St. Louis, Rams fighting over London game, again

AP

Nearly four years ago, the Rams announced that they would play one game per year over three years in London. The St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission quickly informed the Rams that, under the terms of their lease to play games in the Edward Jones Dome, the Rams couldn’t play games anywhere but there. The two sides eventually worked out a deal to allow the Rams to play a single game in London.

Now, the Rams are scheduled to play another game in London. And the CVC promptly informed the Rams that, if they don’t move away from St. Louis, they can’t move one of the games away from St. Louis.

“We recently became aware that the NFL has selected the Rams to play in London during the 2016 football season, and have designated them the ‘home’ team,” the CVC said in a statement issued Wednesday, via the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “The Rams are on a year-to year lease and have until Jan. 28, 2016 to inform us if they will play the 2016 season at the Edward Jones Dome. We have had no formal discussions with the Rams about their 2016 intentions or a London game in 2016, but if they do play in the Dome in 2016, the terms of the lease remain in effect and provides that all Rams NFL home games (other than preseason) will be played at the Facilities.”

It seems like a gratuitous agitation of the Rams by the CVC, given that the Rams have the right to leave St. Louis after this year — if of course the NFL lets them. The CVC could be banking on indications that either the Rams will lose their current tug-of-whereabouts with the Chargers or that the NFL will kick the relocation can down the road for a year.

Regardless, it’s a strange situation in St. Louis, with a city that could soon lose all Rams games after this season making a big stink out of the possibility of losing only one next season.

54 responses to “St. Louis, Rams fighting over London game, again

  1. How does Goodell/Kraft select which teams play in London? And if it is a privilage, as most Patriot fans seem to think it is, then why a isn’t the nfl letting all teams go? I just want to know when Kraft and Goodell will break up so all teams get fair treatment again.

  2. Only certain teams go and give up a “home” game. I mean if the Patriots and the Cowboys are the face of the NFL then why don’t they go? My guess is that certain owners have more power than others and just say no.

  3. Let this be a lesson to all fans: Goodells marketing strategies do not fully benefit the markets in which teams play. What is happening between the city of St. Louis and Rams/NFL could happen to any team. International games may be profitable to the NFL but to not the home markets.

  4. There should be NO games outside the 32 home facilities in any case.

    The whole concept is asinine.

    …..but then it IS Goddell.

  5. The CVC is simply reiterating it’s contractual language. Why is that news?
    The likelihood of the NFL (the guys that spent umpteen months trying to discern if a ball loses air pressure in the cold), being able to get it’s act together and move an entire organization in a matter of months is quite slim. So the CVC is simply setting the stage for when the Rams come crawling back for another year.

  6. Nice stock photo. I knew the Rams had become a clown show of sorts, but wasn’t aware that they now appear on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Who knew?

  7. The Patriots have been to London twice. The Cowboys were there last year. Of course neither lost a home game. The “powerful” teams (NE DAL NYG NYJ PIT) have never gone to England as a home team. Don’t expect that to change.

  8. Cowboys & Patriots have both been to London, albeit as away teams. But still plenty teams that haven’t been at all. Teams that are ‘Home’ designated have something in common. They can’t sell out their stadiums. Don’t want your team losing a game to London? Go watch and support them on a Sunday instead of moaning about it on the internet.

  9. Dirtbag team, can’t wait until they move to LA and suck in a bigger market. People in LA are going to pay as little attention to them as the people of St. Louis. Fisher getting fired will be enjoyable though, he needs to be removed from the competition committee too.

  10. beachsidejames says:
    Nov 26, 2015 8:49 AM
    Only certain teams go and give up a “home” game. I mean if the Patriots and the Cowboys are the face of the NFL then why don’t they go? My guess is that certain owners have more power than others and just say no.
    =================================
    The teams that send games to London make money on the deal. The Patriots, Cowboys, and Giants would actually lose money by doing it. It’s all about economics, but you knew that. The owners whose teams play games in London willingly do it for $$$$$$$. It has nothing to do with power.

  11. We haven’t been to London since 07 and that was as an away team. Just as it should be. Only the scrubby teams (usual suspects) should go. The rest of the powerful teams you say keep this train running.

  12. 80sbroncofan says:
    Nov 26, 2015 9:31 AM
    Seems like only the terrible teams give up a home game to london
    ——————————————————————-

    Yeah like the Chiefs, who just annihilated your Broncos two weeks ago, and in the process exposed your QB as nothing more than a selfish, record chasing QB who only hurts his team when he’s on the field.

  13. Better yet, why doesn’t 345 Park Ave. move to London…

    Permanently…

    Signed,

    Most NFL fans…

  14. stinkymcmulligan says:
    Nov 26, 2015 8:59 AM
    Why doesn’t the Cowboys or Patriots ever go to London? That’s right.
    ————————————————————–

    Because American patriots fought and won a war with the english and the Cowboys are America’s Team, not the UK’s.

  15. Cowboys played in London last year and won. Get your facts straight haters.

    Sad for the St. Louis Rams Fans. Hope they get to keep their team. Makes more sense because current Raider or San Diego fans would still have a chance to see their team if moved to LA.

  16. TO ALL TEAMS THREATENING TO MOVE IF NO STADIUM:

    Please allow the door to hit you in the ass on the way out. This will help you to get out of town faster.

  17. Regardless of the argument as to whether in-season games should be played in London, there’s a very simple solution to the Rams situation – and to all teams who currently (and in some cases, conveniently) have to play all home games at their normal stadium. Which is this: the NFL writes a letter to the team saying “In the wider interests of marketing the NFL abroad, you are being stripped of a home game next year and have to play an extra away game in London. For the function of the game you may choose jerseys and the other team calls the toss, but in all other aspects (be it practical, technical, legal or contractual) you are an away team and it is an away game for you.”

  18. Doesn’t seem like a “Gratuitous agitation” at all to me considering the millions of dollars in revenue the city will be losing that weekend. These cities are held hostage for these stadiums and the NFL comes in and takes a game away with no compensation to the taxpayers – it’s not right, and this attitude kind if surprises me since florio is all about fairness.

  19. This dispute four years ago is kind of what got the Rams to LA train going in the first place. StanK wants to get his greasy mitts on that London revenue.

    I don’t think I can work up the energy to care this time. One game a year in London is small potatoes compared to where else he wants to take them.

  20. So, these teams want free gold-plated stadiums at the tax payers expense, which will sit idle 90% of the year, then the NFL wants to take away a big revenue maker for the city to recoup its forced investment. Uh, no.

    Having an NFL team is a PR and ego trip for cities, not a real revenue maker. Cities get more revenue by attracting companies that create full time jobs. Stadiums mainly hire part timers at minimum wage with zero benefits.

  21. jchipwood says:
    How does Goodell/Kraft select which teams play in London? And if it is a privilage, as most Patriot fans seem to think it is, then why a isn’t the nfl letting all teams go? I just want to know when Kraft and Goodell will break up so all teams get fair treatment again.
    ________________

    chippy, chippy, chippy…
    All London ‘home’ teams have been volunteers, usually because they don’t make anywhere near as much by playing at their regular venues because either the team, facility or fans suck or in some cases all 3. Which is why your pitiful Dolphins are always willing to go. Historically successful teams such as the Giants, Cowboys, Steelers and Patriots among others, enjoy tremendous succe$$ at home and are not going to voluntarily give up a home date. They don’t need to be a novelty in a foreign city to pack their facilities at high ticket prices.

    In 2011 all 32 of the NFL owners (not Goodell & Kraft) approved a rule that stated visitors could only visit once every five years, the idea being to give a variety of visiting teams the opportunity to expand their individual brand awareness. Although for some reason Detroit was allowed to visit in ’14 & ’15. Beginning next year visiting teams will receive an additional $1M to help offset the additional expense of playing in London.

    I understand Kraft and the big bad Patriots are the monster under little chippy’s bed and offer up these actual facts to calm the little guy’s fears

  22. I don’t believe that Cowboys and Pats if they went would not make big money like the other teams that go. But it is about money and a consideration at hosting a Super bowl. I bet Pat fan season ticket holders would scream bloody murder if they lost a home game to play in Liverpool. As far as keeping that expensive stadium in Dallas closed so the Cowboys could travel and play in Liverpool…not sure that would happen either.

  23. I’m pretty sure the Jags and Rams volunteer to be the home team in London because they make a boatload of money and it helps make up for playing in weak markets.

  24. Only the best teams with consistent winning and good home records over the previous 2-3 years should be sent over to London for a “Home” game. It will then have less of an impact then on the league. Teams like the Patriots, Packers etc for example should be sent over there yearly due to there consistently above average seasons and great home records.

  25. If they are on a year to year lease, and have until January 2016 to inform the lessor that they will play in the dome in St. Louis, then in actuality, they don’t have a lease and they are not in violation of any contract.

  26. miggs21 says:
    Nov 26, 2015 9:13 AM
    Cowboys & Patriots have both been to London, albeit as away teams. But still plenty teams that haven’t been at all. Teams that are ‘Home’ designated have something in common. They can’t sell out their stadiums. Don’t want your team losing a game to London? Go watch and support them on a Sunday instead of moaning about it on the internet.
    —————————-
    Kansas City Chiefs has sold out its stadium for the last 3 decades and they just played a game over there. The Cowboys played their last year and have the largest fan base in the NFL. That has nothing to do with it.

    And sorry Donkey 80s, it’s not just the terrible teams that go as miggs pointed out the Chiefs who annihilated your Donkeys and your selfish QB. The games are scheduled a year in advance and teams that go tend to be projected as “winning teams” as the Lions and Chiefs were both suppose to be. Nice try though.

  27. Does anyone think Stan Kroenke cares what the CVC says is a violation of the lease? He pays 25!K per home game to lease the EJD. Yes you read it right, 25K a game. What’s the worst the CVC will do, kick him out? Kroenke would love that. For those moaning about taxpayers funding a stadium. St Louis has to be the first city in history of the NFL to 1 build a stadium funded by taxpayers with no team to play in it ( Edward Jones Dome ) 2 now want to build a new stadium and the first one is not paid off and the owner of the team does not even want to be in St Louis any longer. St. Louis is a recipe for financial disaster if they build this again, with possibly no team to play there.

  28. LA is a better place for the Rams anyways. And while they are at it keep the old school blue and yellow uniforms. The gold and dark blue ones forever look like 7-9 to me.

  29. So if the Rams lose out in their pursuit to go to LA, they are going to build goodwill with St Louis fans by giving away one of their 8 home games? On the flip side if they go to LA they are going to deprive their home city that has waited 20+ years for a team a home game. Makes no sense. Also from a competitive standpoint it makes zero sense to give up a home game. The Jaguars are giving up a divisional home game against the Colts. No wonder why certain teams always suck. They are run by sucky owners.

  30. Just curious but if every team gets 8 home games and 8 away games, you would think that they could designate BOTH teams as away and thus not rob the fans of a home game…

    Too simple?

  31. Maybe it’s time the NFL consider adding a 17th game to the schedule and designate that as a neutral site game. That would account for games in London and also Mexico City that are supposed to take place next seasons. You can also with the neutral site game have such like Jets-Giants (who share the same stadium) be one where the tickets are divided equally between the game or for instance Giants-Ravens could be played at Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia as a neutral site game as well as games at college stadiums that normally would not see an NFL game (for example Eagles-Steelers at Beaver Stadium in State College that seats 108,000).

    That I think might be the solution.

  32. all i know is making any west coast team (PST) play in London is a joke. Even it out …lets make east coast team play on the west coast with 9pm kick off times (pst)

  33. mrozma says:
    Of course the Patriots don’t never have a home game there. Some form of cheating and bribing is going on. It has to stop.
    _________________

    There are 32 teams, only 10 have ‘hosted’ one of the 14 games played in London. The London ‘home teams’ are all volunteers, they make more money playing there than at home. The teams that play there as visitors actually make less when they go to London due to the increased expenses. Only NE and Detroit have been visitors more than once. 10 teams haven’t played there at all. If the conspiracy theory requires that “Some form of cheating and bribing is going on” take a look at the teams that haven’t gone at all instead of a team that has been a ‘visitor’ twice. The visitors endure the hassle without the reward to show for it. Beginning next year the league will be giving the visiting teams an additional $1M to help offset expenses, probably the only way they could get Irsay to take Indy there.

    Facts can be inconvenient things. Save some of that tin foil for the leftover turkey

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.