Screw the Rams!!!

dsvitak · 01-12-2016, 09:33 PM

I live in the St. Louis area, and work about two miles from their practice facility.

Since Kroenke became the sole owner four years ago, he has been all about moving the team to LA.

Well..he got his wish, and will make another fortune from it.

The only bright spot is that we lose the Rams, and may well gain the Jacksonville Jaguars, and an MLS franchise within the next year or two.

Cobra Mgr · 01-12-2016, 09:37 PM

I feel for St.Louis fans. But I think if somebody pays millions of dollars on a purchase, he ought to be able to do what he wants with that purchase.

What ticks me off is when a team twists a city's arm to treat them like a welfare recipient. Then I think they have an obligation to their hometown.

BaseballMan · 01-12-2016, 10:08 PM

After losing a team twice I would say the NFL owes St.Louis an expansion team.

Cobra Mgr · 01-12-2016, 10:16 PM

Why is St.Louis "owed" a team?

canadiancreed · 01-12-2016, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

After losing a team twice I would say the NFL owes St.Louis an expansion team.

After having two franchises moved, they don't deserve an expansion team, they deserve a refund.

wwines · 01-12-2016, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

After losing a team twice I would say the NFL owes St.Louis an expansion team.

If the fans showed up to the games then they would not be losing a team for the second time. And before the "team is terrible" card is laid, I live in Detroit and the Lions draw +/- 96% capacity and haven't won a thing since the late 50's. Maybe St. Louis isn't a football city.

Cobra Mgr · 01-12-2016, 10:27 PM

St.Lou & San Diego can't complain much when you consider they got their teams from LA.

kenyan_cheena · 01-12-2016, 11:22 PM

The current 32-team setup is pretty much ideal, so I can't see a situation where they would consider expansion.

The only total that would be viable beyond 32 is 36, where thy'd have to go back to the three divisions per conference setup, with six teams in each division. That would lead to ten divisional games per season, which would make winning the division more relevant, I guess.

It would be strange if the Jaguars went to St. Louis, and they were still in the south division.

ThatSeventiesGuy · 01-13-2016, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

The current 32-team setup is pretty much ideal, so I can't see a situation where they would consider expansion.

The only total that would be viable beyond 32 is 36, where thy'd have to go back to the three divisions per conference setup, with six teams in each division. That would lead to ten divisional games per season, which would make winning the division more relevant, I guess.

It would be strange if the Jaguars went to St. Louis, and they were still in the south division.

Good rivalries with the Colts and Titans could be set up, though, and Houston is closer to St. Louis than Jacksonville. So it could still work. Although really, the Colts should have been in the North, the Dolphins in the South, and the Ravens in the East to start with, but that's a whole other issue.

Le Grande Orange · 01-13-2016, 12:12 AM

I, for one, welcome the Cleveland/Los Angeles/St. Louis/Los Angeles Rams!

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

The current 32-team setup is pretty much ideal, so I can't see a situation where they would consider expansion.

The only total that would be viable beyond 32 is 36, where thy'd have to go back to the three divisions per conference setup, with six teams in each division.

Nah, you could keep four divisions per conference and have one or two of the divisions with five teams. I even played around with the scheduling for such an arrangement, and it would not be all that different from what it is now, other than it would mean a larger return to the 'common opponents' format for the intra/interconference games.

kq76 · 01-13-2016, 04:19 AM

So I was reading some article and it said St. Louis has only had 2 NFL teams, the Rams and the Cardinals, and I thought, "I doubt that. I bet they had more". And it turns out they had 2 teams that lasted only a season each, the All-Stars and the Gunners. Then there was also the proposed, but rejected, St. Louis Stallions (catchy name, I thought) whose logo looks eerily similar to the Rams. I bet some team moves to St. Louis within a decade. If the Jaguars do move there it'd be like they were getting a mulligan on the 95 expansion as both cities, along with Charlotte and Memphis, were up for 1 of the 2 expansion teams.

I'm glad the Chargers are, at least so far, staying in San Diego. From what I've heard, they still have a good fanbase in SD and it'd be weird having 2 teams in the same city whose colours/logos are so similar.

I'm a bit disappointed the Raiders aren't going back to LA as the LA Raiders were just so cool and Oakland's stadium is so bad, but I also feel good for the long-time Oakland fans who get to keep their team for awhile longer.

BaseballMan · 01-13-2016, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

St.Lou & San Diego can't complain much when you consider they got their teams from LA.

Then again LA got the Rams from Cleveland and nobody really cares about the chargers.

stl jason · 01-13-2016, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsvitak

I live in the St. Louis area, and work about two miles from their practice facility.

Since Kroenke became the sole owner four years ago, he has been all about moving the team to LA.

Well..he got his wish, and will make another fortune from it.

The only bright spot is that we lose the Rams, and may well gain the Jacksonville Jaguars, and an MLS franchise within the next year or two.

I'd expand it past just the Rams and say screw the NFL... it took a majority of owners to approve the move. As the old cliche goes... fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The NFL is now added to the "dead to me" list. I'm done with NFL football.

rudel.dietrich · 01-13-2016, 08:51 AM

The Chargers have not had a home field advantage for 5 years.
I watch just a small bit of NFL football but the last two Chargers home games I watched it was 60% fans of the other team.

St. Louis has always struck me as a good MLS city.
Washington University is a NCAA soccer powerhouse

It has also struck me as a great city for a possible NBA team in the future

jollyschwa · 01-13-2016, 09:02 AM

I'm hoping the Chargers move to L.A., the new stadium hosts a Superbowl and it's the L.A. Rams against the L.A. Chargers.

Other than that I don't have an attachment to either team so I don't really care where they play.

TribeFanInNC · 01-13-2016, 09:20 AM

Bummer. Sorry to the fans of St. Louis. As a Cleveland native, I certainly understand. I hate how these always end up being squabbles over stadiums. Maybe that's just a convenient excuse in this case and they were going to move anyway.

Teams should be a part of the community and stay that way.

Cobra Mgr · 01-13-2016, 09:41 AM

I think teams should be a part of the community if the community pays for their business to exist. The problem is that NFL owners claim they are a community project when they want money from taxpayers, then they claim a business decision when they decide to leave. If politicians & the public would stop giving these billionaires welfare checks, the owners would make greater efforts to establish roots in their community.

I'm not familiar w/everything going on in the Inglewood & Carson projects. But Kroenke has bought land in Inglewood for the stadium & he fulfilled his lease at the Jones Dome. Therefore, w/my admitted limited knowledge, I don't think he is obligated to stay in St.Louis. St.Louis fans would have a right to be ticked off if he only "negotiated" to fulfill some kind of public relations requirement. Otherwise, it would appear to make good business sense to move the Rams back to LA.

rudel.dietrich · 01-13-2016, 09:42 AM

Study after study has shown that stadium projects never provide economics benefit.
The teams and their owners should be paying for these stadiums

If they want to move, then so be it. But don't extort different cities in an effort to get your stadium built

Cobra Mgr · 01-13-2016, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

Study after study has shown that stadium projects never provide economics benefit.
The teams and their owners should be paying for these stadiums

If they want to move, then so be it. But don't extort different cities in an effort to get your stadium built

IMO, those studies are examples lies, damn lies & statistics. Stadiums don't create money. They only provide a place to spend it. If they didn't exist, the local public would spend their money somewhere else in the city. I would say the only times stadiums do increase the economic impact on a city is when they bring in conventions, World Cup-type events and things of that nature. Events that bring money from other locales.

rudel.dietrich · 01-13-2016, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

IMO, those studies are examples lies, damn lies & statistics. Stadiums don't create money. They only provide a place to spend it. If they didn't exist, the local public would spend their money somewhere else in the city. I would say the only times stadiums do increase the economic impact on a city is when they bring in conventions, World Cup-type events and things of that nature. Events that bring money from other locales.

Besides the German world cup in 2006

The recent World Cups and Olympics have been disasters in terms of economic dollars.
The London Olympics is still debatable but the WC in SA and Brazil will never make economic sense and there is a reason no cities are lining up to host the Olympics anymore.

Unless you have infrastructure already in place, hosting these events makes little sense.

01-12-2016, 09:33 PM	#1
dsvitak Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 5,393	Screw the Rams!!! I live in the St. Louis area, and work about two miles from their practice facility. Since Kroenke became the sole owner four years ago, he has been all about moving the team to LA. Well..he got his wish, and will make another fortune from it. The only bright spot is that we lose the Rams, and may well gain the Jacksonville Jaguars, and an MLS franchise within the next year or two.

01-12-2016, 09:37 PM	#2
Cobra Mgr Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2015 Location: Parts unknown Posts: 9,069	I feel for St.Louis fans. But I think if somebody pays millions of dollars on a purchase, he ought to be able to do what he wants with that purchase. What ticks me off is when a team twists a city's arm to treat them like a welfare recipient. Then I think they have an obligation to their hometown. Last edited by Cobra Mgr; 01-12-2016 at 09:39 PM.

01-13-2016, 04:19 AM	#11
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 11,994	So I was reading some article and it said St. Louis has only had 2 NFL teams, the Rams and the Cardinals, and I thought, "I doubt that. I bet they had more". And it turns out they had 2 teams that lasted only a season each, the All-Stars and the Gunners. Then there was also the proposed, but rejected, St. Louis Stallions (catchy name, I thought) whose logo looks eerily similar to the Rams. I bet some team moves to St. Louis within a decade. If the Jaguars do move there it'd be like they were getting a mulligan on the 95 expansion as both cities, along with Charlotte and Memphis, were up for 1 of the 2 expansion teams. I'm glad the Chargers are, at least so far, staying in San Diego. From what I've heard, they still have a good fanbase in SD and it'd be weird having 2 teams in the same city whose colours/logos are so similar. I'm a bit disappointed the Raiders aren't going back to LA as the LA Raiders were just so cool and Oakland's stadium is so bad, but I also feel good for the long-time Oakland fans who get to keep their team for awhile longer. __________________ My OOTP Wishlist \| My FAQ List OOTP Wiki \| Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project) For Beta/Devs: Full screen (1920x1080) Last edited by kq76; 01-13-2016 at 04:20 AM.

01-12-2016, 10:08 PM	#3
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,620	After losing a team twice I would say the NFL owes St.Louis an expansion team.

01-12-2016, 10:16 PM	#4
Cobra Mgr Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2015 Location: Parts unknown Posts: 9,069	Why is St.Louis "owed" a team?

01-12-2016, 10:27 PM	#7
Cobra Mgr Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2015 Location: Parts unknown Posts: 9,069	St.Lou & San Diego can't complain much when you consider they got their teams from LA.

01-12-2016, 11:22 PM	#8
kenyan_cheena Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia Posts: 9,037	The current 32-team setup is pretty much ideal, so I can't see a situation where they would consider expansion. The only total that would be viable beyond 32 is 36, where thy'd have to go back to the three divisions per conference setup, with six teams in each division. That would lead to ten divisional games per season, which would make winning the division more relevant, I guess. It would be strange if the Jaguars went to St. Louis, and they were still in the south division.

01-13-2016, 08:51 AM	#14
rudel.dietrich Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Zürich, Switzerland Posts: 8,608	The Chargers have not had a home field advantage for 5 years. I watch just a small bit of NFL football but the last two Chargers home games I watched it was 60% fans of the other team. St. Louis has always struck me as a good MLS city. Washington University is a NCAA soccer powerhouse It has also struck me as a great city for a possible NBA team in the future

01-13-2016, 09:02 AM	#15
jollyschwa Minors (Single A) Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 64	I'm hoping the Chargers move to L.A., the new stadium hosts a Superbowl and it's the L.A. Rams against the L.A. Chargers. Other than that I don't have an attachment to either team so I don't really care where they play.

01-13-2016, 09:20 AM	#16
TribeFanInNC Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,019	Bummer. Sorry to the fans of St. Louis. As a Cleveland native, I certainly understand. I hate how these always end up being squabbles over stadiums. Maybe that's just a convenient excuse in this case and they were going to move anyway. Teams should be a part of the community and stay that way.

01-13-2016, 09:41 AM	#17
Cobra Mgr Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2015 Location: Parts unknown Posts: 9,069	I think teams should be a part of the community if the community pays for their business to exist. The problem is that NFL owners claim they are a community project when they want money from taxpayers, then they claim a business decision when they decide to leave. If politicians & the public would stop giving these billionaires welfare checks, the owners would make greater efforts to establish roots in their community. I'm not familiar w/everything going on in the Inglewood & Carson projects. But Kroenke has bought land in Inglewood for the stadium & he fulfilled his lease at the Jones Dome. Therefore, w/my admitted limited knowledge, I don't think he is obligated to stay in St.Louis. St.Louis fans would have a right to be ticked off if he only "negotiated" to fulfill some kind of public relations requirement. Otherwise, it would appear to make good business sense to move the Rams back to LA.

01-13-2016, 09:42 AM	#18
rudel.dietrich Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Zürich, Switzerland Posts: 8,608	Study after study has shown that stadium projects never provide economics benefit. The teams and their owners should be paying for these stadiums If they want to move, then so be it. But don't extort different cities in an effort to get your stadium built