Skip to content

Rams now move to top of L.A. list

play_r_la-rams_mb_576

Sorry, Rams fans.  But it’s true.

With the Vikings’ stadium effort officially at the one-yard line with first down and goal and a five-man defense facing a 20-man offense, a new team must slide to the top of the “most likely to land in L.A.” list.

And it’s the Rams.

The biggest concern for folks in St. Louis should be the not-so-subtle sense of ambivalence that the Rams are projecting regarding the question of whether they stay where they are or move to L.A. or move to Toronto or move to even London.

Speaking of London, the team has justified its desire to play one home game per year there for the next three seasons by pointing to the possibility that the exposure will make the Rams a national franchise.  Though the connection between the two may not be as clear as the Rams think or hope it will be, a move to the No. 2 market in the U.S.A. would be much more likely to thrust the Rams into  the small group of franchises that transcend the town and state in which they play.

None of this means the Rams will move.  But given the current posture of their lease at the Edward Jones Dome and the strong possibility of an upgrade impasse that will allow them to walk away in 2015, the Rams are the team to watch — unless and until they work out a new deal to stay in an improved venue in St. Louis.

For more commentary destined to depress folks in Missouri, here’s a slice of Thursday’s PFT Live.

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!
Permalink 28 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, St. Louis Rams
28 Responses to “Rams now move to top of L.A. list”
  1. dan7800 says: May 11, 2012 8:36 AM

    Toronto does not want a team. They have a CFL team. They care as much about the NFL as we do about the CFL.

    Enough threats for moving a team to LA. LA had several teams and lost them all. If Goodell forces a team to LA, that will be one reason not to watch the NFL.

  2. bumbler19 says: May 11, 2012 9:18 AM

    Hey, let’s move back…

    Go away L.A. if two teams have left you. Nobody likes you.

  3. dspyank2k11 says: May 11, 2012 9:19 AM

    N O
    N O
    N O
    Booo L.A.

  4. vikingsinla says: May 11, 2012 9:29 AM

    This gives me an idea for a new moniker!

  5. skinningcats says: May 11, 2012 9:37 AM

    Maybe the folks in St Louis can handle the extortion artists from the NFL better than the fan boy/bought off legislators in Minnesota. Or Santa Clara. Or New Jersey. Or…well you get the idea.

    I just got done reading the Star Trib about the REAL cost for the City of Minneapolis in this fleecing. (no surprise there’s no link to it here at PFT) Not only do they have to pay $150 million up front to build this monument to mediocracy named the Vikings, but they are also on the hook for maintenance and “first tier facility” upgrades. The idiot Mayor Ryback even admits it will be closer to $700 million the city will be spending over the next 20 years. $700 MILLION!

    It’s no wonder the taxpayers wanted to vote it down in a City Charter mandated referendum. Thats why the State Legislature has decreed the voters in Minneapolis need to be disenfranchised.

    One really has to wonder if we are living in the democratic USA anymore. It is almost a certainty that de Tocqueville’s “great experiment” has devolved into a third world kleptocracy.

  6. lmh1194 says: May 11, 2012 9:39 AM

    As a Vikings fan, its nice to not have the Vikings on this list….They belong in Minnesota in the NFC North with Green Bay, Chicago and Detroit.

  7. justwinbaby4life says: May 11, 2012 9:44 AM

    Why are the ahead of the Raiders and Chargers?

    The Rams have to deal with their current lease and the potential remodel proposal to Edward Jones Stadium.

    The Raiders lease ends next year and they haven’t been able to secure a stadium in the Bay Area. And their not gonna share with the 49ers. Did you know the Raiders are the only team that has never had their own stadium? Plus, if you live in the LA area you know the Raiders are still the favorite team there. All of the stickers, car flags, and the jerseys worn year round!

    The Chargers can declare to move every spring if they want to per their lease.

    Florio and PFT, please look at all of the teams situations and what is more likely to happen before you declare who is a front runner.

    Little secret about the Rams, when they were in SoCal they were more of an OC team like the Angels than a true LA team.

  8. effedinLA says: May 11, 2012 9:49 AM

    So when did the Chargers drop off the list again?

  9. tombradysponytail says: May 11, 2012 10:00 AM

    It will be interesting to see if you get as many “LA Rams” (that sounds familiar for some reason…) comments as you had “LA Vikings” commenters…

    I suspect not.

  10. steelymcbeam6 says: May 11, 2012 10:06 AM

    Why not the jags? I don’t know their lease with the city situation but it seems like a good idea. The dozens of people that show up to their games probably wouldn’t notice after a couple of weeks

  11. jpaq68 says: May 11, 2012 10:15 AM

    Why not the Bills? After old man Wilson takes the big dirt nap the vultures from L.A. will swwop down on Buffalo and take that team from them.

  12. AlohaMrHand says: May 11, 2012 10:36 AM

    is this a threat to St Louis or LA?At this point the way Goodell is running the NFL id be wary of even wanting a team in my city.

  13. lokm88 says: May 11, 2012 10:40 AM

    Love my Rams, but if they move back after giving up legit home games to London and this flirting here then I will have to focus all of my passion and $$ to Mizzou football.

  14. ramsinmissouri says: May 11, 2012 10:45 AM

    FYI Mike: there is nothing true about your statement. It is merely your opinion, based on little of nothing. And it is wrong.

  15. kane337 says: May 11, 2012 10:55 AM

    I personally would like to see the Rams back in L.A. I don’t live there nor am I a fan but it just seems fitting they are the team that goes to L.A.

  16. superjroch says: May 11, 2012 10:57 AM

    It’s funny that you still think the NFL is going to let any team move to L.A. I have 3 words for you: Ex. Pan. Shun.

    That’s what the NFL wants.

  17. permiepdx says: May 11, 2012 12:38 PM

    The current stadium opened in November ’95. How often does one need a new stadium?
    If taxpayers are asked to help fund a new stadium, hopefully they would balk at the idea. The city of St. Louis still owes over $38,000,000 on the bond issued.
    Perhaps the Rams will realize at some point that the season ticket and vacant seat problem is the quality of the product and not the quality of the venue.

  18. ramchief says: May 11, 2012 1:40 PM

    So do Rams fans now get to read a article everyday for the next three years about how the team is moving. The only London game that’s actually happening right now is the one this year because of the amendment of the lease with the EJD. And the stadium negotiations just started in St. Louis. And they wouldn’t be able to move until the 2015 season anyway. I don’t think the developers in LA want to wait that long to find out if they can get a team. It could happen but I would be looking at teams already in CA too be more likely.

  19. rams1999 says: May 11, 2012 4:46 PM

    thats right….they coming back to town. Thank you Minnesota for approving stadium…i was sad when they left but they WILL be the L.A. Rams.

  20. wberg21 says: May 11, 2012 5:13 PM

    With the pending head injury law suits none of this is going to matter. As a lifelong (hard core) NFL fan I really think the NFL will go under in a few years. Pro football will survive, but the league and cities will be completely restructured. I see the league going from 32 teams to about 25. Several cities will be left on the outside. LA or STL (maybe both) will be one of them. Good luck NFL.

  21. NoHomeTeam says: May 11, 2012 5:27 PM

    superjroch says: “It’s funny that you still think the NFL is going to let any team move to L.A. I have 3 words for you: Ex. Pan. Shun.
    That’s what the NFL wants.”
    **********************
    I’ve addressed this at length in other threads, but it bears repeating. I’ll try to keep this short. “Ex Pan Shun” is not what the NFL wants. Expansion to an uneven number of teams (33) would radically disrupt Conference and Division alignments, as well as causing substantial scheduling dilemmas in the regular season and, more importantly, in the playoffs. Additionally, it doesn’t make economic sense for the League to expand for the foreseeable future. While there would be a substantial expansion fee levied against any new owner, adding a team reduces the overall share of the League’s earnings/team. It’s a one-time windfall vs. a smaller share of the pie every year thereafter. My guess is that not many owners would make that choice.

  22. NoHomeTeam says: May 11, 2012 5:32 PM

    . . . anybody else notice their posts disappearing? Not going down the “RRRARRGH, I’m being censored!!!” avenue, but I’ve had two posts go missing — no profanity, and nothing I think would qualify as “offensive”

    Does this board not care for Cut-Pastes, maybe?

  23. NoHomeTeam says: May 11, 2012 7:32 PM

    dan7800 says: “ . . . Enough threats for moving a team to LA. LA had several teams and lost them all. If Goodell forces a team to LA, that will be one reason not to watch the NFL.

    bumbler19 says: “ . . .Go away L.A. if two teams have left you. Nobody likes you.”

    dspyank2k11 says: “ . . . N O N O N O Booo L.A.”

    ******************
    I get so tired of fighting ignorance.

    I fail to see why the departure of the Raiders and the Rams was somehow justified to so many of you. Los Angeles no more “lost” those teams than Baltimore “lost” the Colts, Cleveland “lost” the Browns, or, fittingly, that St. Louis “lost” the Cardinals. The owners of those franchises were popularly vilified when they managed to negotiate lucrative stadium deals from new cities and moved their teams, but the prevailing opinion I see voiced here is that “L.A.” as an abstract entity bears culpability for the actions of Al Davis and Georgia Frontiere.

    If Stan Kroenke can extract the concessions he wants from the city of St. Louis, then he will keep the team in place; if he can’t, then he will in all likelihood move the team. It won’t mean that St. Louis didn’t “deserve” a franchise, or that the city “didn’t support” the Rams; it will mean that the owner of a football team has placed his own interests above those of the community – the same as Every. Other. Time. A team has relocated.

    Your horse is too high. Time to get down.

  24. jimmylions says: May 11, 2012 7:33 PM

    I’m thinking right now, the Chargers are at the top of the list to move to LA.

    On a practical level, the political climate in San Diego is not inclined give the Chargers a new stadium. There’s a lot of Chargers fans in the LA area (especially OC).

    However, I don’t think the Chargers moving to LA would bring as much excitement as the Raiders or Rams returning to LA.

    The City of LA would love to have the Raiders come back to town, but the Raiders proper home is in Oakland. We’ll have to see what happens when the Raider’s lease runs out – without Al Davis running the show it’s a different ballgame.

    There’s a lot of strong sentiment for the Rams to come back to LA. But doesn’t St. Louis have their hooks into the Rams so deep that the team really can’t move?

    Don’t forget that there are two LA/So Cal stadium deals in the works. There’s Farmer’s Field in downtown (the AEG deal), which is getting closer and closer to looking like a done deal. There’s also the City of Industry (Orange County) stadium plan, which isn’t totally dead yet.

    Not that I expect this to happen, but if it turns out that the Chargers and Rams come to LA — Chargers will probably play in Industry and the Rams will play in downtown.

    And Irwindale might still write a check for a shot at hosting the Raiders!

  25. peoplesrepublic0fdabayarea says: May 11, 2012 11:32 PM

    LMFAO….city of industry is NOWHERE NEAR orange county!!!

  26. bootspur says: May 12, 2012 9:27 PM

    Well, being nearly 52 I am one of those guy’s who still cannot utter Saint Louis Rams, anymore than I can say Arizona Cardinals, OR New England Patriots (which never should have been allowed) They are the Boston Patriots…
    >
    All of that said, that area does not need two teams with Kansas City Kansas, and Kansas City Missouri only 250 miles away since the Chiefs have largely owned that State for ever.. Plus the Rams are the most unappreciated franchise within the NFL juggernaut.

  27. bootspur says: May 12, 2012 9:44 PM

    Then again, how many MORE shots does the NFL provide the PSYCHOPATHIC city of Los Angeles?? There have already been to stellar teams in the swill hole, are they going to place a third one in there long enough for L.A. to slobber all over it like a baby’s rattle, then decide they aren’t in it FOR REAL, again only to loose a 3rd Franchise?? An NFL franchise is the most prestigious sports property anywhere in the U.S.A. why hand one to a bunch of self-indulgent children?? Let alone 2? Or maybe 3???

  28. bootspur says: May 12, 2012 9:46 PM

    Two stellar teams… the “w” key is sticking.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!