At 12:30 a.m. Friday, Jim Thomas reported via twitter that the Rams would be playing a regular season game in London during the 2012 season. Later, it was revealed that the London game would be against the Patriots and would take the place of a Rams home game. By the time the rest of media world woke up, we came to find that the Rams were in fact donating a home game to the London cause in each of the next three seasons. Chaos quickly ensued amongst the fan base and some of the predictably unbalanced members of the media. The asinine assumption of the Rams being a lock to move to Los Angeles instantly shifted to full blown psychosis as people started slinging prophecies of the London Rams.
No matter how many lonely, sweaty, palm-chafing nights Roger Goodell spends thinking about moving a team to London, it’s not going to happen—at least not anytime soon. First, I missed the part where there was a demand strong enough to support an NFL team in London. I understand the NFL’s desire to push their product globally. I’m not saying that the process isn’t working (they’ve never hosted fewer than 70,000 people in a London game), but it’s not there yet. Second, even if there was a dramatic rise in NFL fever across the pond, the NFL is not going to move a lone team over there. (If I may digress for a moment, if the NFL really wanted to sell the Rams specifically to the UK, why would they showcase them, in London, taking an ass-beating from a Massachusetts based team named the Patriots? You might as well dress Bill Belichick up in George Washington garb.) They can push the TV ratings without committing scheduling suicide. Am I really supposed to believe that they’re going to have one team travel six time zones, eight or more times per year? Am I really supposed to believe that Jeff Fisher, who allegedly had concerns about the possibility of the team moving back to his home town of LA, would have signed a five year contract if there was the slightest inclination that the team would be moving to London? If teams end up in Europe, it will be just that—“teams,” plural. The current conference alignments would be blown up. Several teams would be moved, along with a few expansion teams, and a European division or conference would be established. I don’t see that kind of ground swell happening in three years.
Now that we’ve talked ourselves off that cliff, let’s deal with L.A. While it’s much more of a palatable possibility than London, it’s not a lock; I’m not sure it’s even likely. First, L.A. doesn’t have a stadium, and they’ve yet to pass a proposal to get one underway. AEG, the leading group of private investors taking on the stadium project, has estimated 2016 as the earliest completion date, and they’re still fighting rival Majestic Realty for the right to be the builder. Second, if a stadium does pop up in L.A. at some point, the Rams are not the only potential tenants: the Chargers work on a year-by-year contract with their stadium, the Raiders have openly expressed interest in moving to L.A., and the Bills, Jaguars, and Vikings all have stadium situations that are less than stable. Losing our team to L.A. is a legitimate concern, but there are far too many variables that would have to align down the road to warrant much worry in the present.
Of course, there has to be some reason that Kroenke (and Fisher for that matter) would agree to give up a home game in each of the next three seasons. That’s a real competitive disadvantage they’re conceding to for three consecutive years, sort of.
If you’ve been to that tin-box shanty of a stadium in recent years, you have to admit that a home game for the Rams is effectively a neutral site game at best. In fact, I think it might actually help the players to replace a game in that pillbox with a game in Wembley. It’s good, from time to time, to remind our players that they are professionals, and they deserve to play in a professional venue.
On February 1st, the CVC will present its proposal to Kroenke to either rebuild or upgrade the Dome. For years, the CVC has cried foul against Kroenke. They’ve said that the current deal is so heavily in Stan’s favor that they can’t make money, that he should flip the bulk of the bill for any future plans. Here’s the thing: it’s not Kroenke’s fault that they built, and failed to maintain, a piece of crap building, and it’s not his fault that they haven’t maximized its revenue potential—through an NFL lease or otherwise. By signing the London deal, Kroenke cuts their NFL revenue by removing one home game per year, giving these crybabies a taste of what it would feel like to lose him completely.
This move also gives Kroenke some clout with the other owners. He’s one of the newest majority owners in the league, and he doesn’t exactly own a historic franchise. This move helps endear him to the other owners by making a pseudo-sacrifice to benefit the league as a whole. That could prove to be important if he asks for stadium help by way of the newly restored G4 funds; up to $200 million is provided for new construction, up to $250 million is provided for stadium renovations. A comprehensive, public-private investment, and the blessing of the league are required to receive the funds.
I’m actually excited about this agreement. It increases the prime-time coverage of the Rams via the London games and likely through other state-side games parleyed in this deal. It also puts the Rams in good favor with the league. Most importantly, it increases the likelihood of the Rams getting a new venue. At this point, that’s nearly as important to me as keeping them in this city period (that and getting new uniforms). It’s a deal that’s great for the franchise and could still prove to be good for the city as well.
Seriously though, new uniforms.
