DOUBLE TAKE: Is relocation the right move?
Matt’s Take:
In the words of Jon Bon Jovi, “who says you can’t go home?”
Well, in the case of the once-again Los Angeles Rams, you certainly can.
Most know the Rams to be from Los Angeles, given the team played in the City of Angels from 1946 until 1994 before moving to St. Louis. For the first 10 years of their existence, the Rams called Cleveland home as part of the American Football League.
As in most cases, a squabble over money led to Rams owner Stan Kroenke pulling the plug on his teams tenure in St. Louis. With a quickness, Kroenke purchased land outside of Los Angeles with plans to pack up the moving trucks and move his team to Inglewood.
While many are raving about the Rams returning to Los Angeles, I feel for the fans.
While I’m not old enough to remember the days of the Cleveland Rams, I am old enough to know what it feels like to have a greedy owner rip your team from you.
See, as a Cleveland native, I have too many not-so-fond memories of Art Modell yanking the Browns out of Cleveland and moving them to Baltimore in 1995. As a fan, losing the team you root for is something that’s hard to explain.
Yes, I understand the Rams were taken from the fans in Los Angeles. But two wrongs don’t make a right. If anything, Los Angeles could have been awarded an expansion team. Expansion equals increased revenues.
Not only have the Rams relocated, the San Diego Chargers have the opportunity to join the Rams in Los Angeles. Oh yeah, and don’t forget about the Oakland Raiders who could call San Antonio home in the near future.
When it comes to relocating a team, everyone wins except the fans that used to fill the hometown stands.
Andrew’s Take:
No one would trade the Pacific Ocean for the Missouri River.
I don’t even like Los Angeles. I just don’t understand the positive trajectory that has been created for the Rams franchise by relocating.
If you have to take time to consider which market is more suitable for an NFL team, you’ve already lost, even before you come to the ultimate losing answer: St. Louis.
I understand the whole “what about the fans” sentiment, but they’re the fools who’ve decided to stay in Missouri.
Are we supposed to wait for another dome collapse to leverage a new stadium? I can’t believe the Vikings stayed in Minnesota after that disaster. Could you imagine if the Metrodome imploded with a bunch of purple-clad Vikings in the seats?
The Rams are lucky to be moving to Los Angeles, even if they have to play in the decrepit Coliseum or the dilapidated Rose Bowl for the next few seasons. The Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers did everything in their power to make the same move. Regardless of stadium status, Los Angeles is a better market and the franchise is better off. Period.
I think the Rams’ move, as compared to the Raiders/Bolts combo, is a much better situation. I’m not saying that Los Angeles can’t handle two teams, I just think it’s smarter to introduce one team at a time.
Now the Chargers have one year to decide whether to keep pushing for LA. I can’t imagine that Angelenos will be ready to follow a second football team after rallying behind the Rams.
I think the Chargers will realize this, and that a new stadium in San Diego will be the answer.
Oakland is a lost cause for all teams involved. The Raiders need to move to San Antonio, where Red McCombs has promised the finances necessary to move to Central Texas.