DogtownBnR wrote:Bold predictions by Jason La Canfora of CBS Sports....
3. Someone's On The Move: The siren call of LA is getting too loud and overt to ignore, and with leases up in St. Louis and Oakland, I believe some franchise will notify the NFL of an intent to move by February. Mark Davis has no real options, and I don't see Stan Kroenke getting something built in St. Louis or wanting to go year-to-year on his lease. This stuff is hitting critical mass and no one wants to be the second team to LA.
Jason LaCanfora has, over the past 2 or 3 years, made "bold predictions" about the Rams, Raiders, Chargers, Jaguars, and Vikings all moving to Los Angeles. He does it frequently. It makes for good clickbait.
blzhrpmd2 wrote:For what it's worth, stadium plans and ideas were publicly tossed around for a number of years before the Cardinals bolted west, so it's not as if discussions are any more of a comfort.
I disagree. Discussions are a necessary step for anything positive to come out of this. Therefore, discussions happening would definitely be better than what we apparently have right now... even if they won't necessarily lead to a positive outcome.
stlien wrote:
wabash wrote:^^ I think just about everyone wants an MLS team. If the Rams leave it'd be especially good to get an MLS team. But the idea that an MLS team would somehow fill the void or make up for the Ram's departure is ridiculous.
Also, as others have said, an NBA team would go a lot further toward filling the void than an MLS team. It also might make more sense since they could share facilities with the Blues instead of requiring yet another stadium.
Void as in what? As in the cost of single tickets? As in the economic benefit?
I think it's long been the consensus that there is no "economic benefit" to hosting sports teams... it's mostly disposable income that, if not spent on tickets and concessions and bar tabs, would be spent another way. The void referred to is more like the fact that we would be trading representation in the nation's most powerful, visible, prestigious athletic league for representation in a second-rate league that essentially functions as a minor developmental system for the big European clubs.
^ I think it is correct to say that there is no major economic benefit to hosting sports teams when we look at regional economies.... but some teams may help particular cities. I have no doubt that the Cardinals pump tons of $$ into Saint Louis City that would not be spent here if they were located beyond city limits. I'd bet 3/4 or more of $$ spent downtown for Cards is spent by countians or those further afield and those $$ wouldn't necessarily be spent elsewhere in the city.
Having said that, I agree the Rams aren't nearly as important as the Cards (and less than the Blues) for the city economically and it is more of a psychological benefit from hosting an NFL team.
I didn't say discussions are not necessary, I said they don't bring any more comfort because our regional track record proved we can discuss for years and still let the owner to walk. Hopefully this time around we can handle it differently. As Stan proved when he bought the team, just because he doesn't talk about it, doesn't mean things are not happening (good or bad).
blzhrpmd2 wrote:I didn't say discussions are not necessary, I said they don't bring any more comfort because our regional track record proved we can discuss for years and still let the owner to walk. Hopefully this time around we can handle it differently. As Stan proved when he bought the team, just because he doesn't talk about it, doesn't mean things are not happening (good or bad).
Right, and I say it's wrong to note that they don't bring any more comfort because they are a necessary step in producing a desirable outcome. It's true that the only other time we found ourselves in a remotely similar situation, it did not end well for us, but that does not necessarily mean we can't do better this time. In fact, there are some reasons to expect things to go better this time: specifically, the NFL has taken a strong "anti-relocation" stance since the late nineties; no teams have relocated since that time, and in fact various specific measures and by-laws have been approved aimed at preventing relocations from occurring.
Evidence of discussions are occurring is something that needs to happen in order for something good to come out of this. Without any discussions occurring, nothing good will come out of this. Something is unqualifiedly better than nothing in this case. So, I don't agree that discussions occurring would bring absolutely no comfort whatsoever, as you have asserted.
Reading this article from the SF Chronicle this evening would give me a lot more faith or least faith that someone is trying to make my team stay put if I was a Raiders fan in the Bay area. Unfortunately, Rams fans are not even getting a hint of what is going behind the scenes. Oakland might or might not keep the Raider's (LA bound) and A's (San Jose bound) but they have committed to a plan/vision & developer for redevelopment of the existing site. Now it is a question if they can pull it off.
Good points about NFL legislation and making it harder to move these days. As much as I'd like to hear that both sides are talking, it will be tough to have faith in the process until cranes are up and functional.
With Stan, however, I don't see why he would discuss anything right now until free agency status begins. It seems he wouldn't come to the table until he has as much leverage as possible, namely the chunk of LA land and the ability to leave. Meanwhile, locally, how can we prepare without knowing what he wants? I don't think we should plan on hearing much of anything until the season's over (or potentially after owners meetings?). Team's wishing to pursue LA for 2015 have to do claim so by mid February 2015 I think.
Between this mess and our quarterback situation, the 2015 Super Bowl to Draft period should prove to be quite an interesting time in these parts.
I think if the Oakland Raiders stay put, it is a bad thing for St. Louis. I know the NFL wants 2 teams in LA, but if you take Oakland out of the picture, there's always the possibility that only one team is there in the short run and maybe even longer than that. That makes LA more attractive. If the Chargers work out a deal in SD, LA will be the home of the Rams or an expansion team. The Jags are there until 2029, unless they want to pay BIG to get out. Shad has committed to JAX, unlike Stan in STL. In a nutshell, if you take the Raiders off the list, you now have 2 very viable teams to move to LA..Rams or Chargers... other option... expansion...
^ Even though I wouldn't mind the Jags in trade for the Rams, (they are simply a better fit with division rivals in Indy and Nashville), I doubt they would be anymore content with the EJD than the Rams. Plus there is little to any likely hood a move would occur in conjunction with a Rams move to LA. We would be without NFL football in STL for a few years if not a decade. Its WAY easier to keep a team than it is to get a team to move here.
BernieM wrote:To repeat what I've been saying (and I don't mean to sound snotty):
I explained to Burwell what was up and debriefed him on the biggest concern I have, based on my recent conversations with NFL people and a couple of people behind the scenes here locally who are well informed. So the Bernie/Burwell information is aligned. An our views on this are similar.
The issue is that no one in a position of authority has stepped forward to take the lead here. And as long as no one is making an effort, it will be easy for Kroenke to go, and the NFL will be more likely to give him the go-ahead.
If he has an escape clause, and there's no effort being made to find a long-term stadium solution here, then why would the NFL block Kroenke? Answer: they wouldn't. But if a genuine attempt gets underway to deal with this issue, then it may give STL some time and give the NFL a reason to apply the brakes.
It starts with Gov. Nixon.
As I said earlier in the thread ... if he doesn't want to take the lead, then he needs to appoint a chairman for a committee that would, in fact, take the lead.
I'm told there are some promising things in place, potentially. But nothing can be done until official leadership forms to stimulate and coordinate the efforts.
I've also been hearing some other interesting things about what would happen next if Kroenke bolts ... but it's sketchy, and I don't trust it.
That's all I have. Feel free to disregard if that what you want to do.
I have always said I wouldn't do any Chicken Little stuff unless I had a legit reason for concern.
Here's where I was caught off guard: this thing may take a much quicker path than I ever had imagined based on my previous convos with high-ranking league officials including Goodell. I don't know what changed; I don't know what Kroenke is promising the league. But as I wrote last week, if there's a play to run here, then it's time to open the playbook.
If all of this merely boils down to leadership from the governor's office, the way Bernie seems to be saying, then we are screwed. The Rams are as good as gone.
back to the season at hand- i think the Rams still win 9 games this year. Hill does a OK job...something like 3200 yards 22TD at 12INT. Stacey runs for 1300 yards and 10TD. Quinn and Long combine for 30 sacks.
^I like the optimism. After watching Seattle last night we have our work cut out for us. National writers have us at an average of 5-11 according to Nick Wagoner and I could totally see how that's possible. The secondary has so much to prove after last year's debacle and after watching how fast quarterbacks like Russell Wilson get rid of the ball (average 0.33 seconds), our stout QB rush may be negated by DB's that are 1) average 2) rookies 3) learning a new system 4) a combination of all of those. Hopefully the "disgraced wizard" (a reference I read to Gregg William's appearance with thick black specs and dyed goatee that I find hilarious) can surprise us all and turn this bunch into a complete defensive unit.
The preseason dropped some of my faith in the run game, however, I understand the O-line is a work in progress (again) and we can only hope that the injury bug keeps away from Jake Long and Roger Saffold. Our "stud" #2 pick will enjoy the view from the sidelines on opening day, which is slightly concerning, though I understand he was asked to play multiple positions, apparently impressing the coaches at neither of them. Shaun Hill will probably be what he has always been which will be effective if Stacy can get through our line and the receivers can all take steps forward.
A huge test comes right off the bat as it would be so nice to watch them stuff AP on Sunday or at least keep him around 100 yards. No matter what happens this year, it will be fun to watch and I'm really looking forward to getting downtown Sunday morning for the pregame and into the Dome.
If true, it does nicely represent dedication to the Raiders in Southern California. Not that the Rams wouldn't be embraced upon their return, but the map speaks for itself.
Here is also a weird reference at the end of this old article from Forbes that I don't recall: The NFL told Stan that LA was likely to have a team in the near future?
Snyder put his hands out last week, in an interview with Comcast SportsNet. “Whether it’s Washington, D.C., whether it’s another stadium in Maryland, whether it’s a stadium in Virginia, we’ve started the process,” Snyder told CSN, explaining that it’s time for a change because FedEx Field is “17 years old now.”
Snyder wanted more. Within 10 years of the stadium being built, and eight years of his purchase of the team, the Washington owner was already reportedly meeting with top D.C. officials about moving the team back to the city. In 2007 the Washington Post reported that, although the city was leery of any public financing deal after being fleeced for more than $600 million by Major League Baseball and the Washington Nationals to build Nationals Park, it was considering a deal to lure Snyder’s team. At the time, officials were considering the option of giving Snyder free land—a public subsidy by any measure—in exchange for asking him to pay for the stadium himself.
Apparently Snyder's most recent demand is to get all sorts of assistance to build a domed stadium on location of the current RFK stadium. He's also using the Redskins name controversy as a bargaining chip with promises he'll change the name only if he gets a new stadium.
^^thenewstlouis... I love your optimism. I just wish I could be that positive. I realize there are so many unknowns, but LA seems like it is gaining so much steam, while STL has lost it. I blame MUCH of the deterioration of the fanbase on management past and present. They continue to have AWFUL drafts and sign bad free agents. Greg Robinson is the #2 pick overall and he is not even the starter. I know the Big O did not start early either, but he had natural ability beyond reality. Robinson was scouted as having slow feet and know to hold a lot. Didn't the Rams learn their lesson with Jason Smith. Robinson may be good, but he is a microcosm of the Rams past drafts and the ultimate creation of this awfully run franchise that is The Rams. I think if we had a great to good team, (competitive) we'd see much more fight in the fanbase, to keep the team here, creating much more pressure on local leaders to act here. There is not much pressure, to my knowledge. Most on 'comment sections' under Rams relocation articles, say let them go, then rip the awful history of losing they have here. It is inexcusable and ridiculous how poorly run the Rams have been and are. Let's not even get into the fact that the sweetheart lease drafted by the goofs here, to lure the Rams here, got us into this predicament 20 years into the lease. Really sad for us Rams fans that we could lose our team again. If I knew we'd get JAX or another team, it would be easier to swallow, but that is not likely. This could be it and we as a City need to do what we can to save the NFL in St. Louis. It is more, much more that a financial issue. It is BIG in so many ways, to have the NFL in your city. Talk about marketing the city and getting name recognition, that goes a LONG way.
The Rams must be saved in STL. I hope there really is something going on behind the scenes.
My feeling is that since there hasnt really been much said publicly or either side really leaking any info that things haven't gotten to a point of no return or the Rams reserving 100 moving trucks for march 2015...There are so many things in play here that this takes a long time to hammer out...Stan would need to put up at least $1.5-2.5billion of his OWN money to move anywhere. (in cali, the state or local govs do not help build stadiums and the relocation fee will be $1B) also to consider is that the Chargers owner has a lot of pull among his fellow owners and LA is his territory.
my predication is that the Rams will play in St.Louis in 2015 and beyond, they will play on this side of the River but probably closer to Meramec River or Missouri River then the mighty Mississippi
DogtownBnR wrote: Greg Robinson is the #2 pick overall and he is not even the starter. I know the Big O did not start early either, but he had natural ability beyond reality. Robinson was scouted as having slow feet and know to hold a lot. Didn't the Rams learn their lesson with Jason Smith.
Because they moved him to guard...its like drafting a shortshop and asking him to play catcher...heard a lot of people say that Robinson would be fine at RT right now. at LT/RT you have one job and that job is to block the DE but at G you have to worry about the in front of you, the linebacker, the CB or Safety blitzing...its totally a different position.
If he was a stud at his natural position, he'd be starting, no questions asked. Will he be a stud at some point, maybe, but I can assure you, Sammie Watkins would be starting and really helping out our back-up, starter, Hill. Just saying...
Sammy Watkins is already hurt....and we have a pro bowler at Robinson's natural position, one that we are paying a lot of money. It was always clear that Robinson would learn from jake long and take over
NFL Fan zones. I notice no majority Rams fans in California. Rams area is small, but no worse than other bad and average teams lately, such as Houston, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Cleveland, Philadelphia, San Diego. They show no area of majority Oakland fans round Oakland. Only in LA. I'm guessing zones expand and shrink a lot depending on recent success.
