Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Cities not picked for expansion
Author Message
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 16,544
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #31
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
^

As long as visitors get fleeced and not local taxpayers, I'm fine with publicly owned stadiums. And of course "fleeced" is a relative term, paying $5 extra dollars on a car rental or hotel bill shouldn't piss anyone off except the extremely cheap.
12-31-2016 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lew240z Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 619
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Wyoming
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Post: #32
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
(12-31-2016 01:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You conveniently left out the part where STL was going to build the Rams a new billion dollar, riverfront stadium.
[Image: 54f497e4ab6d7.image.jpg]

I get you're anti-stadium, fine.

But a *public* stadium is the same thing as a public park or public trail: the public own it, it is not a necessity but it is an amenity that people desire to have and are willing to pay for via taxes. Exactly the same thing.

No, I didn't forget about it. It was never going to happen. Kroenke didn't want it. Goodell didn't want it. The NFL owners didn't want it. They all wanted the Rams in Los Angeles. The value of the Rams doubled with the move. The Rams went from 28th to sixth in valuation. If 100% of the population of the state of Missouri had supported the new stadium, it still would have never been built. The Rams were gone before negotiations even began. If you look up the definition of bad faith negotiation, you will find the NFL logo.
01-01-2017 09:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PirateTreasureNC Offline
G's up, Ho's Down ; )
*

Posts: 31,502
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 450
I Root For: ECU Pirates,
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
(01-01-2017 09:39 AM)lew240z Wrote:  
(12-31-2016 01:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You conveniently left out the part where STL was going to build the Rams a new billion dollar, riverfront stadium.
[Image: 54f497e4ab6d7.image.jpg]

I get you're anti-stadium, fine.

But a *public* stadium is the same thing as a public park or public trail: the public own it, it is not a necessity but it is an amenity that people desire to have and are willing to pay for via taxes. Exactly the same thing.

No, I didn't forget about it. It was never going to happen. Kroenke didn't want it. Goodell didn't want it. The NFL owners didn't want it. They all wanted the Rams in Los Angeles. The value of the Rams doubled with the move. The Rams went from 28th to sixth in valuation. If 100% of the population of the state of Missouri had supported the new stadium, it still would have never been built. The Rams were gone before negotiations even began. If you look up the definition of bad faith negotiation, you will find the NFL logo.

The only point I'd argue about LA is... if LA meant that much to the NFL why did it allow the Rams to leave in the first place? Why was there no team put there for close to 20 years?

I think the only thing got LA hot on the NFL's mind was the sale of the Clippers for an INSANE PRICE. And that insane price paid for the Dodgers.
01-01-2017 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lew240z Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 619
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Wyoming
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Post: #34
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
Yes, it was the Clippers and Dodgers valuations that got the NFL off the mark.
01-01-2017 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 12,105
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 342
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #35
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
And, if the NFL was going to return to LA, it was going to have to be in a privately-funded stadium, which meant that the LA owner had to be Kroenke. No one else who was ever interested in having a team in LA had the money to make it happen.

The Raiders and Chargers owners are only billionaires on paper; apart from the value of their NFL franchises, their net worth isn't even enough to build a high school football field with aluminum bleachers. 07-coffee3
01-01-2017 04:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,188
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 148
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #36
Cities not picked for expansion
(01-01-2017 04:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  And, if the NFL was going to return to LA, it was going to have to be in a privately-funded stadium, which meant that the LA owner had to be Kroenke. No one else who was ever interested in having a team in LA had the money to make it happen.

The Raiders and Chargers owners are only billionaires on paper; apart from the value of their NFL franchises, their net worth isn't even enough to build a high school football field with aluminum bleachers. 07-coffee3

I think Davis and Spanos were hoping the NFL would help with a new stadium in LA. I thought Carson was going to give those to that superfund site? It was still a pipe dream, but having buildible land is 1/3 of the battle in California.
01-01-2017 07:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 16,544
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #37
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
(01-01-2017 12:42 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  The only point I'd argue about LA is... if LA meant that much to the NFL why did it allow the Rams to leave in the first place? Why was there no team put there for close to 20 years?

I think the only thing got LA hot on the NFL's mind was the sale of the Clippers for an INSANE PRICE. And that insane price paid for the Dodgers.

The NFL is good at leveraging taxpayers to foot the bill for its palaces. LA was of the mindset of "kiss our ass," you need us more than we need you. And they were right, the NFL finally came back but only after a privately financed stadium was planned. They are firm in California about not building publicly financed stadiums and the newest stadiums in California were/are going to be privately financed (the Giants Park, most of Levi's, the Rams new stadium).

The Rams didn't leave so much because LA didn't support them as much as Georgia Frontiere got a sweetheart deal in St. Louis and left a crumbling stadium in Anaheim after a time of being the second team in the LA market after the Raiders. The Raiders also left because of the state of the Coliseum, so it was an amazing coincidence. But LA had two teams, they certainly had the market to support the NFL then and now.
01-01-2017 08:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PirateTreasureNC Offline
G's up, Ho's Down ; )
*

Posts: 31,502
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 450
I Root For: ECU Pirates,
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
(01-01-2017 08:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-01-2017 12:42 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  The only point I'd argue about LA is... if LA meant that much to the NFL why did it allow the Rams to leave in the first place? Why was there no team put there for close to 20 years?

I think the only thing got LA hot on the NFL's mind was the sale of the Clippers for an INSANE PRICE. And that insane price paid for the Dodgers.

The NFL is good at leveraging taxpayers to foot the bill for its palaces. LA was of the mindset of "kiss our ass," you need us more than we need you. And they were right, the NFL finally came back but only after a privately financed stadium was planned. They are firm in California about not building publicly financed stadiums and the newest stadiums in California were/are going to be privately financed (the Giants Park, most of Levi's, the Rams new stadium).

The Rams didn't leave so much because LA didn't support them as much as Georgia Frontiere got a sweetheart deal in St. Louis and left a crumbling stadium in Anaheim after a time of being the second team in the LA market after the Raiders. The Raiders also left because of the state of the Coliseum, so it was an amazing coincidence. But LA had two teams, they certainly had the market to support the NFL then and now.

If they had the market (and I don't doubt they do/did) how did....

Houston Oilers not move to LA (Tennessee Titans )
Cleveland Browns not move to LA ( went to Baltimore)
Houston and Cleveland being awarded expansion teams
*Trying to think if there was any other team I am forgetting from that time period... because I think the Jags and Panthers came into the NFL a few years prior to their exit out of LA.
01-01-2017 10:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 16,544
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #39
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
The Oilers had been threatening to move to Jacksonville and Tennessee for years as leverage to get renovations at the Astrodome or a new stadium built. The owner got his wish and the heart and soul of the Astrodome was ripped out for more seats. He still complained, forcing the city's hand and making him make good on his bluff to move to Tennessee.

The Panthers/Jags came in after the LA market was vacated but not before they had already been awarded to Charlotte and Jacksonville respectively. In other words, LA had no shot at them because they had already been awarded before the Rams and Raiders moved.

Finally, the Texans were supposed to be LA's expansion franchise but despite the league's best efforts, LA refused to publicly fund a stadium and every negotiation fell through, thus Houston was awarded instead.
01-02-2017 02:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,531
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 179
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
(01-01-2017 09:39 AM)lew240z Wrote:  They all wanted the Rams in Los Angeles.

So??? Why the defeatist attitude of "if it can't be the Rams, then screw you!" Why so hell-bent on the Rams?? They were only in STL for what 20 years? Not 100 years.

You could build the same stadium for the Jags, and have automatic regional rivalries with Indy and Nashville baked into the circumstance of the NFL's league structure.
(This post was last modified: 01-02-2017 02:51 PM by MplsBison.)
01-02-2017 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.