Recommended Posts

It would make more sense for the Rams to stick with their current look for the first couple years in LA (if they move). Most people will buy merchandise right away, so you'll sell plenty of their current look. Then if you change after, say, two years to royal and yellow, people will want to buy the new stuff.

It's similar to the Cavs and the return of LeBron. They're most likely going to keep their current look for a few years and sell a boatload of jerseys, then change and sell a ton more.

By this theory, no team should change right away when they move cities.

I think you're underestimating the frugality of the public, especially in a town that has plenty of other sports options and the fact the Rams really weren't the trendy team when they were there in the 90s.

I think "Los Angeles Rams" merchandise in St. Louis navy and metallic gold will be met with a "meh" response. I'd probably guess that even the league office wouldn't want its new LA team - a much-ballyhooed achievement in itself - in old and borrowed clothes in one of the trendiest cities in the world. You don't want to move a team to LA and then pretend you don't give a :censored: about the image of it.

Given that licensed sports apparel is an industry doing over $4 billion in retail sales domestically, I think it's safe to say thats a consumer base that spends freely and does not have frugality in mind. I think the frugal sports fans were basically priced out of the marketplace 5-10 years ago. Using top tier ncaa programs and top tier football clubs as a benchmark where the supplier (nike/adi) has significant control over redesigns, you see a design window that's running 1-5 years. 1 year seems extreme but I think the 3-4 year window for an american pro franchise to redesign uniforms would be ideal for the suppliers/licensees bottom line. Back to the cleveland issue they absolutely are doing the smart thing by using LJ's return to sell the current design and once that momentum wears off you change up the design and generate some new buzz around that.

From an LA standpoint the rams are an absolute crap shoot as to whether or not they will take. They didn't leave under great terms and weren't relevant in social since the late 80's. Other than the nil die hards looking to root for any local team I just don't think many people will be excited. The thing is that LA already is a saturated nfl city. You are guaranteed 4 games over the air every sunday and there are multiple bars and mini supporter clubs for the transplants. Snoop is a steelers fan for crissakes. There really is not much upside to relocating to social unless the owner is planning on selling their franchise quickly due to revenues being so heavily tied to the tv contract. I still go back to my idea as to what would make the most sense for the league from an attendance publicity point of view is to do an LA version of the London series at a renovated Coliseum. But that makes too much sense and doesn't come with a relocation fee for the other 31 owners to pocket.

There's not much upside relocating unless the owner is planning on selling quickly? So the owner cashes in, and then the new owners just have a franchise that keeps appreciating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would make more sense for the Rams to stick with their current look for the first couple years in LA (if they move). Most people will buy merchandise right away, so you'll sell plenty of their current look. Then if you change after, say, two years to royal and yellow, people will want to buy the new stuff.

It's similar to the Cavs and the return of LeBron. They're most likely going to keep their current look for a few years and sell a boatload of jerseys, then change and sell a ton more.

By this theory, no team should change right away when they move cities.

I think you're underestimating the frugality of the public, especially in a town that has plenty of other sports options and the fact the Rams really weren't the trendy team when they were there in the 90s.

I think "Los Angeles Rams" merchandise in St. Louis navy and metallic gold will be met with a "meh" response. I'd probably guess that even the league office wouldn't want its new LA team - a much-ballyhooed achievement in itself - in old and borrowed clothes in one of the trendiest cities in the world. You don't want to move a team to LA and then pretend you don't give a :censored: about the image of it.

Given that licensed sports apparel is an industry doing over $4 billion in retail sales domestically, I think it's safe to say thats a consumer base that spends freely and does not have frugality in mind. I think the frugal sports fans were basically priced out of the marketplace 5-10 years ago. Using top tier ncaa programs and top tier football clubs as a benchmark where the supplier (nike/adi) has significant control over redesigns, you see a design window that's running 1-5 years. 1 year seems extreme but I think the 3-4 year window for an american pro franchise to redesign uniforms would be ideal for the suppliers/licensees bottom line. Back to the cleveland issue they absolutely are doing the smart thing by using LJ's return to sell the current design and once that momentum wears off you change up the design and generate some new buzz around that.

From an LA standpoint the rams are an absolute crap shoot as to whether or not they will take. They didn't leave under great terms and weren't relevant in social since the late 80's. Other than the nil die hards looking to root for any local team I just don't think many people will be excited. The thing is that LA already is a saturated nfl city. You are guaranteed 4 games over the air every sunday and there are multiple bars and mini supporter clubs for the transplants. Snoop is a steelers fan for crissakes. There really is not much upside to relocating to social unless the owner is planning on selling their franchise quickly due to revenues being so heavily tied to the tv contract. I still go back to my idea as to what would make the most sense for the league from an attendance publicity point of view is to do an LA version of the London series at a renovated Coliseum. But that makes too much sense and doesn't come with a relocation fee for the other 31 owners to pocket.

There's not much upside relocating unless the owner is planning on selling quickly? So the owner cashes in, and then the new owners just have a franchise that keeps appreciating?

A large portion of owners like being in the exclusive club and want to stay in as long as they can. There are only 32 spots. To buy into the club requires a significant cash outlay which basically now requires billionaire level personal wealth. Like many ultra-wealthy the owners either don't want to or need to sell based on equity/appreciation as the cash flow makes the investment more than worthwhile, nor is it their primary source of income. Once again, a franchise is not a typical investment that these folks are looking to flip for a quick return the majority of ownership like you would a stock position or real estate investment. There have been some exceptions recently, but there is no hard and fast rule that says you sell at the top of the market to collect your ROI. If that was the case, the Spanos or Davis family would have relocated and sold off years ago.

Does that make sense now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...if an owner is going to "risk" hundreds of millions or billions, he wants a return, even if it's not realized until 30 years from now. Rarely will an owner sell for the same price he bought it for. The reason the Spanos and Davis families haven't sold is the increase in future cash flows...which constantly appreciates the value of the team, despite any lack of success.

There is plenty of upside for an owner moving a team from St. Louis to Los Angeles. Why would there be little upside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the bills.game going to be on tv tonight?

Yes. CBS starting at 6pm central.

I though it was only in the NY markets--not national

Right you were. I looked on the NFL's website and saw CBS listed, and I figured it would be showed nationally. It wasn't even simulcast on NFLN, as was the Raiders game which started at 11 EST last season. I guess they had it in the contract that they couldn't F with ESPN's window.

As for the Rams, I agree that they would likely want to wait a few years to rebrand, but I imagine the NFL would let them make substantial tweaks to the uniform right away. For instance, if they moved in March and decided to remove the toilet collars, swap out the beige for metallic gold and make Nike produce metallic gold pants, I'm sure the NFL would allow it. Because navy and beige is even more depressing under the bright California sunlight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...if an owner is going to "risk" hundreds of millions or billions, he wants a return, even if it's not realized until 30 years from now. Rarely will an owner sell for the same price he bought it for. The reason the Spanos and Davis families haven't sold is the increase in future cash flows...which constantly appreciates the value of the team, despite any lack of success.

There is plenty of upside for an owner moving a team from St. Louis to Los Angeles. Why would there be little upside?

It all has to do with the economics of an nfl franchise and the revenue sharing model. Compared to nba/mlb location of your franchise does little to increase cash flows and overall franchise value. Actual research has been done on this subject. I can provide a citation later. Teams share all tv revenues and general gate revenues. The only real location advantage is suites/club seats and some local ad revenue which ends up being a small % in terms of overall contribution. Let's use the rams as an example, do you ride it out in stl and work a current deal to upgrade the dome with come taxpayer assistance or do you sink a few hundred million in a relocation fees (cash out the door) and then attempt to secure financing for close to a billion in debt with next to no taxpayer subsidy, so you can have a fancy new stadium in inglewood while your revenues only increase modestly? Once again to truly realize the benefit of relocation you will have to sell of which means you are no longer in the club which to many defeats the purpose.

There's a reason why there has not been a team in Southern California for 2 decades. The financial windfall simply is not there for those that are currently in an ownership position and want to remain there. Also Kroenke's purchase in inglewood could be used as a stadium site but there's a massive redevelopment going on in that area which means he's in good shape purely from a real estate investment standpoint so he'll make money on that parcel regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why there has not been a team in Southen California is because no current NFL city has failed as a viable location. If you read the multiple steps required to relocate, the Rams (and any other team maybe other than Jacksonville or Oakland) don't really have a case to relocate.

However, if Kroenke was able to persuade the league to allow the team to move to the second largest city in the country...then I'm quite positive the value of the team would increase dramatically and not be #32 in Forbes' valuations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams share all tv revenues and general gate revenues. The only real location advantage is suites/club seats and some local ad revenue which ends up being a small % in terms of overall contribution.

You left out a couple big ones; local radio deals and merchandise. That last one especially is hardly an insubstantial revenue stream.

Merchandise sales are pooled, except for those sold directly by the club. And that includes online platforms, which is why every Packer fan will buy from packersproshop.com rather than nflshop.com. That also means any brick-and-mortar stores the club owns, which is why the Raiders have(had?) a string of clubhouse shops in Los Angeles.

We all know how big merchandising revenue is, how it can drive the conversation. If the Rams move to LA and set up their own chain of stores around town, they can have a steady revenue stream they don't have to share. It might not be the biggest revenues clubs have, but that's still a "location advantage" LA has over a market like St. Louis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way the Rams keep that drab set if they move to LA, and even bigger no way that the new threads will be retro in the slightest.

Think about it: you're Stan Kroenke. You're moving your franchise back into the largest unoccupied market where football has already failed. You want to attract attention and drum up excitement about the Rams in LA right off the bat. You know the best way to do that? Flashy uniforms that attract the young demographic and celebrities of LA. Loud colors, and a color the city already identifies itself with.

If I were a betting man, I'd wager that those of you predicting yellow becomes the primary are absolutely correct, but there will be very little if any throwback elements to them.

I'm fully preparing for the Rams to return to LA looking more akin to the yellowed out Oregon Ducks look than the classic gold jersey. It just makes too much sense from a marketing standpoint.

My prediction:

Yellow helmet with silver chrome refined boney looking horns.

Yellow uniform with silver chrome boney horn pattern on the shoulders.

Reflective navy numbers with chrome silver outlining

Yellow pants with some combination of a future looking silver chrome and navy stripe.

Navy socks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha good lord all that chrome would look terrible. The Rams won't want to look like amateurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams share all tv revenues and general gate revenues. The only real location advantage is suites/club seats and some local ad revenue which ends up being a small % in terms of overall contribution.

You left out a couple big ones; local radio deals and merchandise. That last one especially is hardly an insubstantial revenue stream.

Merchandise sales are pooled, except for those sold directly by the club. And that includes online platforms, which is why every Packer fan will buy from packersproshop.com rather than nflshop.com. That also means any brick-and-mortar stores the club owns, which is why the Raiders have(had?) a string of clubhouse shops in Los Angeles.

We all know how big merchandising revenue is, how it can drive the conversation. If the Rams move to LA and set up their own chain of stores around town, they can have a steady revenue stream they don't have to share. It might not be the biggest revenues clubs have, but that's still a "location advantage" LA has over a market like St. Louis.

Local merch revenue is not even close to being enough of a justification to relocate. Even radio is small money this day an age. A team will move into the LA market when it makes financial sense to incur a massive relocation or renegotiated relocation fee and the assumption of an undetermined amount of stadium debt. Currently any owner with the freedom to move on their own dime has not been willing to make such a move likely because the costs continue to outweigh the benefits from their perspective.

We'll only see a move once those circumstances change like a new league subsidy or incentive (relo fee or stadium build), taxpayer subsidy, or current franchise owner(s) sells their franchise or at least a portion to someone with money to spend/invest on making a move. Could there be an announcement next Feb? Anything is possible, but given the two decade history I surely would not bet on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind part of the reason there hasn't been an NFL team in Los Angeles is because that void has forced cities/states to bend over backwards to bankrupt themselves by building stadiums or providing other handouts in order to prevent their team from relocating.

As for the Rams, I actually think that their current set, with the gold pants of course, would be great for LA - especially under natural light. Heck - bring back the side panels too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Local merch revenue is not even close to being enough of a justification to relocate. Even radio is small money this day an age.

Well, sure, if you're going to move the goalposts. "Justification to relocate" in itself was never the standard.

You said "The only real location advantage is suites/club seats and some local ad revenue", and I was pointing out that there were a couple advantages you hadn't listed.

Is any one of those in and of themselves good reasons to relocate? No. But they all sweeten the deal, especially taken together.

FWIW, Kroenke has shown a willingness to take cash dividends out of his clubs - just ask any disaffected Arsenal supporter. He's not an owner in the George Steinbrenner mold, who reportedly told his minority partners "you won't get a penny until you sell, and then you'll make a bundle." If there's any owner in the NFL who would seek to increase monthly revenues as an end itself (big "if"), it's Silent Stan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the Rams, I actually think that their current set, with the gold pants of course, would be great for LA - especially under natural light. Heck - bring back the side panels too.

Outdoor games would do wonders for the terribly drab uniforms. Especially if they can bring back the metallic gold pants, which would dazzle in the sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically this but much cleaner and professional looking, of course.

So,.. not actually anything like that? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically this but much cleaner and professional looking, of course.

tQtI3Pv.jpg

The only way you can consider that professional-looking is if they're worn by a road crew.

road-safety-awareness-lagerfelds-yellow-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the Rams, I actually think that their current set, with the gold pants of course, would be great for LA - especially under natural light. Heck - bring back the side panels too.

Outdoor games would do wonders for the terribly drab uniforms. Especially if they can bring back the metallic gold pants, which would dazzle in the sun

If they use the current colors, metallic gold pants would definitely be a good change. Subtle nod to returning to the Golden State.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.