Seems like getting a team or teams back in LA has been a priority of owners.

So why did they allow the Rams to leave in the first place??

(a link is fine, if there one handy)

In short, Georgia Frontierre, like Al Davis, had money and self interest in mind and attendance had waned in Anaheim at the Angels current stadium while St. Louis, which missed out on getting the expansion Jaguars or Panthers, had a new stadium in mind and ready to be built. LA, as it stood firm these past couple decades, refused to use public money to build a modern stadium so both the Raiders and Rams said "peace."

LA is a solid NFL market (though it obviously could move on without it) but it was merely the perfect storm of circumstances.

It also didn't hurt that Georgia was a Saint Louis native...

Thank you for your perspectives. I have no doubt you're correct.

Still, she had to get the owners approval to leave LA. They had to vote to allow her to move to STL.

Why didn't the owners care about not having the Rams in the second largest market, at that time?? Why wasn't there a faction of owners who sought to disallow such a departure??

Also once the NFL left, they made it a priority to put a team back there. The team that became the Houston Texans was initially concocted as a new NFL team, but the Houston bid won over. Then the NFL discovered the threat of moving to LA was the best tool they ever had, that eventually got every NFL team a new or renovated stadium, really except for the Chargers (the Rams, Raiders, and Jags who all have the least modern stadiums, had their stadium built or renovated in 95), so once everyone got theirs, it was time for the last teams standing to look to actually move to LA, which just so happened to be the two teams that left LA, and the one who never was able to get a stadium.

And even at the bitter end, they basically left the wording that until the Chargers sign on, they could (if they wanted to), STILL use the threat of LA.

(01-15-2016 09:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  It also didn't hurt that Georgia was a Saint Louis native...

And Georgia got a dome in St. Louis, and she made a ton of cash up front by selling some rich guy 30% of the team with a later option to buy the rest.

Some rich guy named Kroenke.

(01-15-2016 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 09:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  It also didn't hurt that Georgia was a Saint Louis native...

And Georgia got a dome in St. Louis, and she made a ton of cash up front by selling some rich guy 30% of the team with a later option to buy the rest.

Some rich guy named Kroenke.

But the owners still had to allow this, yes? (not the selling part, the moving part)

I just don't understand how they can be so gung-ho now but back then were like "meh ... move if you want, we don't care".

(01-15-2016 10:41 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Also once the NFL left, they made it a priority to put a team back there. The team that became the Houston Texans was initially concocted as a new NFL team, but the Houston bid won over. Then the NFL discovered the threat of moving to LA was the best tool they ever had, that eventually got every NFL team a new or renovated stadium, really except for the Chargers (the Rams, Raiders, and Jags who all have the least modern stadiums, had their stadium built or renovated in 95), so once everyone got theirs, it was time for the last teams standing to look to actually move to LA, which just so happened to be the two teams that left LA, and the one who never was able to get a stadium.

And even at the bitter end, they basically left the wording that until the Chargers sign on, they could (if they wanted to), STILL use the threat of LA.

Sure, that has ended up working out well for new stadiums.

But I can't imagine that was a grand scheme the owners had planned all along back in 1995, when they approved the Rams to leave.


I don't know, maybe my question has no answer. Maybe there was a faction of owners back in 1995 who tried to block the move, but got overruled by owners who liked Georgia. Or something. Owner politics obviously were at a different level back then.

(01-15-2016 12:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 09:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  It also didn't hurt that Georgia was a Saint Louis native...

And Georgia got a dome in St. Louis, and she made a ton of cash up front by selling some rich guy 30% of the team with a later option to buy the rest.

Some rich guy named Kroenke.

But the owners still had to allow this, yes? (not the selling part, the moving part)

I just don't understand how they can be so gung-ho now but back then were like "meh ... move if you want, we don't care".

She made two proposals to move, both of which were voted down by the owners. Then she threatened to sue (maybe even filed?) and the league gave up. Most of the owners had little respect for her and assumed that the team was in bad shape because she was incompetent. They cared, but not enough to spend money, I guess.

I do think that at some point after the move there came this growing sentiment that LA was a good media market (we'd watch lots of football) but not necessarily a good attendance market. That LA fans are bandwagoners, or some such. While true for some teams I'm not sure that reputation was ever deserved by Rams fans. They supported the team pretty consistently until Georgia took over.

I suspect that two things increased the gung ho factor: The sale of the Dodgers and the sale of the Clippers. In both cases, the teams sold for as much as 100% more than experts were valuing the teams. I'd guess the NFL (and the three owners in question) started thinking about how much value could be gained just by moving to this market.

+1
Thanks. I think I'm satisfied.

(01-15-2016 12:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But the owners still had to allow this, yes? (not the selling part, the moving part)

I just don't understand how they can be so gung-ho now but back then were like "meh ... move if you want, we don't care".

If you noticed, numerous NFL franchises made moves all in the span of about 5-7 years. The era was nicknamed "franchise free agency" as owners eschewed loyalty for money and the security of a new stadium.

The Oilers, Ravens (nee Browns), Rams, Raiders, Cardinals and Colts all planned successful moves within about a decade of each other. The continued Browns, Jags, Panthers and Texans were established. All of this was done within the span of 15 years and does not include threats to move such as the Vikings (SA, LA), Chargers/Raiders (LA, various), Patriots (Hartford), Saints (LA, SA), Cardinals (LA, various) and Bills (Toronto).

(01-15-2016 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  And Georgia got a dome in St. Louis, and she made a ton of cash up front by selling some rich guy 30% of the team with a later option to buy the rest.

Some rich guy named Kroenke.

That's an ironic use of language and the dome was not the actual Georgia Dome. It'd be funny and coincidental had they actually moved to Atlanta and to the Georgia Dome as she owned the team.

(01-15-2016 12:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 09:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  It also didn't hurt that Georgia was a Saint Louis native...

And Georgia got a dome in St. Louis, and she made a ton of cash up front by selling some rich guy 30% of the team with a later option to buy the rest.

Some rich guy named Kroenke.

But the owners still had to allow this, yes? (not the selling part, the moving part)

I just don't understand how they can be so gung-ho now but back then were like "meh ... move if you want, we don't care".

Also remember that al Davis sued to allow the raiders to move to LA and won (later overturned) which, at least temporarily, removed the league's ability to stop teams from moving. Hence the issue C2 was referring to. Plus luxury and premium seating was a new thing, and in the 90's everyone was all about new and improved facilities. Remember movie Major League? That was essentially the premise of the movie. While most teams still went thru the formal process, it was basically impossible to stop, so they probably have up on stopping her.

Thanks guys. Appreciate all answers and sharing of knowledge.