No love for LA?

by VanRam on Jun 3, 2009 11:50 AM CDT in Rams For Sale Comment 7 comments

Since learning that the Rams were for sale, it's been widely assumed that if a buyer were to relocate the team, Los Angeles would be the most likely landing spot. After all, it's the second largest media market in the country and has no NFL team and there's a legitimate effort to get a new stadium built there.

But hold on, maybe LA isn't the former and next home for the Rams. From Bill Coats' online QnA with the Post Dispatch yesterday:

I'm not sure that LA is a viable option. There are very large issues involved with that notion. Not going to go into details just yet, but the league would be a very hard sell for anyone wanting to move the Rams back to LA, for a number of reasons.

...and more

Let me just say this: I'll be shocked if the Rams wind up in LA after all this is said and done. Shocked.

Part of the issue with the Rams to LA is that another team could get there before the Rams, new owners or not, can make the move. However, the first quote from Coats makes it sound as though there are some significant hurdles for any team looking for a new home in the Cadillac Desert. Outside of the issues surrounding the construction of the stadium (which don't seem to be irreconcilable for the developers), I'm not sure what he means, though I'm anxious to learn more.

The more and more you read about this story, the more inclined I am to think that the moves of late are designed to force the hands of some local investors, probably in an effort to drum up a competitor or two to get the best price and to get more local prospects to step up, with the two goals not being mutually exclusive. You wonder if Checketts got more serious about his offer or secured a committment from an investor or two once this news leaked. I'd be willing to bet that Chip Rosenbloom made this move with a potential buyer already in mind, be it Checketts or someone else.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Bill Coats needs to put up or shut up. “Not going to go into details just yet”..? I think he’s just manufacturing a reason for people to come back and check his colum or editorial or whatever.

Lived in LA during the Rams and Raiders days. Now based in NorCal, I am still a die hard Rams fan and Raiders season ticket holder.

by CoachConnors on Jun 3, 2009 7:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again: Los Angeles doesn’t want an NFL team. They want the 17th game. Picture it, every week- MNF: Live from Southern California (or some equivalent to MNF). 16 Neutral site games a year in a beautiful (?) new stadium in City of Industry (they’d probably get a Super Bowl in the next few years, too.). LA is teeming with football fans but we’re all from somewhere else. The population there wants/needs to see NFL action, and the league needs the revenue, but it will only work if it’s a neutral site for regular season games. Stay in the ’Lou Rams.

by mooseknuckles41 on Jun 4, 2009 5:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

that's a really interesting point

they could also host the Super Bowl with a new stadium

Turf Show Times

by VanRam on Jun 4, 2009 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My first reaction to this is

the 16 teams would balk at giving up one home game in that season, but then again this is the NFL we’re talking about and if you throw enough money at someone, they always take the cash.

I have a very, umm...photographic brain. A lot like Ansel Adams but in color and with a lot more, uh.....insertion and pubic hair.

by Tackle Box on Jun 4, 2009 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

they wouldn’t have to give up a home game (8 at home, 8 away, 1 neutral for every team). It would be better than going to London, or Japan or Mexico City or wherever the hell the league wants the Saints et al to play “home” games.

by mooseknuckles41 on Jun 4, 2009 4:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I suppose

but I wonder how long it’d last having doormat teams playing on such a large stage. Not having flexibility is what hurt MNF…. well, they said it did and used that to get schedule flexibility for the game.

I have a very, umm...photographic brain. A lot like Ansel Adams but in color and with a lot more, uh.....insertion and pubic hair.

by Tackle Box on Jun 4, 2009 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

NFL future schedule

I can see the logic in making LA a neutral site for the 17th game, SoCal is more about the entertainment value rather than the hard-core fandom which most successful NFL cities have (and need). I am not knocking you guys on the west coast, it’s just the nature of your environment. As far as an expanded season goes, mark my words the NFL will never go to a 17 game regular season. I think it will be 18 if it changes at all. 17 games or any odd number, wreaks havoc for schedule makers. Half of the teams would have 9 home games, the other half 8. Logic dictates splitting it by conference. The NFC would have an extra home game one year while the AFC would have the extra home game the next season, potentially skewing some stats. It’s one of the main reasons, all pro sports in the modern era have used a balanced home/away schedule with an even number of games. So give LA #17 and Europe (or non-US) #18 and cut the preseason to 2 games.

by cuseguy on Jun 6, 2009 3:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs