If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   The Rams are rumored to be moving to LA. This is not a repeat from 1946   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 89
    More: Interesting, Los Angeles, Stan Kroenke, St. Louis, Edward Jones Dome, NFL, professional sports teams, Roger Goodell  
•       •       •

2229 clicks; posted to Sports » on 06 Jul 2013 at 10:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-06 09:27:07 AM
Look, just because Stan Kroenke is worth over four billion dollars and can easily afford to pay for every last cent of the renovations on his own property without any sort of significant reduction in his purchasing power, that doesn't mean he's not entitled to have $700 Million of tax payer money redistributed to him.
 
2013-07-06 10:09:22 AM
Well, bye
 
2013-07-06 10:22:44 AM
A nice little memorial gift to Deacon Jones.
 
2013-07-06 10:34:24 AM
LA doesn't deserve the Rams

/now, the Raiders, on the other hand...
 
2013-07-06 10:43:56 AM
Can the NFL cut it out already with Los Angeles? It doesn't matter how big of a media buy market it is, the city has showed time and again that they will not support an NFL team.
 
2013-07-06 10:44:18 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: /now, the Raiders, on the other hand...


No. They already ruined Oakland Coliseum, so now they're forced to stay there. Forever.

i979.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-06 10:45:08 AM

Aarontology: Look, just because Stan Kroenke is worth over four billion dollars and can easily afford to pay for every last cent of the renovations on his own property without any sort of significant reduction in his purchasing power, that doesn't mean he's not entitled to have $700 Million of tax payer money redistributed to him.


THIS! won't you think of the billionaires?
 
2013-07-06 10:55:43 AM

adammpower: Aarontology: Look, just because Stan Kroenke is worth over four billion dollars and can easily afford to pay for every last cent of the renovations on his own property without any sort of significant reduction in his purchasing power, that doesn't mean he's not entitled to have $700 Million of tax payer money redistributed to him.

THIS! won't you think of the billionaires?


You don't think he made all of that money by being nice, do you? No, he made it the old fashioned way - by marrying Wal*mart dude's daughter!
 
2013-07-06 11:00:25 AM
I keep seeing the contract term, but never a definition of what it actually means.  So what does "top 25% of stadiums in the NFL" mean?  Who determines that?  Who decides that a $700 million sliding roof would put it back in the top 25%?  Lambeau Field is a complete dump, but you could certainly argue it's in the top 25% of stadiums (maybe even the best in some ways).
 
2013-07-06 11:03:11 AM
Meh, L.A. is too fickle for a NFL team.
 
2013-07-06 11:05:08 AM
Another bitter pill for the long-suffering fans of Cleveland.
 
2013-07-06 11:14:07 AM
Good headline subby... but you coulda added a few more years on there.

skinink: Can the NFL cut it out already with Los Angeles? It doesn't matter how big of a media buy market it is, the city has showed time and again that they will not support an NFL team.


This isn't really true... unless "not support" = "not build a stadium with 100% public money". The Rams had a horrible owner and a horrible team the last few years in Anaheim... and still drew 25-30k per game.

The Raiders always did pretty well at the Coliseum with attendance... and the Coliseum is a horrible place to watch a football game in a horrible neighborhood.

So Cal fans are historically front runners and band wagoners... that's pretty much just a symptom of the transient population and the different activities competing for the consumers time and/or money. The Chargers, Angels, Doyers, Padres (etc) only put up decent attendance numbers when they are winning.

IMO... a Raider team that could consistently put up .500+ seasons and contend every once in awhile would do exceptionally well in LA. But... Fantasy Land is near there too.
 
2013-07-06 11:19:30 AM

skinink: Can the NFL cut it out already with Los Angeles? It doesn't matter how big of a media buy market it is, the city has showed time and again that they will not support an NFL team.


The NFL can't "cut it out" with LA. Without the threat of moving to the second-largest city in the US, the owners would lose a significant bit of bargaining leverage.

It's in the league's- or, at least, the people who own the teams that make up the league's- best interests to not have a franchise in Los Angeles. "I'll move the team to Portland or San Antonio" doesn't have the same impact.
 
2013-07-06 11:27:48 AM
Will they be called the Los Angeles Rams of Anaheim?
 
2013-07-06 11:31:39 AM

drunk_bouncnbaloruber: Will they be called the Los Angeles Rams of Anaheim?


No silly... they would be playing in LA.

The Anaheim Rams of St. Louis at Los Angeles.
 
2013-07-06 11:33:41 AM
FINALLY my Betamax of "Heaven Can Wait" will make sense again!
 
2013-07-06 11:35:19 AM
I do not support tax payers supporting NFL owners in any circumstance. The owners make enough from the TV revenues. I can only suppose stadium revenue is extra money for the owners. Let the owners fix up the stadium if they want.
 
2013-07-06 11:37:43 AM
I thought Farmers Field was a no-go.
 
2013-07-06 11:38:33 AM
LA is a huge TV market.  Without a team, blackouts don't apply, and the networks can show 3-4 games every Sunday afternoon, plus a night game in that market.    Adding a team with the potential for blackouts would impact the TV markets.    The networks might actually be against a team in LA for these reasons.

/have not done the cost analysis
//don't know the variables
///Given their successes in the 50s, it's a surprise the Rams ever left.   You have to really FAIL hard to lose a fanbase that was so excited at one point.
 
2013-07-06 11:40:15 AM
As an Avalanche fan all I can say is fark kroenke
 
2013-07-06 11:41:50 AM
They better go back to royal blue and yellow if they move.
 
2013-07-06 11:45:11 AM

Gonz: It's in the league's- or, at least, the people who own the teams that make up the league's- best interests to not have a franchise in Los Angeles. "I'll move the team to Portland or San Antonio" doesn't have the same impact.


This, more than anything.

Not having an LA franchise is worth more than having one there, to the NFL.

Also, the Dome isn't even 20 years old- do stadiums get built now with the assumption that almost three quarters of a billion dollars will get dumped into it not two decades later?
 
2013-07-06 11:48:02 AM

Rhypskallion: ///Given their successes in the 50s, it's a surprise the Rams ever left. You have to really FAIL hard to lose a fanbase that was so excited at one point.


Yes. Yes you do.

www.esquire.com
 
2013-07-06 11:48:19 AM

Cybernetic: Another bitter pill for the long-suffering fans of Cleveland.



While I agree that it's goofy that Ohio has two NFL teams, calling a team the Los Angeles Browns would have some unfortunate connotations.
 
2013-07-06 11:48:38 AM

LucklessWonder: They better go back to royal blue and yellow if they move.


The last 3 words of your comment are unnecessary.
 
2013-07-06 11:50:25 AM

Gonz: LucklessWonder: They better go back to royal blue and yellow if they move.

The last 3 words of your comment are unnecessary.


Feh.

Blue and white was way cooler.
 
2013-07-06 11:55:43 AM
I'm guessing things are very, very ugly on Shahid Khan's megayacht today
 
2013-07-06 11:58:21 AM
I don't know how to feel about the Rams potentially moving back to LA. It certainly wouldn't break the geographic alignment of the division by any means but they were our wayward Missouri cousin ... just sort of out there, with whom there was no animosity or anger. I don't know if that would continue to be the case should the Los Angelese adopt them en masse; I fear I would be forced to hate them.
 
2013-07-06 11:58:33 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Blue and white was way cooler.


You mean like these? I don't know the rules of color conventions in the NFL, but white as a primary is usually for the away team.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-06 12:00:03 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Gonz: LucklessWonder: They better go back to royal blue and yellow if they move.

The last 3 words of your comment are unnecessary.

Feh.

Blue and white was way cooler.


Nah, the yellow with sleeve horns was their best look.
 
2013-07-06 12:00:44 PM

grinding_journalist: FirstNationalBastard: Blue and white was way cooler.

You mean like these? I don't know the rules of color conventions in the NFL, but white as a primary is usually for the away team.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x477]


No,

a.espncdn.com
 
2013-07-06 12:03:44 PM

FirstNationalBastard: grinding_journalist: FirstNationalBastard: Blue and white was way cooler.

You mean like these? I don't know the rules of color conventions in the NFL, but white as a primary is usually for the away team.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x477]

No,

[a.espncdn.com image 400x600]


Home team gets to wear what they want... visiting team has to wear the opposite (colors or whites).

See also: Dallas Cowboys
 
2013-07-06 12:05:41 PM

FirstNationalBastard: grinding_journalist: FirstNationalBastard: Blue and white was way cooler.

You mean like these? I don't know the rules of color conventions in the NFL, but white as a primary is usually for the away team.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x477]

No,

[a.espncdn.com image 400x600]


www.helmethut.com

They look too similar to the Colts.
 
2013-07-06 12:06:27 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Cybernetic: Another bitter pill for the long-suffering fans of Cleveland.


While I agree that it's goofy that Ohio has two NFL teams, calling a team the Los Angeles Browns would have some unfortunate connotations.


It is the 7th ranked state in terms of population.
I find it odd that Florida has 3.
 
2013-07-06 12:09:23 PM

FrancoFile: TuteTibiImperes: Cybernetic: Another bitter pill for the long-suffering fans of Cleveland.


While I agree that it's goofy that Ohio has two NFL teams, calling a team the Los Angeles Browns would have some unfortunate connotations.

It is the 7th ranked state in terms of population.
I find it odd that Florida has 3.


#4 by population, but we're willing to part with the Jaguars if anyone wants them.
 
2013-07-06 12:14:10 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: Rhypskallion: ///Given their successes in the 50s, it's a surprise the Rams ever left. You have to really FAIL hard to lose a fanbase that was so excited at one point.

Yes. Yes you do.

[www.esquire.com image 300x400]


I've always thought she was the prototype for the biatch owner in Major League
 
2013-07-06 12:24:06 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I've always thought she was the prototype for the biatch owner in Major League


Definitely could be... lots of people say that. But... as the movie was released 5 years before the Rams moved... I dunno.

And Rachel Phelps didn't kill her husband.
 
2013-07-06 12:24:27 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: drunk_bouncnbaloruber: Will they be called the Los Angeles Rams of Anaheim?

No silly... they would be playing in LA.

The Anaheim Rams of St. Louis at Los Angeles.


Not necessarily in LA.  There is an Industry stadium as well in the works.  Neither stadium has a team nor is guaranteed to move forward at this point.

Pray 4 Mojo: So Cal fans are historically front runners and band wagoners... that's pretty much just a symptom of the transient population and the different activities competing for the consumers time and/or money. The Chargers, Angels, Doyers, Padres (etc) only put up decent attendance numbers when they are winning.


Partly, but they also don't take well to shiatty owners.  The Angels aren't doing spectacular at the box office, but they still draw fairly well despite missing the playoffs.  The Dodgers couldn't say the same when the populace finally revolted against McCourt, and they made two straight LCS appearances with McCourt
 
2013-07-06 12:25:34 PM
http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/2000/0124_larg e.jpg

Best look (c&p) can't post pic on mobile.
 
2013-07-06 12:30:06 PM
The Rams aren't going to LA. No team is going to LA. That's the NFL's lever for new stadiums and renovations. The Steelers even tried making that work. In their case it wasn't believable, but for a lot of teams that threat is crucial. Besides, with LA the NFL gets the best of all worlds: they get a huge number of people buying NFL merchandise without regard to geography, they never have to worry about game blackouts, and they still have their anvil to break other cities over.

Until there is a new stadium going up and construction has actually begun this story is bogus.
 
2013-07-06 12:30:30 PM
LA doesn't have a team because the city refuses to use taxpayer money to build a stadium, and won't accept any deal that puts the taxpayers on the hook for upkeep.

It is the one right thing that this stupid city has done in a long time.

/still want a team out here
//taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for billionaires
 
2013-07-06 12:36:51 PM

bhcompy: Not necessarily in LA. There is an Industry stadium as well in the works. Neither stadium has a team nor is guaranteed to move forward at this point.


I thought the stadium in City of Industry was given up on a long time ago... like... back when the Raiders were threatening to move back. Or is that Irwindale I'm confusing it with?
 
2013-07-06 12:41:35 PM
If the move happens, can we send the Patriots to St. Louis?

Please?
 
2013-07-06 12:54:41 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: bhcompy: Not necessarily in LA. There is an Industry stadium as well in the works. Neither stadium has a team nor is guaranteed to move forward at this point.

I thought the stadium in City of Industry was given up on a long time ago... like... back when the Raiders were threatening to move back. Or is that Irwindale I'm confusing it with?


You're thinking Irwindale.
 
2013-07-06 12:57:20 PM

Aarontology: Look, just because Stan Kroenke is worth over four billion dollars and can easily afford to pay for every last cent of the renovations on his own property without any sort of significant reduction in his purchasing power, that doesn't mean he's not entitled to have $700 Million of tax payer money redistributed to him.


*sniff* This isn't even America anymore, is it?
 
2013-07-06 01:18:17 PM
LA already has a team. San Diego is less than 100 miles away. LA fans can root for the Chargers. If the Rams leave St. Louis, there will be no team within 500 miles. Rams fans will have to pick between the Chiefs, Bears, Colts, and Titans to consider their "local" team.
 
2013-07-06 01:20:59 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: LA doesn't deserve the Rams

/now, the Raiders, on the other hand...


The Raiders biggest problem in LA (apart from not having a decent QB after 1986) was, as Todd Christiansen put it, he didn't market the Raiders to LA.  He thought the Raiders marketed themselves which might have been true in Oakland but not LA.  The Lakers and Dodgers do pretty well even when they suck because they know this.

Id the deal where you  give up 30-40% interest in your team to AEG still on?  I'm betting that's the biggest roadblock to actually getting this deal done.
 
2013-07-06 01:21:02 PM

drunk_bouncnbaloruber: Pray 4 Mojo: bhcompy: Not necessarily in LA. There is an Industry stadium as well in the works. Neither stadium has a team nor is guaranteed to move forward at this point.

I thought the stadium in City of Industry was given up on a long time ago... like... back when the Raiders were threatening to move back. Or is that Irwindale I'm confusing it with?

You're thinking Irwindale.


It really should apply to both, the Industry location would be an utter disaster.
 
2013-07-06 01:22:05 PM
Pray 4 Mojo: Yes. Yes you do.

Quick review for the idiots that think the Rams and Raiders left because of the fans:

Rams: wildly popular but played in an old stadium with few amenities in a rundown, crime-ridden part of town. Tried to extort a new stadium out of the city of Los Angeles for years. Owner drowns and his prostitute lounge singer wife takes over. They get the city of Anaheim to rebuild Anaheim Stadium, turning it in to one of the worst baseball AND football stadiums ever. Meanwhile, the prostitute lounge singer cozies up to the hometown from whence she was spawned > the fans here knew it. The team drove away its star RB Eric Dickerson by trying to lowball him on a salary and generally did nothing to improve the team. Fans stayed away in droves, only total farking idiots show up at shiatty stadiums to watch bad teams. When the city of Anaheim refused to build a new stadium on the taxpayers dime, she took the team to St. Louis. It cost close to $100 million to rebuild Anaheim Stadium in to a baseball-only stadium.

Raiders: need I say more?

themadchuck.files.wordpress.com

Ask the cities of Inglewood and Irwindale what they think of that....that.....THING. The Raiders were drawing 85,000 people until that THING started in with the "build me a stadium or I'll leave" bullshiat. There is some cosmic justice, however, in the fact that the Raiders are still stuck in the worst stadium in all of US professional sports and show no sign of moving to a new facility any time soon.

No taxpayer money for billionaires to build stadiums.
 
2013-07-06 01:23:15 PM

Tommy Moo: LA already has a team. San Diego is less than 100 miles away. LA fans can root for the Chargers. If the Rams leave St. Louis, there will be no team within 500 miles. Rams fans will have to pick between the Chiefs, Bears, Colts, and Titans to consider their "local" team.


It's 500 miles to Kansas City? Through Nebraska?
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report