Mr. WEO Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 I would hope he'd vote "no." I doubt it would prevent the move but it would be a symbolic gesture in keeping with Ralph's legacy. You mean his legacy of threatening to move his team in '71, and again in the late 90's if luxury boxes weren't fully filled. Or his legacy of selling essentially a full season of home games to Canadians? He was like any owner, no better or worse, when it came time to squeezing the locals for a stadium. The difference between those who moved and Ralph is that Ralph always got what he asked for, s othere was never a reason to move. Anyway, Pegula will vote yes with the rest of them. He's a businessman and it would be a business decision and worth willions for each owner.
Dorkington Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Different situations, imo... the Rams are just as much an LA team as they are a St. Louis team. If he voted to move the Pittsburgh Steelers, or the Cleveland Browns, or similar, then it'd be weird.
judman Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) Owners Net Worths Pegula $4.7B +/- His worth is slightly less than Jerruh and Kraft combined. I say this because I thought the $4.7B figure might be a little low... maybe? I've seen higher numbers elsewhere. Either way he is top 5. Edited October 22, 2014 by judman
Doc Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 You mean his legacy of threatening to move his team in '71, and again in the late 90's if luxury boxes weren't fully filled. Or his legacy of selling essentially a full season of home games to Canadians? He was like any owner, no better or worse, when it came time to squeezing the locals for a stadium. The difference between those who moved and Ralph is that Ralph always got what he asked for, s othere was never a reason to move. Anyway, Pegula will vote yes with the rest of them. He's a businessman and it would be a business decision and worth willions for each owner. He got what he asked for because he never made exorbitant demands. And he kept ticket prices low. But the threats were just that: threats. He wasn't going to move the team, and he voted to prevent any moves, didn't move the team despite chances to do so, and set conditions on the sale of the team to ensure it stayed in Buffalo. I don't know how many more times you need to hear it before you accept it, so it's time you did and move on. As for the vote, I still say he'll vote no because he knows the majority of owners will vote yes and it will happen anyway.
1B4IDie Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Cleveland is actually where the franchise was originally located. But I agree with you since there is no long standing tie to the St. Louis area. I understand the ancient history of the teams. I clearly said since "the merger." The Merger happened in 1966. If a Generation is 25 years. That is over 2 generations ago. The Rams were in LA at the merger. That should be the starting point for Original location, thats my point.
26CornerBlitz Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 I understand the ancient history of the teams. I clearly said since "the merger." The Merger happened in 1966. If a Generation is 25 years. That is over 2 generations ago. The Rams were in LA at the merger. That should be the starting point for Original location, thats my point. I missed that part. My apologies.
Doc Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Yeah but STL had the Cardinals from 1960-1987. On second thought, I wouldn't approve that move period and would look to expand in LA.
Mr. WEO Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 He got what he asked for because he never made exorbitant demands. And he kept ticket prices low. But the threats were just that: threats. He wasn't going to move the team, and he voted to prevent any moves, didn't move the team despite chances to do so, and set conditions on the sale of the team to ensure it stayed in Buffalo. I don't know how many more times you need to hear it before you accept it, so it's time you did and move on. As for the vote, I still say he'll vote no because he knows the majority of owners will vote yes and it will happen anyway. In his own words: "Our search for a new home is serious and immediate. Buffalo has given us no other choice." He traveled to Seattle to discuss specific plans to lease the University of Washington Stadium if it was expanded to 65,000-70,000 seats. He said a the time that he had 3 other cities in mind but that Seattle was preferred. He gave Seattle officials 60-90 dyas to give him a "definitive answer". He did what most owners did--he extorted a new stadium from the public with threats to move. The only reason he stayed was that he got his free stadium. Teams have only moved ever when their owner could not coerce the local government into ponying up. All of this drama of "who will own the team next and will it move to....Toronto (!)?" was his doing. He could have sold the team before his death and spared Buffalo all of that. Still would have made hundreds and hundreds of millions for his relatively few heirs. Still would have gone to Pegula (no doubt) and there would never have been any question of whether the Bills were leaving Buffalo. And he didn't "keep the ticket prices low"--the market did that. He priced them according to what people would pay and what he needed to guarantee a profit. Given that season sellouts are rare and ther is no waiting list for season tickets, one could more convincingly argue he price hte tickets too high.
Kirby Jackson Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 In his own words: "Our search for a new home is serious and immediate. Buffalo has given us no other choice." He traveled to Seattle to discuss specific plans to lease the University of Washington Stadium if it was expanded to 65,000-70,000 seats. He said a the time that he had 3 other cities in mind but that Seattle was preferred. He gave Seattle officials 60-90 dyas to give him a "definitive answer". He did what most owners did--he extorted a new stadium from the public with threats to move. The only reason he stayed was that he got his free stadium. Teams have only moved ever when their owner could not coerce the local government into ponying up. All of this drama of "who will own the team next and will it move to....Toronto (!)?" was his doing. He could have sold the team before his death and spared Buffalo all of that. Still would have made hundreds and hundreds of millions for his relatively few heirs. Still would have gone to Pegula (no doubt) and there would never have been any question of whether the Bills were leaving Buffalo. And he didn't "keep the ticket prices low"--the market did that. He priced them according to what people would pay and what he needed to guarantee a profit. Given that season sellouts are rare and ther is no waiting list for season tickets, one could more convincingly argue he price hte tickets too high. That was a negotiating tool. He never intended to move the team. He may have bullied the county, state, city, etc... to get what he wanted but never was going to move the team.
Mr. WEO Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) That was a negotiating tool. He never intended to move the team. He may have bullied the county, state, city, etc... to get what he wanted but never was going to move the team. Well, every owner who threatened his way into a new stadium can in retrospect claim he was "just threatening and never would have moved the team" except for the fact that every move was precipitated by a refusal of the locals to build one. Without the new stadium, he would have moved. They all moved when the stadium didn't come. It was clear he wasn't going to pay for it. You think he woul dhave stayed if the county stadium didn't get done? You think that if Seattle had responded "sure, Mr. Wilson, whatever you want" and Buffalo had continued to dither away, he would have said to Seattle...."just kidding!, I'll wait a little longer for Buffalo". Makes no sense. Edited October 22, 2014 by Mr. WEO
Kirby Jackson Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Well, every owner who threatened his way into a new stadium can in retrospect claim he was "just threatening and never would have moved the team" except for the fact that every move was precipitated by a refusal of the locals to build one. Without the new stadium, he would have moved. They all moved when the stadium didn't come. It was clear he wasn't going to pay for it. You think he woul dhave stayed if the county stadium didn't get done? Yes, but I don't think that it ever would have come to that. He always knew when he was negotiating from a position of power and got what he wanted. There is nothing that he hated more than relocation and voted against all of them (even if he knew it wouldn't matter). He set the team up to remain in WNY following his death as well. It was never going to be moved but they used Toronto as the boogeyman to jack up the price. If you want to say that it's tacky to always be threatening relocation to get what you want that's one thing but when push came to shove Ralph never was going to move the team.
RyanC883 Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 I think one question that needs to be asked is how "diehard" are the fans in St. Louis. It appears to be a baseball first, second, and third city. If the Rams have a 14 year playoff absence like the Bills, do they still sell-out games and attract out of town fans? If the answers are no, then I have no problem with relocation to its original city. If the fans are not like Buffalo fans, which are really the best in the NFL, then relocation becomes more of an option. (not that LA fans are great either). Personally, I'd rather see Jax move. Yes, but I don't think that it ever would have come to that. He always knew when he was negotiating from a position of power and got what he wanted. There is nothing that he hated more than relocation and voted against all of them (even if he knew it wouldn't matter). He set the team up to remain in WNY following his death as well. It was never going to be moved but they used Toronto as the boogeyman to jack up the price. If you want to say that it's tacky to always be threatening relocation to get what you want that's one thing but when push came to shove Ralph never was going to move the team. Simple business to threaten to move to jack up a price or get what you want. As you said, the team was never going to move. I think most people eventually realized this. Mario threatened to move the Penguins to Kansas City to get a much needed new arena, which he later admitted was a bluff. That was a negotiating tool. He never intended to move the team. He may have bullied the county, state, city, etc... to get what he wanted but never was going to move the team. Like it or not, this is how sports business is conducted. Some people don't like the 'bullying' factor, but EVERY owner does this to one degree or another. And companies and people do it to.
May Day 10 Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 of course lemieux is going to admit that after the fact
Kelly the Dog Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 LA is the problem. The people, both those in power, and those that keep them there, are the problem. LA is the reason LA hasn't had a team for 20 years. That business environment? For a large scale, public business thinking about moving to that town? I'd simply hand the client a single piece of paper with the words "We don't find this feasible at this time." written on it, then I'd charge for an hour. It comes down to a business decision, and for 20 years, LA is a terrible business decision. These owners didn't get where they are by making terrible business decisions. I have to hand it to you, OC. I live in LA and it's the City of Blowhards where ego, arrogance and bull **** are King. And you have more of all three than anyone I've ever seen here, which is a remarkable achievement. It's really impressive.
RyanC883 Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 of course lemieux is going to admit that after the fact he wouldn't have moved the team. He has streets, etc. named after him. They did need a new stadium badly. It would be like Jim Kelly threatening to move the Bills if he owned them.
PromoTheRobot Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Well, every owner who threatened his way into a new stadium can in retrospect claim he was "just threatening and never would have moved the team" except for the fact that every move was precipitated by a refusal of the locals to build one. Without the new stadium, he would have moved. They all moved when the stadium didn't come. It was clear he wasn't going to pay for it. You think he woul dhave stayed if the county stadium didn't get done? You think that if Seattle had responded "sure, Mr. Wilson, whatever you want" and Buffalo had continued to dither away, he would have said to Seattle...."just kidding!, I'll wait a little longer for Buffalo". Makes no sense. Your favorite owner Kraft Bob announced the Pats were moving to Hartford, didn't he?
Mr. WEO Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) Your favorite owner Kraft Bob announced the Pats were moving to Hartford, didn't he? Of course he did, but he wasn't asking for a free stadium. Edited October 22, 2014 by Mr. WEO
Rocky Landing Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 I have to hand it to you, OC. I live in LA and it's the City of Blowhards where ego, arrogance and bull **** are King. And you have more of all three than anyone I've ever seen here, which is a remarkable achievement. It's really impressive. This is true, of course. But, it's also true that LA-- especially Downtown LA-- is not the same city it was twenty years ago. I've been here since '91, and for decades they were talking about "revitalizing downtown." And, it was a joke for decades, but it has now happened. Staples Center has been enormously successful. Silverlake, Los Feliz, Echo Park (home of the famous Rampart precinct), have all gentrified. Even the downtown loft district is unrecognizable from when I lived there in the 90s. $80,000 cars parked on the street an no homeless population to speak of. There were entire homeless communities when I was there. Los Angeles will have an NFL team. I just hope it isn't the Raiders.
reddogblitz Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) Once again, I will say what must be said: LA is such an awesome! NFL market..... .....that it hasn't had a team for 20 years. LA is such an awesome! NFL market..... .....that 2 owners decided St. Louis( ) and F'ing Oakland( :lol:) were better places to do business. Actually it was 3 owners. The Chargers moved from LA to San Diego. I hope Terry votes NO on all team re locations. Edited October 22, 2014 by reddogblitz
Recommended Posts