamite]

Pretty sure that "withholding shared revenue" was part of the sanctions discussed when people suggested Kroenke could go rogue and move to LA without permission. 

 

I'm not suggesting that the situations are analogous, but the NFL has been known to apply a rather disproportionate response to player violations in the past, so I don't honk we can say anything is necessarily too harsh. 

[masterchaoss]

3 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

Been saying this for a while but the Rams just need to become the Lakers of the NFL and essentially go without a white jersey. Wear the blue throwback at home and the yellow Color Rush jersey when a white away jersey would usually be worn. You'd be hard pressed to find a uniform that would clash with yellow. And if it did, just wear the blue.

 

Granted, I'd like for them to have a white jersey, but my solution would prevent them from having to wear the St. Louis gear for a few years until the new designs are ready by 2019.

I'd personally love it, it gives the rams something unique and as well as the yellow jerseys everyone wants and keep the primary home blue like they should because while I like the yellow it's bright enough as it is in LA I don't need to be blinded when I go to games in person, I'll let the other fans have to deal with it, plus blue is just a nicer color. 

[guest23]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Pretty sure that "withholding shared revenue" was part of the sanctions discussed when people suggested Kroenke could go rogue and move to LA without permission. 

 

I'm not suggesting that the situations are analogous, but the NFL has been known to apply a rather disproportionate response to player violations in the past, so I don't honk we can say anything is necessarily too harsh. 

 

Well I think we can all agree two things about the shield when it takes punitive action: random and arbitrary.

[hawk36]

17 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Pretty sure that "withholding shared revenue" was part of the sanctions discussed when people suggested Kroenke could go rogue and move to LA without permission. 

 

I'm not suggesting that the situations are analogous, but the NFL has been known to apply a rather disproportionate response to player violations in the past, so I don't honk we can say anything is necessarily too harsh. 

Just like how Paul Allen spoke up at the relocation meeting and got the other owners to "wake up" and realize that moving St. Louis to LA made the most sense for the league, I'd like to see the owners band together and overrule the commish on this rule. I'd like to think if they voted, and 22+ owners voted in favor of LA using the throwbacks, it would be a done deal. The commissioner wouldn't have a leg to stand on in the matter. And honestly, he'd have a way out in allowing what the rest of the world sees as the right decision.

[guest23]

26 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Just like how Paul Allen spoke up at the relocation meeting and got the other owners to "wake up" and realize that moving St. Louis to LA made the most sense for the league, I'd like to see the owners band together and overrule the commish on this rule. I'd like to think if they voted, and 22+ owners voted in favor of LA using the throwbacks, it would be a done deal. The commissioner wouldn't have a leg to stand on in the matter. And honestly, he'd have a way out in allowing what the rest of the world sees as the right decision.

 

The relocation effort took at least 2 years to get ownership buy in after numerous committees, and the 1st public vote did not fall in favor of relocation. I wasn't until the secret ballot that jones negotiated that ownership mysteriously had a change of heart and voted for relocation. A $500M expansion fee may have also sweetened the deal.

 

Keep in mind that ownership only votes on significant matters that affect the game or their revenue. The reason why they have a league office is to delegate administrative/non-critical decision making as it's deemed non essential. A uniform exception petition would simply not warrant their time or interest to vote upon.

[hawk36]

From what John Clayton reported at the time, the deciding factor in the vote was when Paul Allen asked what made more financial sense and what was best for the league. At that time it became crystal clear to the owners that exchanging St. Louis for LA was better than losing San Diego or Oakland.

 

I'd say this issue is big enough that if I were the owner of the Rams, I'd make quick calls to the other 31 owners and ask if there could be a quick, remote, vote on the matter. It shouldn't be that difficult unless they are required to vote in person or something. I mean the owners ARE the league, not the commissioner. They can do as they wish if they agree.

[aawagner011]

I just don't see it being a concern that gets brought to the table unless the Rams push it. None of the other owners will care what the Rams wear. If they did, we wouldn't have monstrosities like the Jaguars' helmet or the Browns leg wordmark. I'm sure the Rams would have been quite content to wear the navy and gold while also selling the throwbacks the fans are demanding. I think they were just surprised how big of a deal this is for the fans. But the other 31 clubs don't care whether it's navy or royal. If the Rams are persistent, perhaps they can get an exemption but it'll be on them to seek it out and get it done.

[guest23]

23 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

From what John Clayton reported at the time, the deciding factor in the vote was when Paul Allen asked what made more financial sense and what was best for the league. At that time it became crystal clear to the owners that exchanging St. Louis for LA was better than losing San Diego or Oakland.

 

I'd say this issue is big enough that if I were the owner of the Rams, I'd make quick calls to the other 31 owners and ask if there could be a quick, remote, vote on the matter. It shouldn't be that difficult unless they are required to vote in person or something. I mean the owners ARE the league, not the commissioner. They can do as they wish if they agree.

 

I agree ownership can do whatever the hell they want if they vote for it but rich old white men are more inclined to not bother with something so trivial. They gave stan his relo and in their minds they've done their part. He and roger can duke it out over what uniform they can wear.

 

You're somewhat correct about relocation. Kroenke made the most financial sense for the league to relocate to LA since he already acquired the land from his wife's company in a backdoor deal and had the means to get the stadium built without outside assistance and pay a hefty relocation fee. Spanos and Davis had neither. Allen may have said things publicly but jones was definitely the facilitator of the vote and really pulled a coup against Spanos who got the rug pulled from under him. Overall this deal is ok for the league in that they get a shiny new stadium and new network facilities. Owners get to split relocation fees which isn't bad. Kroenke can now flip the rams for a larger profit (only way he makes money on the deal).  What this move actually does not help is TV, which could actually be a financial risk if the rams do not attract viewers. The networks currently get to primarily broadcast 3 daytime games without restrictions and the market already gets average or above average viewship.

[AHcreative]

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/4s1aa3/the_la_rams_eliminate_white_trim_from_uniform_for/

 

I saw this on reddit. It's kind of interesting. It looks like the throwbacks with gold instead of yellow. The title says "removed white trim" but obviously that's incorrect seeing as the number font is block-style and the horns can be seen on the sleeves. 

 

Of course it could just be the lighting, like it is 60% of the time. 

 

[The_Admiral]

I do think whichever new design the Rams go with should have single-layer yellow numbers on blue, but outlined numbers on the whites. The color distribution on the L.A. Rams' road uniforms always seemed out of whack: too much yellow in some places, not enough in others.

[DCarp1231]

1 hour ago, Heitert said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/4s1aa3/the_la_rams_eliminate_white_trim_from_uniform_for/

 

I saw this on reddit. It's kind of interesting. It looks like the throwbacks with gold instead of yellow. The title says "removed white trim" but obviously that's incorrect seeing as the number font is block-style and the horns can be seen on the sleeves. 

 

Of course it could just be the lighting, like it is 60% of the time. 

 

You do realize on those uniforms, there is no white trim so technically it is correct and they look great compared to the uniforms with white trim. And I highly doubt it that much that the lighting is so terrible it doesn't show the white trim. BUT it could also be a case of Photoshop.

[MCM0313]

31 minutes ago, the admiral said:

I do think whichever new design the Rams go with should have single-layer yellow numbers on blue, but outlined numbers on the whites. The color distribution on the L.A. Rams' road uniforms always seemed out of whack: too much yellow in some places, not enough in others.

I never noticed that. The Rams' old whites were among my favorite NFL uniforms ever, along with Denver's "orange crush" jerseys and anything the pre-1997 Dolphins wore with white pants and anything the 1997-2002 Falcons wore...and the Oilers.

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, Heitert said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/4s1aa3/the_la_rams_eliminate_white_trim_from_uniform_for/

 

I saw this on reddit. It's kind of interesting. It looks like the throwbacks with gold instead of yellow. The title says "removed white trim" but obviously that's incorrect seeing as the number font is block-style and the horns can be seen on the sleeves. 

 

Of course it could just be the lighting, like it is 60% of the time. 

 

 

Those look like photoshopped versions of the throwbacks.