I'm still of the thought that the league doesn't want to see the Rams, Raiders etc get all the revenue/value gain from moving to LA. I wouldn't even be surprised to see the league offer some more stadium money to Rams, Raiders, Chargers etc in order for all teams to reap the benefit of placing two expansion teams in LA. I know it's apples to oranges; but the recent sales of the Dodgers and Clippers have the Los Angeles sports team market in a strange over-valued place.DogtownBnR wrote:The Jags are tied to their lease until 2029. They actually drafted a lease that was beneficial to the City of Jacksonville. Shad has done nothing but reiterate his commitment to JAX. He has made improvements to the stadium and marketed the team heavily in JAX. Whether that is smoke and mirrors, who knows, but I'm sure it is not hard to like living in Florida. Also, the south is growing at a faster pace than the Midwest, so the long term potential seems to be there. I do not see the Jags moving anytime soon.Freakin' flamers. In my homer heart of hearts, I still think this town is plenty viable for a franchise and maybe Kronke could pull the old switcheroo that brought the Rams here in the first place. At least I'm hopeful since Kronke is a Missouri guy and in a franchise swap, Kronke gets the Jaguars and L.A. and Shahid Khan who wanted to buy the Rams gets the team and stays here. And of course all of this done without burdening city budgets with subsidy taxes for generations.
The Rams, Raiders and Chargers, still lead the way, in the race to LA, IMO. Stan has done NOTHING, compared to Shad, to give us any hope that he wants to stay here. One can only hope, that this is all part of the process of getting a new venue here in STL. I have to say, I am not that confident that STL can get our sh-t together. We've bungled many deals of this nature. The Cardinals should have NEVER moved. I think Bidwell is a buffoon, but look at the Big Red now. We had a history. We would have a long history. I loved the 2 Cardinal franchises in one city. Now we have a Rams team that occasionally, TV analysts mistake as the LA Rams. You have a large contingent in Southern CA claiming the team as theirs. You have an owner that cannot be trusted, based upon his moves, like buying land in LA, remaining completely silent, while letting the lease expire, after demanding $700 million in improvements. Not to mention, just looking shady and wearing a bad toupee.
I think this season could get ugly, attendance- wise, if they start losing. The schedule is tough, Sam Bradford is out and I think this could play into the hands of Stan if he wants to justify a move to LA. I am one of the "chicken-littles" Bernie Miklaus refers to. I am, only because we in STL have been burned before and I've seen nothing to show that a behind the scenes effort is underway. After seeing that stuttering buffoon Jay Nixon's handling of the Mike Brown ordeal, I have no confidence in him leading the charge to keep the Rams here. Time will tell what happens, but I now say there is a 65% chance the Rams leave. I was at 50-50 not that long ago. As the season goes to hell, if it does, that % will go up in favor of a move.
- 3,767
^ I agree... I think the NFL wants to keep teams in their current markets and grow from there. However, if a team REALLY wants to move and the owner has the pull that Stan does, I can't see the NFL stopping him. Of course the LA market is a great negotiating tool and it would be smart of they used it to get every new venue they can, before filling it. However, Roger Goodell has stated on multiple occasions, that LA needs a team and will get one at (or 2) , at some point. The NFL divisions and schedules are set perfectly right now and adding 2 teams messes that up. Does that matter, I don't know, but the silence on the Rams new stadium talks is deafening. I can't believe, we are going to wake up one day and the top news story is going to be, "Rams new stadium deal struck" or something of that nature. It does not work like that. Typically, owners are talking, saying at the VERY LEAST, I want to stay and do what I can to stay here, but the process has to work itself out." He has said nothing, nothing at all, in years. He goes and buys land in LA and is rumored to be kicking the tires on the rest of the Hollywood Park land. If that deal closes, that may finally wake people up to the reality of losing the NFL again. Right now, it seems like nobody here is doing much of anything. I also can't imagine Nixon is leading a STL contingency to Rams park every few months either. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm losing hope.
Does he have pull? He's new to the club, in a smaller market and a quiet guy. Stan's certainly no Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Mara family, Rooney family etc.DogtownBnR wrote:^ I agree... I think the NFL wants to keep teams in their current markets and grow from there. However, if a team REALLY wants to move and the owner has the pull that Stan does, I can't see the NFL stopping him.
Plus I thought the NFL put some super-lock on LA where it would take like almost all the owners to approve a team move to LA?
- 3,767
I don't think you need anything, but the money that Stan has, to have pull amongst the owners. The more money an owner has, the more money that owner can generate for the league. I've read that he is well-liked and a lot of that has to do with his money and sports franchise empire. Just imagine this, Silent Stan went in front of the board of Arsenal and the fans and explained to them his takeover of the club. This is like some random British guy buying the Dallas Cowboys and taking the heat from the fans and media. He can talk when he needs to. Obviously, he doesn't need to now, unless he wants to reassure STL that he wants to be here. I'd take that, even if he didn't say that meant he was staying.
Yes, the NFL has said they have a lock on LA, but they've also never said relocation is off the table, nor have they come out and said that the Rams or other specific teams are barred from coming. LA will get 2 teams. Who knows whether they are existing or expansion. I do know, that if you look at existing teams, the Rams have to be the favorite to move back to LA. So many variables that would add up to an inevitable move. If there was some talk, besides silence, I'd feel better about it. Since the public is possibly going to pay for part of this venue, the info should be public knowledge. I know it does not work like that, but it would be nice to know IF anything is really going on.
Yes, the NFL has said they have a lock on LA, but they've also never said relocation is off the table, nor have they come out and said that the Rams or other specific teams are barred from coming. LA will get 2 teams. Who knows whether they are existing or expansion. I do know, that if you look at existing teams, the Rams have to be the favorite to move back to LA. So many variables that would add up to an inevitable move. If there was some talk, besides silence, I'd feel better about it. Since the public is possibly going to pay for part of this venue, the info should be public knowledge. I know it does not work like that, but it would be nice to know IF anything is really going on.
Granted, these words are old 2010) but given the fact that we have so few on record, these are fairly powerful to me:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5121918
The last section in particular is one he'll have a hard time explaining if a move does happen. It's not as if anything changed in the last 4 years as far as when the lease was going to expire and when they would have the freedom to walk. He didn't have to make those comments.
Also, Demoff has been greasing the skids for this to evolve into a drawn out process that will most likely "get ugly" (I think that's how he put it, referencing a similar bout as in Minnesota).
Others on this thread have discussed how efforts and finance have been invested in growing regional Rams coverage over the last few years especially in southern and southwestern Missouri. I don't know really know if any of that has significance, but it would seem odd to spend that money if ultimately planning on bailing.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5121918
The last section in particular is one he'll have a hard time explaining if a move does happen. It's not as if anything changed in the last 4 years as far as when the lease was going to expire and when they would have the freedom to walk. He didn't have to make those comments.
Also, Demoff has been greasing the skids for this to evolve into a drawn out process that will most likely "get ugly" (I think that's how he put it, referencing a similar bout as in Minnesota).
Others on this thread have discussed how efforts and finance have been invested in growing regional Rams coverage over the last few years especially in southern and southwestern Missouri. I don't know really know if any of that has significance, but it would seem odd to spend that money if ultimately planning on bailing.
- 3,767
KD is Stan's spin-doctor. I am not sure if he even knows what Stan is doing. I bet he has a better idea than us, but Stan may have him toe the company line and keep selling tickets. I'm sure since nothing is for sure on any end, Stan has to keep biz as usual, no matter what happens, since it won't happen overnight, if at all. What was said 4 years ago, isn't relevant to me in the latter half of 2014. So much has likely changed since then, whether it be good or bad. I know some of the quotes from Stan and KD. He always preaches that the Rams want to find a way to get another venue in STL, but that is not enough. Stan has danced around the questions in the past and said nothing firm. KD has said some positive things, but seems more about selling tix this year, which is going to get harder with Sam Bradford out. I hope they stay and do well here, but nothing said points in either direction. The actions of Stan point to LA. I remember Bernie M. telling everyone to reserve judgment when Stan bought the team. There were whispers of concern, amongst all of the joy. That fear is now much greater today. I hope Stan ends up being a hero here, but in the end, its all about money and how much we give him.
- 3,433
Oakland took one small step forward in keeping Raiders home with Coliseum City developers submitting their environmental impact study for redo of the current site. Proposal for three new professional stadiums/arenas, one for NFL, one for MLB and NBA along with housing/commerical. Obviously Warriors are well on their way to getting a new arena in San Fran Mission District thanks to Salesforce.com. However, the development proposal accomplishes several big things for the site that consist mostly of surface parking. Gives Raiders a new stadium, give A's a new ballpark and would give both leagues new separate facilities in addition a means to find additional financing that Oakland doesn't have via real estate development.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco ... l?page=all
Couple things going for it, Chinese develop is putting in a billion dollars into a nearby Oakland waterfront housing development bodes well for developers of the proposed Coliseum city looking for investors. The Coliseum proposal includes 5300 housing units, mostly around the new baseball ballpark and BART station, in a region that needs a lot of new housing. A's owner might never get his San Jose legal win but BART is marching towards San Jose with an expansion that extends it farther south and that much closer to Silicon Valley jobs. Oakland A's owner let it publically be known that he signed on a architect to design a new stadium to be built next to the current Coliseum.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco ... l?page=all
Couple things going for it, Chinese develop is putting in a billion dollars into a nearby Oakland waterfront housing development bodes well for developers of the proposed Coliseum city looking for investors. The Coliseum proposal includes 5300 housing units, mostly around the new baseball ballpark and BART station, in a region that needs a lot of new housing. A's owner might never get his San Jose legal win but BART is marching towards San Jose with an expansion that extends it farther south and that much closer to Silicon Valley jobs. Oakland A's owner let it publically be known that he signed on a architect to design a new stadium to be built next to the current Coliseum.
- 3,767
Does anyone know what type of bump in sales the Rams can expect in the last 10 days, at the gate on game day? I'd assume, a lot of these will be sold before then. I'd expect the first few games to sell out, even with Bradford out. I think the defense will sell some tickets, along with the curiosity around whether or not Sean Hill can lead the Rams offense. I would hate to see these numbers and charts, mid-season, if the Rams are bad again. STL is tired of bad football. It has been over a decade!Here is what the game sales look like for the home opener so far. Blue are Rams unsold tickets. Red are re-sale of sold tickets.
- 8,155
^ Rams are having a "Greatest Show on Turf" 15 yr. anniversary give-away at one of the games.
- 3,767
^Too bad the giveaway is lame! Usually, the quality promotions boost sales. I guess the recognition of the Greatest Show, better be good. The last few recognitions have been lame.
It's not just the last decade (tied for the worst 10 year record in NFL history. Yes, the Greatest Show on Turf was a super-nova of greatness. But going backwards from that St. Louis pro football fans have had to endure:DogtownBnR wrote:Does anyone know what type of bump in sales the Rams can expect in the last 10 days, at the gate on game day? I'd assume, a lot of these will be sold before then. I'd expect the first few games to sell out, even with Bradford out. I think the defense will sell some tickets, along with the curiosity around whether or not Sean Hill can lead the Rams offense. I would hate to see these numbers and charts, mid-season, if the Rams are bad again. STL is tired of bad football. It has been over a decade!Here is what the game sales look like for the home opener so far. Blue are Rams unsold tickets. Red are re-sale of sold tickets.
-the first couple years of the Lambs with Rich Brooks and Tony Banks
-taunts from the NFL and no expansion
-no NFL for a few years
-2+ decades of abuse by the Bidwell family
- 182
Ugh. That's the ugly truth of the entire history of professional football in St. Louis. Take out the unbelievably lucky period of several hall of famers and company lighting it up, it has been nothing but bad. Then that just feeds into the "This is a baseball town" tautology in contrast to a place like New York with the most MLB championships does not claim to be solely a "baseball town."
- 8,155
So with Sam's sacks, is his roster spot pretty much secure?
- 9,566
^ I don't think so, he is going head to head with Ethan Westbrooks for the final D line spot and Ethan is playing better in the games and practice
- 8,155
^ If Sam is only the 10th best defensive lineman I pity the opposition!
- 3,767
Dweebe wrote:
That is pretty depressing. Our football history is so sketchy. That is very true, why we are labeled a baseball town. If we had a team at least as successful as the Blues, it would be a different story. I sure wish the NFL would require teams to leave the name when they move. The fact that the Rams related to LA for so long, didn't help STL embrace the Rams any more. I think of the Rams as St. Louis, but now we need to hope they stay here, build a new venue and a new tradition of winning. If we could just have the success the Blues have, the Rams would become more of an STL institution. Of course, we want a championship or two in there, but at this point, I will take a playoff berth and some winning seasons.It's not just the last decade (tied for the worst 10 year record in NFL history. Yes, the Greatest Show on Turf was a super-nova of greatness. But going backwards from that St. Louis pro football fans have had to endure:
-the first couple years of the Lambs with Rich Brooks and Tony Banks
-taunts from the NFL and no expansion
-no NFL for a few years
-2+ decades of abuse by the Bidwell family
I just want it where going to/watching Rams games doesn't mean losses are expected, wins are surprising and being a fan is almost a chore.DogtownBnR wrote:Dweebe wrote:
That is pretty depressing. Our football history is so sketchy. That is very true, why we are labeled a baseball town. If we had a team at least as successful as the Blues, it would be a different story. I sure wish the NFL would require teams to leave the name when they move. The fact that the Rams related to LA for so long, didn't help STL embrace the Rams any more. I think of the Rams as St. Louis, but now we need to hope they stay here, build a new venue and a new tradition of winning. If we could just have the success the Blues have, the Rams would become more of an STL institution. Of course, we want a championship or two in there, but at this point, I will take a playoff berth and some winning seasons.It's not just the last decade (tied for the worst 10 year record in NFL history. Yes, the Greatest Show on Turf was a super-nova of greatness. But going backwards from that St. Louis pro football fans have had to endure:
-the first couple years of the Lambs with Rich Brooks and Tony Banks
-taunts from the NFL and no expansion
-no NFL for a few years
-2+ decades of abuse by the Bidwell family
I wonder how different our football history would have been if the Bidwell's would have stayed in Chicago and St. Louis had instead gotten an AFL team?
Management changes show the NFL's heightened interest in Los Angeles
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... story.html
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... story.html
A reshuffling of management at NFL headquarters is an indication of the league’s intensified interest in filling the vacant Los Angeles market.
According to a memo obtained Tuesday by The Times, NFL Executive Vice President Eric Grubman has been assigned to “stadium development, the return of a team presence to the Los Angeles area, the league’s strategic investment fund, and other key strategic initiatives.”
That represents the first time in more than a decade that such a high-ranking league official has been assigned to the L.A. conundrum, one that began when the Raiders and Rams left the nation’s second-largest market after the 1994 season....
Stay classy ESPN.
ESPN’s Josina Anderson reports about Michael Sam’s showering habits on SportsCenter, draws heavy criticism
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footb ... -1.1917641
I love this reply.
ESPN’s Josina Anderson reports about Michael Sam’s showering habits on SportsCenter, draws heavy criticism
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footb ... -1.1917641
I love this reply.
Chris Long ✔ @JOEL9ONE
Dear ESPN,
Everyone but you is over it.
Reading more and more it seems like Sam is having an 8 or 9 (out of 10) training camp/pre-season performance but that Westbrooks is scoring a 9 or 10. Seems like both have been pushing each other really hard.roger wyoming II wrote:^ If Sam is only the 10th best defensive lineman I pity the opposition!
At least as of this morning I'm thinking Westbrooks makes the cut out of the two. The only other option is to keep both and to use Westbrooks to defend against running plays and then use Sam to defend againt pass plays.
For those with access to premium stltoday content, Bernie as an updated take on the LA situation.
- 271
Even if you don't have access, it's pretty easy to click the link, hit Ctrl + A to highlight everything, then Ctrl + C to copy it all before it redirects you to the paywall.
Then just paste it all in your word processor of choice and read at your leisure.
Then just paste it all in your word processor of choice and read at your leisure.