Welcome back, Rams

Pro wrestl... I mean football returns to LA. No, they won't be called the Los Angeles Rams of Inglewood. Before their stadium is ready in Inglewood they'll be playing at the Coliseum, the first home of the LA Dodgers. 251 ft to the wall in left field!

Btw, which is the only other remaining pro baseball team, besides the Cubs, that played its home games at Wrigley Field?

I 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.

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.

From an outside perspective I think LA struggles with teams because of the trsnsplants. Is there anyone that is actually from LA? Seems like a town that people move to opposed to being born in.

Quote: kewlj

I 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.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.

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").

At the end of the day, it's a business, just like any other business. And if relocation means making more $, owners will do so (within the confines of the NFL by-laws). The difference is that consumers (fans) of the this type of business (sports team, and specifically football), form strong emotional connections with the business, in a way that other businesses don't. But, ultimately the owner is in it to make a buck, and if this means moving out west, I can't blame him to much.

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.

Two NFL teams in L.A. is one too many. There is still talk of three teams moving in.

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: RogerKint

Btw, 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.