CaptainHook Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxkKlzInR4Y Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rileyrott Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 The Los Angeles Rams Cheerleaders were affectionately known (by the fans) as: "The Ramettes" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 While I am a lifelong Steelers fan, I live in Jacksonville now and I know that sometimes the national press reports completely mischaracterize things like fan support. They have done that exact same thing here in Jax where all they could talk about for years was the lack of fan support, and how the Jags were going to LA. They were completely wrong, the Jags have a very solid fan base that has always supported the team, and an owner that was and is committed to keeping them here. While we almost never failed to sell enough seats to avoid a blackout, cities like Tampa Bay, and Arizona (before they started winning) were given a free pass by the media. I challenge any NFL city to keep attendance and fan support as high as it has been for the last 10 years in Jacksonville, while the on field product was miserably bad. It was lazy journalism to pick on the small market team, while not knowing enough to accurately report the situation. The Jags are in Jax to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. My understanding of the true "lack of support" issue with the Jags is that pretty much outside of Jacksonville they have nothing. People in surrounding areas are Dolphins or Bucs fans, or maybe Falcons. Also that Jacksonville doesn't have much money and big businesses (was surprised to learn fewer Fortune 500 companies than CLE). That makes it hard to build more support, to sell loges, etc. There is a reason Khan is playing one home game a year in London, it isn't because there is plenty of support. He is doing it to build interest in the team, and may have an eye on moving (if NFL ever gets dumb/greedy enough to do a London team). As far your challenge looking for better fan support with a really crappy team, you might want to look at the Browns. They have such a high number of season ticket holders that blackouts are nearly impoossible. (Note the blackout rule was suspended for 2015, and in prior years teams were allowed to use a lower threshold to meat their sellout, other teams like the Raiders tarped off seats to reduce capacity, thus having a sellout.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Unless you root and follow for a team that is in your hometown, you can't relate to what's happening in St. Louis. Saying they are entertainers and it doesn't matter where they play makes zero sense to me. Now Dallas will never move. However, if they moved to Mexico City, I submit a very large percentage of people that lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area would feel totally betrayed, and would not be buying MC Hombres jerseys. I'll take that a step further, unless you have lost a local team that you root for to relocation (or even folding) you cannot relate. Have been arguing with a guy in SF (Giants and 49ers fan, Warriors too I think) about this. And he keeps trying to rationalize this and even says "The STL Rams fans are not really losers, Kroenke saved them $400 millon they would have wasted on a new stadium." That forum is a bit more civl than here, or I would have really let him have it. I've been through this with the Browns, and have suffered with the crappy replacement team we've had (often think we'd be better off if they hadn't returned). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 The Los Angeles Rams Cheerleaders were affectionately known (by the fans) as: "The Ramettes" And in the day....the hottest imo. I cant wait to see what celebs become home game fixtures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 And in the day....the hottest imo. I cant wait to see what celebs become home game fixtures. Is this even a thing for football? Celebs will be in luxury boxes. This isn't basketball where they can sit courtside and have cameras up in their grills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiehardSteeler Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 My understanding of the true "lack of support" issue with the Jags is that pretty much outside of Jacksonville they have nothing. People in surrounding areas are Dolphins or Bucs fans, or maybe Falcons. Also that Jacksonville doesn't have much money and big businesses (was surprised to learn fewer Fortune 500 companies than CLE). That makes it hard to build more support, to sell loges, etc. There is a reason Khan is playing one home game a year in London, it isn't because there is plenty of support. He is doing it to build interest in the team, and may have an eye on moving (if NFL ever gets dumb/greedy enough to do a London team). As far your challenge looking for better fan support with a really crappy team, you might want to look at the Browns. They have such a high number of season ticket holders that blackouts are nearly impoossible. (Note the blackout rule was suspended for 2015, and in prior years teams were allowed to use a lower threshold to meat their sellout, other teams like the Raiders tarped off seats to reduce capacity, thus having a sellout.) Here is the rub, there is no attendance problem in Jacksonville. As for giving up 1 home game to London... that was,a brilliant move by Khan. The Jags make more money on that 1 game than any other team makes on their home games. I have no issue with it as long as the Jags stay in Jax. 7 home games is just fine, and the Jags give a face to the city, which by the way has been booming since the Jags arrival. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Is this even a thing for football? Celebs will be in luxury boxes. This isn't basketball where they can sit courtside and have cameras up in their grills. It was when the Raiders were in town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Is this even a thing for football? Celebs will be in luxury boxes. This isn't basketball where they can sit courtside and have cameras up in their grills. Not to mention celebrity watching at a sporting event is just lame. You'd think somebody like Taz that works in the industry isn't into that kind of stuff. Watching cheerleaders is one thing, but the celebrities who are there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Not to mention celebrity watching at a sporting event is just lame. You'd think somebody like Taz that works in the industry isn't into that kind of stuff. Watching cheerleaders is one thing, but the celebrities who are there I really could care less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I really could care less Couldn't. Or wait, do you care? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I really could care less How much less? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pun Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 The reason the Rams are moving is because this dude threw a pile of money at the league they couldn't refuse. Jerry Jones, who all the owners trust in matters of high finance, had the owners so riled up over the potential profits from Jerry-World West, they had to send out for 30 pairs of new pants by the time they cast their votes. The owners that are good owners (few left it seems) don't care that the owner of the new LA franchise is clueless in football operations. When you are made of solid gold, nobody cares if you smell like dung. OK I getcha on the money, but (and again, please forgive my ignorance) why not use that same money to move the Raiders to LA? I don't see why the Rams would be more profitable in LA. Not to mention, from a league-wide profit point of view, they lose the StL market. Additionally, still unsure why they are even TALKING about the possibility the Chargers also move to LA. You got three huge metropolitan areas in california - the bay area, greater LA, and San Diego. Why shove two teams in the bay area AND two teams in LA? seems absurd to me. Also, in response to the second paragraph of your post, (and again I know I'm naive here, I'm just asking, not disagreeing with you) why do the owners need to 'have a clue' about football operations? What do the owners have to do re football ops that isn't covered by the GM/coach/scouts/other personnel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelredd9 Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I don't see why the Rams would be more profitable in LA. The Dodgers sold for $2.15 billion and the Clippers sold for $2 billion. Those are the two highest amounts ever paid for a sports franchise. Owners are willing to pay for the LA teams. Teams are worth what a person is willing to pay for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pun Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 The Dodgers sold for $2.15 billion and the Clippers sold for $2 billion. Those are the two highest amounts ever paid for a sports franchise. Owners are willing to pay for the LA teams. Teams are worth what a person is willing to pay for them. No I mean - I don't see why the Rams would be more profitable in LA compared to moving the Raiders instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelredd9 Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 No I mean - I don't see why the Rams would be more profitable in LA compared to moving the Raiders instead. The $2 billion complex that Stan Kroenke is building will make it more profitable. Mark Davis doesn't have much money. The Raiders already have a good proposal from the City of Oakland for a new stadium. Now the NFL will make a bunch of money having a team move to St Louis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelredd9 Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Former Packers Vice President Andrew Brandt wrote this article about the LA move: http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/01/12/los-angeles-rams-nfl-st-louis-relocation 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 But you are special. TRUE ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 The $2 billion complex that Stan Kroenke is building will make it more profitable. Mark Davis doesn't have much money. The Raiders already have a good proposal from the City of Oakland for a new stadium. Now the NFL will make a bunch of money having a team move to St Louis. They do? I thought there was virtually zero public support in Oakland and have not heard of any solid proposals from the city to build a stadium, at least one that will work for Davis (he doesn't have the Wal-Mart billions to build his own stadium like Kroenke). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) My uncle is the chief of on field security for the Raiders/A's and hes telling me Davis has bought land near San Antonio. I told him there is no way he leaves the SoCal fan base for the Chargers. He agreed. Im fairly certain the Raiders will sign a 1yr deal, stay in Oakland (cause they have to. Relocation filing is not transferable) and use the land as leverage for a new or upgraded stadium. Edited January 15, 2016 by tazinib1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin_Akie Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Here is the rub, there is no attendance problem in Jacksonville. As for giving up 1 home game to London... that was,a brilliant move by Khan. The Jags make more money on that 1 game than any other team makes on their home games. I have no issue with it as long as the Jags stay in Jax. 7 home games is just fine, and the Jags give a face to the city, which by the way has been booming since the Jags arrival. I always thought the issue with Jacksonville was revenue, they didn't struggle for attendance but mainly because they were giving away free or $5 tickets on campus to get fans in the stadium. So they were never at the bottom in numbers but weren't producing piles of cash for the league to be shared, could be wrong and it seems they've turned many casual fans into more consistent followers. Plus playing one game per year in London takes the pressure off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelredd9 Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 They do? I thought there was virtually zero public support in Oakland and have not heard of any solid proposals from the city to build a stadium, at least one that will work for Davis (he doesn't have the Wal-Mart billions to build his own stadium like Kroenke). I was basing that on what Andrew Brandt wrote: "owners were quite impressed with Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf in her presentation in November to keep the Raiders." It wouldn't surprise me if Davis has wanted to stay in Oakland all along. He'll keep threatening to move until he gets a nice stadium deal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.