Gumby
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2004
- Messages
- 4,601
- Reaction score
- 2,889
I get that. Everything you say is true. It doesn't change the reality that, in my opinion, it sucks when the goal of maximizing profit becomes the sole driving force for business decisions either in or out of sport. The city of St. Louis, by reasonable estimates, supported the Rams to the tune of about 500 million tax payer dollars from 1992 to the present. The fan base (considered the best in baseball with the Cardinals the among the most lucrative teams in baseball) was excellent. The value of the franchise, as noted above, doubled in five years above and beyond the yearly profits garnered. Yet that still wasn't enough. When I hear the NFL talk about "family" nevermind "community" I want to vomit.
It sucks when teams move, no doubt.
But to use the "value " of the franchise as a reason they should have stayed, is a number without context (Or any use for the owner). The value has two major components the current revenue stream (profits=revenue-costs) and the POTENTIAL revenue stream. And the potential has two different numbers one in StL and one in LA. And if the franchise were Dallas, that potential in another city would be negligible. But a team in StL, i bet you that potential revenue calculation already had LA or London, or somewhere other than misery factored into it. If he wanted to sell, the primary motivation for any buyer offering a higher # would be to move the team.
And the value goes up based on all league values or what all the teams are doing and not necessarily what the rams are doing. Value may even go up in SPITE of Rams actions.
Plus the owner only gets that $s from the value IF HE SELLS. if he doesnt want to, hi value sounds nice but does nothing for him to meet operating expenses.
Anyway, not saying its best/righteous, but i understand the economics of why it is what it is.