anybody else here excited about the Rams coming back to LA?

Heres the facts i came across that dispells the myth that LA is not a football town ANOTHER post here everyone has blatantly ignored DESPITE the dozens of times i have posted it here on this thread.

The reason the chargers left LA for san diego after playing there their first year in the old AFL was because they could not compete with the Rams for fan support out there.

their first year there in 1960 and you can look this up for yourselves,the largest crowds they drew there were just 21,000 around with their lowest being as bad as 9,000.lol. this DESPITE going 10-5 that year and making it to the divisional championship game against the Oilers.

The Rams on the other hand that same year though? their largest crowd that year was over 75,000 with the lowest being around 53,000. this DESPITE the fact they only had a losing record of 4-7-1.

Plus as I also have said here MANY times on this thread. The Raiders when they were in LA,the only fans that embraced them were the thugs. Dan Dierdorf who was a broadcaster for monday night football games from 1987 to 1994 said a couple months ago the entire time he was a broadcaster,all the raider games they did were always on the road because they did not draw well for home games.

The Rams on the other hand,they were on monday night football MANY times in the 1970's and 1980's.

The Raiders in their year they won a superbowl out there,the next year for their home opener,they only drew a crowd of about 45,000 or so.

MEANWHILE,the Rams in their home opener that same year,they drew a crowd over 65,000 for their home opener which was impressive since they were playing in a baseball stadium which was a dump. the OAKLAND Raiders might have won a superbowl out there in LA but nobody in LA cared.

LA is a football town when were talking about the RAMS its just not a Chargers or Raiders football town.major difference there.

they support the RAMS when they are not winning out there obviously.just not the chargers or raiders.

LA wont support the dodgers or lakers when they are losing despite their history but thats pretty much true with all cities with their baseball and basketball teams except the cubs and red sox but they always supported the Rams out there even when they were losing obviously.

baseball and basketball is not big anymore like it used to be because the greedy owners and players have ruined the game paying players so much money for free agents.its not as big anymore because players dont stick with one team their entire careers anymore.thats the same with football of course but football is MUCH bigger now than it was 20 years ago as a result of players jumping from team to team in those two sports.

Football will always be big though because its only played once a week so fans wont ever get tired of the sport.Not to mention LA is so starved to have the Rams back they wont care how bad they are.they just want them back. st louis is the ONLY city in the country matter of fact where baseball is much bigger than football.

al michaels debunks the myth that LA was not a football town in this video here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCOfrIBkWZ0


these two videos also back up what michales say,the proof is in the pudding he hit the nail on the head.this first video here is a game from 1975 against the pitiful cardinals who have been horrible forever more so when they were in st louis yet as you can see,the stadium is packed to the max.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP61GDj25x8


and here is a game in the early 90's against the eagles in anahiem and as you can see,the place is packed to the max.pay special close attention after the one minute mark because the cameras show the upper deck and even it is packed the max.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iepQ6vAipA

 

Was 9/11 an "inside job"? Yes....it was inside the heads of religious fanatics who think they get 72 virgins if they kill for their invisible friend. 9/11 clearly shows the dangers of faith.

 

Kroenke is something on the order of the top 3 wealthiest owners in the NFL. He likes to keep a low profile to say the least, so to his credit he's a better owner in terms of being hands-off the team... than the blowhard Jerry Jones...and he's richer than him.

He is worth an estimated $6BN.

His money, his team, he'll go whereever the best deal is and right now moving to LA will automatically increase the value of the team. When it becomes a better deal to move somwhere else...he'll do that too.

He has no real roots in LA, he attended the University of Missouri in Columbia, MO, which is where he met and married one of the daughters of Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart. Yes, that Sam Walton. Wal-Mart is the largest private employer in the United States.

LA is a flashy, flaunt it if you got it sort of city and Kroenke is not that sort of fellow at all. Don't kid yourself if it's in his best interest to move out of LA one day...he will.

 

great fairy tale there.try the CIA/mossad.

- - - Updated - - -

Except as i said before,once the Rams move back,they wont leave again.the NFL is going to make sure and never lose LA as a market again.magic johnson has talked about that.

 

I know your passionate about this, but does it ever concern you that you're having a discussion essentially with yourself about this? You don't even live in Los Angeles if I remember correctly, and from the responses, the story isn't being very well received. You know my sports favorites - Buffalo Bills; Buffalo Sabres (who just had a sensational NHL draft here in Sunrise, Florida, was there); Miami Heat basketball and University of Miami football. The facts of the matter are simple. San Diego and Oakland are discussing stadium proposals. St.Louis is discussing a stadium proposal, but the owner refuses to interface with the authorities there. As much as the NFL would like a team out in Los Angeles, and the league owns the territorial right's, no owner can hold up another city in an attempt to move (i.e. Oakland to San Antonio - huge mistake), because even if you get the 2/3'rd's vote to move from the owner, whoever makes the first overture is required by league regulation to go to Los Angeles - they can't go anyplace else until the LA territory is filled. That vote hasn't yet come up, it will soon, but if Kronke refuses to even discuss potential plans for staying in St.Louis when they could be building him a brand new stadium, and decides to do a death wish and does get to move - he ends up playing for three years in the LA Coliseum or the Rose Bowl. Bleacher seating, no suites, great for college football, totally and completely unsatisfactory for an NFL franchise. If LA had built a stadium 20-years ago, the NFL would have been there again. Now, all those years past, most Los Angeles fans have scattered and probably have loyalties to other teams. The LA Coliseum, and the silver & black of the Raiders was adopted by the gangs out there, ugly, dangerous place to see football. I can't possibly imagine a Monday or Thursday night football game televised from the Coliseum. The Rose Bowl in Pasadena? Worst traffic route in and out of that canyon in the city - college football allows tailgating, the NFL doesn't there. You also have to deal with the fact the Rams have been gone for ages - the Dallas Cowboys training camp was in Thousand Oaks fore 25-years, and now is in Oxnard, so "The Boys" are as popular in LA as the Rams ever were. The Inglewood Stadium project - has potential - but again, nobody has broken construction for it, nobody has figured out how it will be financed. If Kronke really wants Los Angeles, he has the money to build the stadium himself. This Rams to LA story has been played over before with the Farmer's Field; UC-Irving; UC-Davis locations for a stadium, and it still comes down to no NFL team wants to be in Los Angeles, and stuck playing in the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl, for 1-2 or 3 years, while allegedly a new stadium is being built. Yes, the NFL wants a team there, but the owner's are never going to build the stadium themselves - which they really should have done before the Rams left or Oakland bailed with a Super Bowl championship team. When they held it there, even the Super Bowl didn't sell out. For the NFL, Los Angeles is a cavity and toothache, but one they have put up with for decades, I wouldn't be holding my breath about a Ram's move, certainly when the possibility of a new stadium in St.Louis is being considered seriously, much more seriously than the Inglewood one is.

As far as NFL expansion goes - although Toronto is one of Goodell's choices, the league has a written agreement not to put any clubs in Canada, to compete with the Canadian Football League, considered a development minor league for the NFL. Some NFL stars have played there, Warren Moon and Doug Flutie come to mind - so Canada's largest city can be ruled out.

San Antonio? The military retirement and invalid capital of the nation? Not even in the running, only a team with as goofy a record as the pinball Oakland Raiders would be considering Texas, which already has two clubs. Besides, the Raider's lose their identify if they move there.

San Diego, difficulty getting a new stadium built. Beautiful city, original team, same problem as Los Angeles - town is so expensive to live in that putting up a stadium on real estate there, that doesn't really exist, cost prohibitive, and that doesn't even take into account the consideration that Southern California, like the rest of the state, is bankrupt.

Losing major markets to miniature cities, or foolish moves, has been the story in the NFL for years. Houston to Nashville; Rams to St.Louis; San Francisco to Santa Clara; Los Angeles to Dallas to Kansas City; Jacksonville to Los Angeles or London; Browns to Baltimore (where they won a Super Bowl), than received a "pig in a poke" expansion team that should have been used on the LA market. Oakland to Los Angeles to Oakland perhaps back to Los Angeles............well, ya get the picture.

The only NFL clubs safe from ever moving are the teams in the NFC-East (Giants; Cowboys; Eagles; Redskins); AFC-East (Patriots and Jets - Miami always a possibility, fair weather fans and the most popular team over in London, which will eventually get an NFL expansion team); Buffalo (secure for the next 10-years, but Goodell doesn't like the stadium and wants a dome there), those two teams could be on the bubble. Kansas City Chiefs; San Francisco 49'ers and Denver Broncos and PIttsburgh. Of course, the Nirvana of the NFL is in its smallest market, Green Bay, and the Packer's would never be allowed to move, besides, they are a community owned team of 21-people, so good or bad, Pack would be going now where.

Houston got an expansion team back after getting a beautiful new stadium (which is why LA doesn't have a team - that expansion team, like the Browns was supposed to go to LA originally - but LA had no place for an NFL team to play that meets NFL standards). So, I think the owner's are going to pass if Kronke tries to move with the stipulation they will play 3-years in the Coliseum or Rose Bowl (no suites - no $$$) when St.Louis is working toward a stadium. My guess is St.Louis will get the stadium rather than lose the club before the bankrupt city of Los Angeles waste money on an NFL stadium. They have been without a team so long, what the fans think is not important. Actually, what the fans think is always unimportant to the NFL because of shared revenue, if it wasn't for that, most small market teams would have been gone ages ago. I know you have been following this story for awhile - but the league and owner's have twice voted down expansion teams going to Los Angeles because they would have had to play in the Coliseum (not really sure an NFL club could get permission to play regularly with UCLA in the Rose Bowl). What drives the league is population's and advertising dollars, that is the only reason Los Angeles is valuable to them - a team in the Coliseum, even their old friends Rams, probably is a 100% bust, and the owners will vote to wait on St.Louis before letting Kronke go west again (when Missouri is his home), until they see what the stadium situation under consideration in St.Louis is. The league has twice backhanded Los Angeles - and there still isn't a team out there. Besides - I don't like the idea of fans losing their team, remember when the Bills were so down; New Orleans (another small market with a horrible dome stadium and a 200,000 loss in their population), wore bags over their heads, and everybody laughed about legendary teams like the Baltimore Colts moving (left at midnight, ended up in "dawg town USA - Indianapolis" the next morning - and Cleveland, drawing 80,000 a game doing the same thing, and ending up in tiny Baltimore, 50 miles up the road from the Redskins and their fanatical following.

It isn't a done deal, and an NFL level stadium is the requirement to get into the Los Angeles market, going there to play in the Coliseum, with a bankrupt state and city, thinking they will be putting up a brand new stadium because you showed up? Very risky for Mr. Kronke and his Rams, who might get a better deal right in St.Louis. He is an NFL owner - his only interest is $$$, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" and Los Angeles is the "bush."..............luck, meanwhile, will be following my teams...............

 

It's a business and to make money. If a city isn't willing to be extorted so the owners can make money, then there's another town willing to cave to demands. But having said that, TV is still the biggest money maker.

 

true enough unfortunately.thats one reason why i wont contribute one dime to the NFL.

 

Yes you are correct that I dont live in LA but my heart has always been there and if the Rams are not in LA,then they are not the Rams,thats why I cant wait till they are back next year.

Thats the difference in why its realistic to think the Rams will be in LA and not the Chargers or Raiders because like you said,the Raiders and Chargers are at least trying to get something done in their cities where the Rams are not.lol

that point of Kroneke refusing to discuss plans to stay in st louis was brought up once by someone and the answer on that is by NFL rules,he is not required to have to discuss with city officials in st louis about getting a new stadium and that is because the Rams honored their agreement with the city of st louis when they moved there 20 years ago the terms of the lease.the city did not honor their end of the agreement in the terms of the lease signed so that is why the Rams are free to leave next year.thats what makes the Rams situation unique per say the chargers is the chargers have not negotiated in good faith with the city to try and get something done because they are worried about losing the southern market to the Rams next year.The Rams tried to negotiate in good faith with the city of st louis to try and get a new stadium a few years ago,the city did not honor the terms of the lease agreement so kroneke is not requried to have to listen to anything st louis says.the chargers on the other hand,would be in violation of their lease if they tried to move to LA because they have not exhausted all options like the Rams did a few years ago for a new stadium.

No owner can hold up a city to move? are you forgetting thats what Al Davis did with the Raiders when he moved them back to Oakland? plus the NFL is much more serious about getting a team to LA now than they were back then on letting Al Davis move back to oakland.all the owners like Kronekes inglewood project as well.

You mention that there would be only bleacher seating and no suites and would be unsatisfactory for an NFL franchise.true but the NFL is not going to tell the Rams they cant play there for three years while the new stadium out there is being built.why do you think the vikings are being allowed to play in the university of minnesotas stadium while their new stadium is being built? same thing so thats all irrelevent there.lol

a new stadium in st louis being seriously considered? are you joking? st louis knows the Rams are as good as gone.they have gone from talking about keeping the rams to building a new stadium for an NFL TEAM in the future. they are MILLIONS in debt still trying to pay off the current stadium and the city is bankrupt so you cant be serious when saying they are serious about getting a new stadium? thats one thing the media always leaves out is they are bankrupt and dont have the money to fund the new stadium.they want kroneke to fund it for them but he is having none of that

If i were you,i would not hold my breath on thinking st louis will get a new stadium.lol

st louis is even far more bankrupt than southern california is thats why they have all those riots and why its one of the most violent crime cities in america ranked number four.lol

See the reason this is different than in the past wnd why they wont vote against the Rams coimg back is for the first time ever since the Rams and Raiders left,the NFL now has an owner who is building his own stadium and has the deep pockets to do so.

matter of fact there have been callers that have called in on fred roggins radio show in LA and said to roggin-I think we are just being played again,that they are just using LA for leverge for a new stadium.Roggin corrected him though saying its different this time because for the first time ever,they have an owner who is going to build a stadium with his OWN MONEY.

the NFL badly wants to be back in LA and again,st louis is bankrupt trying to pay off the current stadium so they will never be able to finace a new stadium unlike kroneke will be able to.hee hee.

oh and st louis is the one town you should not feel bad about losing a team because LA is just taking back something that was stolen from them.Not only that,they laughed and mocked LA when they got the Rams which was a very cruel thing to do since they of all people should know how bad it feels to lose a team.

oh and the NFL is talking with the LA coliseum about using their facility for the next couple years while kroneke builds his stadium so its a pipe dream if you think bankrupt st louis "who is millions in debt and cant even pay off their current stadium and wants kronke to fund their new stadium out there," to think the Rams will stay in st louis after this year.


see the reason this is different than years past when the NFL tried to get a team to LA is they now have an owner who has deep pockets and is building his own stadium.Inglewood is set to break ground to build their stadium there in december,if you go by hollywood park,you will see they got the bulldozers set their ready to go. plus in years past when they speculated that LA would have an NFL team,ESPN's chris myers who works for the NFL as well,he NEVER said in years past when they were talking about that,that LA would have a team anytime soon.NOW he is.if Myers is saying its happening,you cantake your money to the bank the NFL will be in LA next year.

 

If you dont think the NFL is serious about getting a team to LA next year,you better think again.lol

The St. Louis Rams’ regular season home opener is a little more than a month away, yet thousands of tickets for that Sept. 13 contest against the Seattle Seahawkshave not been sold, according to a review ofTicketmaster’s website.


@stlbizjkirn: "The SportsBusiness Journal, an affiliated publication, reported in May that Rams season ticket sales for this season were down by a double-digit percentage compared with the prior year."


miklasz: "if Rams owner Stan Kroenke gets his way, this will be the team’s final training camp in St. Louis.:biggrin: And for many fans, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to embrace the team they love. When you aren’t sure if the team will run away from you, the natural reaction is to hold back, stay at a safe distance and try to minimize the pain inside."

As season approaches thousands of Rams tickets go unsold - St. Louis Business Journal


Bernie Potential move is buzzkill at Rams camp Sports

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...-approaches-thousands-of-rams-tickets-go.html

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...-aee6-838f23d3c627.html#.VbxZcE9mT4Q.facebook

they have had a 20% dropoff in season ticket sales this year.Not because of how poorly they have played on the field the past 13 years but because nobody in st louis believes they were going to stay in st louis next year is why.so better tell the folks in st louis that the Rams are staying next year because they disagree with you.

also watch this video.I laughed so hard when i saw it.I know you well as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyi5jeZbFb4

and also listen to this video here.John Robinson,former coach of the Rams has been talking to officials in the Rams organization.

I dont know you,but I know John Robinson,so no offense when i say I trust the words of John Robinson in what he says over you.again no offense meant.

 

wasnt able to finish the post but in my final point,i think this link here disproves your point that the NFL wont be satisfied with the Rams using the facilities of the rose bowl or the LA coliseum for the next couple years while Kroneke builds the stadium in inglewood.


The NFL's search for a temporary Los Angeles stadium is officially underway.

The league on Thursday began issuing proposal requests to multiple venues in Southern California — among them the Coliseum and Rose Bowl — with the intent of securing a temporary home for a team (or teams) for the 2016 season in the event of a return to the market.

Chris Hardart, NFL vice president of corporate development, confirmed the process of issuing requests has begun, information first provided by an individual not authorized to speak publicly about it.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-20150626-story.html


oh and look at this as well-
If I were a betting man my money is still on the Rams as the owner Stan Kroenke has already checked off many of the tougher aspects of getting a stadium built. :thup:


And though he may not have Carmen Policy in his corner he certainly isn’t on bad terms with other owners as far as we know. He has also not made any effort thus far to discuss staying in St Louis with any of the cities officials. Regardless of any speculation on my part, Hopefully we’ve cleared up some of the confusion in the ever complicated Saga of the NFL’s return to Los Angeles.

as i have said to you before in the past,IF by some crazy bizarre miracle occurs where the Rams are still in st louis next year,then this will easily go down as the greatest hoax ever perpetrated in sports history,thats for sure.

 

@RapSheet: "Not so Silent Stan Kroenke, Rams owner, surprised people by speaking here for the Inglewood proposal. I'm told it was passionate & powerful."

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...ort-Discusses-Todays-NFL-Owners-Meetings.aspx

Listening to this interview three things stand out 1) Spanos is a wild card and nobody knows what he really wants. 2) The Raiders are a non-factor in the move to LA and the league will punt their problems down the road. 3) Stan Kroenke is THE man with THE plan and THE team. -- I loved hearing the acknowledgement that The Rams are a powerful brand and that the owners will place a lot of weight on their history in LA. I've always argued this citing the fact that team identity, with all cities, is an investment the entire league has a stake in. The Rams 49 years in LA means something to the league as a whole. So does the Chargers history in San Diego. I believe that the league will decide that it will be the Rams to Inglewood alone with a two team capable stadium providing a continued leverage threat for San Diego and The Raiders and that St. Louis' efforts to remain a viable NFL city will give them strong consideration when expansion or another franchise wanting to move, comes into play. There is just no way the NFL will want to pass up Kroenke's stellar plan and the opportunity to restore a storied franchise in an important market that they so want to get right.


The St Louis deal all hinges on Stan Kroenke pulling $450 million out of his own pocket to put toward a stadium he will not own. Even if the stadium were to be built (which is highly unlikely given the politics of the region) Stan would still have to pay rent and watch the majority of the concession money and proceeds from parking and suite sales go to someone else.

Or he can build a stadium in Inglewood on his own dime and reap all of the benefits himself in the #2 media market where there are billions to be had.

What do you think Stan will do? Hmmm, let me think...

is anybody here STILL delusional that the Rams will stay in st louis?

 

I look forward to watching a Rams playoff game in 2018 from the comfort of a seat in the new St. Louis Riverfront stadium. Perhaps Los Angeles will get a lingerie football team in the near future.

 

wow you are seriously in denial mode that the Rams are leaving for LA next year. st louis is bankrupt millions in debt trying to pay off their current stadium,a fact the LAMESTREAM media always neglects to mention and you actually think they will have a new stadium? their plan requires kroneke to fund the stadium which he is clearly not interested in which is why he has invested over a billion dollars in Inglewood. what a dreamer you are.

Inglewood is building an NFL stadium financed by kroneke that is scheduled to break ground in construction in december who is not even talking to st louis and even spoke today at the owners meeting in chicago with enthusiam about inglewood,do try and keep up around here.

 

You also have to deal with the fact the Rams have been gone for ages - the Dallas Cowboys training camp was in Thousand Oaks fore 25-years, and now is in Oxnard, so "The Boys" are as popular in LA as the Rams ever were. The Inglewood Stadium project - has potential - but again, nobody has broken construction for it, nobody has figured out how it will be financed. If Kronke really wants Los Angeles, he has the money to build the stadium himself. This Rams to LA story has been played over before with the Farmer's Field; UC-Irving; UC-Davis locations for a stadium, and it still comes down to no NFL team wants to be in Los Angeles, and stuck playing in the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl, for 1-2 or 3 years, while allegedly a new stadium is being built.

That is incorrect that nobody has figured out how to finance Inglewood.Inglewood is set to break ground on construction this december and that is because they already have all the financing set in place for that.Please dont make me post pics of the former hollywood park site where bulldozers are digging the dirt there getting ready for the construction that starts in december.lol.yes Kroneke has the money and is privately financing this and your point is?

That is also incorrect that no team wants to play in the LA coliseum for two to three years while waiting for a new stadium.The LA coliseum has said they will host ONE TEAM in LA next year.Pat Haden who used to be the quarterback of the Rams is the athletic director there at USC. USC and UCLA have told the NFL they wont allow the Raiders to play there.That just leaves two other teams to choose from,the Chargers and the Rams. I wonder who Haden will choose between the two.

If we were to go by your logic,then the Vikings would not be willing to play in the university of minnesota last year or this year while waiting for their new stadium that is set to open next year.

allegedly a new stadium is being built? better tell the construction crew in hollywood park who has all their bulldozers there digging up ground now so they will be ready to start construction in december and better tell the inglewood city officials there who have said we are building a stadium no matter what that there is no stadium going to be built by 2018.





Kroneke stands to make a huge profit by moving the team to LA with it being the second largest media market in the country.The value of his franchise alone will triple with the move to LA and he will be far more rich than he is now.Kroneke is a smart businessman.He didnt become rich just by accident.He isnt going to continue to play in that dump in st louis which is ranked dead last in franchise value at 32 of all the 32 teams.lol


oh and finally,Yes LA has many cowboys fans in the area but once the Rams come back to LA next year,i guarantee you at least half those cowboy fans out there will become Rams fans.

I know for a fact from talking to many people out there in LA on the net who are LA Ram fans that they know friends of theirs who became Cowboy fans once the Rams left LA.Matter of fact one of them came on Fred Roggins sports show in LA just yesterday saying he grew up an LA Ram fan and when they left,converted to a Cowboys fan.

finally,I suggest you watch the Rams/Chargers game played in san diego this past NFL 2014 season where when the first score of the game came when the Rams intercepted a Phillip Rivers pass and ran it in for a touchdown and the cameras showed THOUSANDS of Ram fans jumping up and down cheering.Half that stadium was full of Rams fans and I think its safe to say they were not from st louis.

Oh and he will easily get the necessary votes to move the team from the owners because the owners did not want the Rams to move to st louis in the first place initially voting against the move back then only changing their votes when the then owner,the evil Georgia frontier threatened to sue the league if they tried to stop her.

 

"Civic leaders in St. Louis want the Rams to stay put and have been floating a proposal for a riverfront stadium there. But Kroenke has made it clear that he would prefer to return the team to L.A., which it left after the 1994 season."

so much for the fantasys people around here have that the Rams will be in st louis next year.

 

I agree with 9/11 that LA will have a new team (whether a brand new franchise which would add another $200+ million to the coffers of the elitists who own franchises) or a transferred team.

No question that StL owner Kroenke has been fighting strenuously to make the NFL powers that be approve of a transfer. Under new rules that he signed to, he cannot just up and leave as other owners did in the past. This time he MUST get approval or face legal action.

But he is not alone in this. Oakland and San Diego also want consideration for transfer approval. They have a natural West Coast rivalry that St Louis does not have. Further, StL has a natural rivalry with Chicago, Kansas City, and to a lesser extent, the Twin Cities. The NFL understandably loves these rivalries. Therefore, it will not only look into which city comes up with the best plan for new stadiums, but also which region will continue to have the best rivalries.

New stadiums represent no risk at all for the wealthy elites who own these teams. The taxpayers assume 100% of the risk for their costs. and each new stadium creates higher capital accumulation for franchise valuation which, in turn, increases valuation for all other franchises. If Kroenke has one thing in his favor it is the fact that he is a part of the Walmart franchise. And, as we all know, the USA is under control of politically right wing elitists. Based on that he can pull the puppet strings of the NFL front office and would likely be the front runner in the commish's ruling when it takes place.

Therefore, I would not be surprised if Kroenke wins out and is allowed to move the StL team to LA or more correctly to Carson, CA.

 

I am glad to see you are not closed minded about this like a couple people here are that LA is going to have a team next year.

Stl really only has a rivalry with chicago in baseball with the cardinals,its non existant with the Rams and Bears.Kansas City for sure they do though.Every year the Rams and Chiefs play for the governors cup so Clark Hunt of the chiefs who is one of the six man committe overseeing the LA process might oppose the move but he is about the only one of the six that would I think.

speaking of rivalrys,thats where it benefits the NFL greatly with the Rams coming back to LA actually is because not only is the rivalry with the 49ers renewed,"which has been dead ever since the Rams left LA." but the rivalry the Rams had with the Vikings is ALSO renewed as well.The Rams had a rivalry with the Vikings when they were in LA from facing them in the playoffs in the 70's a few times,and the rivalry between the Rams and the Cowboys will be renewed as well because there was a bitter rivalry with the Cowboys and Rams in the 70's and 80's which will be renewed as well. The rivalry with dallas and minnesota the Rams had with them has been dead ever since they left so I guarantee the owners want those rivalrys back as well as the one with san francisco.

Dont believe that carson thing for a second.Carson is a hoax.The raiders and chargers are just using carson as leverage for new stadiums in their cities. The chargers PR man mark fibiani even came on fred roggins radio show in LA and said carson was a fantasy,a pipe dream and that dean spanos was just using carson as leverage for a new stadium because he is 100% convinced kroneke is going to move the Rams to LA next year. Also there is a reason why Carson has never had a sports team in their existance.the site where the stadium is allegedly to be built on is a toxic landfill.If you go by that site,it stinks like hell.lol

Thats what makes the Rams situation unique vs the Raiders and Chargers is the Rams have honored the terms of the lease agreement with the city of st louis they signed 20 years ago.They have done everything that was asked and required of them in the agreement from 20 years ago.St Louis did not honor their agreement with the Rams and violated the terms of the lease agreement so Kroneke can legally move them to LA next year if he wants to and its well known now he wants to move there.

The Chargers on the other hand have not negotiated in good faith with their city as required by NFL bylaws and rules to do so and because of that, it will be very difficult for them to get the neccessary votes from the owners to move.

The Raiders? you can forget about them coming to LA.the corporations in the city who would have to fund them dont want them there and neither do the owners.the owners are sore at the davis family because of the actions of Al when he sued the NFL to move to LA. The Raiders would have to change their colors,rebrand their image and sell the team since a davis owned team is not wanted in LA.

Also,Inglewood is light years and miles ahead of Carson to have their stadium ready to be built by 2018.they are set to break ground in construction in december where carson has all kinds of red tape they have to clear before they will be ready that Inglewood has already cleared.they got bulldozers at the former hollywood park ready to go matter of fact.

Yes you are correct that Kroneke cannot just up and leave like previous owners did in the past under new rules.That he must get approval from the owners to move. 24 of the 32 owners votes are needed for him to get approval to move.He will have no problem getting those votes though because the NFL owners back in 95 did not want the Rams to leave.They initially voted against the move not wanting to see a team leave the LA market and only changed their votes after the then owner,the evil wicked witch of the west,Georgia Frontiere threatened them with a lawsuit to move.It wasnt till then that they reversed their position and gave approval of the move.

Thats what makes the Rams situation over the chargers and raiders to relocate and move unique because unlike Davis and Spanos,Kroneke has deep pockets so if the owners voted against the move,he could sue them and move them because it is his legal right to be able to move since once again,the city of st louis violated the terms of the lease agreement not keeping it in the top third tier of all NFL stadiums as required when the lease agreement was signed 20 years ago.

The NFL wants an owner in LA who has deep pockets and kroneke fits that bill.He is the second richest owner in the league behind only Paul Allen of the Seahawks.So Kroneke could file an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL to move them next year if they tried to stop him and did not give him the votes and he would easily win in court since again,he has the legal right to move them.

Kroneke has the deep pockets to be able to afford a long winded lawsuit battle in court.Spanos and Davis dont have those deep pockets though so they cant afford it.But like i said,he wont have to file a lawsuit since he will have no problem getting the votes with the NFL badly wanting a team back in LA.

Its a done deal that LA WILL have a team next year.The NFL matter of fact has discussed with the dodgers,angels,USC,and UCLA about using their facilitys for next year while the stadium in Inglewood is being built.Both the Dodgers and Angels have said no not wanting them to tear up the turf during baseball season and the rosebowl has bowed out of the picture saying no as well. the LA coliseum is the only one that has said they allow the NFL to use their faciltity.

Both USC and UCLA told the NFL this past summer the Raiders are not welcomed to use their faciltity which was smart of them because the only people in LA that embraced the Raiders when they were there,were thugs and gang members.familys feared for their lives to take their children to Raider games when they were there.

That just leaves the Chargers and Rams.Well the Chargers have no fans in LA and the athletic director of USC who has the final say so in the matter,is none other than former LA Rams quarterback Pat Haden.Gee i wonder who he will choose between the two?


Even the fans in st louis dont believe the Rams are going to be staying after this season because there has been a 20% dropoff in season ticket sales this year,not because of the bad product on the field they have had for so many years,but because they know they have one foot out the door and are as good as gone next year.

the raiders and chargers though are still supporting their teams even despite the threat of them leaving.The chargers matter of fact had an increase of 4000 new season ticket sales and the raiders,they did not have an increase,but they did not have a dropoff either and they sold out every game last year.

the right thing that should be done is have the Rams back in LA,the chargers stay in SD,and the raiders stay in oakland but the NFL has never been concerned about doing the right thing though and if the chargers dont get something done in SD,i see them joining the Rams in inglewood in a couple of years.

Oh and the other reason that assures the Rams will be the team back in LA next year is not only is Inglewood light years ahead of carson in planning and construction,but all the owners like Kroneke's inglewood project as well.

they wont possibly approve of a site built on a toxic landdump.

 

al michales thinks it will be both the Rams and Chargers in Inglewood with the Chargers joining the Rams in a couple of years as a second tenant in 2018 when Inglewood is ready.former LA Rams coach John Robinson thinks the same thing.I think they both know something we all dont.

"Twenty regular seasons have come and gone since the NFL played in Al’s adopted hometown of Los Angeles. And he offered up a preliminary, non-binding prediction on how it will turn out: Rams and Chargers at Hollywood Park in Inglewood."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...nk-gifford-makes-prediction-about-l-a-return/

 

snip

Know you are passionate about this subject, however, most of what you are posting is wishful thinking for a lot of reasons.

The NFL backhanded the idea of putting a franchise in Los Angeles twice, giving Cleveland an expansion team, and Houston one.

The Rams have been out of LA for 20-some years. The Dallas Cowboys trained for 25-years at Thousand Oaks, and now train at Oxnard. The "Boys" are as popular in LA as the Rams are, and were even when LA had them there.

Breaking up the Chicago-St.Louis-Minnesota-Detroit division disrupts the geographical balance of the league. Somebody has to be moved in to take up the slack. Who fills that hole? We going to move the Chiefs into it? The Bengals? Steelers? Colts? Also, the Rocky Mountain and West Coast teams are AFC clubs - Denver-San Diego and Oakland. You have San Francisco and Seattle, after that, who else is a viable rivalry out there for an LA club?

As I have posted for you a couple of times - the NFL owns the Los Angeles territory, and any existing team desiring to move their club, can't use leverage from another city like Birmingham, San Antonio, Las Vegas, etc., to get any city to build a new stadium. They must go and fill the Los Angeles hole. Los Angeles has had 20-years to build a stadium, and hasn't yet - there is no adequate, NFL stadium there to accomodate NFL football. The Rose Bowl doesn't permit NFL football to be played there - they did allow a Super Bowl there once, but not regular season games. The Coliseum is in a ghetto of dangerous proportions, you might as well move to Southside Chicago as play Monday or Thursday night football in that area. Dodger Stadium is baseball, and The Big A was renovated to insure only baseball could be played there after the Rams left - so there is no viable stadium there now for an NFL team to play in.

You certainly misunderstand the NFL owners fraternity. Yes, they want a team in Los Angeles, no they don't want to pay for it, and no they don't want to sent their clubs to play in dumps like the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum. They have waited 20+ years just for this reason, not putting any team there, and nobody has wanted to move there because of the stadium situation.

How powerful is Goodell? He removed San Diego and Miami from consideration as Super Bowl host cities due to inadequate stadium facilities. Moved that game to NYC (chancing a snow white out on game day, but got away with it). He sends it to Tampa, 62,000 seats in Raymond James Stadium, in a city that goes to bed at 10:00pm nightly. If you were in Florida you would know there is nothing but retirees on the West Coast at St.Petersburg-Tampa, no hard core football fans, even for Stanley Cup championship hockey in the LIghtning, and the Tampa Bay Bucs, who won a Super Bowl once. He sent the Super Bowl to Jacksonville, 84,000 seat stadium, tarped down to 62,000 for Jaguar games (the league minimum). The Georgia-Florida SEC football games draws 80,000 plus there every year. Dropping the Super Bowl into tiny Jacksonville was like dropping Shamu the whale into a backyard plastic swimming pool, game was a disaster, logistics impossible (I was there). New Orleans, aging and crumbling Superdome, where the lights went out during the Super Bowl; Dallas - Jerry Jones' Taj Mahal Stadium, an entire section of the seating collapsed during the game.

Meanwhile, Detroit has held it twice, both games there disaster's in a crumbling city. Miami? 76,000 seat stadium in a sun belt tourist city, where it rained during the Colts-Chicago game, bad optics, despite the fact the temperature remained at 72 throughout and the rain never effected the crowd or the game. Goodell didn't like that. When the "Who Dat" New Orleans Saints came into Miami-Miami Beach for their appearance against Indianapolis, they dominated Collins Avenue in Miami Beach, and proclaimed it the best party town in America - which it happens to be. San Diego, the city with the best weather anywhere in the U.S. knocked out of Super Bowl contention by Goodell because of stadium difficulties. So, to get back on the Super Bowl stadium list, Miami is totally renovating Sun-Life, covering all the spectator seats, but they are not putting a dome on the stadium. San Diego's Qual Com Stadium issues are just as bad. So if you think that the NFL owners and Roger Goodell are going to send the St.Louis Rams out to Los Angeles to play in The Coliseum for three years while Inglewood builds them a stadium - pipe dream. Not unless ground is broken - and those bulldozer's you are writing about there - they are building a mega shopping center complex, not a football stadium, unless Kronke funds the entire $500 million himself.

You have no idea whether 24 NFL owners, or even two NFL owners will vote to let St.Louis leave town. Stability, not Taj Mahal stadiums impress them the most. Otherwise, Buffalo would have been out of the league 10-years ago - and their stadium just underwent a mega renovation, they are good for 10-years, but Goodell said a new stadium up there with a dome will be necessary in the future for them to keep a team there. Critical point hasn't yet arrived, they are good for the next decade, but they better have one under construction within 6-7 years or the Bills are history in Western New York.

Anti-trust suit against the NFL? Not like the old Al Davis days anymore. The NFL is a fraternity, just like the NBA owners are. They corrected the by-laws after the Davis suit to give Goodell the power over the owners, who he works for. The NBA decided Donald Sterling would no longer be allowed to remain a member of the fraternity and took the Los Angeles Clippers away from him, and no court could counter that with anti-trust. The NFL is a private collection enterprise - you can't get in - you can get out - but you can't do what you want, and there is no court challenge that could succeed the way the league bylaws are made up now.

Also, there is no NFL groudswell or drumbeat of public opinion to get a football team in Los Angeles, whether that be the Rams, Chargers, Raiders or an expansion club. The league has let LA sit farrow for 20-years, and isn't worried. The only way they get a new club is "if you build it, they will come" not before, not temporary tenants in The Coliseum for 3-years. Your dreams of a Rams return ignores the hole that is created in the league's divisional roster's in two divisions, it isn't worth it to disrupt the status quo just to get a team back in Los Angeles, and of course, we are talking about a bad football team going there, not a good football team. No guarantee there are any fans of NFL football waiting to welcome the Rams home.

The NFL is a business, and the business of removing a team from one city to another, has hurt the NFL tremendously in the past. Revenue is Rule 1, Los Angeles has the "potential" for the revenue - but the league has flourished for over 20 years without a club out there. Sort of like the situation of the National Hockey League and its largest Canadian city, Toronto. Leafs haven't been to a Stanley Cup since 1966 when B&W television was the norm - yet the league has flourished without Toronto being a power easily. Sam holds true with the NFL and Los Angeles. When one sees ground broken and a stadium going up - all your predictions and wishes will come true regarding the Rams moving - but what happens when St.Louis blocks the move, or Kansas City does, or the other four members of the division do? You are echoing pipe dreams of the Rams return, yet the one thing you have forgotten is the NFL is private, not public, and can't be hit with antitrust, and fans support is not the deciding factor (if that was true Jacksonville would have been gone 5-years ago to LA, and Buffalo was on the cusp of the same move until they got a deep pocket's owner. When the stadium goes up - the league owners will probably approve a move, but it isn't the walk-in-the park you make it sound like. These guys think $$$ before fans, and all you are posting about is fan excitement, excitement that hasn't existed for over 20 years in Los Angeles regarding the National Football League.............

 

you just read one post of mine.you need to read the other stuff i posted as well Post #83 to post # 93 that cant be debunked.

you cant expect me to read through that bible of yours if you wont read through ALL of my posts dude.

yes relocation rules are much tougher now than they were back then when Davis moved the Raiders back to Oakland but for the hundreth time,kroneke can legally move them with no problem whatsover after this season because the rams honored the agreement in the lease with the city of st louis and the city of st louis did not honor their agreement in the lease signed 20 years ago that was made with the previous owner.stan easily wins in a court of law if it comes down to that but it wont.

Kroneke will get the 24 votes with no problem because the owners badly want a team back in LA and they did not want the Rams to leave initially voting against the move only reversing their votes after then owner georgia frontiere threatened to sue them.

the owners want an owner an LA with deep pockets and kroneke fits the bill,he is beyond rich and they love his inglewood project.

thats what makes the Rams situation unique over the chargers and raiders situation is neither spanos or davis have deep pockets and still have stadium deals with their cities so unlike Kroneke,they have all kinds of hurdles and obstacles they would have to face if they tried to move.

as i said before,you are in the very tiny minority of someone with the pipe dream the Rams will stay in st louis the fact that there has been a 20% dropoff in season ticket sales this year not because of the poor play on the field the last decade or so but because half the town can see the writing is on the wall that they are LA bound.sorry but again,I'll take the words of all these owners who keep saying there will be a team in LA next year over yours.i think they havejust a little bit more knowledge about this situation than you do.

 

plus i got a couple friends in st louis and everytime they talk to people about the rams leaving if they think it will happen they here this all the time-yeah their gone but i dont care,they can have them.Its only once in a great blue moon they find someone who agrees with you who thinks they are staying.

 

Are your friends owners of NFL franchises, and are you a Federal Court judge? Otherwise, how do you know the Rams owner will win in court easily? He has to have a case to begin with, and trying to tangle with a private enterprise business concern like the NFL (same as NASCAR), proves difficult. Their by-laws give all the power to Roger Goodell, and he exercises it with a strong fist. Twice turned down NFL franchises by granting what should have been teams to LA, to Cleveland and Baltimore. You might be right - I would like to see an NFL team in Los Angles also, and hope they don't move established, name recognition, long term clubs like the Charger's or the Raiders in there. But, moving St.Louis disrupts the existing geographical balance of the league in two divisions, and moving a bad team to boot out to LA is just the same as handing them an expansion team. If the owners were so enthusiastic about having a club there, they would have put one there years ago, but haven't because Los Angeles hasn't built a stadium suitable for an NFL team to play in out there. I pointed out the power Goodell's influence has regarding Super Bowl host cities - removing Miami, the city that has hosted the most Super Bowls, and San Diego from the hosting list. The decision to hold the Los Angeles franchise right's as property of the league, not of any individual owner, or owner who decides to go there, without the approval of the rest of the owners, stands. Nobody tackles Goodell and wins the way the NFL bylaws are set up now. I have read all your posts - and they essentially remain fan fanatic, but are not based on financial facts or viability of the city of Los Angeles, and its "alleged" fans who may or may not come out to see a crummy football team play in a crummy football stadium the league abandoned decades ago, and still remains unsuitable for NFL football. The only, single reason that Los Angeles is considered attractive for the National Football League is its population, for advertising revenue, not any fan appreciation or possible attendance revenues. You can fill the stadium to capacity every game, and still lose money on the team. Only through the efforts of the late Buffalo owner, Ralph Wilson, that gave the small market teams financial stability, allows teams like Buffalo; New Orleans; Jacksonville; Cincinnati; St.Louis; Baltimore; Indianapolis; Cleveland; Pittsburgh; Minneapolis; Tampa Bay to remain viable in the league. With a team in the hugely populous Los Angeles market, they will be required to foot the bill for those small market teams - and there is no guarantee the team will be financially successful going there. The comparison is simple. Miami received a Major League Baseball franchise when three other cities were ahead of them in fan participation, and one of them already had built a major league baseball stadium downtown in anticipation of receiving a team, simply based on the population and advertising revenue of South Florida - the Florida Marlins didn't draw dick most of the time they have been here...........same will be true of Los Angeles, so the owners are wary...........

 

Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ was built atop on toxic dump. Doug Kotar and others sued the Giants and the NFL claiming that the cancer they suffered from resulted from toxic contamination:


http://articles.latimes.com/1987-08-24/sports/sp-1995_1_cancer-cases


This is something I hadn't considered until you brought it up as I had forgotten about those cases. But I wonder about the soccer stadium in Carson and its proximity to the proposed stadium. Furthermore, if it is a toxic dump area, what does the NFLPA have to say about the risk to their players?


I did some further research and found that you were correct when you said that locals did approve of a new stadium in Inglewood. The approval came by a vote in February. Carson's city council also approved of an NFL stadium. However, they voted that the stadium must be privately funded and I do not believe this was so with the vote in Inglewood. One thing more: the proposed stadium in Carson entails having two teams share in the stadium thereby lessening the prospect of a future stadium in one of those cities. That would entail the potential loss of billions in revenue from one of those markets. StL's proposed move would not entail such a loss. On that basis, it appears you are correct in saying Inglewood and Kronke have the advantage.


Thus, the next move belongs to the owners.

 

dude do you listen,you cant expect people to want to converse with you if you are going to post these novels.Nobody wants to read the bible. I had to learn that fact myself when i first got on the net and did the same thing.I was guilty of that as well and had to learn to make my posts in just a few sentences and straight to the point.someone else told you the same thing on the pete rose thread. I''ll read what you have to say but not if its going to be a novel.Nobody wants to read any novels on here.

 

they have said they are only going to choose one stadium site and inglewood is light years ahead of carson.They got the land permits,the EIR report and everything,carson has none of that. The NFL also plans to have a superbowl in LA by 2020 and Inglwood has the only proposal of the two of a stadium that will be ready by then expected to be ready by 2018 and like i said,the owners love the inglewood project.Kroneke will easily get the votes to move there next year with no problems whatsoever and USC has told the NFL they will let one team play there next year.You can take it to the bank it will be the Rams over the chargers.the raiders are out because they have said they wont allow the raiders.