Welcome back, Rams
Btw, which is the only other remaining pro baseball team, besides the Cubs, that played its home games at Wrigley Field?
I remember almost nothing about the Rams exit. Why did the Rams leave? Did they too want a new stadium? Did they not receive good fan support? I know I always found the way fans support the LA Dodgers kind of weird. Games starts in front of almost no crowd. By the 3rd inning crowd arrives. Crowd leaves in the 7th inning to beat traffic regardless of whether team is winning or losing or if it is a close game. Did the Rams have those problems?
If it wasn't an issue of team support, then why did it take 22 years for a team to consider moving back to the 2nd most populous city?
Generally, I don't like these stadium hostage type deals where teams hold their current cities hostage for a new stadium at taxpayers expense or threaten to jettison to a new city. Something wrong with that whole scenario.
So now what happens to St Louis? They seem like a pro football kind of town, but now they haven't been able to hang on to 2 different franchises in the last quarter century.
Quote: kewlj
I remember almost nothing about the Rams exit. Why did the Rams leave? Did they too want a new stadium? Did they not receive good fan support? I know I always found the way fans support the LA Dodgers kind of weird. Games starts in front of almost no crowd. By the 3rd inning crowd arrives. Crowd leaves in the 7th inning to beat traffic regardless of whether team is winning or losing or if it is a close game. Did the Rams have those problems?
You almost have Dodger fans pegged. We actually spend innings 3 through 7 in line for diabetes (hot dogs and beer.) Dodgers are making plenty of money. It's $20 just to park! Other ball parks, like Wrigley and whatever Brewer's stadium is called, charge nearly half the price for alcohol that Dodger stadium does. They say it's because of the extra security needed in LA.
The Rams, like the Angels, played their home games in Orange County. They blamed the economy/location for lack of team support.
Quote: kewljI was 11 in 1994 when the Rams and Raiders both departed LA, so I should have more memory that I do. I kind of remember the Raiders situation. They never seemed like they belonged there to me, even though they moved to LA the year I was born. They seemed like the Oakland Raiders, playing in LA. I remember it was a stadium hostage situation and law suits and all, but they never seemed to belong there. When they moved back to Oakland, THAT seemed right.
I remember almost nothing about the Rams exit. Why did the Rams leave? Did they too want a new stadium? Did they not receive good fan support? I know I always found the way fans support the LA Dodgers kind of weird. Games starts in front of almost no crowd. By the 3rd inning crowd arrives. Crowd leaves in the 7th inning to beat traffic regardless of whether team is winning or losing or if it is a close game. Did the Rams have those problems?
If it wasn't an issue of team support, then why did it take 22 years for a team to consider moving back to the 2nd most populous city?
Generally, I don't like these stadium hostage type deals where teams hold their current cities hostage for a new stadium at taxpayers expense or threaten to jettison to a new city. Something wrong with that whole scenario.
So now what happens to St Louis? They seem like a pro football kind of town, but now they haven't been able to hang on to 2 different franchises in the last quarter century.
Stan Kroenke wanted to move the Rams back to LA because he can charge "LA prices", he slipped up and basically said so in this new conference. The owners voted 30-2 after the relocation committee recommended the Carson project 5-1. This has to make it obvious that Stan wheeled and dealed hard to get enough votes and it is sad. Unlike when the Rams left LA the first time, St. Louis was attempting to build a new stadium for the team. The owner wanted nothing to do with St. Louis from the get go and was obvious when the Mayor and the Governor could not get Stan for a face to face meeting. The man is a coward and I honestly hope he fails in LA. The NFL screwed St. Louis and now there have been talks of potentially going after the anti trust status of the league for failing to follow relocation guidelines.
In the end greed won out. Stan will figure out how fickle LA fans are when they don't show up on Sunday for a bad team... I will be interested to see how many home games get blacked out.
Quote: jessie.wilburn
In the end greed won out. Stan will figure out how fickle LA fans are when they don't show up on Sunday for a bad team... I will be interested to see how many home games get blacked out.
I would argue that greed lost out. The city of St Louis signed a contract with the team when they moved from LA to St Louis. That contract stipulated that the city make improvements to the stadium to keep it in the top 25% of stadiums in revenue and amenities. The "greedy" city never met thire contractual obligations and that is why the Rams were let out of their current contract with the city. For those of you that don't remember it was a 30 year contract but since the city didn't make the improvements the Rams were free to leave. Had the city met their obligations the Rams would not have been able to leave until at least 2026. The Rams considered leaving 10 years ago but the city kept saying they would make the improvements and never did.
Quote: jessie.wilburnIn the end greed won out. Stan will figure out how fickle LA fans are when they don't show up on Sunday for a bad team... I will be interested to see how many home games get blacked out.
Presumably, none - the NFL got rid of the blackout rule for this season, and I am assuming it will remain that way next season as well.
However, Los Angeles is about to be reminded of a lesson that viewers in 29 other areas have been learning for decades: "Due to NFL rules, the second game of today's CBS (or, possibly twice a season, Fox) doubleheader will not air on KCBS (KTTV)." If the Chargers or Raiders move to LA as well, they get it twice as bad, the way New York City and the San Francisco Bay Area do, since this would happen every time there's a Rams or Chargers/Raiders home game on Sunday at 1:25 local time. In the past, repeated complaints to the NFL were usually answered by random visits to local bars by the NFL TV Police, who went in to see if anybody was showing the game illegally, and getting a cease & desist order if they were, but it has pretty much gotten to the point where everybody just gets DirecTV with Sunday Ticket now anyway (and I believe the correct phrase is "cause and effect").
I don't feel this isn't the same as Irsay moving the Colts out of Baltimore in the dead of the night, or Modell moving the Browns out of Cleveland. St. Louis is a Cardinal town, and always will be, other sports are always secondary.
The Rams and Chargers will fail unless they put out a winning team. L.A. only loves winners. Look at the pain the Lakers are in this season. If Kobe didn't announce his retirement, Staples Center would be considered embarrassing to be seen at.
The Raiders are an anomaly. Fans hope they do well, but expect them to do poorly while putting a hurt on their opponent. Either way, they will still drive around the hood with big silver and black logo stickers on their back windows. The "Raider Nation" is for reals, and will show up. Hopefully, ticket prices are such that non-Powerball winners can actually afford seats in the new stadium.
Quote: RogerKintBtw, which is the only other remaining pro baseball team, besides the Cubs, that played its home games at Wrigley Field?
The L.A. Dodgers and the Los Angeles Angeles both called "Wrigley Field" home at one point or another. Of course this "Wrigley Field" was in Los Angeles.
Quote: AyecarumbaThe Raiders are an anomaly. Fans hope they do well, but expect them to do poorly while putting a hurt on their opponent. Either way, they will still drive around the hood with big silver and black logo stickers on their back windows. The "Raider Nation" is for reals, and will show up.
This was the mindset that led Al Davis to move them back to Oakland 20 years ago - followed by years of local blackouts (and the "no doubleheader on CBS today in San Francisco" that went with it - in fact, on at least two occasions, the CBS and Fox stations had to switch broadcast times because the blacked-out Raiders game was the only "second" game on CBS that day) when the promised hordes of ticket buyers failed to show up. Until a few years ago, the only games that would sell out the Coliseum were (a) the once-every-eight-years 49ers game, (b) the once-every-eight-years Cowboys game, and (c) the game where it was rumored that Jerry Rice would be playing his last home game for the Raiders before being traded (and it was; he was in a Seahawks uniform the following week).
Of course, the cost of those Personal Seat Licenses didn't help matters...
Quote: AyecarumbaThe L.A. Dodgers and the Los Angeles Angeles both called "Wrigley Field" home at one point or another. Of course this "Wrigley Field" was in Los Angeles.
Oops, thought it was only the Angels.
Now, how about the lean, mean Pasadena Silk Stockings of 1910? Look here see, you South LA boys better put extra wax in those mustaches before you play the Silk Sox, see?
Quote: RogerKint
Btw, which is the only other remaining pro baseball team, besides the Cubs, that played its home games at Wrigley Field?
Chicago Cardinals. Oh, wait - baseball :-(
The Rams could move back to Cleveland where it doesn't matter if you win or lose :-)Quote: Ayecarumba
The Rams and Chargers will fail unless they put out a winning team.
There was talk about realignment if the Chargers and Raiders were to both move to LA, since they are in the same division. But since it's the Rams that are moving I don't think there will be a realignment. Especially since they are already in the NFC West anyway.Quote: AussieDoes the change of location mean a change of division for the team as well?
Besides, I think it would take more than one team moving to necessitate a realignment. I can only remember 1 league realignment in the past 30 or so years. But I can remember 7 franchise moves (Colts, Cardinals, Rams, Titans, Ravens, and Raiders twice) and 4 franchise additions (Jags, Panthers, Texans, & Browns) during that time.
Quote: MidwestAPAt the end of the day, it's a business, just like any other business.
Not quite. If you ran a restaurant and threw a loyal customer out in the middle of a meal without provocation, he probably wouldn't return with his face painted in the colors of your restaurant, begging for you to take money from the local school to gussy up the dining area so you could raise prices to the point where he could no longer afford to eat there.
Quote: JoemanThere was talk about realignment if the Chargers and Raiders were to both move to LA, since they are in the same division. But since it's the Rams that are moving I don't think there will be a realignment. Especially since they are already in the NFC West anyway.
Realignment would have been an option only if the two teams were the Raiders and Chargers. The NFL does not want two teams in the same division in the same city. (Among other things, this could cause some serious TV scheduling problems; it was bad enough last year when the 49ers and Raiders had games at the same time.) This is now no longer a problem, even if the Chargers (or Raiders) move to LA along with the Rams.
Quote: DrawingDeadInglewood? Seriously? Really, siting an expensive new jock-palace stadium in Inglewood?!? At the old Forum & Hollypark site, at Prairie Ave & Century Blvd? Has the old Inglehood had a big miraculous makeover since last time I was down there, like about two years ago? I don't mind at all messing around in parts of south LA that are even less spiffy than the Ingle-Hood, I wouldn't hesitate to do the Hood-of-Ingle myself for the kind of game I actually wanted to see (which wouldn't be football) and I enjoyed being a semi-regular at the old Hollywood Park at one time, but... if it is still pretty much the same as it has been for more than a couple of decades, then it would seem like it could be a hard sell to get many of the suburban type Angelenos with money to go there to spend a bunch of it. Good luck.
I totally agree
Inglewood??????????
I was just out there for Dead and Company at the Forum for New Years
I was very unimpressed by the area
If it wasn't for the concert, no way would I spend any time in Inglewood
Its an airport town, right next to LAX. Nobody wants to live next door to an airport.
Presumably they'll build up some other stuff. They've been talking about shopping malls and a new casino for an eternity and this could do the trick.
I don't know if the average LA suburbanite/Westsider is that hysterically afraid of black/latino neighborhoods, though there are always a few. When I was a kid we went to the forum and coliseum plenty of times, as did most people I knew. There are worse places than Inglewood. You can always drive right to the stadium if the locals scare you.
If anything, I'd expect it to be safer than Dodger games which have a built in gang element attending the games and still aren't really dangerous in the grand scheme of things.
As for Inglewood, I liken it to the neighborhood around Chicago's United Center, if that helps anyone. There are pockets of newer homes, but the overall "vibe" is that there isn't enough money to improve the public facilities, and not enough civic pride to take care of it, even if things were fixed up. Here is my Inglewood formula:
Enjoyment of Whatever Would Bring You to the Neighborhood < Stress of Wondering if Your Car Will Be Stripped and up on Cinder Blocks When You Return
Quote: AyecarumbaAre there any NFL stadium complexes in the middle of residential areas? It seems to me that they are usually in an industrial zone, or in the middle of nowhere.
Lambeau Field is definitely in a residential area, although there a some restaurants/bars close by. Of course the entire team model in Green Bay is very unique.
Lambeau is the only one I can think of. The Orange Bowl was, but that's 30+ years ago. There are some 'downtown' stadia (not exactly residential, but not industrial, either) like the GeorgiaDome.Quote: AyecarumbaAre there any NFL stadium complexes in the middle of residential areas?
Edit -- Looks like MWAP beat me to punch re: Lambeau.
Quote: AyecarumbaAre there any NFL stadium complexes in the middle of residential areas? It seems to me that they are usually in an industrial zone, or in the middle of nowhere.
It depends on the definition of "middle of". The Oakland Coliseum appears to be right on the edge of one.
Quote: ThatDonGuyIt depends on the definition of "middle of". The Oakland Coliseum appears to be right on the edge of one.
Oakland Coliseum and stadium extremely convenient to get to, just hop on BART, Bay Area Rapid transit.
I've used it, its great. Saw the Dead a bunch of times at Oakland Coliseum. Very easy to get to.
Inglewood? Have to deal with absurdly crowded LA traffic :-(
The Georgia Dome is in it's last days, if you can believe the reports. They're gonna build a newer better one right next door, only gonna cost a billion or so.. Of course that was before this last Falcons' season. The timeframe may change.....Quote: JoemanLambeau is the only one I can think of. The Orange Bowl was, but that's 30+ years ago. There are some 'downtown' stadia (not exactly residential, but not industrial, either) like the GeorgiaDome.
Edit -- Looks like MWAP beat me to punch re: Lambeau.
Quote: Gabes22It's amazing to me that ATL needs a new football stadium, IIRC, the Georgia Dome opened in like 1996 just in time for the Olympics. That's not very old at all. Also, from what I understand, they will have a retractable roof stadium and it will have a really cool way that it opens and closes
It's important to replace these structures before they get tagged as "Historic". The Coliseum in Los Angeles is hobbled by a preservationist tag. It makes it a very unattractive venue for a professional football team. Even Soldier Field in Chicago had a huge problem getting updated, and then it ended up a patchwork of old and new features. Better to tear them down and start over. Besides, who doesn't love implosions?
Not only that, but aren't the Braves getting new digs up in Marietta? Turner Field was also built for the '96 Games. It's hard to believe that the life span for billion dollar sports complexes is 20 years!Quote: Gabes22It's amazing to me that ATL needs a new football stadium, IIRC, the Georgia Dome opened in like 1996 just in time for the Olympics. That's not very old at all.
Quote: AyecarumbaIt's important to replace these structures before they get tagged as "Historic". The Coliseum in Los Angeles is hobbled by a preservationist tag. It makes it a very unattractive venue for a professional football team. Even Soldier Field in Chicago had a huge problem getting updated, and then it ended up a patchwork of old and new features. Better to tear them down and start over. Besides, who doesn't love implosions?
Soldier Field's big problem is that it falls under the Chicago Parks Department so they don't have a real NFL groundskeeper working it, rather some relative of a major city Bureaucrat who can't get gainful employment elsewhere. Plus in Chicago the whole North South politics play a lot into the location of it. Cubs (Northside) Sox (Southside), Bulls, Blackhawks (play on Madison which is the N/S Line in that town). Alas, at least they didn't do the McDome
