If the Rams are going to be a part of a franchise swap, the Jaguars isn't the team. Try the Broncos.

(10-18-2014 09:07 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  If the Rams are going to be a part of a franchise swap, the Jaguars isn't the team. Try the Broncos.

Broncos would make sense for Kroenke only because he already owns the Nuggets and Avs. But the Broncos can't be any part of a "trade" because their ownership is in limbo.

Also, at the time the Rams and Colts were traded, they could get away with assuming the franchises were of roughly equal value and (I'm guessing) could be traded for each other without tax consequences. Today, there are accepted ways of valuing these franchises and the IRS would never accept the notion that the values are roughly equal. Neither would the owners, so cash would have to trade hands.

So, if Kroenke really wanted to buy the Broncos when they are ready to sell in a couple of years, he would just sell the Rams (maybe to L.A. locals, for an over-inflated price like the Clippers) and buy the Broncos in separate transactions.

Pro Football Talk....Rams now seen as the Favorite to return to Los Angeles:



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...ve-to-l-a/

(10-20-2014 09:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  Pro Football Talk....Rams now seen as the Favorite to return to Los Angeles:



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...ve-to-l-a/

You'd think common courtesy would be not to make this a headline for today, the day after beating the defending Super Bowl Champions. That's just mean, man!

(10-20-2014 09:24 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 09:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  Pro Football Talk....Rams now seen as the Favorite to return to Los Angeles:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...ve-to-l-a/

You'd think common courtesy would be not to make this a headline for today, the day after beating the defending Super Bowl Champions. That's just mean, man!

Apparently it is a huge topic in Saint Louis...was listening to SiriusXM NFL Radio...most there apparently feel the Rams have one foot out the door...

I just don't get why Stan Kroenke, a missouri native with more than enough money would move a team out of St. Louis. I could see how he would buy the Broncos with his denver connection though. Maybe that's his plan, move the rams to LA, sell the team to Philip Anschutz and buy the Broncos.

(10-20-2014 09:43 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I just don't get why Stan Kroenke, a missouri native with more than enough money would move a team out of St. Louis. I could see how he would buy the Broncos with his denver connection though. Maybe that's his plan, move the rams to LA, sell the team to Philip Anschutz and buy the Broncos.

The Clippers of the NBA and the 2nd NBA Team in LA Changed the game...that Franchise going for over $2 Billion was a Game Changer.

Oh the irony if LA gets a team from elsewhere and it moves back while its long time team simultaneously moves away only to come back. Add in the city's original AFL franchise, the Chargers, possibly moving back and it's full of irony(or a major coincidence using the terminology correctly).

The real irony would be if the Rams move back to Los Angeles and the Jaguars move to St. Louis. Since the Jaguars were the NFL expansion team that was to be St. Louis's team.

(10-20-2014 01:25 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  The real irony would be if the Rams move back to Los Angeles and the Jaguars move to St. Louis. Since the Jaguars were the NFL expansion team that was to be St. Louis's team.

In a perfect world that is what would happen...rebrand the Jaguars as well to fit that area...

I'll believe it when I see it. If it happens, great for LA. If not, no big deal. We've already gone two decades without an NFL franchise and are still okay

(10-20-2014 03:27 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 01:25 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  The real irony would be if the Rams move back to Los Angeles and the Jaguars move to St. Louis. Since the Jaguars were the NFL expansion team that was to be St. Louis's team.

In a perfect world that is what would happen...rebrand the Jaguars as well to fit that area...

My opinion is if St. Louis loses the Rams, they will get back in the football business around 2025/2030 range when the Saints and Jaguars leases are up. Saints depends on how Benson has set the team through succession after his death.

(10-20-2014 03:27 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 01:25 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  The real irony would be if the Rams move back to Los Angeles and the Jaguars move to St. Louis. Since the Jaguars were the NFL expansion team that was to be St. Louis's team.

In a perfect world that is what would happen...rebrand the Jaguars as well to fit that area...

Jaguars is a pretty neutral, all-encompassing name, it's not like Texans or something like that.

(10-20-2014 09:47 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 09:43 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I just don't get why Stan Kroenke, a missouri native with more than enough money would move a team out of St. Louis. I could see how he would buy the Broncos with his denver connection though. Maybe that's his plan, move the rams to LA, sell the team to Philip Anschutz and buy the Broncos.

The Clippers of the NBA and the 2nd NBA Team in LA Changed the game...that Franchise going for over $2 Billion was a Game Changer.

Who cares abut the team's value. There is no profit to be made by the owner unless he sells the team, which he has no intention of doing... I am $60,000 to the upside on my home but I do not reap the profits unless I sell it...

Most teams do not have just one owner. Many do have partial ownerships. Or for that matter, an owner can sell part of the ownership for cash, still maintain majority ownership, and have the same valued asset. Also helps in other business ventures, or for that matter, the reason the value has gone up, likely means that the potential income has also gone up. Also means the business partners you work with, are more valuable ones, which again helps in your other businesses.

Also, you can reap the "profits" of the value of your home if you do a HELOC or second mortgage. Just for example.

(10-20-2014 09:47 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 09:43 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I just don't get why Stan Kroenke, a missouri native with more than enough money would move a team out of St. Louis. I could see how he would buy the Broncos with his denver connection though. Maybe that's his plan, move the rams to LA, sell the team to Philip Anschutz and buy the Broncos.

The Clippers of the NBA and the 2nd NBA Team in LA Changed the game...that Franchise going for over $2 Billion was a Game Changer.

Yeah, if you can instantly add a billion dollars or more to your franchise value simply by moving (which would be the case for any team that moves to LA), then even really rich guys like Kroenke take notice. They didn't become billionaires in the first place by passing up a ton of cash lying on the table.

Also, with respect to some other posts, I don't see why St. Louis is necessarily going to be at the front of the line for anything if it loses the Rams. Sure, if they could build a new state-of-the-art stadium, then they're a viable option, but why would they suddenly be able to build one AFTER the Rams have left? That doesn't make sense to me. There are several other markets with better growth prospects that are either larger or right behind St. Louis: Orlando and Sacramento already have larger TV markets, while Portland, San Antonio/Austin and Las Vegas are growing much faster and are on pace to catch up or surpass the St. Louis metro population over the next decade or two. St. Louis can't simply assume that they're next-in-line. If the NFL can ignore Los Angeles for two decades, then St. Louis is a rounding error by comparison.

I'd be more worried about Mexico City than any of the above, save for Vegas. We know the NFL has a hard on to go international in London, but I just don't see it as feasible. And Toronto is too close to buffalo. But Mexico City... The largest TV market in the western hemisphere. Per person, it's not a rich city, but still had the economic output to Rank halfway between Atlanta and Washington DC. If this helps convert all of Mexico into an NFL TV market, that's a HUUUUGE win.

(10-20-2014 04:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 09:47 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 09:43 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I just don't get why Stan Kroenke, a missouri native with more than enough money would move a team out of St. Louis. I could see how he would buy the Broncos with his denver connection though. Maybe that's his plan, move the rams to LA, sell the team to Philip Anschutz and buy the Broncos.

The Clippers of the NBA and the 2nd NBA Team in LA Changed the game...that Franchise going for over $2 Billion was a Game Changer.

Yeah, if you can instantly add a billion dollars or more to your franchise value simply by moving (which would be the case for any team that moves to LA), then even really rich guys like Kroenke take notice. They didn't become billionaires in the first place by passing up a ton of cash lying on the table.

Also, with respect to some other posts, I don't see why St. Louis is necessarily going to be at the front of the line for anything if it loses the Rams. Sure, if they could build a new state-of-the-art stadium, then they're a viable option, but why would they suddenly be able to build one AFTER the Rams have left? That doesn't make sense to me. There are several other markets with better growth prospects that are either larger or right behind St. Louis: Orlando and Sacramento already have larger TV markets, while Portland, San Antonio/Austin and Las Vegas are growing much faster and are on pace to catch up or surpass the St. Louis metro population over the next decade or two. St. Louis can't simply assume that they're next-in-line. If the NFL can ignore Los Angeles for two decades, then St. Louis is a rounding error by comparison.

Market size only tells part of the story (Note - not advocating for St. Louis one way or the other).
Average income, number of high-salaried workers, Corporate HQ located in area all are factors in a market's desirability.

adcorbett - That's a very interesting hypothetical, although I think the low per capita income that you've mentioned is probably much more of a dealbreaker. Toronto has a TON of money plus the requisite population, so I wouldn't put it past the NFL to put a team there despite the relatively close proximity of Buffalo. As the NHL showed, Canadian TV rights fees can be quite lucrative even outside of the US.

I'll agree with you on London - I get what the NFL is *trying* to do in building an overseas market, but having been to the UK many times, the NFL is still almost solely an American expat diversion. It isn't anywhere near the hoped for corollary of the English Premier League supporting the US - it's more like the US interest in rugby or Australian Rules Football. The only American league that I could see plausibly doing well in Europe is the NBA, and even then, it would almost be anywhere *except* London. The only sports thing that we have in common with the UK is (barely) the language. Otherwise, our sporting interests have little overlap outside of tennis, golf and the niche audience that follows the EPL here.

(10-20-2014 05:28 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 04:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 09:47 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 09:43 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I just don't get why Stan Kroenke, a missouri native with more than enough money would move a team out of St. Louis. I could see how he would buy the Broncos with his denver connection though. Maybe that's his plan, move the rams to LA, sell the team to Philip Anschutz and buy the Broncos.

The Clippers of the NBA and the 2nd NBA Team in LA Changed the game...that Franchise going for over $2 Billion was a Game Changer.

Yeah, if you can instantly add a billion dollars or more to your franchise value simply by moving (which would be the case for any team that moves to LA), then even really rich guys like Kroenke take notice. They didn't become billionaires in the first place by passing up a ton of cash lying on the table.

Also, with respect to some other posts, I don't see why St. Louis is necessarily going to be at the front of the line for anything if it loses the Rams. Sure, if they could build a new state-of-the-art stadium, then they're a viable option, but why would they suddenly be able to build one AFTER the Rams have left? That doesn't make sense to me. There are several other markets with better growth prospects that are either larger or right behind St. Louis: Orlando and Sacramento already have larger TV markets, while Portland, San Antonio/Austin and Las Vegas are growing much faster and are on pace to catch up or surpass the St. Louis metro population over the next decade or two. St. Louis can't simply assume that they're next-in-line. If the NFL can ignore Los Angeles for two decades, then St. Louis is a rounding error by comparison.

Market size only tells part of the story (Note - not advocating for St. Louis one way or the other).
Average income, number of high-salaried workers, Corporate HQ located in area all are factors in a market's desirability.

I agree with that mostly, but as you've noted, that's not necessarily a great selling point for St. Louis. On those metrics, the San Antonio/Austin corridor, Portland and Sacramento all blow away St. Louis here. When you step back and look at the demographic data, St. Louis is a very "meh" market for the NFL. Now, all of that demographic data is irrelevant if St. Louis builds a brand new stadium. As I've said, the NFL would put a team in Anchorage if it had a stadium with enough suites. Every move (including one to LA) assumes a great stadium deal is in place. Otherwise, no one will move at all.