New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

im pretty sure they will also take into account that we havent had a winning team in 10 years, and have an owner pretty much giving the city the middle finger and saying i want to move, do you honestly think having that many bad seasons in a row, and an owner threatening to move wouldnt affect fan and corporate support anywhere but St Louis?

How does Kroenke making real moves and threats to move in 2015 explain anything other than 2015 numbers?

 

[tonyl711]

lol,

I don't know how good that analogy is considering the Rams left Anaheim with the league's approval...

did attendance drop or not? if the Rams leave St Louis it will most probably be with the leagues approval also, so im not seeing the big difference, my question is how bad would the attendance drop if LA would have had 10 losing seasons in a row on top of bieng told the team wanted to move, i think you would have seen an even bigger drop then,

 

[tonyl711]

How can it be relevant when we don't have consistent data gathering for the two comparisons? One of the numbers were gathered in one way the other in a different way. Plus it's different eras, the market in LA has radically changed in the past 20-30 years.

how can it be relevant? hmm let me see, 2 situations that pretty much mirror each other with the exception of a 10 year losing streak in St Louis, same things happening with attendance. yes the LA market has changed, do they like losers now? if not the attendance will suffer when you put together 10 losing seasons in a row, your arguement dont hold water to me, you call out St Louis for doing something, then when its pointed out to you that the same thing happened in LA all of a sudden that dont count, they did thing different back then, thats as biased as you can get.

 

[tonyl711]

How does Kroenke making real moves and threats to move in 2015 explain anything other than 2015 numbers?

where have you been? you just heard about this in 2015? and convieniantly ignore the 10 losing seasons on top of it, cherry picking there?

 

[bluecoconuts]

how can it be relevant? hmm let me see, 2 situations that pretty much mirror each other with the exception of a 10 year losing streak in St Louis, same things happening with attendance. yes the LA market has changed, do they like losers now? if not the attendance will suffer when you put together 10 losing seasons in a row, your arguement dont hold water to me, you call out St Louis for doing something, then when its pointed out to you that the same thing happened in LA all of a sudden that dont count, they did thing different back then, thats as biased as you can get.,

But they don't mirror each other, again you have number gathering from physical turnstyle clicks and another from tickets sold. If they were consistent in how they got their numbers we could make a comparison, but they're not, and there's no way to really convert it so we can compare the two numbers.

I'm not calling out St Louis, or saying that Los Angeles does anything, I didn't even bring up LA you did. I never said that attendance didn't dip in LA either, I just said that they maintained above league average for all but two years when playing in Los Angeles.

where have you been? you just heard about this in 2015? and convieniantly ignore the 10 losing seasons on top of it, cherry picking there?

Of course not, I saw the writing on the wall, but is that what the city is going to say to the NFL? "Our corporate support and fan support is down because we all figured that in 2015 Kroenke was going to announce a stadium in LA so we figured we wouldn't bother."

Not very compelling in my opinion.

 

[tonyl711]

But they don't mirror each other, again you have number gathering from physical turnstyle clicks and another from tickets sold. If they were consistent in how they got their numbers we could make a comparison, but they're not, and there's no way to really convert it so we can compare the two numbers.

I'm not calling out St Louis, or saying that Los Angeles does anything, I didn't even bring up LA you did. I never said that attendance didn't dip in LA either, I just said that they maintained above league average for all but two years when playing in Los Angeles.



Of course not, I saw the writing on the wall, but is that what the city is going to say to the NFL? "Our corporate support and fan support is down because we all figured that in 2015 Kroenke was going to announce a stadium in LA so we figured we wouldn't bother."

Not very compelling in my opinion.

you wont listen to anything with an open mind so im done talking to you, twist away at others words not mine.

 

[The Ripper]

im pretty sure they will also take into account that we havent had a winning team in 10 years, and have an owner pretty much giving the city the middle finger and saying i want to move, do you honestly think having that many bad seasons in a row, and an owner threatening to move wouldnt affect fan and corporate support anywhere but St Louis?

Corporate support is based on a number of factors the most important is the amount of marketing dollars that are available in a market and how many teams those dollars can support. The issue is that the report found that future revenue growth was limited from individuals and corporations.

"The market lacks a robust regional area from which to draw individuals and corporations that are not already attending games and purchasing tickets"

LA went through the same things, guess what? attendance dropped, i can only imagine how far it would have dropped with 10 losing seasons in a row.

The difference is that the Rams in Anaheim still were still in the top quartile for revenues and even in 1994 the team was still in the top 1/2 of the league.

 

[tonyl711]

Corporate support is based on a number of factors the most important is the amount of marketing dollars that are available in a market and how many teams those dollars can support. The issue is that the report found that future revenue growth was limited from individuals and corporations.

"The market lacks a robust regional area from which to draw individuals and corporations that are not already attending games and purchasing tickets"



The difference is that the Rams in Anaheim still were still in the top quartile for revenues and even in 1994 the team was still in the top 1/2 of the league.

IMO the difference is no 10 year losing streak, that does tend to make people and and corporations lose faith that they are even trying to feild a competitive team.

 

[beej]

IMO the difference is no 10 year losing streak, that does tend to make people and and corporations lose faith that they are even trying to feild a competitive team.

another thing about corporate sponsorship that no one talks about much, is that St Louis is really big into Manufacturing and that sector had been down for a long time. Manufacturing is really coming on strong now, jobs are coming back from China an doing about the best we've seen in a long time and that will help the rams.

 

[blue4]

Problem is you can't guarantee a team will be good forever, so if support is that attached to the product, it's going to be hard to tell Kroenke he has to stay there and invest hundreds of millions into the city.

Well then why are owners still investing in markets smaller than St Louis's? Why do people still own teams in cities not named LA or NY?

 

[The Ripper]

The NFL is looking at long term support and whether it can be sustained in any home market for the long term. The NFL revenues were still strong during the past few recessions and they expect the same in the teams home market. In markets with multiple sports franchises the NFL looks at the total amount of corporate support and the allocation between the different teams so that's why the future projections are important. Can the team expand the market to be able to compete? The NFL also has the actual data from both the Rams and the NFL Cardinals to determine support in the market over time. Whether it's right or not the data is what the NFL will use to make a determination of the viability of any market.

 

[beej]

I'm actually impressed with the numbers on that survey.
When I filled it out, I was somewhere between,
"Oh Man I hope they don't leave now, when they are just about to turn this thing around!"
and "HEY! SCREW YOU!"

When I was filling it out, I had to stop myself a couple times and get my head right.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I was more trying to point out that the market study doesn't paint a really rosy picture, and the NFL can use it to say they can't tell their second richest owner to invest there instead. Getting support for a team that is winning a lot isn't hard to do, it's getting support when they're not good that challenges arise. If the Rams have been going above and beyond what NFL teams usually do in community outreach and it's not having an effect on the support, then the NFL can (and probably will) use it to justify letting the Rams leave if it comes to that. It's easy to say that if the team was better than attendance would be better, but thus far we've seen the team go from completely abysmal to closer to middle of the pack and there hasn't been a rise in attendance. That gives the Rams and the NFL an excuse for an out.

That's your opinion, but I diagree. It's not only easy to say that (if the team was better, attendance would swell)... it's been proven time and time again.

The Rams are still a below average product (6-10). I don't like it... but thems the facts.

Sales drop when your product is below average...when Hyundai entered the American car market decades ago, their sales were good initially because the cars were inexpensive. As soon as it became clear the cars were not reliable (below average), their sales plummeted.

Unless the Rams prices for a game experience are in line with their product, attendance will remain below average.
I know they've made adjustments and done what they could to keep ticket prices down... but the overall game experience (tickets, food, beverages, parking, etc.) is still very expensive.
Line that up with a below average team and people tend to say "nah, I'll watch it on TV until they get better".

As far as community outreach as a reason fans go to games, I think the impact (of community outreach) is minimal. I'd be surprised if the average fan (who doesn't have a PSL/season ticket - isn't "locked in") says "Well, the team isn't doing very well but I'm going to see the Rams anyway because they held such-and-such an event... they good members of my community".

I think it's really pretty simple. Product below average = below average sales. Don't see how that could be argued... and I certainly don't believe for a second that any owner or Executive of the NFL could be hoodwinked into thinking the attendance drop lately is not primarily due to the product on the field.

 

[The Ripper]

That's your opinion, but I diagree. It's not only easy to say that (if the team was better, attendance would swell)... it's been proven time and time again.

The Rams are still a below average product (6-10). I don't like it... but thems the facts.

Sales drop when your product is below average...when Hyundai entered the American car market decades ago, their sales were good initially because the cars were inexpensive. As soon as it became clear the cars were not reliable (below average), their sales plummeted.

Unless the Rams prices for a game experience are in line with their product, attendance will remain below average.
I know they've made adjustments and done what they could to keep ticket prices down... but the overall game experience (tickets, food, beverages, parking, etc.) is still very expensive.
Line that up with a below average team and people tend to say "nah, I'll watch it on TV until they get better".

As far as community outreach as a reason fans go to games, I think the impact (of community outreach) is minimal. I'd be surprised if the average fan (who doesn't have a PSL/season ticket - isn't "locked in") says "Well, the team isn't doing very well but I'm going to see the Rams anyway because they held such-and-such an event... they good members of my community".

I think it's really pretty simple. Product below average = below average sales. Don't see how that could be argued... and I certainly don't believe for a second that any owner or Executive of the NFL could be hoodwinked into thinking the attendance drop lately is not primarily due to the product on the field.

Fan attendance and corporate support are 2 different things, the NFL expects corporate support regardless of team performance. Sponsorship revenues go to the team and are important for the long term success of a franchise.

Reducing prices for tickets is not a good thing for a market because it hurts revenues and that's the most important factor for determining viability.

 

[beej]

Reducing prices for tickets is not a good thing for a market because it hurts revenues and that's the most important factor for determining viability.

Losing, bad drafts, poor free agent signings, and absentee ownership is not a good thing for a market because it hurts revenues and that's the most important factor for determining viability.

just thought, that sentence could be reworded all kinds of ways.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Fan attendance and corporate support are 2 different things, the NFL expects corporate support regardless of team performance. Sponsorship revenues go to the team and are important for the long term success of a franchise.
If the NFL truly expects corporate support to remain, despite a below average product, they are dumber than I thought. We seem to be discussing concepts that fly in the face of what I've always believed as basic market behavior... I guess I'll just let this one go. It's not what I learned in business school nor what I have observed in the business world. Maybe I've had it all wrong all these years.

Reducing prices for tickets is not a good thing for a market because it hurts revenues and that's the most important factor for determining viability.
Of course it's not a good thing. But you can't expect to produce a below average product and price it like it's average or above average. Back to basic economic
behavior... people simply won't buy it.
Like I said, I guess I have it wrong... either way, the owners/NFL will show us how they percieve market behavior vs. product.

 

[beej]

the bottom line, is you can only expect so much of a fan base. It doesn't matter where you are located, you at least, have to meet the city half way.

 

[dbrooks25]

Fan attendance and corporate support are 2 different things, the NFL expects corporate support regardless of team performance. Sponsorship revenues go to the team and are important for the long term success of a franchise.

Reducing prices for tickets is not a good thing for a market because it hurts revenues and that's the most important factor for determining viability.

Wasn't it said that Peacock has lined up companies who have said that they will provide support should a new stadium get built? I'm confident he will have this side of things taken care of to the NFL's satisfaction.

 

[The Ripper]

Fan attendance and corporate support are 2 different things, the NFL expects corporate support regardless of team performance. Sponsorship revenues go to the team and are important for the long term success of a franchise.
If the NFL truly expects corporate support to remain, despite a below average product, they are dumber than I thought. We seem to be discussing concepts that fly in the face of what I've always believed as basic market behavior... I guess I'll just let this one go. It's not what I learned in business school nor what I have observed in the business world. Maybe I've had it all wrong all these years.

Reducing prices for tickets is not a good thing for a market because it hurts revenues and that's the most important factor for determining viability.
Of course it's not a good thing. But you can't expect to produce a below average product and price it like it's average or above average. Back to basic economic
behavior... people simply won't buy it.
Like I said, I guess I have it wrong... either way, the owners/NFL will show us how they percieve market behavior vs. product.

There will always be teams that don't perform and the NFL wants markets that teams can do well at all times. It's the NFL and there are only 32 teams so supply is limited.

Losing, bad drafts, poor free agent signings, and absentee ownership is not a good thing for a market because it hurts revenues and that's the most important factor for determining viability.

just thought, that sentence could be reworded all kinds of ways.

Yes, but revenue is the key determining factor. You can have bad attendance but the local revenues still need to be strong.

Wasn't it said that Peacock has lined up companies who have said that they will provide support should a new stadium get built? I'm confident he will have this side of things taken care of to the NFL's satisfaction.

The Rams revenues fell off after some of the guarantees expired after 15 years so who's going to provide the guarantees to the team and for how long. The short term revenues may increase but what about the long term. That was one of the main problems that the NFL had when they rejected the first application for relocation by the Rams in 95.

 

[blue4]

There will always be teams that don't perform and the NFL wants markets that teams can do well at all times. It's the NFL and there are only 32 teams so supply is limited.



Yes, but revenue is the key determining factor. You can have bad attendance but the local revenues still need to be strong.



The Rams revenues fell off after some of the guarantees expired after 15 years so who's going to provide the guarantees to the team and for how long. The short term revenues may increase but what about the long term. That was one of the main problems that the NFL had when they rejected the first application for relocation by the Rams in 95.

Why did the NFL short list us for expansion if the long term outlook was so poor? Long term losses were ok for an expansion team and not the Rams? I think that was just more the NFL saying what it needed to in order to try to force an outcome they wanted. This whole notion of a lack of business support is just setting up a narrative in case it's needed to justify an outcome. You got teams in GB, a shantytown named Jacksonville, Carolina, Buffalo and so on and St Louis doesn't have enough business? That is a large steaming pile of B.S. in my opinion.