From: The Sports Point
Chip Rosenbloom, the owner of the St. Louis Rams, says the Rams have no intention of moving the team back to Los Angeles. He took control of the franchise along with his sister after his mother and former owner, Georgia Frontiere (pictured above) passed away on January 18th. Rosenbloom who is a movie producer in Los Angeles and raises his family there, had some not so good things to say in regards to the football memories he had of the teams time in Los Angeles. He showed his disdain by saying,"When the Rams were in the Super Bowl in the 1979 season — in LA — people really seemed to care less. . . . The game was in Pasadena (at the Rose Bowl), and the home team was in the Super Bowl."
From a business point of view it would seem to make no sense that a top three media market and a place with such a dense population would not have a franchise in the countries most popular sport. The argument against that way of thought is that the NFL franchises have loyal and passionate followings, thus the ability for the league to not only survive but thrive in smaller markets like Green Bay and Jacksonville. L.A does not have a history of rallying around its professional teams, outside of the Lakers and the Dodgers when they are good. It is an interesting situation in that city that the college football teams, USC and UCLA, sellout the L.A Coliseum and Rose Bowl continuously for home games, but there is not enough fans to go around to sustain a NFL franchise?
Lets face it, there is absolutely no reason for the NFL to expand. The eight divisions of four teams each works out great. However, if the NFL did decide to expand in the future do you think the powers that be would risk moving a team there again? If not, which city would be a better option then the City of Angels? We are interested to hear your thoughts on this.
Rosenbloom has no interest in moving the Rams (St. Louis Post Dispatch)