urbanSTL

blzhrpmd2 wrote:Great to see the running game consistency continue as well as smart usage of Tavon. Very impressed with Clemens' ability to extend plays. Secondary scheme continues to baffle every so often which allowed quick release passes and negated what appeared to be pretty good front 7 pressure. Overall, awesome to get a big W against a big market team.

That said, the amount of Bears fans was inexusable. These displays of fan/regional apathy can do nothing except provide fodder for a move. I'll be interested to see the TV ratings. Coupled with Randy K's summation last Monday on the Fastlane as a move essentially being down to a "coin flip" I don't have a good feeling about this. Somone talk me down.

The LA stadium would cost well over 1 billion - in an area whose 50 growth cycle most likely peaked a decade a go and has serious problems getting anything built

The Raiders are likely to move - there is less a chance of a desperately needed new stadium in Oakland - the bay area is already served by the Niners - There is a history of the Raiders in LA

Feel better

blzhrpmd2 wrote:That said, the amount of Bears fans was inexusable.

Sorry: I sold my tickets for $130/each profit: probably to Bears fans. I'm paying for most of Christmas with that windfall. And I'm going to keep doing it when the Packers, Bears and Steelers come until the game has playoff implications.

STLEnginerd wrote:If anything it just further proves what everyone knows. The Rams are in the wrong division and need more games against regional rivals. If only there was room in the NFC North or the AFC South the travel component to both would be a nice boost.

Agreed. I was almost hoping Minnesota wouldn't get a new stadium and would move elsewhere so we could catch that NFC North slot for rivalry's sake.

Why don't we Rams ticket holders petition the NFL to move the Rams to the AFC North, Baltimore Ravens to the NFC East, and the Dallas Cowboys to the NFC West? I know they keep Dallas in the NFC East to maintain their "rivalry" with the Washington Sunburns. But that rivalry has been pretty non-existent lately. This might have been easier a few years ago when the NFC West was weak. In the AFC North, the Rams would get 6 games per year with Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh. Rams fans could actually attend away games, and fans from those cities could attend Rams games to get actual rivalries going within families in these cities.

The biggest portion of the Chicago base yesterday were Bears fans who actually live here in St. Louis but have ties to Chicago, like the ones who sat next to me. We have a lot of residents who moved here from Cincy, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, too. But how many residents move here from Seattle, Frisco, and Phoenix? Isn't it about time to re-align to a more logical geographic structure?

blzhrpmd2 wrote:No I mean

-"the weather was too good not to spend outside"
- "the opponent was one I really don't care about seeing"
-"they're in the wrong division" (so you're telling me if the Bears were in our division, more Rams fans would have shown? Doubtful if the lure of $$ for tickets is still in play.
-opporunity to make some extra $ was more attractive
-the place they place just isn't that great

I totally get that the last few years they sucked. Fan support dwindled. Many still toughed it out. But that is now irrelevant. Now, in 2013 (interesting 2012 is missing from your list) they just came off a damn good game on the road in Indy and are playing a team with a lot on the line. It's 15 degrees out, no Cardinals, no Blues, no Mizzou, an opporunity to show Cubs fans and Chicagoans that we have more to push in their face than Cardinals' success. Just Sunday afternoon and the Rams. How do fans not show up for that? I'm sure some will post arguments defending a lack of fan support. All I will counter with is the same as before: that's all fine, however, we will be deserving of our reputation and STL will be a venue for other teams' fans to flex their supportive identity on the league until kickoff in Southern California. Then we'll be left picking up the pieces of a fractured image. I hope I'm severely mistaken and realize I'm being extreme, but I don't see how Rams administration can't look at yesterday with a raised eyebrow.

No the Cubs won't leave Chicago because they are not in the middle of a stadium issue with another city trying to rally to steal them back. The Cubs are surrounded by millions and millions of people with no question to fan loyalty. If anything the sea of red in Wrigleyville is even more maddening as it speaks to our ability to represent loudly as a fanbase (as we have done in the past with our Rams in the late 90s/early 2000s....same stadium, same weather conditions, same previous 5-6 year display of mediocrity....only thing that has changed is the novelty of having football again is gone.....and now unfortunately back into play as a threat). Can't compare the two situations with Cubs/Rams. Same for the Patriots, their lease, identity, and ownership desires are not unclear or in jeopardy.

Did you buy a ticket and attend the game? A lot of folks used the Rams Ticket Exchange to sell their tickets several weeks ago when the Rams were tanking. The sellers don't get to see who actually buys the tickets -- the tickets just get posted at high prices on the Rams exchange. Only the Rams get to see where the buyers live when they deliver the re-sale tickets. If someone is willing to pay for half of the full season cost for one game, its pretty hard for a Rams fan to turn down when the team was losing anyway.

Does anyone else find it odd that 5 months after the ruling against CVC and Nixon getting involved, we have heard nothing, no rumors, no leaks, nothing good or bad.

I would understand that they would not engage the public until after the season is over, but someone always hears something and in the world of social media keeping a tight lid on negotiations seems almost impossible.

Conclusions -

they have an absolute lockdown, with only a handful of key people involved, and things are going well, if they were not the Rams side would be dropping serious move threats in the media

or

Things are going very poorly and no one is talking to the other side, no need to drop media hints because leaving is a foregone conclusion.

Any other speculation?

On a side note, it has been interesting to see how the pro sports have been playing out in the Bay Area since moving out here. 49er's have their new stadium being built while Raiders have made it known that they want a new stadium where they currently play. They just want it to be football specific. The Oakland A's would be more then happy to be kicked out so they could build a new baseball stadium in San Jose but MLB won't let them for the sake of the Giants. In the meantime, my employer is gearing up to try and bid on some of the work for the new Warriors stadium near AT&T park.

In a nutshell, Oakland might very well be a one pro sport town and that will be the Raiders. I really don't see them moving at end of day if Oakland can make a stadium happen somehow. They have a fan base, just happen to be in a cash poor city in a region for which Silicon Valley and therefore the money embraces anything with San Fran in its title.

At end of day, I see expansion in Los Angeles because what ownership group in the NFL wants to sell out right now? Or another way to put it. I'm with Rawest1, a LA move won't happen for any current team until public money goes into a stadium in order for current ownership stays intact for any of the teams talked about.

The Rams are not moving, and Rams fans aren't bad fans.

Outside of a brief stretch of dominance followed by a brief stretch of competitiveness, the Rams have been totally non-competive since arriving in St. Louis. Prior to Fisher being hired, the Rams capped off the worst five-year stretch in NFL history.

Until Kroenke took over majority ownership of the team, the Rams made no effort to market themselves outside of the immediate metro St. Louis area. And oh by the way, they're surrounded by the behemoth and tradition steeped fan bases of the Chiefs and the Bears. As well as in driving distance of another one in Green Bay.

So you tell me why it's anything beyond natural that Bears fans infiltrated the Dome yesterday when the under .500, underachieving (overall, not lately), and extremely injured Rams took on their team.

There is nothing else to say. It's natural. It's logical. It's reasonable.

You build a fan base with time, effort, and winning. The Rams have had enough time at this point to have built a fan base, but because they've failed so miserably with effort (as far as marketing and such) and winning, it hasn't stuck. That's not the fault of St. Louis.

This is how it works in every city. The Rams that St. Louis has had wouldn't have a dedicated fan base in any other city either. You can't be a turd of an organization for this long and be supported. It doesn't work that way.

Fortunately, the Rams are becoming a model organization. I'm not criticizing anyone currently in charge at Rams park. This is a franchise finally led by people that get it. The fan base is going to come back around.

But it's going to take more time, more effort, and some wins. The Rams don't have to make the playoffs every year to have fan support, but because of the hole they've dug, a playoff season is what they need to REALLY get the foundation solidified again. It's pretty improbable for this season, but a winning season is within grasp, and that would help. And if they can build on that and make the playoffs next year. Watch out. Suddenly the dome will be the rocking, loud, intimidating place it was in at the turn of the century.

St. Louis and the surrounding regions have great football fans . Not enough has been done to make sure they're Rams fans. That's changing.

As for the Dome. It's mediocre. Not bad. Certainly not good. A replacement would be nice, and at this point it's inevitable. And it's going to come in St. Louis. Randy Karraker's "coin flip" comment is his own gut feeling. He has no inside info, it's a guess. And it's a guess based primarily on the fact that the excitement for the Rams hasn't been high in St. Louis this season. But that's not the fans fault, and the fan base will have no impact on the stadium issue anyways.

Unless Kroenke really wants to move to LA, or unless the people handling negotiations for the city and the state really don't want him here (neither of which seem to be the case), a new stadium will be built in St. Louis sometime in the next five or six years. And the Rams will be Super Bowl contenders.

And it will be glorious.

rawest1 wrote:

beer city wrote:Does anyone else find it odd that 5 months after the ruling against CVC and Nixon getting involved, we have heard nothing, no rumors, no leaks, nothing good or bad.

I would understand that they would not engage the public until after the season is over, but someone always hears something and in the world of social media keeping a tight lid on negotiations seems almost impossible.

Conclusions -

they have an absolute lockdown, with only a handful of key people involved, and things are going well, if they were not the Rams side would be dropping serious move threats in the media

or

Things are going very poorly and no one is talking to the other side, no need to drop media hints because leaving is a foregone conclusion.

Any other speculation?

No. To tell you the truth, it isn't odd at all, for a number of reasons:

1. New stadiums, from the initial proposals to the breaking of ground, generally take in the neighborhood of 5-10 years. These things take a very long time, 100% of the time.

2. The negotiations and arbitration have, in fact, nothing to do with a new stadium, and have no bearing on the timeline for discussions related to a new stadium, other than nothing could legally happen until after they were over. They were simply done because they were required to be done, written into the lease for the CURRENT stadium.

3. Kroenke/the Rams currently enjoy one of the most team-friendly leases in any league, so the incentive to shake up the status quo is not particularly large right now, nor will it ever be.

4. Kroenke/the Rams don't have as much leverage as they could later on because
a) the more that's written about the currentl L.A. proposals, the more it's becoming clear that nothing will likely happen with them, and
b) the Rams can't go year-to-year until 2014 when they have the option of terminating their lease (as a result of the CVC rejecting the arbitration ruling). After that point, they'll technically be "free agents," although this should not be any cause for alarm either, as other NFL teams currently have that status (I think some have for multiple years), and they, like the Rams, are not seriously entertaining a move to L.A.

I've said it before in this thread, and I'll say it again: Until a proposal in L.A. materializes that involves public money paying for a chunk of it, or the AEG ownership group (or some other group) buys an expansion franchise and foots the bill for an entire stadium, there will be no NFL in Los Angeles. Period.

I understand what your saying and I agree - I am not talking about a conclusion or even proposal as to what the final outcome may be, but a leak -

For instance the Cardinals unveiled the design for the Busch III in 2000 - it took 3 years of negotiations and veiled threats to agree to it and start construction, completion in 2006 - but, there were rumors - all of which turned out to be true - of the new stadium, size and location that I heard as early as 1998, with the Rams we are 2 years past the call for a new stadium (and by ridiculous terms of the lease everyone knew this day was coming when Stan took over in 2010)

but there have been no leaks, no serious proposals (I do not count the Ed dome renovation proposals as I think they were put together to satisfy the court, per the contract), no rumored proposals... nothing

I understand that this is a different animal than Busch III and this could be a 5 or 6 year process - But 2+ years into this to hear nothing rumored is odd, hence my 2 conclusions