(10-17-2014 03:14 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Owner of Jags from Missouri....Rams to LA and Jags to STL

If they were going to do that, they would be better off swapping teams instead of doing a double relocation.

Hasn't been done in any sport I don't think since then-Celtics owner Irv Levin switched with the Buffalo Braves owner to take them to San Diego as the Clippers. And given that an entire generation has grown up as Rams supporters and even seen them go to a couple Super Bowls and win one, it would be a good idea for the Rams to remain in St. Louis if at all possible.

(10-17-2014 03:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 03:14 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Owner of Jags from Missouri....Rams to LA and Jags to STL

If they were going to do that, they would be better off swapping teams instead of doing a double relocation.

It is never that simple. That might make the most sense if there weren't different ownerships involved with different agenda's, not to mention the fact that the NFL as a whole wants to move into the LA market again.

Why would the St. Louis Owner want to swap into the Jacksonville market that has a horrendously low following? That makes no sense.

The NFL needs to get the Jaguars out of Jacksonville because they need to get out of Jacksonville. Bringing in a different team is not the solution.


As far as why the Rams are better for LA than the Jaguars? Shouldn't even need to have to explain that one.

(10-17-2014 07:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 03:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 03:14 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Owner of Jags from Missouri....Rams to LA and Jags to STL

If they were going to do that, they would be better off swapping teams instead of doing a double relocation.

It is never that simple. That might make the most sense if there weren't different ownerships involved with different agenda's, not to mention the fact that the NFL as a whole wants to move into the LA market again.

Why would the St. Louis Owner want to swap into the Jacksonville market that has a horrendously low following? That makes no sense.

The NFL needs to get the Jaguars out of Jacksonville because they need to get out of Jacksonville. Bringing in a different team is not the solution.


As far as why the Rams are better for LA than the Jaguars? Shouldn't even need to have to explain that one.

The point was the Rams owner has LA ties the Jags owner St. Louis so if the Rams move back the Jags owner might go to St Louis making it more efficient to swap owners then the Jags owner with St Louis ties owns the Rams and the Rams owner becomes the Jags owner and moves them to LA. Same outcome of St Louis and LA having teams and Jacksonville losing a team but less disruption for St Louis.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-17-2014 06:38 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Hasn't been done in any sport I don't think since then-Celtics owner Irv Levin switched with the Buffalo Braves owner to take them to San Diego as the Clippers. And given that an entire generation has grown up as Rams supporters and even seen them go to a couple Super Bowls and win one, it would be a good idea for the Rams to remain in St. Louis if at all possible.

That's why I suggested it. Although the the Rams also have history in LA, so that is something to consider, I think in time any team will flourish there. This way the Rams stay in one place.

(10-17-2014 07:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 07:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 03:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 03:14 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Owner of Jags from Missouri....Rams to LA and Jags to STL

If they were going to do that, they would be better off swapping teams instead of doing a double relocation.

It is never that simple. That might make the most sense if there weren't different ownerships involved with different agenda's, not to mention the fact that the NFL as a whole wants to move into the LA market again.

Why would the St. Louis Owner want to swap into the Jacksonville market that has a horrendously low following? That makes no sense.

The NFL needs to get the Jaguars out of Jacksonville because they need to get out of Jacksonville. Bringing in a different team is not the solution.


As far as why the Rams are better for LA than the Jaguars? Shouldn't even need to have to explain that one.

The point was the Rams owner has LA ties the Jags owner St. Louis so if the Rams move back the Jags owner might go to St Louis making it more efficient to swap owners then the Jags owner with St Louis ties owns the Rams and the Rams owner becomes the Jags owner and moves them to LA. Same outcome of St Louis and LA having teams and Jacksonville losing a team but less disruption for St Louis.

Thanks. That's exactly what I meant. same result (teams in LA and STL), but I only one relocation, and more importantly for both, only one relocation fee.

(10-17-2014 07:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 07:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 03:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 03:14 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Owner of Jags from Missouri....Rams to LA and Jags to STL

If they were going to do that, they would be better off swapping teams instead of doing a double relocation.

It is never that simple. That might make the most sense if there weren't different ownerships involved with different agenda's, not to mention the fact that the NFL as a whole wants to move into the LA market again.

Why would the St. Louis Owner want to swap into the Jacksonville market that has a horrendously low following? That makes no sense.

The NFL needs to get the Jaguars out of Jacksonville because they need to get out of Jacksonville. Bringing in a different team is not the solution.


As far as why the Rams are better for LA than the Jaguars? Shouldn't even need to have to explain that one.

The point was the Rams owner has LA ties the Jags owner St. Louis so if the Rams move back the Jags owner might go to St Louis making it more efficient to swap owners then the Jags owner with St Louis ties owns the Rams and the Rams owner becomes the Jags owner and moves them to LA. Same outcome of St Louis and LA having teams and Jacksonville losing a team but less disruption for St Louis.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Los Angeles has history with the Rams brand so no...it doesn't really make more sense. I don't think LA wants the Jaguar brand, they want the Rams brand. They would rather have the Chargers or or Raiders before having a Jaguar expansion brand that never took off.

I don't think that disruption for St. Louis is high on the priority list. That isn't a knock on St. Louis. The folks there, unfortunately for them, are known to be very big on their local sports teams. They can probably be counted upon to eventually support whatever happens.

LA is much much more picky.

I understood his point, it doesn't make sense when you get down to the details.

(10-17-2014 07:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 06:38 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Hasn't been done in any sport I don't think since then-Celtics owner Irv Levin switched with the Buffalo Braves owner to take them to San Diego as the Clippers. And given that an entire generation has grown up as Rams supporters and even seen them go to a couple Super Bowls and win one, it would be a good idea for the Rams to remain in St. Louis if at all possible.

That's why I suggested it. Although the the Rams also have history in LA, so that is something to consider, I think in time any team will flourish there. This way the Rams stay in one place.

(10-17-2014 07:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 07:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 03:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 03:14 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Owner of Jags from Missouri....Rams to LA and Jags to STL

If they were going to do that, they would be better off swapping teams instead of doing a double relocation.

It is never that simple. That might make the most sense if there weren't different ownerships involved with different agenda's, not to mention the fact that the NFL as a whole wants to move into the LA market again.

Why would the St. Louis Owner want to swap into the Jacksonville market that has a horrendously low following? That makes no sense.

The NFL needs to get the Jaguars out of Jacksonville because they need to get out of Jacksonville. Bringing in a different team is not the solution.


As far as why the Rams are better for LA than the Jaguars? Shouldn't even need to have to explain that one.

The point was the Rams owner has LA ties the Jags owner St. Louis so if the Rams move back the Jags owner might go to St Louis making it more efficient to swap owners then the Jags owner with St Louis ties owns the Rams and the Rams owner becomes the Jags owner and moves them to LA. Same outcome of St Louis and LA having teams and Jacksonville losing a team but less disruption for St Louis.

Thanks. That's exactly what I meant. same result (teams in LA and STL), but I only one relocation, and more importantly for both, only one relocation fee.

NFL is covering the cost of moving to LA. I don't see why there would be a relocation fee.

The Rams were already traded once. Bob Irsay bought the Rams in 1972 and traded them to Carroll Rosenbloom, and Irsay got the Colts in return. And both franchises were moved within 15 years.

If those teams did both move it would make more sense for divisions. NFC West:Seattle, San Fran, LA, Arizona AFS South: Indy, Tennessee, Houston, St. Louis

I seem to vaguely remember some deal when MLB bought the Expos and the expos owners bought the Marlins, or maybe it was the Red Sox. I cant remember exactly.

IF LA really wanted a team a few things would have happened.

Raiders wold have stayed in LA, from Oakland. Granted, they moved right on back to Oakland so...

The Rams would have never left to Saint Louis.

LA would have gotten a team via expansion before the Carolina/Jacksonville scenario and arguably, the latter Cleveland Browns redux/Houston Texans scenario(s).

I'd almost feel bad for Saint Louis.... losing the Cardinals to Arizona and then possibly losing the Rams back to LA.

(10-17-2014 10:23 PM)goofus Wrote:  I seem to vaguely remember some deal when MLB bought the Expos and the expos owners bought the Marlins, or maybe it was the Red Sox. I cant remember exactly.

Ok, i looked it up. It was The Marlins owners that bought the Red Sox, then the Expos owners bought the Marlins, and then MLB bought the Expos.

(10-14-2014 11:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Very true. It will be tough enough to just get one new stadium in the LA area (as evidenced by the fact that no one has been able to built one for the past two decades despite it being one of the easiest ways to pocket a couple of billion extra dollars instantly out there). It's truly fascinating. Imagine the English Premier League not having any team in London. That's essentially what the NFL has been doing for the past 20 years by somehow having a franchise in Jacksonville but not having one in LA. I don't care how fairweather the fans might be in LA - there is absolutely, positively, NO logical business reason for this situation outside of the NFL's ironclad demand for the best stadium deals possible (which, unfortunately, is the only thing that matters).

Except that the NFL was able to use that threat of relocation of about 20 different teams to Los Angeles to get approximately 20–25 stadiums built or renovated.

I still agree that the time has long since come for the NFL to put a team in LA. However, for people to just ignore that factor is silly as no city has been responsible for more stadia being built all across the country than Los Angeles, California.

Maybe the Inland Empire (the so called San Bernardino-Riverside MSA which is really suburban LA) can build a stadium. There's nothing out there but dirt and In-N-Out. Call the team the Vegas Road Trippers (Trippers for short).

(10-17-2014 01:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:09 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 05:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well ESPN's Insider is now saying it is already a done deal that the Rams are heading to LA. He said as much on Sports Radio here in Phoenix. St. Louis tried a last minute attempt to offer building a new stadium but they were basically shot down with "too little too late".

Which, if true, basically tells us that Stan Kroenke planned this move some time ago. St Louis has taken this "exit" on the NFL Freeway before. I believe most St Louis fans felt this was the case... If he wanted to keep the Rams in St Louis he would have spent his money on the 200 acres in the county and built his own stadium, reaping 100% of profits from the new venue.

Why would he pay and reap 100% of the profits if someone else is going to build it for him? NFL stadiums do not make profits. That is why they get cities to build them for them. Only basketball arenas can make profits, due to the year round usage. A dome, if owned by the city, can make a profit (convention and event related taxes that only a government body can realize). Open air football stadiums are too expensive, and offer too little usage, to ever make a profit.

I am not referring to publicly built or AEG stadiums. I made the point that if Kroenke builds his own stadium on the LA land he bought, he could have done the same thing in St Louis. If you own it, like Jerry Jones does, you get the profits. As to your point about profits for stadiums, that is exactly why AEG wants partial ownership of a team moving to LA. It is a requirement for their bottom line profit margin, per the LA media. That will not happen with Stan Kroenke...

Sorry can't edit these down in my phone.

(10-17-2014 07:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  [q:lauramac:uote='adcorbett' pid='11259913' dateline='1413591235']

(10-17-2014 06:38 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Hasn't been done in any sport I don't think since then-Celtics owner Irv Levin switched with the Buffalo Braves owner to take them to San Diego as the Clippers. And given that an entire generation has grown up as Rams supporters and even seen them go to a couple Super Bowls and win one, it would be a good idea for the Rams to remain in St. Louis if at all possible.

That's why I suggested it. Although the the Rams also have history in LA, so that is something to consider, I think in time any team will flourish there. This way the Rams stay in one place.

(10-17-2014 07:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 07:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 03:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  If they were going to do that, they would be better off swapping teams instead of doing a double relocation.

It is never that simple. That might make the most sense if there weren't different ownerships involved with different agenda's, not to mention the fact that the NFL as a whole wants to move into the LA market again.

Why would the St. Louis Owner want to swap into the Jacksonville market that has a horrendously low following? That makes no sense.

The NFL needs to get the Jaguars out of Jacksonville because they need to get out of Jacksonville. Bringing in a different team is not the solution.


As far as why the Rams are better for LA than the Jaguars? Shouldn't even need to have to explain that one.

The point was the Rams owner has LA ties the Jags owner St. Louis so if the Rams move back the Jags owner might go to St Louis making it more efficient to swap owners then the Jags owner with St Louis ties owns the Rams and the Rams owner becomes the Jags owner and moves them to LA. Same outcome of St Louis and LA having teams and Jacksonville losing a team but less disruption for St Louis.

Thanks. That's exactly what I meant. same result (teams in LA and STL), but I only one relocation, and more importantly for both, only one relocation fee.

NFL is covering the cost of moving to LA. I don't see why there would be a relocation fee.
[/quote]

You answered your own question. To help recover the cost.

(10-18-2014 10:44 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 01:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:09 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 05:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well ESPN's Insider is now saying it is already a done deal that the Rams are heading to LA. He said as much on Sports Radio here in Phoenix. St. Louis tried a last minute attempt to offer building a new stadium but they were basically shot down with "too little too late".

Which, if true, basically tells us that Stan Kroenke planned this move some time ago. St Louis has taken this "exit" on the NFL Freeway before. I believe most St Louis fans felt this was the case... If he wanted to keep the Rams in St Louis he would have spent his money on the 200 acres in the county and built his own stadium, reaping 100% of profits from the new venue.

Why would he pay and reap 100% of the profits if someone else is going to build it for him? NFL stadiums do not make profits. That is why they get cities to build them for them. Only basketball arenas can make profits, due to the year round usage. A dome, if owned by the city, can make a profit (convention and event related taxes that only a government body can realize). Open air football stadiums are too expensive, and offer too little usage, to ever make a profit.

I am not referring to publicly built or AEG stadiums. I made the point that if Kroenke builds his own stadium on the LA land he bought, he could have done the same thing in St Louis. If you own it, like Jerry Jones does, you get the profits. As to your point about profits for stadiums, that is exactly why AEG wants partial ownership of a team moving to LA. It is a requirement for their bottom line profit margin, per the LA media. That will not happen with Stan Kroenke...

I think you're missing the point. Without public financing, there IS no profit.

Also Jerry jones didn't pay for all of that stadium. A large portion was paid by public funds. And even then, if it werent a dome, it wouldn't make a profit. Like i said, there is a reason there is only one privately funded stadium in the NFL (among the new or renovated stadiums) and the one privately built one... The team has lobbied for years for a new one (despite being built in 99).

No, I didn't answer my own question. The normal operation is to charge the fee in order to cover the cost. This all started though when it became public that the NFL was looking to cover whatever costs that it would take get an NFL team back into LA. So I guess if you want to completely ignore what has started the whole conversation, then yeah you can keep going with that talking point Corbett.

If the NFL is covering the cost then that means they are not charging a relocation fee for whomever ends up moving to LA. Not a difficult concept.

LA fans don't want an NFL team. But the NFL does. That way they can blackout the area when they don't sell any tickets, instead of giving them all the football games they want on TV every week. It's a chickensh!t move IMO.

(10-18-2014 08:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No, I didn't answer my own question. The normal operation is to charge the fee in order to cover the cost. This all started though when it became public that the NFL was looking to cover whatever costs that it would take get an NFL team back into LA. So I guess if you want to completely ignore what has started the whole conversation, then yeah you can keep going with that talking point Corbett.

If the NFL is covering the cost then that means they are not charging a relocation fee for whomever ends up moving to LA. Not a difficult concept.

It's not a talking point: they will charge a relocation fee. This has been discussed quite often. The only question is how much. And a team who moves there will gladly pay it because it will represent a stark improvement over their current situation (as we're talking about teams who need/want new stadiums). As of I've told you before, just evxause you repay yourself and try to talk louder, doesn't mean you are right. Actually it usually means the opposite.

(10-18-2014 08:34 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  LA fans don't want an NFL team. But the NFL does. That way they can blackout the area when they don't sell any tickets, instead of giving them all the football games they want on TV every week. It's a chickensh!t move IMO.

Seems as though people are finally calling the NFL out on that blackout policy. A few congressmen suggested they remove it voluntarily, or maybe they will look into outlawing it. My guess is someone finally figured out that in an era where every stadium is publicly financed, a blackout policy should not be allowed. If you want to do that, build your own stadiums.