St. Louis Rams SOLD (pending NFL approval)

[Saintsfan]

Hey Kroenke owns Arsenal (or at least a large shareholding in Arsenal) how about London?

[DustDevil61]

I disagree on the history front. Under the cheapskate Frontiere regime, the franchise only made very halting steps towards setting down roots and growing the fanbase in the city, and beyond the city they didn't even do that. They never really tried to make the Rams "St. Louis' team" instead of "a team that plays in St. Louis." Sadly for those fans that do exist in St. Louis, this is probably going to be what costs the city the team.

Well, they seemed to be more like "St. Louis' team" from 1999-2003ish, when they were at least respectable on the field. I will agree that outside of those years (1995-1998, 2003ish-now), what you said has been the case.

The Cleveland Indians' owner in "Major League" is a thinly-veiled expy of Georgia Frontiere.

Agreed 100%.

There was also a reference in a Simpsons episode when Springfield and Los Angeles were trying to bid for an NFL team. In it, the potential Los Angeles owner said that she didn't kill her husband and seize his team just to put a team in Los Angeles, something similar to what Georgia may have done with Carol Rosenbloom (but replace L.A. with St. Louis), but that's besides the point.

[Quillz]

I guess in an ideal world, the Rams would still be in southern California and the Cardinals would still be in St. Louis.

But I've talked to people from St. Louis, and I get the impression that it's a baseball and hockey town, not a football town. They tell me that if the Rams left, it wouldn't really be a big deal, nothing like if the Cardinals or Blues folded up and left town. I'm sure the current Rams ownership would prefer to keep the team in St. Louis, but somehow I wonder if the city really truly supports the team.

L.A. certainly didn't do a great job in the 80s and 90s accommodating the two teams they had, but a lot has changed since then, and I know a lot of die hard L.A. football fans who really want the old franchise back.

[Gothamite]

I disagree on the history front. Under the cheapskate Frontiere regime, the franchise only made very halting steps towards setting down roots and growing the fanbase in the city, and beyond the city they didn't even do that. They never really tried to make the Rams "St. Louis' team" instead of "a team that plays in St. Louis." Sadly for those fans that do exist in St. Louis, this is probably going to be what costs the city the team.

Heck, you could say the exact same thing about her tenure with the Rams in LA.

/The Cleveland Indians' owner in "Major League" is a thinly-veiled expy of Georgia Frontiere.

Yep, five years before the Rams moved to St. Louis.

Well, it's a shame that no local owners have stepped up. I don't know about the local economy, but this is a terrible time to try to raise that much money.

Now the ball's in Roski's court. His stadium proposal has been steadily moving forward, and this might be his best chance yet to secure a franchise.

[STL FANATIC]

I guess in an ideal world, the Rams would still be in southern California and the Cardinals would still be in St. Louis.

But I've talked to people from St. Louis, and I get the impression that it's a baseball and hockey town, not a football town. They tell me that if the Rams left, it wouldn't really be a big deal, nothing like if the Cardinals or Blues folded up and left town. I'm sure the current Rams ownership would prefer to keep the team in St. Louis, but somehow I wonder if the city really truly supports the team.

L.A. certainly didn't do a great job in the 80s and 90s accommodating the two teams they had, but a lot has changed since then, and I know a lot of die hard L.A. football fans who really want the old franchise back.

Those people are wrong. There's two reasons why those things get said, though.

The first is what Rams80 has said a few times. The Rams have never worked to develop any sort of regional preference. I disagree with him when he says they haven't established themselves as St. Louis' team vs. a team that plays in St. Louis, but he's right when he says they haven't really developed a huge attachment to the area. For instance, Southern IL, very much Cardinals baseball territory, is Chicago Bears football territory. Not necessarily so strongly that it couldn't be overturned, but the Rams, outside of holding training camp in Macomb, IL for a while (now they hold it in St. Louis at their own facilities), have done very, very little to connect with the region outside of St. Louis metro. It's not an impossible feat, though, they just need to do the right marketing, and preferably while they're winning.

The second reason is simply that they've only been here 15 years and have only been good for about 5 of them and have been pretty flat awful in all the other seasons. When they first arrived, there was that honeymoon period. They hinted at being good the first year, and even when they turned out to be awful, people were just happy to have football. Five years in, as the terrible football began to wear, they risked losing the fanbase only to find themselves on an amazing Super Bowl run. Interest in the team was soooo, sooo high up. This city (metro area, and probably a bit more) was absolutely Ram crazy. I can't describe it. I'm sure you've all experienced it in your places at various times, I'm not suggesting it was unique to any other, but it was great. Then, the Rams came back down to earth slowly and eventually were flat awful again. And that's worn on fans. There's very little Ram pride around right now. People don't want to wear Rams gear around. The Rams are the butts of a joke right now. It's embarrassing to wear their gear (I still do, I'm trying to give you a feel for the general consensus).

But make now mistake, there's a different between embarrassment and apathy. There's tons of Rams fans. They're fanbase is more feeble and less diehard than the Blues (that'll happen when you're talking about 15 year history vs. over four decades), but I'd have to bet it's bigger. The Rams get a lot of coverage in the local paper leading up to and during football season. The Blues, even when they're putting on a good run, have trouble breaking in past Cardinals and Rams news, even in those teams off-seasons. The Cardinals obviously sell in St. Louis, but my point is, Rams news sells papers over Blues news. People care about the Rams here. They just can't support a team (financially) that's been run the way this one has the last 5ish years. Certainly not at the ticket prices the NFL charges.

But just with the simple changes the Rams have made this offseason to give us hope, I expect fans will flock to the dome again, and if they're winners, they'll be the toast of the town.

It's a little bit bangwagon-ish, but it's just important to note how the bandwagon works. It's not if they win, we're all big fans, but if they lose we don't care. It's if they win, we're all huge fans, and if they don't try, we're not gonna give them our money but we're gonna be pissed and get on message boards and write critical columns and all that stuff. In other words, people care about the Rams here.

Sorry, this turned out to be quite the lengthy rant and I didn't say a whole lot of anything. But I don't like the notion that St. Louis doesn't care about the Rams and doesn't support them. That really couldn't be further from the truth.

If the Rams leave, it'll have NOTHING to do with fan support, and everything to do with a bad lease (thanks politicians) on a mediocre building, and a new uppity owner that has other plans in mind.

[Gothamite]

If the Rams leave, it'll have NOTHING to do with fan support, and everything to do with a bad lease (thanks politicians) on a mediocre building, and a new uppity owner that has other plans in mind.

Which is pretty much what you can say about the departure of the Los Angeles Rams.

The more things change....

[STL FANATIC]

If the Rams leave, it'll have NOTHING to do with fan support, and everything to do with a bad lease (thanks politicians) on a mediocre building, and a new uppity owner that has other plans in mind.

Which is pretty much what you can say about the departure of the Los Angeles Rams.

The more things change....

I really don't know much about the departure of the Rams from LA, I was in 1st grade (I think) at the time. But I always refrain from sounding (potentially) ignorant and blaming anything on the fans. Really, in most cases it's not the fans fault.

Sometimes a city just can't support a franchise, despite fans (I'm thinking Winnipeg of the 1990s here), but more often then not it's simply owners looking for something else, because the building situation in the current city isn't perfect.

For the record, when I say bad lease, I don't mean Phoenix Coyotes bad where it monetarily crushes the franchise, I mean bad lease where we made pie in the sky building promises to the Rams to get them here and now can't keep them all.

[Rambulance]

As a former Los Angeles Rams fan(from Chicago), I think the biggest mistake the team made when moving to St Louis was build that mausoleum to play in. You take a fan base that wasn't built in, was feeling spurned by the Cardinals moving, and put them in a drab gray dome with bad sound and expect them to be excited about it? No wonder they can't fill the stadium anymore.

[Gothamite]

For the record, when I say bad lease, I don't mean Phoenix Coyotes bad where it monetarily crushes the franchise, I mean bad lease where we made pie in the sky building promises to the Rams to get them here and now can't keep them all.

That seems to be a fair account of the situation - it's a real-estate bubble lease. Counting on rising revenues, we'll always refinance it later.

St. Louis now owes the Rams a new stadium in the next couple years. And not just any old stadium, but a shiny new stadium that ranks in the top eight of the NFL, which is a pretty high bar. That's a lot of scratch to come up with in this market.

[STL FANATIC]

As a former Los Angeles Rams fan(from Chicago), I think the biggest mistake the team made when moving to St Louis was build that mausoleum to play in. You take a fan base that wasn't built in, was feeling spurned by the Cardinals moving, and put them in a drab gray dome with bad sound and expect them to be excited about it? No wonder they can't fill the stadium anymore.

Not quite how it happened.

St. Louis was just a couple years removed from a near miss for an expansion franchise when the Jags and Panthers were awarded teams (I believe St. Louis had things fall through last minute, otherwise they were expected to get a team). They had a whole stadium plan in place for that situation.

Then the Rams came available, and St. Louis jumped. They needed to start building a stadium to lure the Rams. They had the plans from a couple years ago. "Let's just go with that." And so the stadium was essentially already 2-3 years old before it was even built. And those few years were pretty important, because the mid-nineties was right around when things changed as far as what was important to have in a stadium.

Since then, something like 20 new stadiums have been built or massively renovated. The Ed Jones Dome is currently undergoing a $30 million dollar but rather minor renovation. They just can't possibly keep up.

But I don't agree that the building is keeping anyone away. For starters, as bad as actual attendance was last season (and that was really the first year in their tenure attendance has been much of a problem), and as much as people always pull the "tear off the roof" crap, how many fans do you think would have showed up to an open roof stadium in St. Louis in the dead of winter to see a 2-win, pitiful football team get walked all over? Very, very few.

Further, did ANYBODY complain about the Dome from 1999-2001? Heck no. It was loud and raucous and generally considered one of the hardest most intimidating places to play in. Fans not only didn't mind the stadium because the football was good, we took a lot of pride in how great an environment it created.

But when the teams not entertaining and there's nothing to cheer for, well, then it becomes just a big artificially lit building with seats. But it doesn't need to be anything more than that if the product is good.

And so, it's not that the building is so bad that the team needs a new stadium. But not by any means. But rather, as Gothamite mentioned, the stupid lease says the stadium has to stay in the top 25% of all stadiums. Now there's no real way to judge that, but the truth is that hasn't been the case for a while. The Rams have been decent about it and settled for smaller renovations, but that's not likely to happen at the next major check point in 2012.

If the new owner is local or supports local interest, they can probably work out a compromise to extend things and work with the city to eventually finance a new stadium. But if it's an owner that wants to play hardball or is dead-set on moving the team, well then the city will be forced to build a new stadium or let the Rams out of their lease in 2014, and then they're of course free to go where they like.

[Gothamite]

If the new owner is local or supports local interest, they can probably work out a compromise to extend things and work with the city to eventually finance a new stadium. But if it's an owner that wants to play hardball or is dead-set on moving the team, well then the city will be forced to build a new stadium or let the Rams out of their lease in 2014, and then they're of course free to go where they like.

What do you think the odds are that local ownership will emerge, given that none has stepped forward in the past year or so (when Rosenbloom was reportedly offering a local discount)?

So the best hope of keeping the Rams in St. Louis rides with a non-local owner interested in keeping them in place. That owner would be, I suspect, more interested in enforcing the lease provision. He'll need to maximize revenues in St. Louis if he's going to pass up the marketing opportunities LA offers.

Either way, that lease will come back to haunt them. Shows how much the sports world has changed since 1994.

[The_Admiral]

Given the NFL's obsession with putting a team back in Los Angeles, I can't see this turning out well for old St. Louis. Which is fine, their stadium is a dump and I hate watching games played there.

[jkrdevil]

Just a quick question regarding the Rams lease. What is the metric used to judge if the Dome is in the top 8 of NFL stadiums?

[The_Admiral]

ultimatesportsroadtrip

[Burmy]

Also, since it's a relatively new dome, why hasn't it been in the running for any Super Bowls?

[The_Admiral]

it's in St. Louis

[Gothamite]

Also, since it's a relatively new dome, why hasn't it been in the running for any Super Bowls?

The admiral's right - non-traditionally located Super Bowls are often given out as an inducement for cities to build new stadiums, which wasn't needed in this case.

[STL FANATIC]

What do you think the odds are that local ownership will emerge, given that none has stepped forward in the past year or so (when Rosenbloom was reportedly offering a local discount)?

I'm not entirely pessimistic about it. For the past year, Chip maintained that the team was not for sale nor would it for sure be for sale in the future. He merely held that he was listening if contacted but not listening as closely unless it was a buyer with St. Louis interests.

Now the team is actually for sale. That's a little different than "if you offer me something, I'll read it." Because one, now a potential owner knows he's got a chance at about a market value, and two, St. Louisans know it might be the difference between losing the Rams or keeping them.

In other words, there's a lot more motivation and incentive for someone to put together a bid now. Doesn't mean it will happen, but I certainly would not rule it out. Regardless, I still think our best bet is someone from outside with St. Louis interests (just as Georgia was to an extent). The Cards are owned by a guy from Cincinnati, the Blues are owned by a guy from Utah/Connecticut/New York.

Just a quick question regarding the Rams lease. What is the metric used to judge if the Dome is in the top 8 of NFL stadiums?

To be honest, I've never seen an actual metric thrown out there. That's why if they were in the 9-15 range they still might be able to get away with it because how can you prove that stuff? But at this point they're probably not even in the top 20 and there's just no way they could win a case. Ultimately I think the only "metric" is that if the sides can't reach an agreement, then it goes to an arbitrator.

Also, since it's a relatively new dome, why hasn't it been in the running for any Super Bowls?

The admiral's right - non-traditionally located Super Bowls are often given out as an inducement for cities to build new stadiums, which wasn't needed in this case.

Is there a minimum seating number that the Super Bowl requires, and is it heavily enforced? Because in the past I thought I've seen that the Rams don't meet that number, but I can't be sure.

[DustDevil61]

The Cards are owned by a guy from Cincinnati, the Blues are owned by a guy from Utah/Connecticut/New York.

It seems like Checketts (St. Louis Blues/Real Salt Lake owner) is from Utah (going to the U of U), with Connecticut/New York connections. Personally, I think that he is one of the better out-of-town owners you can have, as it seems that he won't buy a team just to move it. He almost moved Real Salt Lake to St. Louis, where he owned the Blues then as well, when the stadium deal here in Utah didn't seem like it was going to go through. That was a last resort to him.

While I'll admit that I'd like to see the NHL here in Utah and that Checketts moving the Blues here is currently our best bet here, I don't think he will. As far as I'm aware, he has said repeatedly said that he is trying to build and promote the team there. He's even said that about the Peoria Rivermen, who play in the rather unstable AHL. The AHL seems like a league where a team seems to pull up stakes every other year. To me, that says something.

Plus, I wouldn't want the Blues to move here; I don't want Salt Lake to become the Oklahoma City of the NHL (having a local owner that takes a team with 40+ years of history in one loyal city and moves it to his hometown). I'd rather see a team with faltering support and relatively little history in its current city (i.e., Atlanta, Florida, Phoenix, Tampa Bay-?) move here and start fresh, but that's just me.

[rams80]

Also, since it's a relatively new dome, why hasn't it been in the running for any Super Bowls?

In addition to what others have said IIRC it's also just a bit too small. I think the NFL insists on 70,000 seats.