Rams are gone. Once again, St. Louis is not an NFL (Glendale: school, college)

[kcmo]

Lacrosse is super popular in DC Maryland/Virginia area in high school and colleges and there is a MLL team ten minutes from my house but I don't think they really draw all that well. The MLL team has not quite caught on, but they play major college and high school state games at Ravens stadium in front of huge crowds.

I think it's going to be a while before MLL is a top tier league and I doubt it ever comes close to the NFL. It may someday be on par with MLS, but by then, the MLS may be much more popular.

[MUTGR]

I'm bummed that St. Louis once again is not an NFL city, but on a personal level, it won't really affect me a bit. I've been to 3 Rams games the entire time they've been here and only because they were freebies each time. They of course were fun to watch on TV during the greatest show on turf years, but that ended a long time ago and the last many years they've often prevented us from getting more interesting games on TV.

Congrats to LA, but they are getting a first class A-hole as an owner. He married well, but don't expect a consistent winner on the field.

[Podo944]

Originally Posted by T. Damon

It will be even more awkward here- The Chargers are apparently staying in their despised host city for at least a year while they work out the option to join the Rams in Stinklewood- awkward!

Is "Stinklewood" a nickname for Los Angeles or Hollywood? I've never heard that one before... is that a thing, or did you make that up? Just curious, cause it made me chuckle. (It is stinky sometimes for sure!)

[Truly Missouri]

Originally Posted by aliasfinn

30 NFL owners voted yes on the move and 2 voted no.
Wonder who those two were ?
Chargers owner and Raiders owner ? I can't think of anyone else.

I'm shocked that there were only two no votes. I thought Green Bay would sympathize for St. Louis and vote no. And, that Chiefs owner Clark Hunt would vote no for the sake of Missouri. Evidently, I don't think he did.

Originally Posted by MUTGR

There's something weird about Kroenke. He has like dead fish eyes or something and he rarely speaks, and when he does, not particularly well.

Kroenke almost seems and acts as if he's a fall guy. I'm surprised how much influence Jerry Jones has had in this, if you read and hear some of what's being said, it's as if he and some of the others moved the team, and that Kroenke like a good little puppet went along with their "greatest plan ever conceived in sports".

Los Angeles Rams: Jerry Jones says move is greatest plan ever - NFL - SI.com

[Truly Missouri]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

I'm bummed that St. Louis once again is not an NFL city, but on a personal level, it won't really affect me a bit. I've been to 3 Rams games the entire time they've been here and only because they were freebies each time. They of course were fun to watch on TV during the greatest show on turf years, but that ended a long time ago and the last many years they've often prevented us from getting more interesting games on TV.

Congrats to LA, but they are getting a first class A-hole as an owner. He married well, but don't expect a consistent winner on the field.

LA is a tough market to please. They already have UCLA and USC that get most of the attention, no other NFL market has this scenario of two Division 1 college teams to compete with pro. And if you add the Chargers or the Raiders moving to LA, then this great plan of having the Rams and Kroenke moving to LA will be set on the back burner.

I hope Kroenke fails in LA.

[Ztonyg]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

St. Louis never felt like a Rams town to me. St. Louis still seems like a Cardinals town. I would love to see St. Louis get the Cardinals back. Hopefully the people of Arizona will not agree to build a new stadium when the Cardinal organization comes a calling to ask for a new one, which I'm sure will happen at some point, if it hasn't happened, already.

Phoenix and the Cardinals just doesn't seem right. Arizona Cardinals. It doesn't flow good off the tongue. There's no rhythm to it. It sounds awkward and almost dysfunctional, like it's not natural. I mean are there even any Cardinals within a thousand miles of Phoenix? They should maybe change their name to the Roadrunners, or even the Snowbirds, if they insist on being represented by a bird. Both would be a much more appropriate bird to represent Phoenix, or Arizona, than a Cardinal.

Arizona Cardinals....Please. I won't root for them. It wouldnt hurt my feelings if they lost every game they played.

The Cardinals got a new stadium about 10 years ago (that just hosted the College Football Playoff Championship Game on Monday and hosted the Super Bowl and Pro Bowl last year). There actually are Cardinals (the birds) found in all parts of Arizona, so the name isn't as ridiculous as it seems.

Also, after Michael Bidwell took over the team from his dad, the Cardinals have the most competent ownership of any professional team in the state and now have the largest fanbase of all of the professional teams. Bruce Arians is a great coach, the team is solid on offense and defense, and is really a lot of fun to watch. As far as Phoenix's other professional teams, the Coyotes are owned by Canadians (who may ultimately intend to move the team back to Canada) and have a lousy stadium situation, the Diamonbacks are owned by a cheapskate and cling to "old school" baseball metrics as opposed to embracing sabremetrics, and the Suns have a clueless owner.

On order of priority, the Coyotes need a new stadium first, followed by the Suns (which could jointly share one with the Coyotes), followed by the Diamondbacks, followed by the Cardinals in about 20-25 years. A local Native American tribe may partially finance the new baseball and basketball/hockey stadiums (although the City of Phoenix also may be in the running for both).

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by Truly Missouri

I'm shocked that there were only two no votes. I thought Green Bay would sympathize for St. Louis and vote no. And, that Chiefs owner Clark Hunt would vote no for the sake of Missouri. Evidently, I don't think he did.

I believe each team will be paid $20 million by the Rams as a "relocation" fee. Why, except to grease the skids?

As likely the smallest market of any NFL team, Green Bay likely needs the money, even though locally controlled.

The thinking also is that an NFL team will increase league revenues.

My memory is that Green Bay similarly voted to allow the Browns to relocate to Baltimore, and the relocation fee at that time was only $29 million. The only owners who opposed that move were Ralph Wilson of Buffalo and Art Rooney in Pittsburgh, both old-time owners who were appalled about the NFL socking it to one of the best fan bases in the league.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-2eefbaae9583/

Cleveland had leverage in its dealings with the NFL because Modell broke his stadium lease. Apparently, that didn't happen in St. Louis.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by Truly Missouri

LA is a tough market to please. They already have UCLA and USC that get most of the attention, no other NFL market has this scenario of two Division 1 college teams to compete with pro. And if you add the Chargers or the Raiders moving to LA, then this great plan of having the Rams and Kroenke moving to LA will be set on the back burner.

I hope Kroenke fails in LA.

USC, UCLA and the Pac-12 can't be happy about this. It has to hurt some.

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by WRnative

I believe each team will be paid $20 million by the Rams as a "relocation" fee. Why, except to grease the skids?

As likely the smallest market of any NFL team, Green Bay likely needs the money, even though locally controlled.

The thinking also is that an NFL team will increase league revenues.

My memory is that Green Bay similarly voted to allow the Browns to relocate to Baltimore, and the relocation fee at that time was only $29 million. The only owners who opposed that move were Ralph Wilson of Buffalo and Art Rooney in Pittsburgh, both old-time owners who were appalled about the NFL socking it to one of the best fan bases in the league.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-2eefbaae9583/

Cleveland had leverage in its dealings with the NFL because Modell broke his stadium lease. Apparently, that didn't happen in St. Louis.

WRnative... I remember it very well. The NFL is a good ol boys network, and were all a bunch of Modell cronies! Of course the majority were going to allow him to move. I'm glad that Browns fans fought the NFL and Modell and made them leave the name, history, and colors in Cleveland. Given the circumstances here with the Rams, and the fact they left LA, screwed that fanbase, relocated to St. Louis, and now leaving St. Louis screwing that fanbase, to go back to LA, I think it would be appropriate to retire the Rams name, and forge a new identity, and legacy in LA under a new name, and logo. In my opinion the Rams legacy is tainted and no way in hell if I was an LA fan would I want that name anymore! Think about it. What if the Browns name went to Baltimore and they became the Baltimore Browns, then 20 years later turn around and come back to Cleveland as the Browns! I'm a diehard Browns fan, but no way in hell would I want it like that! Do you see what I'm saying?

[Mouldy Old Schmo]

Pro sports teams - the ultimate bread and circuses.

Taxpayers Have Spent A 'Staggering' Amount Of Money On NFL Stadiums