st. louis already rejected spending money for a team, which is why the rams left i thought?
I thought the city did pay some money but then the new owner moved them anyway, because he was always going to. Didn’t he have to pay the city back after he moved the team?
st. louis already rejected spending money for a team, which is why the rams left i thought?
I thought the city did pay some money but then the new owner moved them anyway, because he was always going to. Didn’t he have to pay the city back after he moved the team?
basically they were promised a new stadium and it was never delivered so the owner sued to get out of the contract, won, but also had to pay to leave...interesting all around. but also i would think that would make other owners leery of going to st louis
US TV markets larger than Kansas City (34) without an NFL team:
Orlando (15)
Sacramento (20)
Raleigh/Durham (22)
Portland (23)
St. Louis (24)
Salt Lake City (27)
San Diego (30)
San Antonio (31)
Hartford (32)
Columbus (33)
Which doesn't mean much since an owner would move a team to a city that gives them a free $1bn stadium even if it was in fucking Fairbanks, Alaska.
All I know is if they move they should try to beat the Raven's move in cowardice
It's been decades and no owner has tried to do anything like that since
AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
+3
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
US TV markets larger than Kansas City (34) without an NFL team:
Orlando (15)
Sacramento (20)
Raleigh/Durham (22)
Portland (23)
St. Louis (24)
Salt Lake City (27)
San Diego (30)
San Antonio (31)
Hartford (32)
Columbus (33)
Which doesn't mean much since an owner would move a team to a city that gives them a free $1bn stadium even if it was in fucking Fairbanks, Alaska.
Orlando not having a team does feel weird
Sacramento would violate the unwritten "two teams max per state" rule
Charlotte is right there
Portland is too close to Seattle
We just saw how St Louis turned out
SLC is a no because Mormons don't go to things on Sunday
San Diego similar reasons to St Louis
San Antonio similar reasons to Sacramento
Hartford is actually an interesting option
Columbus people already have the misery of the Browns
US TV markets larger than Kansas City (34) without an NFL team:
Orlando (15)
Sacramento (20)
Raleigh/Durham (22)
Portland (23)
St. Louis (24)
Salt Lake City (27)
San Diego (30)
San Antonio (31)
Hartford (32)
Columbus (33)
Which doesn't mean much since an owner would move a team to a city that gives them a free $1bn stadium even if it was in fucking Fairbanks, Alaska.
Columbus is a small market with three other smallish market teams within like two hours drive. With Detroit and Chicago in the neighborhood too. There's not a lot of uncommitted fans.
Ditto Hartford with New England, both New York teams and Buffalo sucking up the oxygen.
California already has three teams but the Chargers are irrelevant and moving to SD might get you a lot of spite fans on day one.
San Antonio looks a lot better on paper when Texas doesn't maybe have the best quarterback of the next generation under contract.
The Southeast is fairly saturated and college football is still a not so small factor when talking NC.
Portland locals and politicians likely make a lot of stink about the name.
Orlando won't but you'd be the fourth team in Florida, which is also cursed.
I think St Louis would work the best.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Yeah, Cali has three, had four. But Florida already has three. I know it's easy to forget.
And while distance isn't really a thing (most of the north east teams are comfortable day trip driving distances from at least one other), Orlando to Tampa being at just over 80 miles would be the closest of two teams that don't share a facility.
Oakland was (under 20 from SF), but that's no longer a thing.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Los Jefes de Mexico City
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
US TV markets larger than Kansas City (34) without an NFL team:
Orlando (15)
Sacramento (20)
Raleigh/Durham (22)
Portland (23)
St. Louis (24)
Salt Lake City (27)
San Diego (30)
San Antonio (31)
Hartford (32)
Columbus (33)
Which doesn't mean much since an owner would move a team to a city that gives them a free $1bn stadium even if it was in fucking Fairbanks, Alaska.
Columbus is a small market with three other smallish market teams within like two hours drive. With Detroit and Chicago in the neighborhood too. There's not a lot of uncommitted fans.
Ditto Hartford with New England, both New York teams and Buffalo sucking up the oxygen.
California already has three teams but the Chargers are irrelevant and moving to SD might get you a lot of spite fans on day one.
San Antonio looks a lot better on paper when Texas doesn't maybe have the best quarterback of the next generation under contract.
The Southeast is fairly saturated and college football is still a not so small factor when talking NC.
Portland locals and politicians likely make a lot of stink about the name.
Orlando won't but you'd be the fourth team in Florida, which is also cursed.
I think St Louis would work the best.
NC could mostly give a flip about college football, it's basketball country. I don't think there is enough to split the fan base with Charlotte though.
US TV markets larger than Kansas City (34) without an NFL team:
Orlando (15)
Sacramento (20)
Raleigh/Durham (22)
Portland (23)
St. Louis (24)
Salt Lake City (27)
San Diego (30)
San Antonio (31)
Hartford (32)
Columbus (33)
Which doesn't mean much since an owner would move a team to a city that gives them a free $1bn stadium even if it was in fucking Fairbanks, Alaska.
Columbus is a small market with three other smallish market teams within like two hours drive. With Detroit and Chicago in the neighborhood too. There's not a lot of uncommitted fans.
Ditto Hartford with New England, both New York teams and Buffalo sucking up the oxygen.
California already has three teams but the Chargers are irrelevant and moving to SD might get you a lot of spite fans on day one.
San Antonio looks a lot better on paper when Texas doesn't maybe have the best quarterback of the next generation under contract.
The Southeast is fairly saturated and college football is still a not so small factor when talking NC.
Portland locals and politicians likely make a lot of stink about the name.
Orlando won't but you'd be the fourth team in Florida, which is also cursed.
I think St Louis would work the best.
NC could mostly give a flip about college football, it's basketball country. I don't think there is enough to split the fan base with Charlotte though.
You're also basically just splitting the Carolinas with the Panthers, you're otherwise surrounded.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
We’re also like equidistant between not just Cleveland and Cincy, but also Pittsburgh, Indy, and Detroit
Besides the Buckeyes, I have 5 pro football teams all within a 2.5 hour drive from me. And 2 more 5 hours away. And 4 more 6 hours away. We can drive to 40% of NFL stadiums and come back after the game on the same day.
Basically what I’m getting at is Columbus is already the center of pro football
We’re also like equidistant between not just Cleveland and Cincy, but also Pittsburgh, Indy, and Detroit
Besides the Buckeyes, I have 5 pro football teams all within a 2.5 hour drive from me. And 2 more 5 hours away. And 4 more 6 hours away. We can drive to 40% of NFL stadiums and come back after the game on the same day.
Basically what I’m getting at is Columbus is already the center of pro football
So, you're the Atlanta Delta Hub of football teams? Prominent for the ability to get the hell out of there and go somewhere interesting?
MorganV on
+7
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
US TV markets larger than Kansas City (34) without an NFL team:
Orlando (15)
Sacramento (20)
Raleigh/Durham (22)
Portland (23)
St. Louis (24)
Salt Lake City (27)
San Diego (30)
San Antonio (31)
Hartford (32)
Columbus (33)
Which doesn't mean much since an owner would move a team to a city that gives them a free $1bn stadium even if it was in fucking Fairbanks, Alaska.
The Rams new Stadium in LA was financed privately. Kroenke wasn't chasing public money, he was chasing the chance at the second-largest sports market in the country and in hindsight it was ridiculous that the NFL didn't have a home team in that market as long as it did.
Not apologizing for Kroenke who is still a piece of shit, but I feel its important to point out that its possible to attract a pro sports franchise without gifting them billions of public dollars.
And what owner would consider San Antonio without being gifted a stadium from public money?
If this were to play out a la the Kansas City Oakland Athletics, the team already tried to get the local municipal sack-o-cash. They could have tried to finance their own and didn't.
Some think part of the issue was that the extension was tied to both teams. And that if they'd been separated it might have turned out differently. No word on which team would have benefitted more favorably.
Either way, I expect the Chiefs to try again for public funding and succeed (They're a good team!) and the Royals end up in Portland or Buffalo or Albuquerque or some other place (Because they suck!)
US TV markets larger than Kansas City (34) without an NFL team:
Orlando (15)
Sacramento (20)
Raleigh/Durham (22)
Portland (23)
St. Louis (24)
Salt Lake City (27)
San Diego (30)
San Antonio (31)
Hartford (32)
Columbus (33)
Which doesn't mean much since an owner would move a team to a city that gives them a free $1bn stadium even if it was in fucking Fairbanks, Alaska.
The Rams new Stadium in LA was financed privately. Kroenke wasn't chasing public money, he was chasing the chance at the second-largest sports market in the country and in hindsight it was ridiculous that the NFL didn't have a home team in that market as long as it did.
Not apologizing for Kroenke who is still a piece of shit, but I feel its important to point out that its possible to attract a pro sports franchise without gifting them billions of public dollars.
I dunno, I think the use of it as bait was very important. How many teams got public funding for new stadiums because the demands were "or we'll move to L.A."?
But also, while L.A. might be a large market, it didn't have a great history with turning that market share into dollars.
I mean, if it wasn't for the McVay miracle run (one losing season, five playoffs, two SB and a ring), would anyone really give a shit about the Rams who wasn't already invested?
The Chargers frequently get outnumbered by their opponent's fans.
Having a big market doesn't matter that much if the audience aren't interested. And given how many people in LA are transplants, they often bring their teams with them.
So while it was weird that they didn't get a team for as long as they did, it doesn't surprise me.
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
The Chargers are another story because they headed North with their tail in between their legs and had to beg for couch space from the Rams; a team that used to call LA home after all
The Chargers are another story because they headed North with their tail in between their legs and had to beg for couch space from the Rams; a team that used to call LA home after all
Yeah the San Diego Chargers were never going to have a lot of fans in Los Angeles. LA and SD do not have high opinions of one another.
+3
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
The Chargers are another story because they headed North with their tail in between their legs and had to beg for couch space from the Rams; a team that used to call LA home after all
Yeah the San Diego Chargers were never going to have a lot of fans in Los Angeles. LA and SD do not have high opinions of one another.
And the Rams planned their move for years while it seemed the Chargers ownership always expected that SD officials would cave and LA was a hastily planned option B.
Rodgers did a podcast were he Rodger'd it up. So, fuck that asshole. No more mentions until he at least takes a fifth snap.
omg I looked up the transcript and that guy is so far off the deep-end that I'm drowning in self-righteousness being proven right for hating the guy the entire time he was on the Packers. He always seemed so slimy to me and I was fucking correct from the beginning
Hey, guys! Brady totes wants to honour the mega-million FOX broadcast contract!
But, hey, you know, if any winning team wants to sign him for a playoff run, he'd be interested.
Here's the deal, Tom... You retire, and then we all move on to the next hotness. And you can spend the rest of eternity being called the GOAT because you won so many Super Bowls. Even if somebody comes along and collects better overall stats than you. Because team-backed results are the only thing that will matter, somehow. Cool?
Posts
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I thought the city did pay some money but then the new owner moved them anyway, because he was always going to. Didn’t he have to pay the city back after he moved the team?
Why not both?
huh, yeah the story is more interesting than i thought
https://everythingmidwest.com/why-did-rams-leave-st-louis/
basically they were promised a new stadium and it was never delivered so the owner sued to get out of the contract, won, but also had to pay to leave...interesting all around. but also i would think that would make other owners leery of going to st louis
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
Orlando (15)
Sacramento (20)
Raleigh/Durham (22)
Portland (23)
St. Louis (24)
Salt Lake City (27)
San Diego (30)
San Antonio (31)
Hartford (32)
Columbus (33)
Which doesn't mean much since an owner would move a team to a city that gives them a free $1bn stadium even if it was in fucking Fairbanks, Alaska.
It's been decades and no owner has tried to do anything like that since
Sacramento would violate the unwritten "two teams max per state" rule
Charlotte is right there
Portland is too close to Seattle
We just saw how St Louis turned out
SLC is a no because Mormons don't go to things on Sunday
San Diego similar reasons to St Louis
San Antonio similar reasons to Sacramento
Hartford is actually an interesting option
Columbus people already have the misery of the Browns
Columbus is a small market with three other smallish market teams within like two hours drive. With Detroit and Chicago in the neighborhood too. There's not a lot of uncommitted fans.
Ditto Hartford with New England, both New York teams and Buffalo sucking up the oxygen.
California already has three teams but the Chargers are irrelevant and moving to SD might get you a lot of spite fans on day one.
San Antonio looks a lot better on paper when Texas doesn't maybe have the best quarterback of the next generation under contract.
The Southeast is fairly saturated and college football is still a not so small factor when talking NC.
Portland locals and politicians likely make a lot of stink about the name.
Orlando won't but you'd be the fourth team in Florida, which is also cursed.
I think St Louis would work the best.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I literally forgot that Tampa Bay and Jacksonville exist
Great googly moogly.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Yeah, Cali has three, had four. But Florida already has three. I know it's easy to forget.
And while distance isn't really a thing (most of the north east teams are comfortable day trip driving distances from at least one other), Orlando to Tampa being at just over 80 miles would be the closest of two teams that don't share a facility.
Oakland was (under 20 from SF), but that's no longer a thing.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
NC could mostly give a flip about college football, it's basketball country. I don't think there is enough to split the fan base with Charlotte though.
You're also basically just splitting the Carolinas with the Panthers, you're otherwise surrounded.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
We’re also like equidistant between not just Cleveland and Cincy, but also Pittsburgh, Indy, and Detroit
Besides the Buckeyes, I have 5 pro football teams all within a 2.5 hour drive from me. And 2 more 5 hours away. And 4 more 6 hours away. We can drive to 40% of NFL stadiums and come back after the game on the same day.
Basically what I’m getting at is Columbus is already the center of pro football
So, you're the Atlanta Delta Hub of football teams? Prominent for the ability to get the hell out of there and go somewhere interesting?
The Rams new Stadium in LA was financed privately. Kroenke wasn't chasing public money, he was chasing the chance at the second-largest sports market in the country and in hindsight it was ridiculous that the NFL didn't have a home team in that market as long as it did.
Not apologizing for Kroenke who is still a piece of shit, but I feel its important to point out that its possible to attract a pro sports franchise without gifting them billions of public dollars.
If this were to play out a la the Kansas City Oakland Athletics, the team already tried to get the local municipal sack-o-cash. They could have tried to finance their own and didn't.
Some think part of the issue was that the extension was tied to both teams. And that if they'd been separated it might have turned out differently. No word on which team would have benefitted more favorably.
Either way, I expect the Chiefs to try again for public funding and succeed (They're a good team!) and the Royals end up in Portland or Buffalo or Albuquerque or some other place (Because they suck!)
I dunno, I think the use of it as bait was very important. How many teams got public funding for new stadiums because the demands were "or we'll move to L.A."?
But also, while L.A. might be a large market, it didn't have a great history with turning that market share into dollars.
I mean, if it wasn't for the McVay miracle run (one losing season, five playoffs, two SB and a ring), would anyone really give a shit about the Rams who wasn't already invested?
The Chargers frequently get outnumbered by their opponent's fans.
Having a big market doesn't matter that much if the audience aren't interested. And given how many people in LA are transplants, they often bring their teams with them.
So while it was weird that they didn't get a team for as long as they did, it doesn't surprise me.
Yeah the San Diego Chargers were never going to have a lot of fans in Los Angeles. LA and SD do not have high opinions of one another.
And the Rams planned their move for years while it seemed the Chargers ownership always expected that SD officials would cave and LA was a hastily planned option B.
Edit: This thread is a good explanation of why his criminal acquittal was celebrated, particularly in the Black community. It's worth reading.
Fuck...cancer?? Maybe not, this one time.
somehow still NFL related
Nah, fuck cancer.
Sometimes bothsideserism is appropriate.
Like Wagner marching on Moscow.
Or McCarthy v Gaetz.
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
Rodgers did a podcast were he Rodger'd it up. So, fuck that asshole. No more mentions until he at least takes a fifth snap.
omg I looked up the transcript and that guy is so far off the deep-end that I'm drowning in self-righteousness being proven right for hating the guy the entire time he was on the Packers. He always seemed so slimy to me and I was fucking correct from the beginning
But, hey, you know, if any winning team wants to sign him for a playoff run, he'd be interested.
Here's the deal, Tom... You retire, and then we all move on to the next hotness. And you can spend the rest of eternity being called the GOAT because you won so many Super Bowls. Even if somebody comes along and collects better overall stats than you. Because team-backed results are the only thing that will matter, somehow. Cool?