Skip navigation
Sign up to follow your favorites on all your devices.
Sign up

Report: Concerns over move to L.A. could be “hangup” in Fisher-to-Rams deal


As Jeff Fisher moves toward becoming the head coach of the team that beat Fisher’s Titans in Super Bowl XXXIV nearly 12 years ago, an unlikely factor has surfaced as a potential area of concern.

Jim Thomas of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports via Twitter that it “looks like” the “only possible hangup” for an agreement between the Rams and Fisher “are concerns about [the] team moving to [Los Angeles].”

The Rams remain on the short list of franchises that eventually could relocate to L.A. They can exit St. Louis after 2014, if their stadium isn’t among the top 25 percent of all NFL venues. (It’s unclear whether that’s in size, revenue streams, amenities, or Family Feud-style polling.)

It’s hard to tell whether Thomas is reporting that Fisher actually is concerned that the team will move to L.A., or that the issue has emerged, or could emerge, as a sticking point in negotiations. At the end of the day, it could be that Fisher simply wants his pay to be adjusted if at some point he’ll be coaching not in St. Louis but in a much larger, and thus more challenging and intense, media market. (He also could be disinclined to live through another move of a franchise, which he experienced when the Oilers moved from Houston fairly early in his time with the team that became the Titans.)

If that’s what happens, it would be fitting. For any team that moves to L.A., plenty of palms will be extended. Why shouldn’t the head coach have a clause in his contract that pays him more money to account for the fundamental differences between the two cities?

Regardless, the fact that this issue has bubbled to the surface as Fisher is potentially arriving to town won’t be the best way to launch his tenure with the team.