clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

No love for LA?

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.