Video: Are the Rams moving back to LA?

posted at 12:31 pm on February 9, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Who says I’ve run out of Sunday NFL posts? I grew up in the greater Los Angeles area, and recall very clearly when then-owner Georgia Frontiere packed up the Rams and moved them to St. Louis in 1994, after running them into the ground over several years. Angelenos raged at the move, even though (ahem) LA enticed the Rams to move West from Cleveland after they won their first NFL championship in 1945. They have spent the last twenty years in futile attempts to get an NFL team to either relocate or originate in the nation’s #2 media market, an incredible streak of incompetence.

Now, a land sale has breathed new life into LA’s NFL dreams, and perhaps for a homecoming as well:

Stan Kroenke, the owner of the St. Louis Rams, has purchased a 60-acre lot in Inglewood.

The space, which is located between The Forum and Hollywood Park Casino, could potentially be used for an NFL stadium, according to the LA Times.

The Rams left the Southland for St. Louis in 1995, but the team will be able to leave its current lease at Edward Jones Dome after the 2014 season.

The team has tried to get its stadium up to date, but the commission in charge of the venue came short of the $700 million needed for renovations.

Chris Loesch, who lives in St. Louis, thinks there is real meat to this story:

The LA Times’ Sam Farmer believes it to be at the very least an effort to use as much leverage as possible to resolve the Rams’ current situation, and that a land purchase rather than just a bid means Kroenke is serious:

What’s notable about this land purchase?

The NFL was thoroughly apprised of it. An owner doesn’t have to tell the NFL if, say, he’s buying a house in L.A., or even land for a business. But if he has a stadium in mind, he’s got to keep the league informed. That’s what the Rams owner did when he made the purchase through the Kroenke Organization.

How could this also be a game changer for other teams?

This could cause other clubs to consider more possibilities than they might have considered before. If you’re the first team to take a step toward L.A., you’re looking for perfection. You want the vision that’s in your head. But if someone else is the first mover, and you’re just sitting there … well, maybe something you initially thought was absolutely essential maybe isn’t so essential after all.

For instance, maybe you thought an L.A. site would have to include land for 22,000 parking spaces. Maybe now you can live with 18,000. Perhaps deals that were close but not quite good enough are starting to look better by the day.

When owners start thinking that way, deals tend to get done.

So who are the most likely candidates to move to the L.A. area, besides the Rams?

The usual suspects: the Chargers and Raiders. The Chargers can get out of their Qualcomm Stadium lease each year, and the city of San Diego can’t sue them for leaving. That’s a powerful trump card. The Chargers are also highly motivated to not have another team roll into L.A. and leave them in the shadows (with diminished leverage for getting a new stadium in San Diego.).

As for the Raiders, yes, they left a sour taste in everyone’s mouth during their last L.A. go-round. But by the league’s thinking, there are three ways to effectively rebrand a franchise: 1) new city, 2) new stadium, and/or 3) new owner. A move of the Raiders could have all three, even if it means Mark Davis doesn’t sell his piece of the team but brings in a savvy new controlling owner.

Rebranding the Raiders might not have to be as dramatic as changing them from the Hell’s Angels to the Pirates of the Caribbean. It might be more like what happened with the Seattle Seahawks when Paul Allen bought them and moved them into a dazzling new stadium. They went from a forgotten, wobbly franchise to the envy of the league, and now Super Bowl champions.

I’d guess that this is at least partly a challenge to St. Louis to kick in more resources for a new stadium — and it’s why I detest pro-sports economics these days. The Rams went to St. Louis for a new publicly-financed stadium just 20 years ago, turning its back on an extensively-remodeled Anaheim Stadium that transformed it into a dual-use facility. Now the team wants another new stadium even though there is nothing wrong with its current facility, except that it doesn’t wring as much cash out of the public as newer stadiums for other teams have — thanks to equally nonsensical public-fund investment in private playgrounds for millionaire players and billionaire owners in other cities.

But as Farmer says later in his analysis, “this is no joke.” The league wants a team in LA, and the market would be huge for any team that locates there. So why hasn’t the NFL moved a team to LA or added an expansion team? In part, owners like the idea of using LA as leverage to get better deals from their existing cities. The Minnesota Vikings just did that up here, getting Minneapolis and the state to provide much of the funding for a replacement to the Metrodome, which was built by public funds thirty years ago to house the NFL and MLB franchises. (Minneapolis built a separate stadium for the Twins a few years ago.)

But in arguably equal part, Los Angeles has booted the negotiations by insisting for years on using the LA Coliseum for the NFL venue, which the NFL expressly rejected as a complete non-starter — and for good reasons, as the facility dates back to the 1932 Olympics. It’s not suited to compete with other NFL venues. In the city’s most craven episode, then-Mayor Richard Riordan ended up double-dealing Peter O’Malley in 1997, who wanted to add an NFL team in a new stadium at his LA Dodgers MLB site, and would have made a great owner for both teams. Instead, Riordan used O’Malley to play up LA’s bid, only to switch back to the Coliseum — a move that apparently convinced O’Malley to get out of sports ownership altogether. Houston ended up with the expansion franchise, while LA spent seventeen more years as a bargaining chip for every other team in the league.

Kroenke might be serious about moving the team this time, though. We’ll see how much that costs Angelenos, both now and every 20 years or so. This time, I’m feeling sorrier for St. Louis.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

But how could they give up St. Louis?

Evi L. Bloggerlady on February 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Thought it would be the Jags.

Would be interesting if it was the Rams, though. Has a professional franchise ever returned to the city they left before? And will St. Louis become the first city to lose two NFL franchises?

It would suck for St. Louis–they should have both NFL and NBA.

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 12:35 PM

California or Missouri. Damn, tough choice.

Evi L. Bloggerlady on February 9, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Would be interesting if it was the Rams, though. Has a professional franchise ever returned to the city they left before? And will St. Louis become the first city to lose two NFL franchises?

It would suck for St. Louis–they should have both NFL and NBA.

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 12:35 PM

The Raiders returned to Oakland.

ConstantineXI on February 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM

But how could they give up St. Louis?

Evi L. Bloggerlady on February 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Why not? They gave up Cleveland!

Conservative4Ever on February 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Why not? They gave up Cleveland!

Conservative4Ever on February 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Hey! Beleaguered Cleveland Browns fan here…

ConstantineXI on February 9, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Actually, they should move back to Cleveland and send these Browns down to Baltimore too.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on February 9, 2014 at 12:43 PM

And will St. Louis become the first city to lose two NFL franchises?

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 12:35 PM

No, because Los Angeles has already done that.

J.S.K. on February 9, 2014 at 12:44 PM

California or Missouri. Damn, tough choice.

Evi L. Bloggerlady on February 9, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Yep.

VegasRick on February 9, 2014 at 12:44 PM

No, because Los Angeles has already done that.

J.S.K. on February 9, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Actually Cleveland did so also by 1995… They lost the Rams in 1945, then the “Art Modell Franchise” in 1995.

ConstantineXI on February 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM

California or Missouri. Damn, tough choice.

Evi L. Bloggerlady on February 9, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Yeah, easy. Missouri any day. No worse hellhole in the United States than California.

ConstantineXI on February 9, 2014 at 12:47 PM

There are other cities that have lost two or more NFL franchises, but I’m not going to try to list them — most of them involve at least one team that folded or moved in the 1920s when the league was unstable.

J.S.K. on February 9, 2014 at 12:48 PM

Yeah, forgot about the Raiders. Probably because they really didn’t move that far away.

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 12:48 PM

There are other cities that have lost two or more NFL franchises, but I’m not going to try to list them — most of them involve at least one team that folded or moved in the 1920s when the league was unstable.

J.S.K. on February 9, 2014 at 12:48 PM

That’s true as well. I should have modified by speculation by stating ‘in the modern (post-Super Bowl) NFL era’

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM

I thought the Lakers and Kings pushed for a move out of Inglewood because the changing demographics/income levels of the region had made a sports arena south of Los Angeles a less desirable place than when Jack Kent Cooke built the Forum in the mid-1960s, which also was one of the reasons the NFL was cool to using the Coliseum.

That doesn’t mean Kroenke might not plow ahead and do it, but I’d think the land buy would be more than a bluff if the land was somewhere in the San Fernando Valley, near the downtown freeways like Dodger Stadium is, or at least closer to the areas where the Rams would expect all their Personal Seat License buyers to be more likely to come from.

jon1979 on February 9, 2014 at 12:52 PM

‘That’s true as well. I should have modified my speculation by stating ‘in the modern (Super Bowl) NFL era’

Ye cats, it’s a bad morning.

Must either use the preview button or cease posting.

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 12:53 PM

As a Lions fan, this is one of the few bennies of having the Fords own the team. Detroit is their home. They’ll never move it, or threaten to, as long as the Ford family owns them.

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 12:54 PM

The Raiders’ problem is they have a crappy stadium, over-priced tickets and a $hitty team.

I say that as a hardcore silver&black fan. Build a new stadium, dump the “personal seat licenses” and field a competitive team again, and Oakland will have no problem selling out games.

myiq2xu on February 9, 2014 at 12:55 PM

The NFL still hasn’t figured it out. There already is a “professional” football team that plays in LA. The problem is they play on Saturdays.

The name of this team?

The USC Trojans.

They are first in the hearts of many people who live in the area and always will be due to the extended run of great teams that has left them with incredibly high prestige even despite the recent run of troubles.

That’s a huge part of why the Rams and Raiders struggled enough to want to leave. The fan base in LA won’t accept a losing team. You either win, or you lose fans.

mvargus on February 9, 2014 at 12:57 PM

The fan base in LA won’t accept a losing team.

The Raiders won a Super Bowl while they were in LA and the fans there were still lukewarm. Lots of Oakland Raiders fans (like me) used to drive down to watch games in LA and there were always empty seats.

myiq2xu on February 9, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Can the Lakers and North Stars move back to Minnesota please, I mean come on, their team names!

Bishop on February 9, 2014 at 1:04 PM

…go Lions!

KOOLAID2 on February 9, 2014 at 1:05 PM

Can’t see it happening.

It’ll take 5 years to get a stadium designed and approved in California if they don’t have to go through some kind of ballot measure first. You don’t make a long-term commitment -like moving an NFL franchise- unless you know you can actually build the stadium you want in the location you want it… and receive the funding necessary to make it a profitable business decision.

Then, after you’ve paid off all the environmental and public advocacy groups to get your stadium approved, it’ll take another two years to get it built and improve the existing infrastructure around it. And St. Louis isn’t going to offer a year-to-year lease on the existing stadium.

BKeyser on February 9, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Time to end the not for profit status of the NFL and the anti trust exemptions. If they want to play hard ball, let’s play.

hip shot on February 9, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Bring back the USFL. At least the Michigan Panthers won a championship.

Flange on February 9, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Actually, they should move back to Cleveland and send these Browns down to Baltimore too.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on February 9, 2014 at 12:43 PM

We don’t want them. Though I hear Pittsburgh has an unhappy quarterback, a coach that likes to disrupt the play on the field and a geriatric secondary…

BKeyser on February 9, 2014 at 1:12 PM

60 acres? Doesn’t sound like a terribly big site. Remember, 1 acre is only 43,560 square feet.

And this is California, where the car is king. Will a 60 acre site be large enough to accommodate the stadium complex, as well as all the parking lots as well as all of the other infrastructure?

Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2014 at 1:13 PM

“Inglewood, Inglewood, always up to no good.” – Tupac Shakur

Why would anyone want to place a NFL franchise there?

blammm on February 9, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Video: Are the Rams moving back to LA?

Having suffered long through the Bill Bidwell years, it appears as though St. Louis might once again get the football pulled by Lucy.

No matter. Spring training is right around the corner.

rukiddingme on February 9, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Can the Lakers and North Stars move back to Minnesota please, I mean come on, their team names!

Bishop on February 9, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Yes, and the Utah Jazz as well. If you don’t move, can you at least choose a logical name for your new location?

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 1:21 PM

These NFL owners are like gypsies. They con you into building a stadium, then they move, leaving the city with a nice, empty investment.

oldennis on February 9, 2014 at 1:26 PM

30 year ram fan here (first season i have vivid memories of is 1985 – and yes, other than that early stretch and a 4 year glory window, it has been tough).

kroenke is moving, i don’t doubt it at all. the reason the lease in st. louis expired is because there is an out clause if the stadium is not in the top 25% (or tier or something like that). with all the new stadiums, it definitely isn’t. they exchanged proposals for improvements and the rams went for $700B from the city and the city countered at $100B or something close to that. yeah, that isn’t going to work.

so the idea that this is leverage is a worst case scenario for kroenke. but he is a smart, rich man with a house in malibu and a team history entrenched in los angeles (the cleveland thing is stupid as that was before football became FOOTBALL and their history in los angeles is long and proud – they were the first professional sports franchise to move west) and a land development pedigree. and he is going to prefer a franchise valued at well over $1B as opposed to $700M or so if he stays in st. louis, no matter the new stadium. not to mention st. louis has shown ZERO inclination to go all in on keeping the rams by coughing up the necessary funding.

anyway, i am all for it. free agents will definitely prefer LA, and the rams and the nfc west (which will be regionally restored with los angeles replacing st. louis) are coming into a period of serious ascension, so it would be great to see them play in the rose bowl for a few years (pasadena approvals have been met) while the new stadium goes up.

and the n

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 1:26 PM

My father was a diehard LA Rams fan. I can remember him crying only 6 times in my life.

The Rams leaving was one of them.

libfreesMom on February 9, 2014 at 1:27 PM

There already is a “professional” football team that plays in LA.

I agree with this. If the #2 market in the country over the years hasn’t been able to sustain an NFL team, it goes beyond stupid ownership and stupid politicians, unbuilt stadiums and misguided negotiations. It’ just not a fertile area for pro football.

bobs1196 on February 9, 2014 at 1:28 PM

rukiddingme on February 9, 2014 at 1:18 PM

and this is why i have no sympathy for st. louis. nothing personal to rukiddingme, this is the prevalent attitude. a very clear message that unless you can produce ‘greatest show on turf’ type of performance, if you are not baseball, you are in the backseat and not important, and attendance and revenue and apathy play that out. st. louis can have the cardinals and blues for the winter, and they frankly prefer it that way.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 1:29 PM

The worst part about this is that if it comes true, LA will give millions to the Rams.

They should have learned the first two times around.

It’s nice living in a land where there’s no NFL blackout.

unclesmrgol on February 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM

My father was a diehard LA Rams fan. I can remember him crying only 6 times in my life.

The Rams leaving was one of them.

libfreesMom on February 9, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Who does Libfree root for?

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM

There are other cities that have lost two or more NFL franchises, but I’m not going to try to list them — most of them involve at least one team that folded or moved in the 1920s when the league was unstable.

J.S.K. on February 9, 2014 at 12:48 PM

I wish Portsmouth, OH would take the Lions back!

Conservative4Ever on February 9, 2014 at 1:31 PM

unclesmrgol on February 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM

that is short sighted and simple thinking. is it really that much better to have the giants and cowboys every sunday? even if you don’t like the rams, having the ability to actually go to games, or bring up your children with that tradition is important.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM

I would be for making a team that leaves a city have to change names and logos unless that team has previously been in the other city before under that team name. And the old team wear is still available through the standard outlets, but instead of those licensing fees going to the owners, they goes into a fund for a team of that league (new or expansion) with proportionate ownership rights going to that county if when a team comes “home” (the city, county, and state all usually kick in, but arguing between the three is a nonstarter, and usually the city sandbags the county in placement and local enrighment elements so having that slice of the team owned by the county-whose government is usually driven by the city politics anyway- is a fair replacement).

jhnone on February 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM

As a Lions fan, this is one of the few bennies of having the Fords own the team. Detroit is their home. They’ll never move it, or threaten to, as long as the Ford family owns them.

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 12:54 PM

If only we could trade owners.

Conservative4Ever on February 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2014 at 1:13 PM

the 49ers new stadium in car cluttered santa clara (far away from san francisco, by the way) is on 40 acres, so yeah, it is easily done. kroenke is also close with the guy who is developing the hollywood park spot, so they could easily do some deal to help with the parking issue. kroenke might also invest in assisting building up the light rail or whatever they need for public transportation into inglewood.

by the way, sam farmer is not objective, if you read his articles, his bias against the rams is clear.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 1:35 PM

really slow news day

corona79 on February 9, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Let the Rams stay in St.Louis, who needs them.

Kjeil on February 9, 2014 at 1:39 PM

A soccer stadium would make more sense for Kroenke.

He’ll use it for a new (or rebranded) MLS franchise – an L.A. Gunners team to market Arsenal in America and counter the Man City move to New York and Beckham’s new team in Miami which will be linked (somehow I’m sure) to Man U.

Arsenal is way more important to Kroenke’s portfolio of businesses than the Rams.

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 1:39 PM

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 1:39 PM

this is ignorant beyond words. i understand that the premiere league is a big deal in england and parts of the world, but the nfl is the most important sports league in the world, and the most profitable. the rams in los angeles have the potential to be in the top ten percent valued sports franchises in the world.

that was one stupid comment you made.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Let the Rams stay in St.Louis, who needs them.

Kjeil on February 9, 2014 at 1:39 PM

In my younger years I used to root for Jim Hart & the Cardinals as long as they were not playing Miami or Denver.

Conservative4Ever on February 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Ed is a bitter ex-L.A. Rams fan who bailed and now supports the Steelers.

Concern status: Duly noted.

Christien on February 9, 2014 at 1:46 PM

A soccer stadium would make more sense for Kroenke.

He’ll use it for a new (or rebranded) MLS franchise – an L.A. Gunners team to market Arsenal in America and counter the Man City move to New York and Beckham’s new team in Miami which will be linked (somehow I’m sure) to Man U.

Arsenal is way more important to Kroenke’s portfolio of businesses than the Rams.

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Soccer… Zzzzzz.

Watching the grass grow or watch soccer?

Watching paint dry or watch soccer?

Gaze your navel or watch soccer?

Soccer is the world’s most boring sport.

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 1:46 PM

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 1:46 PM

*booked*

Christien on February 9, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Conservative4Ever on February 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM

By your comment, I assume that you’re a fellow Michigander. If so, what you at? Me? The Tawases/Oscoda (Iosco County)

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Bring back the USFL. At least the Michigan Panthers won a championship.

Flange on February 9, 2014 at 1:10 PM

In the interest of building on-line friendships, I try to find fellow military members and Michiganders. Are you a Michigander?

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Who does Libfree root for?

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Italian League Serie “B”, Juve Stabia probably.

Soccer… Zzzzzz.

Watching the grass grow or watch soccer?

Watching paint dry or watch soccer?

Gaze your navel or watch soccer?

Soccer is the world’s most boring sport.

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Looks like you were headed in the right direction already.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on February 9, 2014 at 2:01 PM

that was one stupid comment you made.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 1:43 PM</blockquote

#10 Arsenal
Value: $1.326 billion (before their $50M deal with Puma).
Owner: Stan Kroenke

#51 Rams
Value: $875 M

You don't think it makes more sense for Kroenke to protect his Arsenal Investment? He sure doesn't share the revenue he gets from Arsenal with anyone else. And most of the revenue is not taxed.

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Soccer is the world’s most boring sport.

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 1:46 PM

The only sport Kroenke is interested in is business.

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Bring back the USFL. At least the Michigan Panthers won a championship.

Flange on February 9, 2014 at 1:10 PM

lol, I cheered for two teams, namely the Philadelphia Stars, who had Jim Mora (senior) as their head coach-this was just before he turned the Saints around. They later moved to Baltimore, and ended up as the best team in USFL “history”, winning the championship the other two years.

Also cheered for our “local” team, the Boston Breakers, who later moved to (a) New Orleans and (b) Portland Oregon. They couldn’t stay in Boston because they couldn’t get a stadium deal (they played at the Boston University stadium, which was so small that even when they sold it out they still lost money).

Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM

that was one stupid comment you made.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 1:43 PM</blockquote

#10 Arsenal
Value: $1.326 billion (before their $50M deal with Puma).
Owner: Stan Kroenke

#51 Rams
Value: $875 M

You don't think it makes more sense for Kroenke to protect his Arsenal Investment? He sure doesn't share the revenue he gets from Arsenal with anyone else. And most of the revenue is not taxed.

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 2:06 PM

one doesn’t even remotely have anything to do with the other. you claimed kroenke doesn’t care what happens to the rams because they are an insignificant part of his holdings. this is a stupid comment with a capital S (which i don’t like to do).

your value of the rams is with them in st. louis, that could double in la with a new state of the art stadium. this is america (thought i would help you out with that), not europe, so soccer does not hold even remotely the importance for development HERE. and there is nothing to stop him from using the stadium for both.

the unmitigated vapidity of your comment came from the idea that his football team is unimportant to his considerations.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Soccer is the world’s most boring sport.

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 1:46 PM

And it just grates on the Left that they cannot force it on Americans. All the little kids with their soccer moms, and they drop it like a stone as soon as they reach high school, lol

It’s too bad kids don’t play as much baseball as they used to. Too much parental involvement now–we’d just head out and play. But admittedly it doesn’t translate well to television like football.

Actually the best game to watch live is hockey, but it is terrible on television.

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 2:24 PM

a cool little vid put up by an angeleno:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xJ0Dqn4eI5E

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 2:27 PM

I was an LA Rams fan as a kid, and have been waiting a long time for the move back.

cimbri on February 9, 2014 at 2:28 PM

your value of the rams is with them in st. louis, that could double in la with a new state of the art stadium. this is america (thought i would help you out with that), not europe, so soccer does not hold even remotely the importance for development HERE. and there is nothing to stop him from using the stadium for both.

the unmitigated vapidity of your comment came from the idea that his football team is unimportant to his considerations.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 2:21 PM

They are more valuable to him in St. Louis. Any team in LA will be “owned” by the league and benefit the league – it won’t matter who’s name is listed as the owner. Why do you think there’s no team there now? The owners will never give that market to a competitor.

It’s about maximizing the investments he has.

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM

The Panthers played at the Silverdome and they use to park a car at mid field at halftime. People would then line the edge of the upper deck, write their name and contact info on a piece of paper and turn it into a paper airplane. If you could get your plane into the sunroof of the car you’d win it. Don’t recall anyone winning, but I did see a few close calls.

Are you a Michigander?

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Ex-Michiganian (I refuse to call myself some sort of farcical water fowl). Moved to Texas a few years ago.

Flange on February 9, 2014 at 2:30 PM

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM

i don’t know what to tell you. i think you have zero idea how these things work. just ask al davis (god rest his soul – you will have to figure out the medium) how it works when the league tries to tell you what you can and cannot do with the team.

anyway, enjoy your soccer.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 2:31 PM

It’s too bad kids don’t play as much baseball as they used to. Too much parental involvement now–we’d just head out and play. But admittedly it doesn’t translate well to television like football.

Actually the best game to watch live is hockey, but it is terrible on television.

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Baseball is something you have to play to appreciate – the game within the game. Hitting a baseball is tough. Then when you actually hit it, you have folks running it down and making insane catches. The only drawback is that is could be faster paced.

Growing up in the Tri-Cities (MI) I saw the Saginaw Gears often. Then I saw my first NHL game in Detroit. Wow!!! Night and day. The skating is faster, passing windows smaller, hits are more violent, etc….

I like football, but the injury rate is so high that when I think of the human toll, I kinda step back. Of course, nobody puts a gun to their heads to make them play either.

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Ex-Michiganian (I refuse to call myself some sort of farcical water fowl).

LOL!!! I think it’s kinda cool, but to each their own.

Moved to Texas a few years ago.

Flange on February 9, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Lived in Houston when Ike hit. Luckily I was on the same electrical thing as the local fire station. I had power the next day. Others weren’t so lucky.

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 2:38 PM

I recall the Patriots nearly moved to St. Louis back in the early ’90′s, after the Sullivans had finally sold the team to Victor Kiam (those were the days…), who later went bust and sold the team to James Orthwein.

Fortunately, Robert Kraft got the stadium and ended up buying out Orthwein and keeping the team in New England.

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 2:39 PM

i don’t know what to tell you. i think you have zero idea how these things work. just ask al davis (god rest his soul – you will have to figure out the medium) how it works when the league tries to tell you what you can and cannot do with the team.

anyway, enjoy your soccer.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 2:31 PM

This is the way these things work in the socialist world of the NFL:

The NFL has reiterated to its 32 clubs that Los Angeles is the league’s market and that any franchise seeking to negotiate its own stadium deal in the city could threaten the best economic result for the sport, according to team and other sources familiar with the matter.

The league outlined its points in a memo sent to clubs last month. In that memo, the NFL also cautioned that a team buying real estate in Los Angeles would not preclude the league from moving forward on its own stadium deal. There has been some concern in league circles that a team might squat on Los Angeles through buying land for a potential stadium.

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 2:46 PM

It’s too bad kids don’t play as much baseball as they used to. Too much parental involvement now–we’d just head out and play. But admittedly it doesn’t translate well to television like football.

Actually the best game to watch live is hockey, but it is terrible on television.

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Agree with you about kids playing baseball. Hockey BTW is getting better on TV – HDTV really improves the experience.

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Keep the NFL out of LA. Just get USC to be good again and I’m good.

El_Terrible on February 9, 2014 at 2:50 PM

I recall the Patriots nearly moved to St. Louis back in the early ’90′s, after the Sullivans had finally sold the team to Victor Kiam (those were the days…), who later went bust and sold the team to James Orthwein.

Fortunately, Robert Kraft got the stadium and ended up buying out Orthwein and keeping the team in New England.

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 2:39 PM

So true. But if you remember Kraft also threaten to move the team (Hartford CT) if he didn’t get a new stadium. Funny thing is he ended up building the new stadium without ANY public assistance. Today it is still the only stadium in the NFL that was built without public funding.

D-fusit on February 9, 2014 at 2:50 PM

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 2:46 PM

there is also a strong argument to be made that the rams would not be relocating, but simply going home.

the league put that forward because it did not want teams doing their own thing and then locking the league into it. it does not mean they can stop nor control the move or the team. teams have moved many times, and the league can do little to stop them if they really want to go.

the league has enjoyed the leverage, but the vast majority of teams now have new stadiums, so the need is less. and the leverage would not be completely gone because la could easily have two teams.

and whatever fees they would lose from expansion rights would be mitigated by expansion fees to a different city and increased revenues from having a team in the #2 market.

people are so incredibly short sighted (such as el person) when they claim the league and city are better off without a team.

it is downright unamerican.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 3:02 PM

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 2:46 PM

look, the rams may stay in st. louis, they may go to los angeles, or they move to london. all have a case to be made in the realm of logical possibilities.

but to dismiss this purchase and the idea that kroenke doesn’t care about the rams because they are an insignificant part of his portfolio is foolhardy at best.

they were so inconsequential that when khan tried to buy them a few years ago he matched the offer (as was his right as minority owner) and divested himself of his interests in the nuggets and other pro franchises (avalanche? denver soccer team?) so he would be allowed to purchase the rams.

kroenke is one of the richest, most powerful, important, and respected owners in the league, and it is not accident what is happening in a like positioned market.

time will tell.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM

And one of the premier facilities in the league as well.

Yes, it was a close thing–the hapless Pats (as we used to refer to them back then) nearly became the St. Louis Stallions, and would not have transformed in New England into one of the marquee NFL franchises with all of their more recent successes.

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Chiefs? Kansas city isn’t a big media market and fan support is dwindling. Also, the stadium is outdated.

nazo311 on February 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM

p

eople are so incredibly short sighted (such as el person) when they claim the league and city are better off without a team.

it is downright unamerican.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Yeah LA needs a team – I agree. And I would love it to be the Rams.

It is unamerican to not let them have one. I hope the Raiders don’t move there though.

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 3:18 PM

nazo311 on February 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM

most teams are tied to stadium leases which they cannot get out of, or it is prohibitive to do so.

the rams are free to go after the 2014 season. the chargers and raiders are the two other teams that renew their current leases on a year to year basis and also are potential movers (the chargers would prefer to stay in san diego but the voters keep denying any stadium funding and i am not sure about the raiders, but the feeling seems to be they prefer to stay in oakland, too).

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 3:20 PM

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 3:18 PM

personally, i think the raiders should find a way to share the 49ers new stadium (not sure how the 49ers would feel about that, but money talks), and the chargers and rams (the two teams with the deepest southern california ties – albeit the raiders mystique in the face of decades of losing still holds a great deal of cache down there), should share a los angeles stadium. makes the most sense.

san diego loves the chargers, but it is simply not a serious sports town.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Why can’t they just break the lease and the new city buy out the contract? Also, can’t teams just sue the cities citing technicalities in the lease, etc. I’m surprised the latter doesn’t happen more.

nazo311 on February 9, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Who owns the Chargers? Are the owners local to San Diego?

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM

…go Lions!

KOOLAID2 on February 9, 2014 at 1:05 PM

….and take the Pistons with you!

8 weight on February 9, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Why can’t they just break the lease and the new city buy out the contract? Also, can’t teams just sue the cities citing technicalities in the lease, etc. I’m surprised the latter doesn’t happen more.

nazo311 on February 9, 2014 at 3:30 PM

I think the problem is getting the other owners to sign on with something like that. The city would sue the NFL is they approved a team breaking a lease and moving.

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 3:35 PM

nazo311 on February 9, 2014 at 3:30 PM

don’t know about all that, just know that when it is talked about, lease obligations usually take teams out of the considerations.

kcewa on February 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM

dean spanos? i think so. they want to stay, but they want public money, and with every threat to leave the city, the voters have shrugged their shoulders. there have been negotiations for at least five years about ‘compromises,’ but nothing ever gets done, and i doubt it will. what that means to the owner, is anybody’s guess. but i would never move willingly from san diego to los angeles. a good analogy does not come to mind, but something akin to moving from tel aviv to lebanon?

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 3:37 PM

san diego loves the chargers, but it is simply not a serious sports town.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM

If I absolutely HAD to live in CA, I’d live in SD. Simply the best weather in the continental US. So much to do and so much wonderful weather, why sit in a stadium all afternoon?

P.S. I was stationed at Camp Pendleton and Balboa Naval Hospital.

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 3:38 PM

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 3:38 PM

no doubt. i graduated from ucsd, and have lived in san diego off and on for many years. the problem of course is that you are surrounded by californians, in general, and southern californians, in particular. the first meaning insane politics, the latter meaning vapid materialistic cultures (it gets so tiring talking about what kind of car people drive and where they are buying their new house).

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Stan Kroenke, the owner of the St. Louis Rams, has purchased a 60-acre lot in Inglewood.

When did team owners start buying their own land or stadium?

Maybe Stan will plead poverty and the wise California government leaders will reimburse him for the land he bought for his team’s stadium.

RJL on February 9, 2014 at 3:51 PM

and southern californians, in particular. the first meaning insane politics, the latter meaning vapid materialistic cultures (it gets so tiring talking about what kind of car people drive and where they are buying their new house).

On the plus side, SD was the one place where I didn’t notice a distance between military folks and the civilians. If you were “cool” folks liked you. I loved living out on the local economy smoking the evil heathen devil weed with my neighbors… and chasing their women.

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM

307wolverine on February 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM

yeah, san diego is the “conservative” enclave in southern california (wait, was bob filner actually mayor? never mind), and they definitely appreciate the military there. and OB and PB are their own vibes in the tradition of casual and laid back california (the california that way back when was actually conservative and voted ronald reagan in as governor…crazy! oh, how times have changed….watch out texas! this does not mean surfer/stoner PB and OB are conservative, by the way…)

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Well….

Does anyone else recall Goodell being asked about the Rams, and saying unequivocally that they would not be moving?
Of course, Roger’s a thief, and he’s just waiting for the payoff to be right.

Then there’s the matter of pro-sports franchises having an aversion to building stadiums with their own money.
It has been put on the ballot several times in the general SoCal community asking whether or not taxpayer funds should be used to build a stadium for a private company (a pro-sports franchise).
The voters have nixed this each time they’ve been asked.
We’re tired of ending up with a “used bag” after the billionaire has rushed off to another sucker.

Now, I grew up with the Rams (I was 5 when they played their first game here), and I lived and died with their glory and failure.
But, if they want to come back to L.A., they’ll need to do it with their own dime, not mine.

Another Drew on February 9, 2014 at 4:07 PM

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Not all SoCal denizens are “vapid and materialistic” – though that is a pretty good description of what comes out of our higher-ed learning centers these days.
Perhaps you need to move away from the Coastal Strip, and reside where real people do real work?

Another Drew on February 9, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Another Drew on February 9, 2014 at 4:07 PM

that is too bad. cities drawing big business with special treatment is perfectly in line with free competition and community building. la is the worse for not having an nfl franchise.

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Does anyone else recall Goodell being asked about the Rams, and saying unequivocally that they would not be moving?

i’ve paid close attention to all this and i have never seen this. care to provide a link or source?

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 4:11 PM

la is the worse for not having an nfl franchise.

No, not really, because we don’t suffer “blackouts”.

Another Drew on February 9, 2014 at 4:11 PM

ok, i think i have fulfilled my commenting quota for the year. go rams!

truecon on February 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM

i’ve paid close attention to all this and i have never seen this. care to provide a link or source?

An interview on Fox (broadcast) on Super-Bowl Sunday.

Another Drew on February 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Nah! Stan bought that for a new Wal-Mart.

Vince on February 9, 2014 at 4:23 PM

I recall the Patriots nearly moved to St. Louis back in the early ’90′s, after the Sullivans had finally sold the team to Victor Kiam (those were the days…), who later went bust and sold the team to James Orthwein.

Fortunately, Robert Kraft got the stadium and ended up buying out Orthwein and keeping the team in New England.

Art Vandelay on February 9, 2014 at 2:39 PM

So true. But if you remember Kraft also threaten to move the team (Hartford CT) if he didn’t get a new stadium. Funny thing is he ended up building the new stadium without ANY public assistance. Today it is still the only stadium in the NFL that was built without public funding.

D-fusit on February 9, 2014 at 2:50 PM

And the complex is amazing-it’s called Patriots Place and besides the stadium it has hotels, restaurants, shops, nightclubs, and even a concert venue and a hospital.

FYI Kraft did have to get some public funding, to improve an access road. But it was a small amount compared to the total end cost, and everything else was done privately.

Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM

The NFL still hasn’t figured it out. There already is a “professional” football team that plays in LA. The problem is they play on Saturdays.

The name of this team?

The USC Trojans.

Reminds me back in the day when I was living in Alabama and both the World League and the CFL tried to get a franchise going in Birmingham. All my local buddies pointed out “We already have 2 pro-football teams in the state, why do we need a semi-pro team?” XD

JimLennon on February 9, 2014 at 5:21 PM

Here’s a blurb about the economics of it from a chat conducted by Jim Thomas of the St. Louis Post Dispatch (Thomas is the Rams beat writer):

You’re right. It’s a tough puzzle to solve. But there can be a way out. Let’s say Kroenke moves to LA. New stadium cost: in excess of $1 billion. Relocation fee: At least $800 million. Then through in associated costs of playing in another stadium while his is being built, plus having practicing facilities, team offices and any related costs with environmental impact issues, etc. You’re talking more than $2 billion. Now consider a possible St. Louis solution: NFL stadium fund kicks in $200 million; city and state come up with $400 million (the CVC already was at $180 million, so you need “just” another $220 million), Stan kicks in $400 million and you have a $1 billion stadium. So the question for Stan is: Would you rather kick in $400 million to stay in St. Louis and get a new stadium and be a local hero, or pay more than $2 billion to get a new stadium in LA? Doesn’t seem like that tough of a decision to me. Ways for St. Louis and the state to come up with $220 million _ 1.) Raise the cigarette tax, it’s already one of the lowest in the nation _ to the point where many in Illinois side of St L buy their cigs in Mo. _ and have some of that money got to cancer research, etc.; 2.) Raise hotel and rental car taxes. The vast majority of people who use hotels and rental cars are out of towners. Do you really think they’ll notice and extra dollar or two on their bill?

http://live.stltoday.com/Event/Rams_chat_with_Jim_Thomas_28?Page=1

My gut says they Rams end up staying in St. Louis due to the economics discussed above, but it’s only about 60-40 in favor.

thirteen28 on February 9, 2014 at 5:49 PM

1. What do NFL ratings look like in Los Angeles?

2. What would they look like with a team in LA?

goatweed on February 9, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Schadenfreude

Bmore on February 9, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2