Okay how come I never hear how st louis lost two NFL teams?

[LA RAM FAN]

so that being said,as i said,it is incredible how after i debunked they myth that LA never supported the Rams "the raiders yes,that cannot be refuted as i just proved" but the Rams were always in the top five in league attendance the majority of their time they were in LA.you dont survive for 49 years as they did before moving to st louis if you were supported so badly out there after all as the myth goes. the Raiders they only lasted in LA for a dozen years there because THEY were NOT supported at all there with half empty crowds all the time. even the year they won the superbowl for their first home game,the next year,this was their attendance that season for that game.lol
September 9, 1984 Green Bay Packers W 28–7 46,269
all documented,you can look it up yourself.
then their FIRST game in LA even after winning the superbowl in oakland their last season there the previous season,this was their attendance for THAT game.
San Diego Chargers W 28–24 Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum 42,162
the OAKLAND Raiders might have won a superbowl in LA but clearly nobody in LA cared.

that was WHY the entire time they were in LA,they were never on monday night football.they drew so poorly. Dan Dierrof who did monday night games commented a year ago that in his entire time doing monday night football from the early 80's to 95 their last season in LA,the raiders never once had a home game on monday night football. The Rams on the other hand,when they played in the same facility the LA coliseum in the 70's,they had MANY monday night football games because they DID draw very well.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

matter of fact of all the teams that relocated,the rams,raiders,cardinals,colts,oilers and browns,of all those teams that moved after being in their cities for so long the cardinals are the only team of that bunch where the move was justified because of horrible fan support.st louis has never been a football town and has never supported football.Other than when they had kurt warner and they were good,they were always in the bottom of the league in attendance. their last few years they were in st louis,they were either dead last or second to dead last with jacksonville the only one that was worse than them. I know many folks here in the midewest who went to ram games there and they all would say the same thing,the fans would not be into those games at alll,they would just be sitting down and not yelling or anything,not into the game at all.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yep, lambsfan won't talk directly to me me because he is a chicken, he is not a man, he is a wimp, a liar, a coward. Translation...I own the bitch's ass! Lol!

 

[P@triot]

At the end of the day - pretty much every city has lost their team at some point. Baltimore lost the Colts to Indianapolis. Cleveland lost the Browns to Baltimore. Oakland lost the Raiders to L.A. L.A. then lost the Raiders back to Oakland. St. Louis lost the Cardinals to Arizona. L.A. then lost the Rams to St. Louis.

In every case - it was not a reflection on the city or their fans. It was a reflection on the failure of ownership and/or their extreme greed. Al Davis had tremendous success and support in Oakland. He just thought the bright lights and big city of L.A. would bring him untold billions. When it failed to materialize like his small brain fantasized about - what did he do? Took his team back to Oakland. Obviously the city and the fan support couldn't have been that bad or he would have never gone back.

Personally - I think the NFL is killing themselves. They've obliterated fan loyalty. I believe the future of the NFL (if it is to have one) is the Green Bay Packer model. If the city owns the team - they will be completely vested in it. No chance of it going anywhere and the fans will be more loyal because of it.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

At the end of the day - pretty much every city has lost their team at some point. Baltimore lost the Colts to Indianapolis. Cleveland lost the Browns to Baltimore. Oakland lost the Raiders to L.A. L.A. then lost the Raiders back to Oakland. St. Louis lost the Cardinals to Arizona. L.A. then lost the Rams to St. Louis.

In every case - it was not a reflection on the city or their fans. It was a reflection on the failure of ownership and/or their extreme greed. Al Davis had tremendous success and support in Oakland. He just thought the bright lights and big city of L.A. would bring him untold billions. When it failed to materialize like his small brain fantasized about - what did he do? Took his team back to Oakland. Obviously the city and the fan support couldn't have been that bad or he would have never gone back.

Personally - I think the NFL is killing themselves. They've obliterated fan loyalty. I believe the future of the NFL (if it is to have one) is the Green Bay Packer model. If the city owns the team - they will be completely vested in it. No chance of it going anywhere and the fans will be more loyal because of it.

of all the vistors that have posted on this thread,YOURS is easily hands down,the only intellient and objective post here.

You are so correct,in EVERY case of those teams leaving it was not a reflection on the city or their fans support it was a reflection of the ownership greed.you also left out the Oilers leaving Houston which was exactly the same case as all the others,of bad fan support of the city but because of ownership GREED. Yeah thats what I was saying earlier is that LA never supported the Raiders when they were there.the LA coliseum had only half empty stadiums when the Raiders were playing there.even when they were good they were never embraced out there in LA.

That is why after being there for just a few years that Al Davis made the comment that he missed the roar of the loud crowds in Oakland realising that was the worst mistake he made thinking they would be embraced out there with the same loyaly they had in Oakland.

That was the same case with the Rams,as you saw in those videos,they always packed the house for games in LA for the Rams when they were there.as you saw from the first video,even against a crappy team like the cardinals they drew well who indeed were very crappy that year.

That was what I was saying ealier,posters around here are ignorant,they dont understand that it was only the RAIDERS that were never supported well in LA when they were there,that was not the case with the Rams at all though as my first two posts proved.

Everybody around here always says BS that the Rams were never supported well in LA yet they never say ONE WORD how they were never supported well in st louis at all when they first arrived.they NEVER comment how when the rams first arrived in st louis,how nobody in st louis wanted them same as nobody in LA wanted the Raiders because just like it was for the raiders in LA,the Rams when they first got there and were horrible,that stadium had half crowds all the time same as the Raiders did when they were in LA but they never mention that here.they seem biased towards st louis for some reason even though they were dead last in attendance around the NFL the last several years or near dead last.

you are so coorect that the NFL should allow cities to own their teams as green bay does with the packers but the NFL is so much about greed,that after the packers did that,they then came up with their own rules they make up,that other NFL cities could not do that anymore cause owners dont make as much money that way,these owners are so fucking greedy they are going to destroy the game someday,they already are.

as you said so well,in each case of those teams moving,it was greed not because of poor fan support,even in the case of st louis,the cardinals did okay with fan support,they just did not do well in fan support for the rams most the time they were there which is incredible since the rams gave them what the cardinals never did,two trips to the superbole.

the ONLY case where it WAS valid for the team to leave cause of poor fan support,was with the rams in st louis.thats why the NFL is a joke that they can leave when they have great fan support.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

the ONLY case where it WAS valid for a team to leave cause of bad fan support,was with the rams in st louis,the majority of the time they were there,they had half empty crowds same as the raiders did in LA.same as how LA never wanted the raiders,st louis never wanted the rams.the first four years they were there and were horrible,you could EASILY get a good ticket up close and a good seat the fan support was so terrible,it was decent when the cardinals were there just not for the rams.they were dead last in attendance the last few years they were there in st louis where the raiders and chargers drew very well in oakland and san diego,the NFL is a joke that the chargers were allowed to move to LA and join the rams.

take that back,the other time that a team did not have good fan support and it was valid for them to leave was when the raiders were in LA of course.as i said,LA lost ONE team,the Rams,LA never wanted the raiders there in the first place so they did not lose a team since it was a team they never wanted.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Gee looks like another packed crowd to me.

the only time the Rams did not pack them in this year was the game against the falcons and that was because at that time there was no annoucment that fisher was not going to be back yet so with an organization that incredibly was stupid enough to bring him to LA in the first place.who can blame fans for not showing up for that game when they thought he would be back next year? as happy as i was that rams were back in LA.if i had to be subjected to having fisher back next year,i would stop showing up for games as well.who in their right mind wouldnt?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hmmm seems like EVERY photo or video i come across has a packed house with no empty seats yet the sheep around here always say LA did not support the Rams.

So LA did not support the Rams huh? oh really?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hmmm seems like EVERY photo or video i come across has a packed house with no empty seats yet the sheep around here always say LA did not support the Rams.

So LA did not support the Rams huh? oh really?

Hi LA RAM FAN
After I saw what happened with the Oilers/Titans in Houston,
I understand the deals behind the scenes often make or break them.

As much as the fans support their teams,
the politics heavily sway the management decisions.
So the team as well as the fans end up equally as victims
to the whims of upper mgmt and politics:

"Frontiere finally gave up and decided to move the Rams to St. Louis. However, on March 15, 1995, the other league owners rejected Frontiere's bid to move the franchise by a 21–3–6 vote. Then-Commissioner Paul Tagliabue stated after rejecting the move, "This was one of the most complex issues we have had to approach in years. We had to balance the interest of fans in Los Angeles and in St. Louis that we appreciate very much. In my judgment, they did not meet the guidelines we have in place for such a move." The commissioner also added: "Once the bridges have been burned and people get turned off on a sports franchise, years of loyalty is not respected and it is difficult to get it back. By the same token, there are millions of fans in that area who have supported the Rams in an extraordinary way. The Rams have 50 years of history and the last 5 or so years of difficult times can be corrected."[22][23]

Frontiere, however, responded with a thinly veiled threat at a lawsuit. The owners eventually acquiesced to her demands, wary of going through a long, protracted legal battle. Tagliabue simply stated that "The desire to have peace and not be at war was a big factor" in allowing the Rams move to go forward. In a matter of a month, the vote had gone from 21–6 opposed to 23–6 in favor. Jonathan Kraft, son of Patriots owner Robert Kraft, elaborated on the commissioner's remarks by saying that "about five or six owners didn't want to get the other owners into litigation, so they switched their votes." Only six teams remained in opposition to the Rams move from Los Angeles: the Pittsburgh Steelers, New York Giants, New York Jets, Buffalo Bills, Arizona Cardinals, and Washington Redskins. After the vote was over, Steelers owner Dan Rooney publicly stated that he opposed the move of the Los Angeles Rams because "I believe we should support the fans who have supported us for years."[24]

 

[LA RAM FAN]

.@robertwoods: "The tradition still lives. The NFL team being here, having the Rams here, L.A.'s original team -- and just to be a part of it is history in itself. The Rams made the trip home, and so did I."

 

[Toro]

I wonder who the St Louis Rams will choose in this year's draft?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

toto as always has his head up WRONG wingers ass.

 

[Toro]

Finally, with Chargers moving to LA, LA has a football team.

Are the LA Chargers and the St Louis Rams playing each other next season?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

translation of Totos last post-yeah you correct 9/11,I do indeed have my head up USMB'S resident troll wrongwingers ass,the troll who would kill himself first before ever admitting he was proven wrong on anything and is butthurt today that he was wrong about them staying.