Posted by John Vrooman on Wednesday, January 6, 2016 in National Football League.

Interview with the AP.

I’m working on a story about the Rams’ effort to move to LA. The team’s relocation application was made available and it is very critical of the economic viability of the St. Louis market. I’m hoping you can tell me if this might have ramifications for St. Louis down the road as it tries to attract or maintain pro sports franchises _ such as a potential replacement for the Rams if they move.

The application is very critical of St. Louis’ economy, saying it ranks 26^th among the NFL markets and lags way behind the California markets whose teams also want to move to LA – San Diego and Oakland.

Rest easy St. Louis sports fans:  these cold hearted claims are not personal and more importantly, they are not true. This is a stone cold expedient fabrication of dealing with the NFL’s stadium extortion gambit that has run amok over the last two decades since the Rams relocated to St. Louis ironically from LA in 1996. According to NFL By Laws in order for a team to abandon its home market without legal recourse, it must show lack of fan support, and the arguments will be more exaggerated and loosely fabricated than a custody battle in a messy divorce.

 It is entirely possible that the LA market has been more valuable to the NFL empty than occupied because of its exploitation as the third leg in a public venue extortion triangle since the relocation-extortion derby following the 1995 expansion into Carolina and Jacksonville. This is simply the cruel cold hearted nature of a one-sided venue exploitation game played out by an unregulated monopoly cartel.

If the LA markets are so economically superior to St. Louis sports market then why has LA been left abandoned and empty for two decades, and why have the Raiders and Bolts also applied to bail out of their respective home markets in the sun.

Largely because of the extensive revenue sharing in the NFL syndicate, it doesn’t really matter in what market a team plays  as long as it is playing in a luxurious if not opulent venue, where half as many fans are being charged more than twice as much.

It is very unlikely that the other NFL owners will allow a double/joint relocation of 2 franchises to the LA market.  This is because the League always prefers several monopoly markets to one duopoly (two-team) market regardless of market size. Ironically the gains from two clubs splitting a $1.8 billion stadium would almost completely be negated by the reduction in present value of net cash flow.

This is why the league cartel avoids two team markets, except in the past merger of rival leagues (Jets/Giants) and (49ers/Raiders). This leads to the obvious conclusion that only one team will relocate to LA.

 Unfortunately for any Rams fans left remaining in St. Louis after several seasons of abuse, the relocation odds probably favor Stan (named after “The Man”) Kroenke moving the Rams to a $1.8 billion luxury Hollywood Park stadium that synergistically linked to his wider economic development project.

In the end there is just not enough economic pop in the Carson joint venture between the Raiders and Chargers to justify the coexistence of two competing clubs in one market regardless of size. The private cost of the $2 billion venue in LA should tilt the odds in favor of the only owner who can use the stadium as an anchor for a more comprehensive project.  Advantage: Stan Kroenke’s Rams.

 Ironically St. Louis also has the most fully developed City/State stadium plan of the three markets now being pressured by League threats of relocation, followed by San Diego with Oakland not even out of the gate. In a longer shot scenario, St. Louis could then easily become the relocation target of another wayward NFL club, even the Oakland/LA/Oakland Raiders– believe it or not..

 It’s a longshot but this is exactly what happened in 1995.  As fate would have it (wink wink), the 4 frustrated finalists in the Carolina Panthers/Jacksonville Jaguars expansion derby of 1995 were St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland and Memphis/Nashville and each immediately became the relocation target of opportunistic NFL franchises in Houston, Cleveland and LA.

The NFL then retro-expanded into Cleveland 1998 and Houston 2002 leaving the LA market as an empty example of what happens when a major city ends up on the short end of the shell game of the NFL cartel.

As the 24^th largest TV market in NA St. Louis market is in fact on the edge of markets that can support three professional sports franchises. In the new world of luxury stadiums and corporate clients interleague competition has become a major factor. St. Louis is considered by many (including me) to be the best baseball market in MLB, but the NHL and NFL clubs have experienced wide variance in economic performance.

 LA may have a TV market (5.66 million TV Households) that is 4.5 times the size of St Louis (1.25 million TV HHLDS), but during MLB’s recent National League Division Series, St Louis TV ratings were a third higher than Chicago (Cubs), twice has high as New York City (Mets) and three times the intensity as laid back LA (Dodgers).  

It’s not always the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of fight in the dog.

V