Skip to content

Demoff says there’s no “hidden meaning” in decision to scrap London games

Kevin Demoff, Les Snead AP

After the Rams announced on Monday the decision to scrap a plan to play London home games in 2013 and 2014, MDS astutely pointed out that the Rams may have given on that point now in order to make it easier for the Rams to point a finger at the Convention and Visitors Commission later.

Rams COO Kevin Demoff, in an appearance on The Morning After on 590 The Fan in St. Louis, disputed the notion that there’s a deeper agenda to the reduction of the London inventory from three homes games to one.

In so doing, he paid us a compliment.  We think.

“I think everybody will try to find hidden meanings in anything in the world, and ProFootballTalk is especially good at that,” Demoff said.  “[PFT] covers the NFL very well and takes a different perspective, which is why they generate so many page views.  But I think to try to find hidden meaning in this — we didn’t go to the CVC and say, “We’re gonna pull this two games back, what do you think?  Or what’s the challenge?’  We made this decision with the NFL in order that we could focus on this process.  And I think for anybody to look far beyond ‘the timing was wrong’ is looking for something that’s not in play.”

But what does it mean to “focus on the process”?  It reasonably could mean that the Rams realized that playing the games in London could have a major impact on the P.R. portion of the process, which when dealing with pro sports franchises necessarily is a big part of any process in which the team is involved.

Indeed, in the inherently complex game of public relations involving a general public that may not have the time or inclination to study the nuances, the idea that the Rams made a fan-friendly move will resonate throughout the process of getting the stadium into the top 25 percent of all venues in the league, as required by the team’s lease.  If the Rams had followed through on the plans to export one regular-season game per year to London for each of the next three years, it would have been harder to get the fans to focus on the situation from the team’s perspective:  The CVC agreed in 1995 to a procedure for putting the Rams in a first-tier stadium by 2015, and the failure to make that happen will be the result of a decision by the CVC, not the Rams.

And so, if the CVC ultimately decides not to implement the final ruling of a panel of arbitrators who’ll determine what it will take to make the Edward Jones Dome a first-tier stadium, the Rams will have to decide whether to pull the plug on their lease after the 2014 season and potentially relocate.  By positioning the fan base to blame an ultimate move not on the Rams but on the CVC, the CVC has less cover for looking at the final decision from the arbitration and saying, “No thanks.”

There’s also a chance that the decision to scuttle the two London games came not from the P.R. department but from legal.  With three neutral arbitrators soon determining what it will take to make the stadium a first-tier venue, the Rams have now slammed the door on the possibility that the CVC would try to taint (yes, Beavis, I said “taint”) the panel by arguing that the Rams are lobbying for renovations so extensive and expensive in the hopes of a ruling that the CVC will be unable to accept, which then will open the door for a move to Los Angeles.  Or to London.  Or to anywhere but St. Louis.

We don’t expect Demoff to admit that there’s a strategy more intricate than “the timing was wrong,” especially since Demoff and the rest of the organization are smart enough to have realized that “the timing was wrong” before deciding to play one home game per year in London for each of what could be the final three years of the team’s lease.

The Rams and the CVC currently are playing high-stakes poker at the highest level of pro sports.  When it comes to Monday’s announcement, there’s got to be something more than something that was obvious before the decision to play three home games in London was made.

Permalink 13 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, St. Louis Rams, Top Stories
13 Responses to “Demoff says there’s no “hidden meaning” in decision to scrap London games”
  1. thegreatgabbert says: Aug 14, 2012 10:58 AM

    Kevin want you to “read [his] lips”, there is no hidden meaning. But with that goofy, crooked, Flounder mouth, that’s easier said than done.

  2. realitypolice says: Aug 14, 2012 11:04 AM

    Smart move by Demoff praising PFT. You’ve officially seen the last negative article about the Rams ever.

  3. mancave001 says: Aug 14, 2012 11:05 AM

    I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and falls under the blanket of NFL news I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it!

  4. lightcleric says: Aug 14, 2012 11:07 AM

    You’d think “playing home games on another continent that will never have an NFL team instead of at home in front of our fans” would be all the reasoning they need.

    If we’re going to play outside the US, go to Canada first.

  5. The Overtime Sports Talk Show says: Aug 14, 2012 11:10 AM

    nope, the obvious mean is that they suck. No way the owner is going to take his team overseas to lose and lose big..cost too much..

  6. spartan822 says: Aug 14, 2012 11:14 AM

    The not-so-hidden meaning is that it sucks for any NFL team to have to fly across the ocean to play a game, especially when it’s supposed to be one of their home games.

  7. chrisdacommish says: Aug 14, 2012 11:27 AM

    Yeah, what he said….^

  8. sj39 says: Aug 14, 2012 11:35 AM

    Stan has been quietly buying up real estate in the St. Louis area, both in the County and the City. Some of the properties such as West Port Plaza and it’s hotel are obviously investments in the area, not locations for a new stadium. Others however such as Union Station and some of the other properties he is rumored to be looking at (The Bottle District and the site of the old Chrysler plant) would all be perfect locations for his own building, which is what he really wants. The LA deal would require him to sell off a significant portion of the team for a sweetheart price – forget that, Stan collects sports franchises, he doesn’t sell them. I expect the CVC will not meet the requirement, Stan will opt for the year-to-year lease and build his own palace. The only question will be is it going to be in Downtown St. Louis or St. Louis County as those two separate governments square off vying to get the Rams to choose their municipality. Stan cancelled those London games because he knows he will be in his own building and wants the games here.

  9. sfsaintsfan says: Aug 14, 2012 12:04 PM

    My understanding of the whole London regular season games scenario in the NFL is that a team has to agree to “voluntarily” give up a home game in order to have that game moved to London.

    It is time for the franchises who have taken the hits for the NFL; Arizona, Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, San Francisco and St. Louis to “allow” one of the darlings of the NFL the honor and privilege of “hosting” a game in London.

    I nominate the following games as “home” game hosts of the London games:

    2013: Pittsburgh at New England in London

    2014: New York Jets at Green Bay in London

    Show the people of England some true “home” sports.

  10. robigd says: Aug 14, 2012 12:51 PM

    I think the important thing to take from this is that Weenie Tots turn to dust when exposed to air.

  11. Punk says: Aug 14, 2012 2:15 PM

    I think after losing to the Colts 38-3 the Rams just don’t want the international community to know how BAD they are.

  12. realitypolice says: Aug 14, 2012 3:44 PM

    The NFL can’t move to London. Sports betting is 100% legal there. You can gamble on the event taking place in the stadium while you are in the stadium.

    How would this square with the NFL’s ridiculous stand on sports gambling?

  13. savior72 says: Aug 15, 2012 12:57 PM

    Maybe they just weren’t able to extort enough money from London for those games because money is the bottom line. Always.

Leave a Reply

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