What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Goodbye Rams (1 Viewer)

Too bad Scottenheimer couldn't have been bar coded for quick and easy moving earlier.
:goodposting: :lmao:

The rumor around here the last 4-5 years is that Kroenke is pulling a "Major League" and trying to lose on purpose. This actually makes the most sense out of all of their moves.

:goodposting:

@Gianmarco, not so much disgusting as laughable.

I'm already pretty much done with the NFL except for gambling. As I've posted a dozen times here and in the FFA, the product on the field, league wide, sucks. Flag, after flag, after flag and other stoppages in play. Then there's that whole concussion thing. STL would probably be better off, long term, not spending the money on a new stadium.

 
Maybe it's time for the NFL to consider expansion. The US population is growing. They could probably get $550M from the relocating franchises and then another billion x 2 from two more markets.
Because there are so many franchise-quality QBs lying around out of work that the product quality wouldn't suffer noticeably from adding two more full squads of players to the existing pool....

But you're right about the money, so it probably happens.
Personally I think the QB pool is deeper than it's ever been. The bottom feeders in the NFC featured Romo, Cutler, Winston, and Krap. That's not horrible. In the AFC you have Tanneyhill, Rivers, Mariota, and crap. Pretty decent IMO. All of those teams were somewhat competitive unlike years past where we had several doormats each year.

With the population growth in the US, there should be more talent than ever to fill rosters. Personally I thinks it's more about opportunity. Guys like Langford, Rawls, West, Williams, Jones all shined when given a chance. The other component is development and that's more about the right coaching.

 
Forbes skewers Kroenke's proposal.

St Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is a lot smarter than I can ever dream about but some of the math he uses in his team’srelocation application to the NFL is does not support his case for bolting to Los Angeles.

Along with the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, the Rams want to move to Los Angeles. Specifically, Kroenke wants to build a new stadium that can accommodate two football teams in Inglewood, while the Chargers and Raiders are proposing a new stadium in Carson the two teams would share.

Page 23 of the Rams’ application says:

St. Louis Is Not A Three Professional Team TISI +% Market. St. Louis’ own business press has raised the question: “Can St. Louis Afford Three Sports Teams?” Earlier this year, the St. Louis Business Journal reported on a study performed by its parent company, American City Business Journals (“ACBJ”). The ACBJ study concluded that “St. Louis fans aren’t in a great position to continue to support three sports teams.” The study estimated the total personal income (TPI) a market would need to support a sports team, based on team revenue and ticket prices. Baseball was the most expensive, with the typical MLB franchise requiring a TPI base of at least $104 billion per year. The income thresholds for the other leagues were $50 billion per team for the NHL, $48 billion for the NFL, $45 billion for the NBA and $14 billion for MLS. St. Louis, with TPI of $132 billion annually, doesn’t have enough personal income to support the teams it already has. To support the Blues, Cardinals and Rams, more than $200 billion is needed, the report found, meaning St. Louis had a TPI deficit of $70 billion annually.


What strikes me as odd about that statement is the use of total personal income as to disqualify St. Louis. By my calculations, Pittsburgh and St. Louis both have total personal income (population times median personal income) of $15.1 billion. When you include the metro areas around each city, St Louis’ TPI is $133 billion versus $118 billion for Pittsburgh. And St. Louis has more (nine) Fortune 500 companies that Pittsburgh (6). Yet the Steelers, Penguins and Pirates seem to be doing just fine.

Just saying.
 
The stadium in San Francisco was only half full at kick off Sunday and there were thousands of empty seats through out the game. One the most successful organizations in the NFL, were in the Superbowl just a couple of years ago, and only half full. SF doesn't deserve a football team.
That stadium isn't in San Francisco.

 
Can someone explain to me why LA needs TWO teams?
No city "needs" a football team. But L.A. was able to support two teams in the past, there's no reason to think why they couldn't support two teams now. It's really about TV revenue and marketing, anyway. Pittsburgh and Green Bay are two of the smallest markets but have two of the biggest fanbases.

The owners of the Rams, Chargers and Raiders believe that they will make more money in Los Angeles than they'd make in their current cities. Simple as that.
LA didn't support 2 teams, thus the reason why they constantly lose teams. The entertainment dollar is spread really thin in southern California because of the many options people have.
LA lost two teams at the same time once. They haven't lost any other teams.

St. Louis has had two different chances to keep teams and blew it twice. Third time's a charm?

ETA: And they didn't lose the Rams and Raiders due to fan support. They lost them because of stadium issues. The Raiders actually had an agreement to move to Hollywood Park (where the Rams are moving) and the stadium deal collapsed at the 11th hour and they bolted. The Rams, well, they were owned by she who shall not be named, and St. Louis did whatever it took to get them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The stadium in San Francisco was only half full at kick off Sunday and there were thousands of empty seats through out the game. One the most successful organizations in the NFL, were in the Superbowl just a couple of years ago, and only half full. SF doesn't deserve a football team.
That stadium isn't in San Francisco.
A brand new stadium and they couldn't sell out the game. San Francisco 49 fans are the worst.

Can someone explain to me why LA needs TWO teams?
No city "needs" a football team. But L.A. was able to support two teams in the past, there's no reason to think why they couldn't support two teams now. It's really about TV revenue and marketing, anyway. Pittsburgh and Green Bay are two of the smallest markets but have two of the biggest fanbases.

The owners of the Rams, Chargers and Raiders believe that they will make more money in Los Angeles than they'd make in their current cities. Simple as that.
LA didn't support 2 teams, thus the reason why they constantly lose teams. The entertainment dollar is spread really thin in southern California because of the many options people have.
LA lost two teams at the same time once. They haven't lost any other teams.

St. Louis has had two different chances to keep teams and blew it twice. Third time's a charm?

ETA: And they didn't lose the Rams and Raiders due to fan support. They lost them because of stadium issues. The Raiders actually had an agreement to move to Hollywood Park (where the Rams are moving) and the stadium deal collapsed at the 11th hour and they bolted. The Rams, well, they were owned by she who shall not be named, and St. Louis did whatever it took to get them.
If you care about, you know, facts, that's why the Cardinals left St. Louis. They wanted a new stadium, city said no. Same situation, terrible team from inception and terrible owner.

The Rams asked to spend 750 million to upgrade the current stadium which was a ploy so they could walk away and say the lease was violated. It makes a lot more financial sense to build a new stadium but that was never the real issue. They Rams never had a single discussion with the city since their 750 million demand. Not one. Ultimatum doesn't equal negotiating.

 
The Rams asked to spend 750 million to upgrade the current stadium which was a ploy so they could walk away and say the lease was violated. It makes a lot more financial sense to build a new stadium but that was never the real issue. They Rams never had a single discussion with the city since their 750 million demand. Not one. Ultimatum doesn't equal negotiating.
The Rams were under no obligation to negotiate - St. Louis signed the deal and failed to live up to it.

 
The Rams asked to spend 750 million to upgrade the current stadium which was a ploy so they could walk away and say the lease was violated. It makes a lot more financial sense to build a new stadium but that was never the real issue. They Rams never had a single discussion with the city since their 750 million demand. Not one. Ultimatum doesn't equal negotiating.
The Rams were under no obligation to negotiate - St. Louis signed the deal and failed to live up to it.
100% correct. It was a terrible deal with a giant loophole and Kroenke exploited it. Fine. Quit will all the bull#### that the fans just don't want to support the NFL. Kroenke bought the rest of the Rams to move, end of story. Everything else about the city and the fans is just crap.

 
Maybe it's time for the NFL to consider expansion. The US population is growing. They could probably get $550M from the relocating franchises and then another billion x 2 from two more markets.
My link
I'd almost prefer an expansion team over the Rams at this point.
Like I said earlier, I really don't care about the NFL any more except for gambling. We should have gotten the expansion team that went to Jacksonville. Oh well.

The only way I buy tickets, or really give a ####, is if we get to keep the Rams name which is almost not certainly going to happen.

 
The stadium in San Francisco was only half full at kick off Sunday and there were thousands of empty seats through out the game. One the most successful organizations in the NFL, were in the Superbowl just a couple of years ago, and only half full. SF doesn't deserve a football team.
That stadium isn't in San Francisco.
A brand new stadium and they couldn't sell out the game. San Francisco 49 fans are the worst.

Can someone explain to me why LA needs TWO teams?
No city "needs" a football team. But L.A. was able to support two teams in the past, there's no reason to think why they couldn't support two teams now. It's really about TV revenue and marketing, anyway. Pittsburgh and Green Bay are two of the smallest markets but have two of the biggest fanbases.

The owners of the Rams, Chargers and Raiders believe that they will make more money in Los Angeles than they'd make in their current cities. Simple as that.
LA didn't support 2 teams, thus the reason why they constantly lose teams. The entertainment dollar is spread really thin in southern California because of the many options people have.
LA lost two teams at the same time once. They haven't lost any other teams.

St. Louis has had two different chances to keep teams and blew it twice. Third time's a charm?

ETA: And they didn't lose the Rams and Raiders due to fan support. They lost them because of stadium issues. The Raiders actually had an agreement to move to Hollywood Park (where the Rams are moving) and the stadium deal collapsed at the 11th hour and they bolted. The Rams, well, they were owned by she who shall not be named, and St. Louis did whatever it took to get them.
If you care about, you know, facts, that's why the Cardinals left St. Louis. They wanted a new stadium, city said no. Same situation, terrible team from inception and terrible owner.

The Rams asked to spend 750 million to upgrade the current stadium which was a ploy so they could walk away and say the lease was violated. It makes a lot more financial sense to build a new stadium but that was never the real issue. They Rams never had a single discussion with the city since their 750 million demand. Not one. Ultimatum doesn't equal negotiating.
I think you have me confused with theFanatic. I assume that's why virtually all teams move. It has little to do with attendance figures (which are sometimes decent and sometimes awful), but more with an inability to generate a ton of revenue due to a poor stadium situation.

Others (not you) in this thread have incorrectly characterized the reasons for the L.A. teams moving as the L.A. fans not showing up to games (and then ignoring the St. Louis attendance figures).

 
The Rams asked to spend 750 million to upgrade the current stadium which was a ploy so they could walk away and say the lease was violated. It makes a lot more financial sense to build a new stadium but that was never the real issue. They Rams never had a single discussion with the city since their 750 million demand. Not one. Ultimatum doesn't equal negotiating.
The Rams were under no obligation to negotiate - St. Louis signed the deal and failed to live up to it.
100% correct. It was a terrible deal with a giant loophole and Kroenke exploited it. Fine. Quit will all the bull#### that the fans just don't want to support the NFL. Kroenke bought the rest of the Rams to move, end of story. Everything else about the city and the fans is just crap.
Exactly. The city signed a bad deal but did the smart thing not to follow through. Not the fans' fault.

 
Maybe it's time for the NFL to consider expansion. The US population is growing. They could probably get $550M from the relocating franchises and then another billion x 2 from two more markets.
My link
I'd almost prefer an expansion team over the Rams at this point.
Like I said earlier, I really don't care about the NFL any more except for gambling. We should have gotten the expansion team that went to Jacksonville. Oh well.

The only way I buy tickets, or really give a ####, is if we get to keep the Rams name which is almost not certainly going to happen.
Assuming the Rams move to L.A., is it that you simply like the name "Rams" and want to keep it or do you really think St. Louis has more of a claim to the "Rams" name and mark than L.A. does?

 
The Rams asked to spend 750 million to upgrade the current stadium which was a ploy so they could walk away and say the lease was violated. It makes a lot more financial sense to build a new stadium but that was never the real issue. They Rams never had a single discussion with the city since their 750 million demand. Not one. Ultimatum doesn't equal negotiating.
The Rams were under no obligation to negotiate - St. Louis signed the deal and failed to live up to it.
100% correct. It was a terrible deal with a giant loophole and Kroenke exploited it. Fine. Quit will all the bull#### that the fans just don't want to support the NFL. Kroenke bought the rest of the Rams to move, end of story. Everything else about the city and the fans is just crap.
Exactly. The city signed a bad deal but did the smart thing not to follow through. Not the fans' fault.
Exactly but the national media shills, and Kroenke himself in the Rams relocation request, like to point to attendance as well as other very selective data as to why they have to move. As if performance on the field by the players and how the organization treats the fans is completely inconsequential. STL gave the finger to Bidwell and the Cardinals, much the way SD and OAK are doing now to their owners. The Rams, notsomuch.

Maybe it's time for the NFL to consider expansion. The US population is growing. They could probably get $550M from the relocating franchises and then another billion x 2 from two more markets.
My link
I'd almost prefer an expansion team over the Rams at this point.
Like I said earlier, I really don't care about the NFL any more except for gambling. We should have gotten the expansion team that went to Jacksonville. Oh well.

The only way I buy tickets, or really give a ####, is if we get to keep the Rams name which is almost not certainly going to happen.
Assuming the Rams move to L.A., is it that you simply like the name "Rams" and want to keep it or do you really think St. Louis has more of a claim to the "Rams" name and mark than L.A. does?
It's REALLY, REALLY, stupid. Kind of like Seinfeld said about rooting for the uniforms instead of the player.

I guess you could say L.A. has more of a claim since they were there longer but after growing up going to Big Red games then switching to the Rams, I just don't have any interest in rooting, or spending my money, on yet another NFL team.

 
The Rams asked to spend 750 million to upgrade the current stadium which was a ploy so they could walk away and say the lease was violated. It makes a lot more financial sense to build a new stadium but that was never the real issue. They Rams never had a single discussion with the city since their 750 million demand. Not one. Ultimatum doesn't equal negotiating.
The Rams were under no obligation to negotiate - St. Louis signed the deal and failed to live up to it.
100% correct. It was a terrible deal with a giant loophole and Kroenke exploited it. Fine. Quit will all the bull#### that the fans just don't want to support the NFL. Kroenke bought the rest of the Rams to move, end of story. Everything else about the city and the fans is just crap.
Exactly. The city signed a bad deal but did the smart thing not to follow through. Not the fans' fault.
Exactly but the national media shills, and Kroenke himself in the Rams relocation request, like to point to attendance as well as other very selective data as to why they have to move. As if performance on the field by the players and how the organization treats the fans is completely inconsequential. STL gave the finger to Bidwell and the Cardinals, much the way SD and OAK are doing now to their owners. The Rams, notsomuch.

Maybe it's time for the NFL to consider expansion. The US population is growing. They could probably get $550M from the relocating franchises and then another billion x 2 from two more markets.
My link
I'd almost prefer an expansion team over the Rams at this point.
Like I said earlier, I really don't care about the NFL any more except for gambling. We should have gotten the expansion team that went to Jacksonville. Oh well.

The only way I buy tickets, or really give a ####, is if we get to keep the Rams name which is almost not certainly going to happen.
Assuming the Rams move to L.A., is it that you simply like the name "Rams" and want to keep it or do you really think St. Louis has more of a claim to the "Rams" name and mark than L.A. does?
It's REALLY, REALLY, stupid. Kind of like Seinfeld said about rooting for the uniforms instead of the player.

I guess you could say L.A. has more of a claim since they were there longer but after growing up going to Big Red games then switching to the Rams, I just don't have any interest in rooting, or spending my money, on yet another NFL team.
Haha! I understand. And, it's not stupid. Our own fandoms are our own and we can be as selfish as we like about it.

I felt the same way (minus switching to the Rams - I was raised rooting for them) when the Rams left. I didn't want them to leave, but if they were going to, at least let us keep the name for our next team, which obviously never showed up.

 
It's like dating a gal, who is perfectly fine, but you find out another hotter gal wants to bang you. Now you could just break up with your current broad and tell her you want to see other people. Kroenke is choosing to tell all of his friends that he broke up with her because she has gonorrhea. And a penis.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Expansion is not happening. The NFL is happy with the nice round 8x4 divisions. That combined with the sparse quality QB talent. As simple as that.

 
Expansion is definitely not happening. Unfortunately the NFL is the biggest and most out in the open mob organization the world has ever seen. If you want a team you need to play ball, not negotiate to the last minute on a stadium. Should've just bent over years ago like every other city does.

That's if you want to keep the team. It is more noble to tell them to go pound sand, but obviously they'll just go somewhere else. It's a dirty, dirty game.

 
Maybe it's time for the NFL to consider expansion. The US population is growing. They could probably get $550M from the relocating franchises and then another billion x 2 from two more markets.
Because there are so many franchise-quality QBs lying around out of work that the product quality wouldn't suffer noticeably from adding two more full squads of players to the existing pool....

But you're right about the money, so it probably happens.
Personally I think the QB pool is deeper than it's ever been. The bottom feeders in the NFC featured Romo, Cutler, Winston, and Krap. That's not horrible. In the AFC you have Tanneyhill, Rivers, Mariota, and crap. Pretty decent IMO. All of those teams were somewhat competitive unlike years past where we had several doormats each year.

With the population growth in the US, there should be more talent than ever to fill rosters. Personally I thinks it's more about opportunity. Guys like Langford, Rawls, West, Williams, Jones all shined when given a chance. The other component is development and that's more about the right coaching.
Maybe...but Case Keenum and Brian Hoyer started an awful lot of games this season...

And the flip side about expansion creating opportunities for guys like Rawls, West and Langford is that, if those guys were starting on expansion teams already, we'd be seeing a lot more Ka'Deem Carey, Bryce Brown, and Benny Cunningham snaps. (And, to be fair, more Spencer Ware snaps...he was 4th string to start the preseason.)

 
Kroenke in 2010.

Editor's note: The following column was published on April 21, 2010, as Stan Kroenke was seeking NFL approval for ownership of the Rams.

If Stan Kroenke gains NFL approval in his quest to purchase the Rams, he vows to do everything he can to secure the team's long-term future in St. Louis.

In his first interview since announcing that he'd exercised an option to match businessman Shahid Khan's bid for the available 60 percent of the team, Kroenke broke his customary silence in an attempt to reassure Rams fans of his positive intentions.

"I'm going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis," Kroenke said in a phone interview Tuesday night. "Just as I did everything that I could to bring the team to St. Louis in 1995. I believe my actions speak for themselves."

In the early 1990s, Kroenke became the lead investor in a St. Louis group that unsuccessfully pursued an NFL expansion franchise. But Kroenke later purchased 40 percent of the Rams from owner Georgia Frontiere as a precondition of the franchise's move from Los Angeles to St. Louis before the 1995 season.

"There's a track record," Kroenke said. "I've always stepped up for pro football in St. Louis. And I'm stepping up one more time."

Kroenke, citing confidentiality agreements, declined to discuss his plan to persuade the NFL to accommodate his bid for the Rams. Because of current league guidelines, Kroenke must work around NFL rules that prohibiting cross-ownership. He may have a problem in gaining clearance from the NFL because of his ownership of NBA and NHL franchises in Denver. The Post-Dispatch recently reported that one potential solution is to have Kroenke sell the Denver sports franchises to his wife, Ann.


Again citing confidentiality agreements, Kroenke declined to discuss his dealings with Khan, who had hoped to have Kroenke stay on board as a 40 percent partner. A report in the Sports Business Journal claimed that Kroenke had asked Khan for "a mid- to high eight-figure fee" in return for allowing Khan to proceed with his attempted purchase of 60 percent of the Rams.

Since Kroenke decided to match Khan's bid, Kroenke's motives have come under scrutiny. For starters, Kroenke didn't express a commitment to St. Louis in the statement he issued to announce his decision to match. Then came a report that Kroenke was a member of an NFL committee that supervises potential new-stadium projects in Los Angeles, which is seeking an NFL franchise. Then came the Sports Business Journal report, which caused more commotion in St. Louis.

Kroenke is bothered by the perception that he'd work against St. Louis, or that he'd scheme to move the Rams back to Los Angeles. He pointed to a life spent largely inside Missouri borders, and his base in Columbia, Mo.

"I'm born and raised in Missouri," Kroenke said. "I've been a Missourian for 60 years. People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy."

Kroenke mentioned that his mother-in-law, who is 86, attends every Rams home game as an enthusiastic fan. And she is accompanied to the games by her sister, who lives in the St. Louis area. Kroenke didn't finish the obvious point, but I'll finish it for him: Why would anyone believe he'd want to move the Rams away from beloved family members?

The Rams' lease at the Edward Jones Dome is in question. Unless the facility ranks among the top 25 percent of NFL facilities — which is virtually impossible — the Rams' lease would be nullified after the 2014 season. And the team would be free to move unless a new agreement can be reached.

Kroenke said, "I'll do my damnedest," to secure the Rams' future in St. Louis.

During our interview, Kroenke's passion was striking.

Kroenke doesn't speak out often — but in this instance, his words carried weight.

That said, Kroenke is a businessman. I don't use that as a pejorative term. I just don't believe Kroenke will be an easy touch in any stadium negotiations. The Rams need to improve their revenue flow at the facility to keep up with other NFL franchises. Kroenke may eventually drive a hard bargain. Still, it was encouraging to hear him speak so adamantly of his desire to find a way to make it work here.

Rams majority owner Chip Rosenbloom also ended his period of silence on the Rams' sale. In an interview Tuesday, Rosenbloom wouldn't discuss the sale process, but he emphasized that he likes Khan and Kroenke and considers them friends. And Rosenbloom believes that either man would be a good owner for St. Louis.

But Rosenbloom felt compelled to defend Kroenke on a personal level.

"There's no reason to believe that Stan would be anything less than committed to St. Louis," Rosenbloom said. "He was instrumental in securing the Rams franchise for St. Louis along with my mom (Frontiere) and (Rams adviser) John Shaw. Stan has been our partner since we came to St. Louis. He's been by our side for 15 years."

Pointing to Kroenke's roots, family and business interests in Missouri, Rosenbloom said he is puzzled by the backlash against Kroenke.

"All of it points to a good relationship with St. Louis," Rosenbloom said. "I don't know why anyone would believe otherwise."

Before the interview ended, Kroenke had one more item to address.

The Rams will have the No. 1 overall pick in Thursday's first round of the NFL draft.

"I'm excited," Kroenke said. "I can't wait to see what we do."

Will the Rams draft Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford?

Kroenke offered no clues or hints on that. But he did convey support for the Rams' future in St. Louis, and at this stage that's even more important.
 
Let's see Stan's next move when he loses Inglewood to Carson
Not going to happen.

Stan Kroenke's plan to win the race to Los Angeles


Today, in a report filed by the St. Louis Business Journal, Inglewood Mayor James Butts confirmed that the stadium in Inglewood would be built with or without the St. Louis Rams being granted relocation to Los Angeles.

That means a couple of things.

  1. The Inglewood project does not need to wait around for a decision from the NFL or the other NFL owners before they can start construction.
  2. By building a better venue than the Carson stadium, and therefore stealing big events away from Carson (World Cup, Olympics, international soccer matches, etc.), Kroenke can rob the Carson stadium project of much of its value.
 
Let's see Stan's next move when he loses Inglewood to Carson
Not going to happen.

Stan Kroenke's plan to win the race to Los Angeles

Today, in a report filed by the St. Louis Business Journal, Inglewood Mayor James Butts confirmed that the stadium in Inglewood would be built with or without the St. Louis Rams being granted relocation to Los Angeles.

That means a couple of things.

  • The Inglewood project does not need to wait around for a decision from the NFL or the other NFL owners before they can start construction.
  • By building a better venue than the Carson stadium, and therefore stealing big events away from Carson (World Cup, Olympics, international soccer matches, etc.), Kroenke can rob the Carson stadium project of much of its value.
Inglewood Mayor Butts says that's not true. http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2016/01/05/inglewood-calif-mayor-nfl-stadium-construction-not-guaranteed/
 
Brady Marino said:
Kroenke in 2010.

Editor's note: The following column was published on April 21, 2010, as Stan Kroenke was seeking NFL approval for ownership of the Rams.

If Stan Kroenke gains NFL approval in his quest to purchase the Rams, he vows to do everything he can to secure the team's long-term future in St. Louis.

In his first interview since announcing that he'd exercised an option to match businessman Shahid Khan's bid for the available 60 percent of the team, Kroenke broke his customary silence in an attempt to reassure Rams fans of his positive intentions.

"I'm going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis," Kroenke said in a phone interview Tuesday night. "Just as I did everything that I could to bring the team to St. Louis in 1995. I believe my actions speak for themselves."

In the early 1990s, Kroenke became the lead investor in a St. Louis group that unsuccessfully pursued an NFL expansion franchise. But Kroenke later purchased 40 percent of the Rams from owner Georgia Frontiere as a precondition of the franchise's move from Los Angeles to St. Louis before the 1995 season.

"There's a track record," Kroenke said. "I've always stepped up for pro football in St. Louis. And I'm stepping up one more time."

Kroenke, citing confidentiality agreements, declined to discuss his plan to persuade the NFL to accommodate his bid for the Rams. Because of current league guidelines, Kroenke must work around NFL rules that prohibiting cross-ownership. He may have a problem in gaining clearance from the NFL because of his ownership of NBA and NHL franchises in Denver. The Post-Dispatch recently reported that one potential solution is to have Kroenke sell the Denver sports franchises to his wife, Ann.


Again citing confidentiality agreements, Kroenke declined to discuss his dealings with Khan, who had hoped to have Kroenke stay on board as a 40 percent partner. A report in the Sports Business Journal claimed that Kroenke had asked Khan for "a mid- to high eight-figure fee" in return for allowing Khan to proceed with his attempted purchase of 60 percent of the Rams.

Since Kroenke decided to match Khan's bid, Kroenke's motives have come under scrutiny. For starters, Kroenke didn't express a commitment to St. Louis in the statement he issued to announce his decision to match. Then came a report that Kroenke was a member of an NFL committee that supervises potential new-stadium projects in Los Angeles, which is seeking an NFL franchise. Then came the Sports Business Journal report, which caused more commotion in St. Louis.

Kroenke is bothered by the perception that he'd work against St. Louis, or that he'd scheme to move the Rams back to Los Angeles. He pointed to a life spent largely inside Missouri borders, and his base in Columbia, Mo.

"I'm born and raised in Missouri," Kroenke said. "I've been a Missourian for 60 years. People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy."

Kroenke mentioned that his mother-in-law, who is 86, attends every Rams home game as an enthusiastic fan. And she is accompanied to the games by her sister, who lives in the St. Louis area. Kroenke didn't finish the obvious point, but I'll finish it for him: Why would anyone believe he'd want to move the Rams away from beloved family members?

The Rams' lease at the Edward Jones Dome is in question. Unless the facility ranks among the top 25 percent of NFL facilities — which is virtually impossible — the Rams' lease would be nullified after the 2014 season. And the team would be free to move unless a new agreement can be reached.

Kroenke said, "I'll do my damnedest," to secure the Rams' future in St. Louis.

During our interview, Kroenke's passion was striking.

Kroenke doesn't speak out often — but in this instance, his words carried weight.

That said, Kroenke is a businessman. I don't use that as a pejorative term. I just don't believe Kroenke will be an easy touch in any stadium negotiations. The Rams need to improve their revenue flow at the facility to keep up with other NFL franchises. Kroenke may eventually drive a hard bargain. Still, it was encouraging to hear him speak so adamantly of his desire to find a way to make it work here.

Rams majority owner Chip Rosenbloom also ended his period of silence on the Rams' sale. In an interview Tuesday, Rosenbloom wouldn't discuss the sale process, but he emphasized that he likes Khan and Kroenke and considers them friends. And Rosenbloom believes that either man would be a good owner for St. Louis.

But Rosenbloom felt compelled to defend Kroenke on a personal level.

"There's no reason to believe that Stan would be anything less than committed to St. Louis," Rosenbloom said. "He was instrumental in securing the Rams franchise for St. Louis along with my mom (Frontiere) and (Rams adviser) John Shaw. Stan has been our partner since we came to St. Louis. He's been by our side for 15 years."

Pointing to Kroenke's roots, family and business interests in Missouri, Rosenbloom said he is puzzled by the backlash against Kroenke.

"All of it points to a good relationship with St. Louis," Rosenbloom said. "I don't know why anyone would believe otherwise."

Before the interview ended, Kroenke had one more item to address.

The Rams will have the No. 1 overall pick in Thursday's first round of the NFL draft.

"I'm excited," Kroenke said. "I can't wait to see what we do."

Will the Rams draft Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford?

Kroenke offered no clues or hints on that. But he did convey support for the Rams' future in St. Louis, and at this stage that's even more important.
:lmao: Such a POS. Love how he keeps switching business partners because he ####s them over. One day he's going to get a bullet in his head.

 
Let's see Stan's next move when he loses Inglewood to Carson
Not going to happen.

Stan Kroenke's plan to win the race to Los Angeles

Today, in a report filed by the St. Louis Business Journal, Inglewood Mayor James Butts confirmed that the stadium in Inglewood would be built with or without the St. Louis Rams being granted relocation to Los Angeles.

That means a couple of things.

  • The Inglewood project does not need to wait around for a decision from the NFL or the other NFL owners before they can start construction.
  • By building a better venue than the Carson stadium, and therefore stealing big events away from Carson (World Cup, Olympics, international soccer matches, etc.), Kroenke can rob the Carson stadium project of much of its value.
Inglewood Mayor Butts says that's not true. http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2016/01/05/inglewood-calif-mayor-nfl-stadium-construction-not-guaranteed/
Was going to say, I heard this was shot down too. I think it's a distinct possibility that Kroenke doesn't get awarded L.A. and he moves to London. After going all scorched Earth in STL, don't see how he could stay.

 
Capella said:
Expansion is definitely not happening. Unfortunately the NFL is the biggest and most out in the open mob organization the world has ever seen. If you want a team you need to play ball, not negotiate to the last minute on a stadium. Should've just bent over years ago like every other city does.

That's if you want to keep the team. It is more noble to tell them to go pound sand, but obviously they'll just go somewhere else. It's a dirty, dirty game.
Yep

 
Let's see Stan's next move when he loses Inglewood to Carson
Not going to happen.

Stan Kroenke's plan to win the race to Los Angeles

Today, in a report filed by the St. Louis Business Journal, Inglewood Mayor James Butts confirmed that the stadium in Inglewood would be built with or without the St. Louis Rams being granted relocation to Los Angeles.

That means a couple of things.

  • The Inglewood project does not need to wait around for a decision from the NFL or the other NFL owners before they can start construction.
  • By building a better venue than the Carson stadium, and therefore stealing big events away from Carson (World Cup, Olympics, international soccer matches, etc.), Kroenke can rob the Carson stadium project of much of its value.
Inglewood Mayor Butts says that's not true. http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2016/01/05/inglewood-calif-mayor-nfl-stadium-construction-not-guaranteed/
Was going to say, I heard this was shot down too. I think it's a distinct possibility that Kroenke doesn't get awarded L.A. and he moves to London. After going all scorched Earth in STL, don't see how he could stay.
Why would he go to London and not L.A.? Might as well pull an Al Davis.

 
Let's see Stan's next move when he loses Inglewood to Carson
Not going to happen.

Stan Kroenke's plan to win the race to Los Angeles

Today, in a report filed by the St. Louis Business Journal, Inglewood Mayor James Butts confirmed that the stadium in Inglewood would be built with or without the St. Louis Rams being granted relocation to Los Angeles.

That means a couple of things.

  • The Inglewood project does not need to wait around for a decision from the NFL or the other NFL owners before they can start construction.
  • By building a better venue than the Carson stadium, and therefore stealing big events away from Carson (World Cup, Olympics, international soccer matches, etc.), Kroenke can rob the Carson stadium project of much of its value.
Inglewood Mayor Butts says that's not true. http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2016/01/05/inglewood-calif-mayor-nfl-stadium-construction-not-guaranteed/
Was going to say, I heard this was shot down too. I think it's a distinct possibility that Kroenke doesn't get awarded L.A. and he moves to London. After going all scorched Earth in STL, don't see how he could stay.
Why would he go to London and not L.A.? Might as well pull an Al Davis.
SD & Oak are already there. IMO, one of those two get awarded L.A. They both tried for a lot longer to get a new stadium with no progress at all so I think the other owners will be sympathetic to that. Plus Spanos is saying that if the Rams or Oak moves to L.A. they will cannibalize 25% of his market. I understand Spanos is well like by all of the owners. Kroenke, and Davis for that matter, not so much. So then Kroenke will lobby to move to London which, pretty obviously, has been his back up plan all along. Oakland stays in Oakland and the NFL "figures something out" so they get a new venue.

 
Let's see Stan's next move when he loses Inglewood to Carson
Not going to happen.

Stan Kroenke's plan to win the race to Los Angeles


Today, in a report filed by the St. Louis Business Journal, Inglewood Mayor James Butts confirmed that the stadium in Inglewood would be built with or without the St. Louis Rams being granted relocation to Los Angeles.

That means a couple of things.

  1. The Inglewood project does not need to wait around for a decision from the NFL or the other NFL owners before they can start construction.
  2. By building a better venue than the Carson stadium, and therefore stealing big events away from Carson (World Cup, Olympics, international soccer matches, etc.), Kroenke can rob the Carson stadium project of much of its value.
Posturing, nothing more.

No WAY will Kroenke build a stadium in Inglewood without a FULL TIME leasee

 
Let's see Stan's next move when he loses Inglewood to Carson
Not going to happen.

Stan Kroenke's plan to win the race to Los Angeles

Today, in a report filed by the St. Louis Business Journal, Inglewood Mayor James Butts confirmed that the stadium in Inglewood would be built with or without the St. Louis Rams being granted relocation to Los Angeles.

That means a couple of things.

  • The Inglewood project does not need to wait around for a decision from the NFL or the other NFL owners before they can start construction.
  • By building a better venue than the Carson stadium, and therefore stealing big events away from Carson (World Cup, Olympics, international soccer matches, etc.), Kroenke can rob the Carson stadium project of much of its value.
Inglewood Mayor Butts says that's not true. http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2016/01/05/inglewood-calif-mayor-nfl-stadium-construction-not-guaranteed/
Was going to say, I heard this was shot down too. I think it's a distinct possibility that Kroenke doesn't get awarded L.A. and he moves to London. After going all scorched Earth in STL, don't see how he could stay.
Why would he go to London and not L.A.? Might as well pull an Al Davis.
SD & Oak are already there. IMO, one of those two get awarded L.A. They both tried for a lot longer to get a new stadium with no progress at all so I think the other owners will be sympathetic to that. Plus Spanos is saying that if the Rams or Oak moves to L.A. they will cannibalize 25% of his market. I understand Spanos is well like by all of the owners. Kroenke, and Davis for that matter, not so much. So then Kroenke will lobby to move to London which, pretty obviously, has been his back up plan all along. Oakland stays in Oakland and the NFL "figures something out" so they get a new venue.
I'm not aware the bolded (one of them) is on the table. I think there are only 3 scenarios:

STL to Inglewood

STL and SD to Inglewood with SD as Kroenke tenant/partner

SD and OAK to Carson as partners

 
Let's see Stan's next move when he loses Inglewood to Carson
Not going to happen.

Stan Kroenke's plan to win the race to Los Angeles

Today, in a report filed by the St. Louis Business Journal, Inglewood Mayor James Butts confirmed that the stadium in Inglewood would be built with or without the St. Louis Rams being granted relocation to Los Angeles.

That means a couple of things.

  • The Inglewood project does not need to wait around for a decision from the NFL or the other NFL owners before they can start construction.
  • By building a better venue than the Carson stadium, and therefore stealing big events away from Carson (World Cup, Olympics, international soccer matches, etc.), Kroenke can rob the Carson stadium project of much of its value.
Inglewood Mayor Butts says that's not true. http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2016/01/05/inglewood-calif-mayor-nfl-stadium-construction-not-guaranteed/
Was going to say, I heard this was shot down too. I think it's a distinct possibility that Kroenke doesn't get awarded L.A. and he moves to London. After going all scorched Earth in STL, don't see how he could stay.
Why would he go to London and not L.A.? Might as well pull an Al Davis.
SD & Oak are already there. IMO, one of those two get awarded L.A. They both tried for a lot longer to get a new stadium with no progress at all so I think the other owners will be sympathetic to that. Plus Spanos is saying that if the Rams or Oak moves to L.A. they will cannibalize 25% of his market. I understand Spanos is well like by all of the owners. Kroenke, and Davis for that matter, not so much. So then Kroenke will lobby to move to London which, pretty obviously, has been his back up plan all along. Oakland stays in Oakland and the NFL "figures something out" so they get a new venue.
A Team in London sounds horrible. I can't imagine too many free agents jumping at those travel requirements.

 
If they move 2 teams to L.A., they lose leverage. I just don't see it happening. Now I think a stadium built for two teams will happen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's see Stan's next move when he loses Inglewood to Carson
Not going to happen.

Stan Kroenke's plan to win the race to Los Angeles

Today, in a report filed by the St. Louis Business Journal, Inglewood Mayor James Butts confirmed that the stadium in Inglewood would be built with or without the St. Louis Rams being granted relocation to Los Angeles.

That means a couple of things.

  • The Inglewood project does not need to wait around for a decision from the NFL or the other NFL owners before they can start construction.
  • By building a better venue than the Carson stadium, and therefore stealing big events away from Carson (World Cup, Olympics, international soccer matches, etc.), Kroenke can rob the Carson stadium project of much of its value.
Inglewood Mayor Butts says that's not true. http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2016/01/05/inglewood-calif-mayor-nfl-stadium-construction-not-guaranteed/
Was going to say, I heard this was shot down too. I think it's a distinct possibility that Kroenke doesn't get awarded L.A. and he moves to London. After going all scorched Earth in STL, don't see how he could stay.
Why would he go to London and not L.A.? Might as well pull an Al Davis.
SD & Oak are already there. IMO, one of those two get awarded L.A. They both tried for a lot longer to get a new stadium with no progress at all so I think the other owners will be sympathetic to that. Plus Spanos is saying that if the Rams or Oak moves to L.A. they will cannibalize 25% of his market. I understand Spanos is well like by all of the owners. Kroenke, and Davis for that matter, not so much. So then Kroenke will lobby to move to London which, pretty obviously, has been his back up plan all along. Oakland stays in Oakland and the NFL "figures something out" so they get a new venue.
I'm not aware the bolded (one of them) is on the table. I think there are only 3 scenarios:

STL to Inglewood

STL and SD to Inglewood with SD as Kroenke tenant/partner

SD and OAK to Carson as partners
Inglewood isn't happening.

 
Serious question (I don't know the answer).

If the proposed Inglewood stadium gets built, would it be the only stadium in the US close to a major metropolitan airport?

* For me, the operative word in the title from the article link immediately above was *COULD*.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Serious question (I don't know the answer).

If the proposed Inglewood stadium gets built, would it be the only stadium in the US close to a major metropolitan airport?

* For me, the operative word in the title from the article link immediately above was *COULD*.
Define "close."

Also, I thought the stadium was going to have a roof over it. How would the stadium lights bother air traffic if they are covered? Mayor Butts said, and I get that he's biased, that any issues they have are minor and they already have the resolutions to them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Serious question (I don't know the answer).

If the proposed Inglewood stadium gets built, would it be the only stadium in the US close to a major metropolitan airport?

* For me, the operative word in the title from the article link immediately above was *COULD*.
Define "close."

Also, I thought the stadium was going to have a roof over it. How would the stadium lights bother air traffic if they are covered? Mayor Butts said, and I get that he's biased, that any issues they have are minor and they already have the resolutions to them.
Good clarification - as close to their respective airports as Kroenke's proposed Inglewood venue is to LAX?

Per davearm's post, I wasn't sure (thus the question), but NY came immediately to mind.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shea stadium/Citi field are very close to LaGuardia IIRC
Good call. It's 1.3 miles away. Perhaps it's not in the flight path, though? LAX is 3.8 miles away from Hollywood Park, but it's directly east in the path that flights arriving to LAX use to land.

 
Serious question (I don't know the answer).

If the proposed Inglewood stadium gets built, would it be the only stadium in the US close to a major metropolitan airport?

* For me, the operative word in the title from the article link immediately above was *COULD*.
Define "close."

Also, I thought the stadium was going to have a roof over it. How would the stadium lights bother air traffic if they are covered? Mayor Butts said, and I get that he's biased, that any issues they have are minor and they already have the resolutions to them.
Good clarification - as close to their respective airports as Kroenke's proposed Inglewood venue is to LAX?

Per davearm's post, I wasn't sure (thus the question), but NY came immediately to mind.
It's a good question.

davearm was spot on. As I posted above, Shea is only 1.3 miles away from Laguardia.

The Bay Area parks are/were pretty close to their local airports. Candlestick Park was located 7.3 miles to the south of SFO. And, Oakland Coliseum (or whatever they call the place the A's and Raiders play in now) is 3.6 miles away from Oakland airport (although it's less than that as the crow flies). Levi's Stadium is 5.7 miles from San Jose International (although it's less than that as the crow flies).

 
Though another point may be, all but the 49ers home field were conceived and constructed in the pre 9-11 landscape? Dunno if that is relevant to their concerns, they didn't state it as one? The lights concern does sound like a thin excuse if they could be covered, don't know anything about avionics radar to speak to the plausibility of that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Serious question (I don't know the answer).

If the proposed Inglewood stadium gets built, would it be the only stadium in the US close to a major metropolitan airport?

* For me, the operative word in the title from the article link immediately above was *COULD*.
Define "close."

Also, I thought the stadium was going to have a roof over it. How would the stadium lights bother air traffic if they are covered? Mayor Butts said, and I get that he's biased, that any issues they have are minor and they already have the resolutions to them.
Good clarification - as close to their respective airports as Kroenke's proposed Inglewood venue is to LAX?

Per davearm's post, I wasn't sure (thus the question), but NY came immediately to mind.
Seems to be a non-issue given that there are thousands of lights from cars on the 405 about a mile from the runway (half the distance the stadium would be).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A Team in London sounds horrible. I can't imagine too many free agents jumping at those travel requirements.
Wonder how many potential draft picks and UDFAs have up to date passports so they can go try out at a moment's notice, too?

On the airport issue, it wouldn't just be the stadium's field lights. The parking lots would be fairly brightly lit as well as the exterior of the stadium for blimp shots. For that matter, the blimp wouldn't work well in an airplane landing flight path. :P

 
I thought of the parking lots, but not sure they would be brighter than any other big parking lot or complex (like a Walmart or mall)?

As to the 405, don't think car lights, even a lot of them in massed formation (i.e. - traffic jam mode) would be as potentially bright as the stadium lights, though admittedly haven't participated in any NTSB tests. :)

 
Spanos is saying that if the Rams or Oak moves to L.A. they will cannibalize 25% of his market.
He's full of it. His solution is to abandon San Diego for a city which will have another team, how much of "his" market is he cannibalizing by doing that? Here's an idea Dean - how about putting a quality product on the field? Maybe that would have more to do with maintaining support than keeping another team from moving to L.A. That's one of the more truly pathetic things about his tenure as owner of the Chargers. There hasn't been another NFL team within over 350 miles of Los Angeles in 20 years and he hasn't managed to make the Chargers the top team in the area. Now he's going to whine about "his" market? #### him.

 
Spanos is saying that if the Rams or Oak moves to L.A. they will cannibalize 25% of his market.
He's full of it. His solution is to abandon San Diego for a city which will have another team, how much of "his" market is he cannibalizing by doing that? Here's an idea Dean - how about putting a quality product on the field? Maybe that would have more to do with maintaining support than keeping another team from moving to L.A. That's one of the more truly pathetic things about his tenure as owner of the Chargers. There hasn't been another NFL team within over 350 miles of Los Angeles in 20 years and he hasn't managed to make the Chargers the top team in the area. Now he's going to whine about "his" market? #### him.
:lmao:

8 winning seasons in the last 11 years. Including, 12-4, 14-2, 11-5, 13-3.

Rams -zero- winning seasons in the last 11 years. Yeah it must suck to be a Chargers fan.

 
"quality product"

:lmao:

:lmao:

:lmao:
Virtually anything compared to STL Rams football can be considered a "quality product". Truth is, the Chargers have not won a Conference title since 1994.

They've had some decent runs, but this is far from a quality franchise. It may be another 21 years until they win another AFC Title.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top