expect Rams to be back in LA next year.

interesting read.

BEST FOR THE RAMS

By now, most of you have probably read the news spread across the front page of TST. As an outside fan, loyal to neither Los Angeles or St. Louis, I feel like I may have a somewhat unique perspective on this potential move than many other fans of the Rams.

As some of you know from reading comments I've posted, I was born and raised (and still live) in the state of Oregon. I have family in St. Louis, and attending a pre-season game in 1999 with them was the reason I became a Rams fan. In case you're wondering which game, it was the game against the Chargers where Trent Green was lost for the season. Other than family living there (and I have some extended family in L.A. as well), I have no ties to the city of St. Louis. I do, however, have a lot of love for the Rams.

I've seen a lot of posts calling Stan Kroenke a money hungry prick, or a son-of-a-bitch, and I've seen a lot of posts from people who grew up watching the L.A. Rams happy and excited that their team is (maybe) coming back. I haven't seen many posts from people who are examining the potential move from a rational standpoint, leaving emotions at the door. That isn't to say that your emotions aren't justified, but I think some rational examination is in order.

First and foremost, the NFL is a business. We as fans often lose sight of that. We tend to get attached to players, and often will get angry if a favorite player leaves our team to play for another team that offered more money, a better location, better chance at winning, etc. The opposite is sometimes true as well: we get disappointed or angry when our favorite team lets a fan favorite walk because of money. But, as much as we are loathe to admit it, this game, first and foremost, is about making money.

From a business standpoint, a move to L.A. is the smartest possible move that any owner in the NFL could possibly make, maybe ever. Why? Well, Business Insider recently examined Forbes franchise value list, and noticed a trend: the most valuable teams, by and large, play in the largest TV markets. New York, Dallas, Chicago, these are the most valuable teams in the league. There are a few teams that go against the grain, New England chief among them, but, for the most part, franchise value is intrinsically tied to what TV market that team plays in. Business Insider concluded that, while a stadium may cost Kroenke upwards of $1 billion, he would see his franchise nearly double in value, simply by relocating to a top 5 TV market. Moving to Los Angeles is a good money move. It's a savvy business move.

But, you might say, won't it alienate the fans? Yes, it might. And rightfully so. As football fans, we identify with our teams. "We won the game against so and so on Sunday" is a common phrase among ALL football fans. We feel as though we are a part of the team. So what happens when that team relocates, and we were fans because they were the local team? We feel less connected. In some cases, we refuse to root for the team we became so attached to because they aren't the local team anymore. And that's okay. Even with fans who feel rejected, and dejected, at the thought of a move, the team is, financially, better off. New fans, in a new market, are going to be excited at the prospect of having a home team to root for. The old fans of the team who aren't located near the team are going to stick with the team. Some of the fans will stick with the team even after the move, because they're still the Rams. All, or most will buy new merchandise, Los Angeles Rams merchandise, which makes the team, and owner, money. So again, moving the team is a smart financial move no matter how you spin it. A good example is when the Rams moved from L.A. to St. Louis in 1995. The Rams were new in town, they were terrible, and nobody cared that they were terrible. The excitement of having an NFL franchise in town helped sell out the stadium every week, and merchandise sales were fantastic. Even if the team isn't a great product on the field, the team will financially be successful, at least for a few seasons, after a move.

So what about from a neutral fan's standpoint? Will the team be better in Los Angeles than in St. Louis? Probably, and there are a couple of reasons for that. The other professional sports leagues have proven time and time again that often, when a free agent is deciding between two similar contract offers, it's all about location. Desirable free agents are easier to attract when you have an attractive location. A new, shiny, state-of-the-art stadium is a big part of that.

Professional football players are, at their core, just like you or me. Given the option to live somewhere where the weather is almost always nice, where the beach is a short drive away, or a location where the weather isn't ideal, where the beach isn't an option, which location would you choose? I'd go for the beach every time. Better yet, given the option to work in an office building that is badly in need of repairs, or a brand new shiny office building in a great location, which one are you going to choose? I'll choose the new building every time.

Lets not kid ourselves. The Rams have a difficult time attracting free agents, and seemingly have for quite some time. I'd be willing to bet that part of that is due to the location (St. Louis is a baseball city, first and foremost), but most of it, in all likelihood, is due to WHERE the Rams play their games. Playing on a turf surface, with a little padding on top of concrete, tends to shorten careers. Knees, ankles, shoulders all wear down faster hitting that turf than they would on natural sod. The free agents that the Rams do tend to attract are either on the downsides of their career, and signing what will probably be their last big deal (Jake Long, Scott Wells), or they are guys who were massively overpaid, and/or familiar with the coach (Langford, Cook). Even home-grown talent like Rodger Saffold preferred to sign with the Raiders, the one team consistently WORSE than the Rams. The only reason he ended up back in St. Louis is a failed physical. I have to think at least part of that was because he was looking at ways to lengthen his career.

Bottom line, as an impartial, outside observer loyal to the Rams, regardless of where they decide to play, a move to Los Angeles isn't a bad thing. From a business standpoint, and from an improving the team standpoint, the Rams are better off in Los Angeles. Many of you will stop following the Rams if or when that move happens, and I understand why, but when you take emotions out of it, this potential move is a positive.
Small_turfshowtimes.com.minimal
More from Turf Show Times

2015 NFL Mock Draft: Kiper Mocks A New Tackle To Rams
2015 Rams Mock Draft: Take One
The Rams' All-Time 53-Man Roster
 
from st Louis sports writer bill McClellan-GET THE RAMS THE HELL OUT OF THERE NOW!!!!!

comedy gold.:biggrin:
 
rebuttals to shane greys Rams future in st louis article.

  • No disrespect to shane ...... but the rams are definitely moving and the truth will come out January 28th and February 15th. Why would kroenke stay if people not coming to the rams game and its obvious on tv. If he move to LA he will make alot more money their. Plus the rams will get national attention for the fact it is LA. We know the truth what happen In LA and why it did t work out. C'mon now that was all Georgia frontiers for destroying the fan base. The rams will get respect in sports if they move back. LA is ready bye bye st.louis. good luck in the future
  • Still on old shit I see ok. You talking about the attendance from 92 thru 94 when we already knew georgia frontier was tryna get her sweetheart deal. Yeah ok. Maryland said fuck no! Baltimore said fuck no! And here come st.louis that was stupid enough to give her that now look it back fire. Talk about we lost two franchise? Ok you lost the cardinals now about to lose the rams so what now?
  • 1) The NFL is considered a non-profit tax-exempt organization.
    2) Every NFL team except San Diego, Oakland and St. Louis have restored, new or in the process of building a new stadium. Other's like Jacksonville and Miami are either under leases they can't get out of or are planning new stadiums.
    3) When you consider the NFL is a non-profit tax-exempt entity, it's all about LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION! Regardless of what you say/write regarding relocation fees, taxes from one state to another (which is irrelevant when you AGAIN understand the NFL is a non-profit tax-exempt entity) and leverage a franchise will increase in value if/when a move is made to L.A.
    4) The theory that L.A. as leverage is till alive is wrong for the simple reason that 29 of the 32 NFL teams......well.....see point number 2. Also, continuing to use L.A. a...s leverage and not moving there keeps the 32 owners from reaping the financial benefits one or two teams would bring to each of the 32 owners who comprise the NFL. Regardless of relocation fees - and every owner knows there will be one - what they pay goes right back in their pockets considering each of the 32 owners is the NFL.
    5) The NFL is considered a non-profit tax-exempt organization. What each owner is taxed on is if they sign individual sponsorship deals - such as Jerry Jones.
    6) The NFL is a non-profit tax exempt organization.
    7) At some point the league is going to return to L.A. It won't be with expansion as Gooddell and the rest of the league-owners have said time and time again because the money-pie gets smaller for each owner if you split 34 ways instead of 32 ways.
    8) One last point....THE NFL IS A NON-PROFIT TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZ
  • Getting real with relocation fees. Your assumptions are way off. There is no requirement for a relocation fee and basing it on expansion fee figures is not realistic.. If there is a fee it will be based on support or lack of it. It is just a bribe to the owners to approve the move. If there is significant support the fee would be low. A move of a team to LA increases revenue for the league and for the individual clubs that play that team. If you look at the Rams the average ticket price would more than double by moving to LA . The visiting team share of the gate receipts is 40% so the teams in the divisions revenue would more than double by playing the Rams in LA not even factoring in the tickets that the Rams currently purchase that is deducted from the shared revenue. Next point on leverage is partially correct. ...The main fault is that LA is just the latest market that has been used. In the 80's it was Indy and Phoenix. When teams moved to those markets it shifted to St Louis and Baltimore then to Cleveland and LA. When LA gets a team other markets will be the leverage, Portland, San Antonio, London of if it's the Rams St Louis. When it comes to expansion. Fees are always set much higher because the new owners will pay up to become part of the league. The owners would rather have the increased revenues today and over the next 10 or so years as opposed to a possible expansion that may never happen. How many of the current owners will still own their team in ten or twenty years and a fair amount of them won't be alive. Expansion is a non starter on many fronts because it's all about current revenue and if you look at the structure you need 8 teams to keep parity.
  • Shane Gray you are using assumptions. The NFL has expanded in the past but there is no guarantee that it will happen or even work in the future. How many teams do you want 36, 38, 40 there is a point where there just isn't enough talent to field a team. Where did you get that there isn't support for relocation. The reports have stated that both the finance and stadium committees both fully support relocation to LA. The NFL wants 2 teams in LA with in the next 2 years. Expansion isn't happening so 2 existing teams will go. How can you say 1 billion for a relocation when the league hasn't had teams pay anything for relocation in the past. Plus if an owner wants to move there is nothing the league or a city can do to stop it. Eminent domain like Baltimore tried or suing the team all have failed. The league rules are called guidelines that can be change so forcing a team to abide them will most likely fail.
  • In 1995 Frontiere paid a relocation fee of $46 million which due to inflation would be $71.5 million. The Raiders had their relocation fee waived since they were never approved to. I've to L.A.
    I keep hearing how cost prohibitive this relocation fee is going to be for Kroenke. However, I don't see any hard data to support any kind of number.
 
st louis native joe buck is butthurt the rams are leaving.lol.

I’ve heard from people in the league that I respect, who have power in the league, that it is just a matter of time. That Stan Kroenke’s plan is to go to LA. That is not groundbreaking or earth shattering news. I’m really disappointed in Stan Kroenke.”

a reflection of the ownership that really is not invested in having a team here.” said Joe Buck.

Joe Buck slams Rams owner Stan Kroenke for LA move rumors praises Dave Peacock FOX2now.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sam Shown Back Door

< Previous Thread

I tried to watch a college football game tonight and I can't get into it

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Mr. Friscus
How NFL divisions SHOULD be: Regionalized Edition
Replies
4
Views
260
Mr. Friscus
Mr. Friscus
Weatherman2020
Dave Barry’s 2023 Year in Review: Yes, the situation is hopeless
Replies
14
Views
2K
August West
A
L
Please tell me college football is not like this?
Replies
5
Views
349
BothWings
BothWings
L
  • Locked
For the second year in a row,the refs did everything they could to to try and screw the superbowl winner and give it to the losing team.
Replies
16
Views
1K
Zincwarrior
Zincwarrior
basquebromance
Back to LA! Aaron Donald gets $95 million in next 3 years, making him highest-paid defender in NFL history, 1st non-QB to eclipse $30 million per year
Replies
0
Views
202
basquebromance
basquebromance

Latest Discussions

sealybobo
  • Poll
Will Trump Replace JD Vance?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
138
Rawley
Rawley
H
Kamala Cover Up: GovTrack Deletes Website Ranking Harris as 2019’s ‘Most Liberal Senator’
Replies
19
Views
105
struth
S
J
Is Kamala's Candidacy a Test Balloon?
Replies
10
Views
23
Crepitus
Crepitus
Boo Radley
Is it possible that Trump staged his own shooting?
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
760
Bell Huey
Bell Huey
horselightning
Illinois sheriff’s deputy charged with murder shot Black woman in face after she called police for help
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
711
Curried Goats
Curried Goats
View more…

Forum List

Back
Top