It will be one of the classic rock stations. You heard it here first.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
What Radio Station will carry the Rams
- Thread starter TVCOOL
- Start date
It will be one of the classic rock stations. You heard it here first.
That would be a logical choice. I agree with you!
I am waiting for that sale to be announced.
That's not exactly how the contract works. It's all spelled out there.
This thread is about The Rams. That's what we're talking about. They're in the NFC.
The NFL needs Los Angeles a lot more than LA needs the NFL.
LA has chugged along for 2 decades without an NFL team to call home.
The most ironic thing about the Rams and Raiders leaving in the first place is because both felt they were moving to greener pastures and eventually better stadiums.
Neither have happened.
Both teams still occupy the exact same dumps they left Los Angeles for.
The NFL absolutely hates Oakland-Alameda County Stadium because it still shares a baseball diamond and the rats have been chewing on the rafters at the Trans World Dome since the Rams arrived.
Neither are attractive Superbowl destinations and you can certainly throw Jack Murphy Stadium into the mix as well.
The NFL wants Los Angeles badly because the SoCal climate in February is usually very neutral weatherwise which is perfect for Superbowl venues.
It's one of the primary reasons Los Angeles hosted many many Superbowls at either the Rose Bowl or the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum back in the day.
The Rams want out of cash strapped Missouri and St Louis, the Raiders want out of Oakland-Alameda County Stadium (their attempt to piggyback onto Levi Stadium in Santa Clara was met with a resounding 'Go pound sand!') and the Bolts have hit a brick wall with getting any movement on a new stadium deal to replace the Murph.
But I digress...
To keep the thread on topic, I foresee only KLAC getting the LA NFL contract if it ever materializes.
LA has chugged along for 2 decades without an NFL team to call home.
The most ironic thing about the Rams and Raiders leaving in the first place is because both felt they were moving to greener pastures and eventually better stadiums.
Neither have happened.
Both teams still occupy the exact same dumps they left Los Angeles for.
The NFL absolutely hates Oakland-Alameda County Stadium because it still shares a baseball diamond and the rats have been chewing on the rafters at the Trans World Dome since the Rams arrived.
Neither are attractive Superbowl destinations and you can certainly throw Jack Murphy Stadium into the mix as well.
The NFL wants Los Angeles badly because the SoCal climate in February is usually very neutral weatherwise which is perfect for Superbowl venues.
It's one of the primary reasons Los Angeles hosted many many Superbowls at either the Rose Bowl or the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum back in the day.
The Rams want out of cash strapped Missouri and St Louis, the Raiders want out of Oakland-Alameda County Stadium (their attempt to piggyback onto Levi Stadium in Santa Clara was met with a resounding 'Go pound sand!') and the Bolts have hit a brick wall with getting any movement on a new stadium deal to replace the Murph.
But I digress...
To keep the thread on topic, I foresee only KLAC getting the LA NFL contract if it ever materializes.
I think that there is an increasing realization by teams that FM is the way to go if they want to have the broadcasts and promotion reach larger numbers of younger adults.
The fact that none of the possible AM stations is without coverage issues in the noisy Southland is probably not as evident to potential team management as it is to us on this board, but the national trending of sports to FM is likely something they will consider.
"Rats are chewing at the rafters of the Trans World Dome." I live in St. Louis and haven't heard that one. And it hasn't been called the Trans World Dome ever. Stan bought the Rams with the intent of moving the team. If not to LA, then to London. The Rams were given a sweet deal to move to St. Louis, and some other team, maybe the Raiders, who once considered moving to St. Louis, might reconsider.
Also I grew up in SoCal. I realize the football gods are demanding, but I'm not in favor of giving welfare to billionaires to keep a team anywhere. And he will want a bundle for the broadcast rights!
Jim Shannon
Also I grew up in SoCal. I realize the football gods are demanding, but I'm not in favor of giving welfare to billionaires to keep a team anywhere. And he will want a bundle for the broadcast rights!
Jim Shannon
I don't disagree with that. My comments have been about the networks. They get their LA clearances regardless. Both Fox and CBS own TV stations in LA, so they will make the same money regardless of where the teams are.
Radio is a different story. The fact that LA is one of only two markets where ESPN owns radio says a lot. Also, CBS has been a strong player for NFL radio rights in many places. They certainly have stations where this would work.
Before we guess which station the Rams will be on, maybe it's time to speculate which stations the Raiders and Chargers might be on. Houston Texans owner Bob McNair, a member of the committee that is handling potential LA moves, says that the Rams don't have the votes to move, but the Raiders and Chargers do. Please note that four of the six owners (Texans, Chiefs, Steelers, Patriots) are from the AFC, while two (Giants, Panthers) are from the NFC.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...rs-look-like-favorites-to-move-to-los-angeles
There are precedents with the LA Lakers and Clippers in the same division, as well as the New York Baseball Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers having shared 1/4 of the National League for about 75 years.
The vote will be during league meetings in mid-January. No need to speculate until a decision is made one way or another.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...rs-look-like-favorites-to-move-to-los-angeles
There are precedents with the LA Lakers and Clippers in the same division, as well as the New York Baseball Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers having shared 1/4 of the National League for about 75 years.
The vote will be during league meetings in mid-January. No need to speculate until a decision is made one way or another.
It was called the Trans World Dome from 1995 to 2001.
St. Louis is 0-for 2 when it comes to successful NFL franchises. Both the Cardinals and the Rams have had their successes -- the Rams more than the Cards -- but overall, the track record is not good in that city. I just can't see another NFL team moving in. Seems to be more of a baseball and hockey town.
T
TeaPartyDude
Guest
A better question is who is going to listen?
T
TeaPartyDude
Guest
Right on bro! The worst thing about this stuff is the BILLIONAIRE NFL team owners will sucker the public into building them new stadiums. They only play 10 home games a year,, so the rest of the year the place sits idle. If it is such a good sound investment why don't the owners pay for it with their own money?
The St Louis sports pecking order goes as followed...
1. St Louis Cards Baseball
2. St Louis Cards Baseball
3. St Louis Cards Baseball
.
.
.
9. St Louis Blues (and that is debatable in the Top 10 since it removes St Louis Cards Baseball from a clean Top 10 sweep)
.
.
.
POWER GAP
.
.
.
9001. The St Louis Rams
Gillette Stadium, home of the Patriots, has an MLS team as a co-tenant, and hosts international soccer friendlies that pack the place as well as several concerts a year. Why do you assume the stadium will sit idle.
The worst stadium boondoggle I'm personally familiar with is the Connecticut Tennis Center in New Haven. It also is used for exactly 10 days a year -- two days of qualifying matches and eight days of tournament play in a meaningless late-August tuneup for the US Open, which at least keeps that huge facility in Flushing -- with its TWO large stadiums -- busy for a full two weeks in September. I've never understood the economics of tennis, or why other events -- even other tennis tournaments -- can't be held in tournament locations.
I think that's the proposal here. All three teams are proposing to fund it themselves:
http://los-angeles-stadium.com/l-a-...ms-two-plans-what-to-expect-next-carson-2015/
There is some truth to St. Louis being a baseball & hockey town. As to being 0 for 2, LA is 0 for 3...Rams, Raiders & Chargers. Both the football Cardinals and the Rams had very poor ownership and treated the fans with dis-respect and ran the teams into the ground. Look at their play for the past ten years. Think LA will support a team like that?
Jim Shannon
Last edited:
You make a good point, but it sounds like there will be multiple uses for this stadium and this complex in general. It's not just a stadium and nothing else.
They use the Rose Bowl for a monthly swap meet (flea market). So they've found ways to monetize these places once they're built.
The Rose Bowl is also used for concerts and other special events, such as this coming February's "fitness festival," and annual Independence Day fireworks show and commencement events for Pasadena high schools. It was the "granddaddy" of the football bowls and is used by UCLA as its home stadium. I believe it has also hosted soccer games.
However, local residents have historically objected to professional football teams using the venue because of traffic problems as well as the cost of further upgrades to the old grey lady's physical plant. Back around 2006 voters rejected a plan designed to accommodate NFL guidelines. It is the City which owns the stadium; UCLA and the Tournament of Roses Association are simply major users.
I know these things because both I and my now 103 year old mother (along with a number of other relatives) are all Pasadena born natives.
However, local residents have historically objected to professional football teams using the venue because of traffic problems as well as the cost of further upgrades to the old grey lady's physical plant. Back around 2006 voters rejected a plan designed to accommodate NFL guidelines. It is the City which owns the stadium; UCLA and the Tournament of Roses Association are simply major users.
I know these things because both I and my now 103 year old mother (along with a number of other relatives) are all Pasadena born natives.
Last edited:
T
TeaPartyDude
Guest
LA already has a lot of venues to host offer events so why would the promoters want to use the football stadium? Besides isn't the argument these billionaire team owners make is that they don't want to share the facility with another sport.
- Status