Sec19Row53 Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 But if the NFL really wants to move a team to LA (which I really think LA needs a team), why not move a team from somewhere like Jacksonville. One: Jacksonville doesn't sell out their stadiumTwo: I don't see why a smaller state such as Florida needs THREE teams.LA does need a team, but the Rams shouldn't, and won't, be that team.They have the biggest stadium in the NFL. They block off some of the seats, therefore no sell out.According to this link http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/capacity.htm they are 8th out of 31 stadia in capacity - not first. It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 Attendance issues didn't start til almost halfway through last season (when everyone realized the team sucked), and so far 1 game this season, and everyone all of sudden thinks, "They have no fanbase. Send them back to LA"? WTF? They don't need to move, just get new coaches and sign better players.The Raiders have been far worse for far longer. And have an older stadium that they have to share with the A's. Why not move them back? Oh, because the Rams are in Missouri, and evidently we're inferior to California, so we should lose our team. They were blacked out in 2005 as well. And previous blackouts were averted by the charity of local business interests.I'm curious to see how this will effect the city's requirement to upgrade or replace the dome in coming years. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 But if the NFL really wants to move a team to LA (which I really think LA needs a team), why not move a team from somewhere like Jacksonville. One: Jacksonville doesn't sell out their stadiumTwo: I don't see why a smaller state such as Florida needs THREE teams.LA does need a team, but the Rams shouldn't, and won't, be that team.They have the biggest stadium in the NFL. They block off some of the seats, therefore no sell out.According to this link http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/capacity.htm they are 8th out of 31 stadia in capacity - not first.And that doesn't take into account the tarped-off sections designed to eliminate local blackouts - under the reduced capacity, the Jags have the eighteeth largest stadium. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopard88 Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 According to this link http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/capacity.htm they are 8th out of 31 stadia in capacity - not first.Off topic, but the Ravens have squeezed a few more seats into M&T Bank Stadium, so the figure on this site is outdated. I was at yesterday's game and the announced attendance was 71,104.The Redskins have also added capacity to FedEx Field. Yesterday's announced attendance there was 90,060. Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017   /////    Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008 Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 Attendance issues didn't start til almost halfway through last season (when everyone realized the team sucked), and so far 1 game this season, and everyone all of sudden thinks, "They have no fanbase. Send them back to LA"? WTF? They don't need to move, just get new coaches and sign better players.The Raiders have been far worse for far longer. And have an older stadium that they have to share with the A's. Why not move them back? Oh, because the Rams are in Missouri, and evidently we're inferior to California, so we should lose our team. They were blacked out in 2005 as well. And previous blackouts were averted by the charity of local business interests.I'm curious to see how this will effect the city's requirement to upgrade or replace the dome in coming years.How what will effect it?The Rams have semi-waived the requirement on a couple of occasions.Pretty major renovations are scheduled for this offseason.And then probably the next time it will come up will be in the seasons approaching the major deadline of 2015.And at that point it's basically going to take a new stadium or a similar amount of money to massively renovate the Dome.Rosenbloom has apparently already been working to avoid a huge problem when 2015 hits, but I'm not sure how much he's willing to concede, and if nothing is actually contractually agreed upon prior to a potential sale, it means very little. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 And then probably the next time it will come up will be in the seasons approaching the major deadline of 2015.That's what I'm talking about. St. Louis essentially has to build them a new stadium by 2015, with specific plans scheduled to be discussed (IIRC) in 2012. 2012 really isn't that far away. If the Rams continue to have blackouts, continue to have some problems selling out the place, that could make the city very wary about spending a billion dollars on a new building. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 And then probably the next time it will come up will be in the seasons approaching the major deadline of 2015.That's what I'm talking about. St. Louis essentially has to build them a new stadium by 2015, with specific plans scheduled to be discussed (IIRC) in 2012. 2012 really isn't that far away. If the Rams continue to have blackouts, continue to have some problems selling out the place, that could make the city very wary about spending a billion dollars on a new building.As well as stories such as this. I met someone from St. Louis a couple of weeks ago, and they said I was first honest to God Rams fan they had ever met. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 And then probably the next time it will come up will be in the seasons approaching the major deadline of 2015.That's what I'm talking about. St. Louis essentially has to build them a new stadium by 2015, with specific plans scheduled to be discussed (IIRC) in 2012. 2012 really isn't that far away. If the Rams continue to have blackouts, continue to have some problems selling out the place, that could make the city very wary about spending a billion dollars on a new building.Okay, so you meant the blackouts. Didn't mean to sound smart allecky in my response, I just wasn't sure what you were saying might effect things.I'm personally not worried about the blackouts being the issue. St. Louis will show up when there's an effort on the part of the players and the front office and a legitimate chance to compete (and that almost always comes with legitimate efforts from the two aforementioned parties).I'm still worried because I'm not sure St. Louis will decide it can afford to build a new stadium regardless, but I don't think the attendance will be the issue.Now, if football wise they start turning things around now (meaning front office and coaching changes soon, which I think ought to be expected, and on field results starting to show next year), the timing will actually be decent.From 1999 through 2001 and maybe even a little after, the Rams were everywhere. Cardinals will always have their spot, but the Rams were right there with them. Everyone was buzzing about the Rams. Sponsors about the Rams. Newspaper just full of Rams coverage. The market was wild for this team.I hope it doesn't take a Super Bowl champion to do that, but I'm not surprised it takes a team perceived as a contender.Anyways, my point being that 2012 gives them 3-4 years to get things in order. In the NFL it's not at all unbelievable that this team could be contending by then (there's no signs of it now--they've gotta make these front office changes first, but I think that'll happen).And if you've got the city anywhere near the level of fandom it was at between 1999-2001, it's going to be a lot easier sell to get that new stadium.So that's just one more reason I really want to see the on-field results start to get turned around. It not only kills me to watch such ineptness from the team I love, I know that it's could have a huge effect on whether they stay in St. Louis. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 So that's just one more reason I really want to see the on-field results start to get turned around. It not only kills me to watch such ineptness from the team I love, I know that it's could have a huge effect on whether they stay in St. Louis.I guess that was really my point (and sorry if I didn't make that clear at the outset).Three to four years is simultaneously a long time and not much time at all. We'll see what happens. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew22 Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 But if the NFL really wants to move a team to LA (which I really think LA needs a team), why not move a team from somewhere like Jacksonville. One: Jacksonville doesn't sell out their stadiumTwo: I don't see why a smaller state such as Florida needs THREE teams.LA does need a team, but the Rams shouldn't, and won't, be that team.They have the biggest stadium in the NFL. They block off some of the seats, therefore no sell out.According to this link http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/capacity.htm they are 8th out of 31 stadia in capacity - not first.I had no clue that there were stadiums that much bigger. I knew about Fedex, but not the others. Eagles/Heels/Dawgs/Falcons/Hawks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 67,000 isn't very big at all - when the seats are blocked off, there are fifty-one NFL and college stadiums with bigger capacity.There's really no excuse for not selling that out, especially with a halfway decent team. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 And then probably the next time it will come up will be in the seasons approaching the major deadline of 2015.That's what I'm talking about. St. Louis essentially has to build them a new stadium by 2015, with specific plans scheduled to be discussed (IIRC) in 2012. 2012 really isn't that far away. If the Rams continue to have blackouts, continue to have some problems selling out the place, that could make the city very wary about spending a billion dollars on a new building.The Vikings will probably have beaten the Rams to L.A. by then, as their Metrodome lease is up after the 2011 season and new stadium efforts are pretty much stalled. The Bills will probably have long since moved to Toronto full-time (maybe with a "Buffalo Series" game every year) by 2015 too. The Mexico City Rams, anyone? (Although the Jaguars' identity would probably work even better down there, as that animal is indigenous to southern Mexico and Central America.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I hope you're wrong - I'd hate to see the Vikings rivalry lost. Which is why I want the Rams to move to LA if they're going to move anywhere, preserve the LA/SF rivarly.In my ideal world, I'd move the Rams to LA and the Jaguars to St Louis to fill the void. That would solve the stadium issues there, and given fan apathy I just can't see Jacksonville as a viable home.Mexico City? No chance. Currency issues would prevent that, even if environmental factors didn't. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.