What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Goodbye Rams (1 Viewer)

Hasn't st. Louis lost franchises, too? In fact, they'll be down to two sports right?

What an asinine argument with regard to these two cities. Gee, which city has more pro and college teams (two per sport/school), and they all do well in attendance? Which has, what three total, and one of them struggles worse than almost all of the teams in its sport?
You mean which city has more competition for entertainment dollars? Los Angeles by a landslide. Thanks for helping me make my point. :thumbup:
Which city is so gigantic that it clearly doesn't matter? Thanks for not understanding economics, rube!
What doesn't matter? That the Rams and Raiders left town because they didn't draw? Pretty sure that matters, and that economics was a factor in the decision to leave in both cases. Also, lest we forget, Los Angeles has actually lost 3 NFL teams (well o.k. the Chargers were in the AFL at the time) - guess why? No attendance.
The Rams and Raiders left town because of stadium issues, not attendance.
So being last in attendance in the league had nothing to do with it? From Peter King:

The Rams moved to Anaheim in 1980 in search of new fans, but by 1994 they were last in NFL attendance. Here, the crowd from the ’94 season opener. (V.J. Lovero/SI)
And a little about apathy from the OC of the Rams after they played their last game in LA, prior to the announcement they were leaving for St. Louis.

Rams offensive coordinator Chick Harris: “I remember leaving the stadium that afternoon. I was living in Newport Beach at the time, and all I wanted was to get home. It was an exhausting day, and a disappointing season. I thought about how it all went wrong, how it stunk that we lost, how I might be out of a job in a few weeks.” He drove south on Jamboree Road, looking for a place to pick up dinner. At that point, the sun had come out.

“As I looked out the window, I couldn’t help but notice how many people were out and about,” Harris recalled. He passed a bustling shopping mall and a beach parking lot rammed with cars and smiling families. He flashed back to the empty stadium the Rams just played in, the look on Slater’s face as he exited the locker room, and the dissipating support the team received all season long.

“I know it was Christmas and all,” Harris says, “but I felt that we were at the end of an era. And I couldn’t help but wonder: Do most of the people around here even care?”
 
It is clearly a speculative article, which the writer acknowledges.

The source article from PFT was more interesting to me, in that there has been a recent assumption two teams would be coming (fuelled by the Chargers/Raiders to Carson plan). It does make more sense to have just one team, possibly permanently. If it is one team, Kroenke's plan seems to be furthest along.

There was a funny line from Animal House in the comments section of the article - "If you mention extortion again, I'll have your legs broken."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Rams moved because Rosenbloom traded for the team, married an ex-showgirl, who then took $400 million to move the team back to where she came from IIRC.

Not sure if Rosenbloom or Frontiere moved the team to Anaheim but that also was a bad move. I think the idea of the stadium downtown makes sense and the city should want it because of all the development they have been doing down there for a while. The stadiums in the various small cities all seem to require all kinds of logistical and political problems.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From the King article - "Fans sporadically booed Rams owner Georgia Frontiere throughout the game. It had been all over the papers that she was looking for a more lucrative home for her team."

Just because it may have been formally announced after the game, it wasn't exactly a big secret she was flirting with St. Louis, sprung on unsuspecting fans at the last instant.

This is exactly like Jim Thomas noting attendance for a game recently (pre-season?) was the worst he had seen in 20 years. That would be as wrong to chalk that up to apathy as it would be the end of the Rams run in So Cal. The fans know the Rams are leaving, why support an owner that has abandoned them? So attendance is off, surprise, surprise. This isn't a detonator, we don't need a schematic. :lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Kroenke situation feels like the Nets to Brooklyn - it was 7 years until the Rat moved that team but the de-Jerseyfication began on day one. There never was a prospect of the Nets staying.

I think Kroenke never had good faith as far as St. Louis was concerned. And that sucks for the fans and community there.

-QG

 
TheFanatic said:
GDogg said:
Hasn't st. Louis lost franchises, too? In fact, they'll be down to two sports right?

What an asinine argument with regard to these two cities. Gee, which city has more pro and college teams (two per sport/school), and they all do well in attendance? Which has, what three total, and one of them struggles worse than almost all of the teams in its sport?
You mean which city has more competition for entertainment dollars? Los Angeles by a landslide. Thanks for helping me make my point. :thumbup:
Which city is so gigantic that it clearly doesn't matter? Thanks for not understanding economics, rube!
What doesn't matter? That the Rams and Raiders left town because they didn't draw? Pretty sure that matters, and that economics was a factor in the decision to leave in both cases. Also, lest we forget, Los Angeles has actually lost 3 NFL teams (well o.k. the Chargers were in the AFL at the time) - guess why? No attendance.
The Rams and Raiders left town because of stadium issues, not attendance.
So being last in attendance in the league had nothing to do with it? From Peter King:

The Rams moved to Anaheim in 1980 in search of new fans, but by 1994 they were last in NFL attendance. Here, the crowd from the 94 season opener. (V.J. Lovero/SI)
And a little about apathy from the OC of the Rams after they played their last game in LA, prior to the announcement they were leaving for St. Louis.

Rams offensive coordinator Chick Harris: I remember leaving the stadium that afternoon. I was living in Newport Beach at the time, and all I wanted was to get home. It was an exhausting day, and a disappointing season. I thought about how it all went wrong, how it stunk that we lost, how I might be out of a job in a few weeks. He drove south on Jamboree Road, looking for a place to pick up dinner. At that point, the sun had come out.

As I looked out the window, I couldnt help but notice how many people were out and about, Harris recalled. He passed a bustling shopping mall and a beach parking lot rammed with cars and smiling families. He flashed back to the empty stadium the Rams just played in, the look on Slaters face as he exited the locker room, and the dissipating support the team received all season long.

I know it was Christmas and all, Harris says, but I felt that we were at the end of an era. And I couldnt help but wonder: Do most of the people around here even care?
No. It didn't. St. Louis bending over for Georgia is why they left. King is an idiot. They didn't move to Anaheim in search of fans. They moved for the same reason they moved to St. Louis - for a better stadium deal.

Nobody showed up for the last game because they were leaving and everyone knew it. I was at that game.

Leigh Steinberg was the lead of the group trying to keep the Rams. The writing was on the wall the entire season. They were gone. An example from the October of 1994 before they announced they were going to St. Louis -Rams won't respond to L.A. Save the Rams group.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
LA Raider fun facts

- Al Davis announced his intention to return to OAK four years before he finally did.

- The Coliseum's neighborhood was enough of a concern for the league that they scheduled their MNF games away.

- The cavernous Coliseum (built for the Olympics, 93,000 capacity?) rarely sold out, leading to frequent blackouts.

from wiki:

Los Angeles era (1982–1994)

1982-88

Prior to the 1980 season, Al Davis attempted unsuccessfully to have improvements made to the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, specifically the addition of luxury boxes. That year, he signed a Memorandum of Agreement to move the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles. The move, which required three-fourths approval by league owners, was defeated 22–0 (with five owners abstaining). When Davis tried to move the team anyway, he was blocked by an injunction. In response, the Raiders not only became an active partner in an antitrust lawsuit filed by the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (who had recently lost the Los Angeles Rams), but filed an antitrust lawsuit of their own.[24] After the first case was declared a mistrial, in May 1982 a second jury found in favor of Davis and the Los Angeles Coliseum, clearing the way for the move.[25][26][27] With the ruling, the Raiders finally relocated to Los Angeles for the 1982 season to play their home games at the Los Angeles Coliseum.

The team finished 8–1 in the strike-shortened 1982 season, first in the AFC, but lost in the second round of the playoffs to the New York Jets. The following season, the team finished 12–4 and won convincingly against the Steelers and Seattle Seahawks in the AFC playoffs. Against the Washington Redskins in Super Bowl XVIII, the Raiders built a 21–3 halftime lead en route to a 38–9 victory and their third NFL championship. The team had another successful regular season in 1984, finishing 11-5, but a three-game losing streak forced them to enter the playoffs as a wildcard, where they fell to the Seahawks. The 1985 campaign saw 12 wins and a division title, but that was followed by an embarrassing home loss to the Patriots.

The Raiders' fortunes declined after that, and from 1986 through 1989, Los Angeles finished no better than 8–8 and posted consecutive losing seasons for the first time since 1961–62. Also 1986 saw Al Davis get into a widely publicized argument with RB Marcus Allen, whom he accused of faking injuries. The feud continued into 1987, and Davis retaliating by signing Bo Jackson in Allen's place. However, Jackson was also a left fielder for the Kansas City Royals, and could not play full-time until baseball season ended in October. Even worse, another strike cost the NFL one game and prompted them to use substitute players. The Raiders fill-ins achieved a 1-2 record before the regular team returned. After a weak 5-10 finish, Tom Flores moved to the front office and was replaced by Denver Broncos offensive assistant coach Mike Shanahan. Shanahan led the team to a 7-9 season in 1988, and Allen and Jackson continued to trade places as the starting RB. Low game attendance and fan apathy were evident by this point, and In the summer of 1988, rumors of a Raiders return to Oakland intensified when a preseason game against the Houston Oilers was scheduled at Oakland Coliseum.[28]

As early as 1986, Davis began to seek a new, more modern stadium away from the Coliseum and the dangerous neighborhood that surrounded it at the time (which caused the NFL to schedule the Raiders' Monday Night Football appearances as away games). In addition to sharing the venue with the USC Trojans, the Coliseum was aging and still lacked the luxury suites and other amenities that Davis was promised when he moved the Raiders to Los Angeles.[29] Finally, the Coliseum had 100,000 seats and was rarely able to fill all of them, and so most Raiders home games were blacked out on television. Numerous venues in California were considered, including one near Hollywood Park in Inglewood and another in Carson. In August 1987, it was announced that the city of Irwindale paid Davis USD 10 million as a good-faith deposit for a prospective stadium site.[30] When the bid failed, Davis kept the non-refundable deposit.[31][32]

1989 - 1994

Negotiations between Davis and Oakland commenced in January 1989, and on March 11, 1991, Davis announced his intention to bring the Raiders back to Oakland.[33] By September 1991, however, numerous delays had prevented the completion of the deal between Davis and Oakland. On September 11, Davis announced a new deal to stay in Los Angeles, leading many fans in Oakland to burn Raiders paraphernalia in disgust.[34][35]

After starting the 1989 season with a 1–3 record, Shanahan was fired by Davis, which began a long-standing feud between the two.[36] He was replaced by former Raider offensive lineman Art Shell, who had been voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame earlier in the year. With the hiring, Shell became the first African American head coach in the modern NFL era, but the team still finished a middling 8-8.[37] In 1990, Shell led Los Angeles to a 12–4 record. They beat the Bengals in the divisional round of the playoffs, but Bo Jackson had his left femur ripped from the socket after a tackle. Without him, the Raiders were crushed in the AFC Championship by the Buffalo Bills. Jackson was forced to quit football as a result, although surgery allowed him to continue playing baseball until he retired in 1994.

The team's fortunes faded after the loss. They made two other playoff appearances during the 1990s, and finished higher than third place only three times. The Todd Marinovich fiasco overshadowed the Raiders' 1991 and 1992 efforts. Marinovich was groomed from childhood to play football; his strict upbringing led to him being called "Robo QB" in the sports press. He attended USC and was the 24th overall pick in the 1991 draft. However, he struggled on field and was cut after the 1992 season due to repeated substance abuse problems. In 1991, they got into the postseason as a wild card after a 9-7 regular season, but fell to Kansas City. 1992 saw them drop to 7-9. This period was marked by the injury of Jackson in 1991, the failure of troubled quarterback Todd Marinovich, the acrimonious departure of Marcus Allen in 1993, and the retirement of Hall of Fame defensive end Howie Long after the 1993 season, where the Raiders went 10-6 and lost to Buffalo in the divisional round of the playoffs. Shell was fired after posting a 9–7 record in the 1994 season.

Shell's five-plus-year tenure as head coach in Los Angeles was marked particularly by a bitter dispute between star running back Marcus Allen and Al Davis. The exact source of the friction is unknown, but a contract dispute led Davis to refer to Allen as "a cancer on the team."[38] By the late 1980s, injuries began to reduce Allen's role in the offense. This role was reduced further in 1987, when the Raiders drafted Bo Jackson—even though he originally decided to not play professional football in 1986 (when drafted by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the first round).[39] By 1990, Allen had dropped to fourth on the team's depth chart, leading to resentment on the part of his teammates. In late 1992 Allen lashed out publicly at Davis, and accused him of trying to ruin his career.[40][41] In 1993, Allen left to play for the rival Kansas City Chiefs.



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Captain Obvious point, but if the league now sees one team in LA for the foreseeable future, if not permanently, that breaks up the Chargers/Raiders alliance. If two teams were coming, that was a great way to attempt to block the Rams. If just one team, does anybody see it being the Raiders? Didn't think so. So it sounds like it is between the Rams and Chargers. And Kroenke by far the deepest pocketed, furthest along plan and inherent advantage of a built in half century legacy fan base.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The Rams moved because Rosenbloom traded for the team, married an ex-showgirl, who then took $400 million to move the team back to where she came from IIRC.

Not sure if Rosenbloom or Frontiere moved the team to Anaheim but that also was a bad move. I think the idea of the stadium downtown makes sense and the city should want it because of all the development they have been doing down there for a while. The stadiums in the various small cities all seem to require all kinds of logistical and political problems.
Seems easier to get things done in the small cities scattered around here rather than the actual city of Los Angeles.

 
I have a hard time believing Kroenke would let himself get fleeced for a $2B relocation fee. Especially when Al Davis already did all the dirty work to establish that he can move his team wherever he wants.
Won't be surprised if he moves for nothing.

 
No. It didn't. St. Louis bending over for Georgia is why they left. King is an idiot. They didn't move to Anaheim in search of fans. They moved for the same reason they moved to St. Louis - for a better stadium deal.

Nobody showed up for the last game because they were leaving and everyone knew it. I was at that game.

Leigh Steinberg was the lead of the group trying to keep the Rams. The writing was on the wall the entire season. They were gone. An example from the October of 1994 before they announced they were going to St. Louis -Rams won't respond to L.A. Save the Rams group.
Yeah, you pretty much just lost all credibility here. I'm trying to think of one person that knows more about the game of football, the industry of the NFL and the history of the NFL than Peter King. I can't think of one. So if he's an idiot, then pretty much everyone else working in and around the NFL are mindless vegetables...

 
Article from a local columnist and his take on the situation. I think he's got one glaring blindspot in his assessment:

Again … because I have faith in the six-owner committee to be fair, and unless something wholly unforeseen occurs I believe they’ll stand with St. Louis in the end.

Why? A few reasons that should be obvious to anyone that has common sense and minimal honesty: (1) never in league history has the NFL abandoned a market that’s willing to put up a vast sum of public dollars to construct a new stadium; (2) St. Louis has done a lot more than San Diego and Oakland to rapidly resolve its stadium problem; it isn’t even close; (3) the Chargers and Raiders play in the league’s worst stadiums, places that make the Edward Jones Dome look like a architectural masterpiece by comparison; (4) if two California-based teams clearly need new stadiums and are willing to partner to build one together, then why would you take away a team from another region and penalize the city that’s close to finalizing a new stadium to keep it’s team?; (5) these six owners know that Rams owner Stan Kroenkehas refused to be participate in the process here, which demonstrates a blatant disregard for the rules covered in the league’s official relocation guidelines.
I think the glaring blindspot is Kroenke being a very, very rich man and people with F-U money for generations to come don't take being told no very kindly. I believe there are much harsher penalties to move a team against the wishes of the NFL, but he can afford to pay those penalties. Logically all that the writer says makes sense. But Kroenke didn't get where he is by simply following logic.

 
No. It didn't. St. Louis bending over for Georgia is why they left. King is an idiot. They didn't move to Anaheim in search of fans. They moved for the same reason they moved to St. Louis - for a better stadium deal.

Nobody showed up for the last game because they were leaving and everyone knew it. I was at that game.

Leigh Steinberg was the lead of the group trying to keep the Rams. The writing was on the wall the entire season. They were gone. An example from the October of 1994 before they announced they were going to St. Louis -Rams won't respond to L.A. Save the Rams group.
Yeah, you pretty much just lost all credibility here. I'm trying to think of one person that knows more about the game of football, the industry of the NFL and the history of the NFL than Peter King. I can't think of one. So if he's an idiot, then pretty much everyone else working in and around the NFL are mindless vegetables...
King is dialed in to the NFL (perhaps too much as he's seen as a shill). And, after looking at the article, I'm fairly certain he didn't write that caption about why the Rams left. It's the only line in the piece about that, and it's not in the article. It's the caption to a photo of Anaheim Stadium.

I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about on this issue. They didn't leave for attendance reasons or to get new fans. They left because Anaheim gave them a sweetheart deal, the main component of which included giving them 90 acres of land for development as well as footing the bill for stadium upgrades/expansion. L.A. Times.

The attendance/new fans argument makes no sense. They alienated their die hard westside L.A. Ram fans when there was no other football team in L.A. to go to Orange County (the other side of the world from the westside) in search of new fans? Why would anyone do that? In 1978, they announced they were moving to Anaheim in 1980. Prior to that, they had ranked at or near the top of the league in attendance every year they were in L.A. except for three.

 
Exactly, GDogg. I wouldn't say King is an idiot, but there are many people who know more about the game, from a historical, stat or strategic sense. He is a good writer and projects an everyman vibe, which makes him popular. On the NFL Network Top 10 shows, I don't recall seeing him interviewed. The first thing that came to mind for me also was there are passages in the article that contradict the way it was characterized, which I already quoted above (the fans knew for a while that she was flirting with St. Louis, same with Al Davis wanting to return to Oakland). It will be no different if attendance drops for the Rams this year, it is an identical situation. As has been noted many times, though, this is all a moot point. Kroenke wants to return to LA, for the same reason Frontiere left, to make more money. The Rams will have come full circle.

To me, the sweetheart deal was like a cheap, tarted up hussy, the top 8 venue clause that was a false hope and empty promise equivalent to garish makeup, puffed up hair, dress with distracting cleavage and spike heels. :) A homewrecker, separating a union. The word "lure" is a fancy word for steal. Years later, the Rams wake up, and don't like what they got into bed with anymore. No disrespect to the city and people, but in so far as the stadium authority is concerned, hard to feel sorry or sympathy for a team being returned that they stole in the first place. It's called being restored to the rightful owners.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheFanatic said:
No. It didn't. St. Louis bending over for Georgia is why they left. King is an idiot. They didn't move to Anaheim in search of fans. They moved for the same reason they moved to St. Louis - for a better stadium deal.

Nobody showed up for the last game because they were leaving and everyone knew it. I was at that game.

Leigh Steinberg was the lead of the group trying to keep the Rams. The writing was on the wall the entire season. They were gone. An example from the October of 1994 before they announced they were going to St. Louis -Rams won't respond to L.A. Save the Rams group.
Yeah, you pretty much just lost all credibility here. I'm trying to think of one person that knows more about the game of football, the industry of the NFL and the history of the NFL than Peter King. I can't think of one. So if he's an idiot, then pretty much everyone else working in and around the NFL are mindless vegetables...
Actually, looks like it was Emily Kaplan that wrote that piece, not Peter King.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why didn't St. Louis organize the new stadium effort they are now, earlier, before it was too late? Is it a sign of apathy?
Let me clear this up right now. When Kroenke bought the Rams, the city was in violation of the agreement and had been for many years. The Dome was not in the top echelon in the league. Prior ownership didn't care because the stadium deal was the most lucrative in the league for about 10-12 years. Not until we saw the new palaces going up did a better stadium deal arise but it was still damn good.

Kroenke decides to exercise his right to void the 30 year deal and go year to year. This is seen as a ploy to get a new stadium after playing less than two decades in this one.

The city hears rumblings that this may not be a simple ploy and he may be moving the team to LA. The city proposes a $250 facelift for the stadium. Kroenke counters with a $700 million facelift. The original stadium cost about $500 million when it was built. Seems like a dress on a pig scenario.

Kroenke ups the ante and buys land in California (but not quite enough for a stadium). Power players in St. Louis are amassed to look into a new stadium.

Kroenke buys enough land for the stadium.

St. Louis power players find land on the river front, get the taxes for the Dome converted over to pay for a stadium, the Governor gives his blessing, the unions give their blessings and so far nobody has filed suit for those taxes to go somewhere else rather than the dome (at least not that I've heard).

Was any of this a sign of apathy? Let's see what we have on both sides of the Apathy ledger.

What St. Louis has Done to Get/Keep an NFL Team

Early 90's Builds stadium without a team

1995 Lures Rams with such a lucrative offer that the Titans and the Ravens move to new cities in search of the "St. Louis" Deal

Just a couple years ago, St. Louis offers a quarter of a billion dollars to fix up a stadium that only coast a half bill to construct

At present St. Louis offers to build a brand new river front stadium about 2 decades after building the last one

What LA has Done to Get an NFL Team

:popcorn:

:kicksrock:

:sadbanana:

I think that pretty much sums it up.

We can close the book on who has the apathetic fan base.

It's not St. Louis.
I'm surprised that you'd be so proud of the fact that St. Louis has been bending over backwards to give a bunch of public money to the filthy rich. If these were my public officials doing this, I'd be angry...not proud. I have a feeling you are probably not in the majority, which is why they don't want to put it to a public vote.

If they do put it to a public vote and it passes through I am sure there will be another billionaire willing to accept the funds to move there.

 
TheFanatic said:
Article from a local columnist and his take on the situation. I think he's got one glaring blindspot in his assessment:

Again … because I have faith in the six-owner committee to be fair, and unless something wholly unforeseen occurs I believe they’ll stand with St. Louis in the end.

Why? A few reasons that should be obvious to anyone that has common sense and minimal honesty: (1) never in league history has the NFL abandoned a market that’s willing to put up a vast sum of public dollars to construct a new stadium; (2) St. Louis has done a lot more than San Diego and Oakland to rapidly resolve its stadium problem; it isn’t even close; (3) the Chargers and Raiders play in the league’s worst stadiums, places that make the Edward Jones Dome look like a architectural masterpiece by comparison; (4) if two California-based teams clearly need new stadiums and are willing to partner to build one together, then why would you take away a team from another region and penalize the city that’s close to finalizing a new stadium to keep it’s team?; (5) these six owners know that Rams owner Stan Kroenkehas refused to be participate in the process here, which demonstrates a blatant disregard for the rules covered in the league’s official relocation guidelines.
I think the glaring blindspot is Kroenke being a very, very rich man and people with F-U money for generations to come don't take being told no very kindly. I believe there are much harsher penalties to move a team against the wishes of the NFL, but he can afford to pay those penalties. Logically all that the writer says makes sense. But Kroenke didn't get where he is by simply following logic.
Very true. The biggest issue for me is how can the NFL force Kroenke to stay in a stadium that refused to live up to the terms of the lease or force him to build a new stadium with hundreds of millions of his own dollars.

 
Why didn't St. Louis organize the new stadium effort they are now, earlier, before it was too late? Is it a sign of apathy?
Let me clear this up right now. When Kroenke bought the Rams, the city was in violation of the agreement and had been for many years. The Dome was not in the top echelon in the league. Prior ownership didn't care because the stadium deal was the most lucrative in the league for about 10-12 years. Not until we saw the new palaces going up did a better stadium deal arise but it was still damn good.

Kroenke decides to exercise his right to void the 30 year deal and go year to year. This is seen as a ploy to get a new stadium after playing less than two decades in this one.

The city hears rumblings that this may not be a simple ploy and he may be moving the team to LA. The city proposes a $250 facelift for the stadium. Kroenke counters with a $700 million facelift. The original stadium cost about $500 million when it was built. Seems like a dress on a pig scenario.

Kroenke ups the ante and buys land in California (but not quite enough for a stadium). Power players in St. Louis are amassed to look into a new stadium.

Kroenke buys enough land for the stadium.

St. Louis power players find land on the river front, get the taxes for the Dome converted over to pay for a stadium, the Governor gives his blessing, the unions give their blessings and so far nobody has filed suit for those taxes to go somewhere else rather than the dome (at least not that I've heard).

Was any of this a sign of apathy? Let's see what we have on both sides of the Apathy ledger.

What St. Louis has Done to Get/Keep an NFL Team

Early 90's Builds stadium without a team

1995 Lures Rams with such a lucrative offer that the Titans and the Ravens move to new cities in search of the "St. Louis" Deal

Just a couple years ago, St. Louis offers a quarter of a billion dollars to fix up a stadium that only coast a half bill to construct

At present St. Louis offers to build a brand new river front stadium about 2 decades after building the last one

What LA has Done to Get an NFL Team

:popcorn:

:kicksrock:

:sadbanana:

I think that pretty much sums it up.

We can close the book on who has the apathetic fan base.

It's not St. Louis.
I'm surprised that you'd be so proud of the fact that St. Louis has been bending over backwards to give a bunch of public money to the filthy rich. If these were my public officials doing this, I'd be angry...not proud. I have a feeling you are probably not in the majority, which is why they don't want to put it to a public vote.

If they do put it to a public vote and it passes through I am sure there will be another billionaire willing to accept the funds to move there.
the other option is for those tax dollars to go into the coffers of the city or the state where they will be pissed away by inept politicians. If those dollars are going to be frittered away, and they will no matter what, I'd prefer they go to something I enjoy rather than some political favor for some votes or campaign donations. That's because I stopped getting angry over the ineptitude of our governments on pretty much every level. Lesser of two evils is NFL rich guys over politicians getting rich on my tax dollars.

 
TheFanatic said:
Article from a local columnist and his take on the situation. I think he's got one glaring blindspot in his assessment:

Again … because I have faith in the six-owner committee to be fair, and unless something wholly unforeseen occurs I believe they’ll stand with St. Louis in the end.

Why? A few reasons that should be obvious to anyone that has common sense and minimal honesty: (1) never in league history has the NFL abandoned a market that’s willing to put up a vast sum of public dollars to construct a new stadium; (2) St. Louis has done a lot more than San Diego and Oakland to rapidly resolve its stadium problem; it isn’t even close; (3) the Chargers and Raiders play in the league’s worst stadiums, places that make the Edward Jones Dome look like a architectural masterpiece by comparison; (4) if two California-based teams clearly need new stadiums and are willing to partner to build one together, then why would you take away a team from another region and penalize the city that’s close to finalizing a new stadium to keep it’s team?; (5) these six owners know that Rams owner Stan Kroenkehas refused to be participate in the process here, which demonstrates a blatant disregard for the rules covered in the league’s official relocation guidelines.
I think the glaring blindspot is Kroenke being a very, very rich man and people with F-U money for generations to come don't take being told no very kindly. I believe there are much harsher penalties to move a team against the wishes of the NFL, but he can afford to pay those penalties. Logically all that the writer says makes sense. But Kroenke didn't get where he is by simply following logic.
Very true. The biggest issue for me is how can the NFL force Kroenke to stay in a stadium that refused to live up to the terms of the lease or force him to build a new stadium with hundreds of millions of his own dollars.
I believe that the plan calls for Kroenke to pay $250 million of the new stadium here in St. Louis. Nobody should be forced to pay for anything. I'd guess that Dave Peacock is trying to find that $250 million somewhere to take out the last thing Kroenke can rely on in his argument to leave St. Louis. No idea where he will find it.

If he does find that money, the only reason Kroenke has to leave is that he wants more money and that is against what the rules the NFL has in place. Since they have these policies in place, it's going to open up the NFL to a big lawsuit from St. Louis, which may be the leverage they need to get a Raiders or Jaguars team here if the Rams leave.

 
The league initially didn't support Frontiere before she absconded with the team, but she alluded to possible lawsuit, so they relented.

I like the sound of the St. Louis Raiders, has a nice ring to it.

That said, is there a precedent for a lawsuit? It isn't obvious where it would come from, it sounds like the purpose of the dome was to lure a team, there was no promise they would be furnished with one in advance, that wasn't a financing or building condition. Certainly they broke their own lease, and would have no legal footing on that ground. Not sure about the gray area of whether they are obligated to stay once the original contract was null and void. He made other plans and financial commitments, while they were making asumptions that he was just playing the leverage game. Don't know if he is legally obligated to reverse course with everything he has now set in motion, because of their mistaken assumptions and other lapses. I hope they get another team, just don't know if there is a basis or grounds for a lawsuit? CLE got an expansion reset button after Modell left in the middle of the night for the Wire stomping grounds, Baltimore, but I don't know if that was due to legal pressure, or simply the league wanting to make things right and/or have a presence in Cleveland (which was a historic franchise, with greats like Otto Graham, Jim Brown, etc.)?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe that the plan calls for Kroenke to pay $250 million of the new stadium here in St. Louis. Nobody should be forced to pay for anything. I'd guess that Dave Peacock is trying to find that $250 million somewhere to take out the last thing Kroenke can rely on in his argument to leave St. Louis. No idea where he will find it.

If he does find that money, the only reason Kroenke has to leave is that he wants more money and that is against what the rules the NFL has in place. Since they have these policies in place, it's going to open up the NFL to a big lawsuit from St. Louis, which may be the leverage they need to get a Raiders or Jaguars team here if the Rams leave.
Agree with that - if St. Louis pays for 100% of new stadium then the Rams will have to stay. Of course if they are willing to do that why didn't then do it when Kroenke was still under the Edward Jones lease? It would have been much cheaper for the city back then.

 
The league initially didn't support Frontiere before she absconded with the team, but she alluded to possible lawsuit, so they relented.

I like the sound of the St. Louis Raiders, has a nice ring to it.

That said, is there a precedent for a lawsuit? It isn't obvious where it would come from, it sounds like the purpose of the dome was to lure a team, there was no promise they would be furnished with one in advance, that wasn't a financing or building condition. Certainly they broke their own lease, and would have no legal footing on that ground. Not sure about the gray area of whether they are obligated to stay once the original contract was null and void. He made other plans and financial commitments, while they were making asumptions that he was just playing the leverage game. Don't know if he is legally obligated to reverse course with everything he has now set in motion, because of their mistaken assumptions and other lapses. I hope they get another team, just don't know if there is a basis or grounds for a lawsuit? CLE got an expansion reset button after Modell left in the middle of the night for the Wire stomping grounds, Baltimore, but I don't know if that was due to legal pressure, or simply the league wanting to make things right and/or have a presence in Cleveland (which was a historic franchise, with greats like Otto Graham, Jim Brown, etc.)?
The lawsuit would not be over the lease. It would be over the guidelines the NFL has in place for moving franchises. Guidelines it wrote for itself. Those guidelines state that if a city gets a new stadium done that a team cannot be moved. If the city/state 100% funds the stadium (and they are $250M short right now) and the NFL allows Kroenke to move, they would be violating their own guidelines and be open to a lawsuit. That might be the leverage the city needs to get the NFL to move the Raiders or Jags to St. Louis. Don't know...

 
So Bradshaw was interviewed by a local talk show host yesterday to talk Rams Steelers. He asked him about the Rams leaving and Bradshaw said something like, "I hear it's a 100% done deal the Rams are going back to LA."

 
I thought you were talking about a lawsuit based on the building of the dome, Fanatic.

I guess it is speculative until they were able to secure 100% of the financing (dunno, too). That seems like that would be difficult. Let's say that doesn't happen and the Rams leave, will they scrap the stadium plan, or continue (planning, at least) to attempt landing the Raiders, or possibly Jaguars?

I hope Bradshaw is right, but wondering if he is passing along rumors that it is 100%. I thought that a while ago, too, but than had to seriously rethink it. He could be very well connected, and not just with PIT ownership. Just not sure the owner's or Goodel even know what will happen at this point. Owner's meetings coming up soon, maybe a few weeks? I heard the announcement won't be made until before the Super Bowl to preserve attendance as much as possible, but maybe news will trickle out before then?

 
I thought you were talking about a lawsuit based on the building of the dome, Fanatic.

I guess it is speculative until they were able to secure 100% of the financing (dunno, too). That seems like that would be difficult. Let's say that doesn't happen and the Rams leave, will they scrap the stadium plan, or continue (planning, at least) to attempt landing the Raiders, or possibly Jaguars?

I hope Bradshaw is right, but wondering if he is passing along rumors that it is 100%. I thought that a while ago, too, but than had to seriously rethink it. He could be very well connected, and not just with PIT ownership. Just not sure the owner's or Goodel even know what will happen at this point. Owner's meetings coming up soon, maybe a few weeks? I heard the announcement won't be made until before the Super Bowl to preserve attendance as much as possible, but maybe news will trickle out before then?
No, the lease and building of the dome is done. That was cancelled last year. Nobody is suing about that. But a company that drafts bylaws to govern itself is open for suit if they disregard those rules they set in place.

As far as the rest of the money, well, they have $750M and the land squared away. It's a lot of money, but it's only the last 25% of the project. Dave Peacock is one impressive dude in terms of getting things done. I'll be interested to see how he does it.

 
Is it true they are still paying off the dome until 2020 or 2021 before they fully retire the loans? It isn't a lot of money ($10-$20 million?), shared by the city, county and state?

So you are saying, without securing 100% of the funding, no basis for a suit? I was also wondering if stadium interest will wane if/when the Rams leave.

Anyways, I hope St. Louis gets another team if the Rams leave. I have no question it is a good football town as far as the fans.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it true they are still paying off the dome until 2020 or 2021 before they fully retire the loans? It isn't a lot of money ($10-$20 million?), shared by the city, county and state?

So you are saying, without securing 100% of the funding, no basis for a suit? I was also wondering if stadium interest will wane if/when the Rams leave.

Anyways, I hope St. Louis gets another team if the Rams leave. I have no question it is a good football town as far as the fans.
I'm not sure what they still owe on the dome.

I suppose they could sue if they didn't have it completely publicly funded, but that would make their case even more solid. Here are the guidelines for relocation and here are some pertinent items that the league takes into account when a team wishes to move:

2. The extent to which fan loyalty to and support for the club has been demonstrated during the team's tenure in the current community;

3. The adequacy of the stadium in which the club played its home games in the previous season; the willingness of the stadium authority or the community to remedy any deficiencies in or to replace such facility, including whether there are legislative or referenda proposals pending to address these issues; and the characteristics of the stadium in the proposed new community;

6. The degree to which the club has engaged in good faith negotiations (and enlisted the League office to assist in such negotiations) with appropriate persons concerning terms and conditions under which the club would remain in its current home territory and afforded that community a reasonable amount of time to address pertinent proposals;

7. The degree to which the owners or managers of the club have contributed to circumstances which might demonstrate the need for such relocation;
According to those rules, Kroenke can't move the team. But what are rules to a guy worth $6B?

 
Is it true they are still paying off the dome until 2020 or 2021 before they fully retire the loans? It isn't a lot of money ($10-$20 million?), shared by the city, county and state?

So you are saying, without securing 100% of the funding, no basis for a suit? I was also wondering if stadium interest will wane if/when the Rams leave.

Anyways, I hope St. Louis gets another team if the Rams leave. I have no question it is a good football town as far as the fans.
I'm not sure what they still owe on the dome.

I suppose they could sue if they didn't have it completely publicly funded, but that would make their case even more solid. Here are the guidelines for relocation and here are some pertinent items that the league takes into account when a team wishes to move:

2. The extent to which fan loyalty to and support for the club has been demonstrated during the team's tenure in the current community;

3. The adequacy of the stadium in which the club played its home games in the previous season; the willingness of the stadium authority or the community to remedy any deficiencies in or to replace such facility, including whether there are legislative or referenda proposals pending to address these issues; and the characteristics of the stadium in the proposed new community;

6. The degree to which the club has engaged in good faith negotiations (and enlisted the League office to assist in such negotiations) with appropriate persons concerning terms and conditions under which the club would remain in its current home territory and afforded that community a reasonable amount of time to address pertinent proposals;

7. The degree to which the owners or managers of the club have contributed to circumstances which might demonstrate the need for such relocation;
According to those rules, Kroenke can't move the team. But what are rules to a guy worth $6B?
2. Rams are last in attendance and have been near the bottom since 2008.

3. The city didn't fulfill the terms of their lease agreement and waited until Kroenke had already purchased land for a new stadium in Los Angeles to negotiate.

6. Kroenke isn't negotiating now but I'll argue that he engaged in good faith negotiations over the dome lease.

7. Kroenke hasn't done anything negative in that regard, unless you count staying out of the public eye.

 
Is it true they are still paying off the dome until 2020 or 2021 before they fully retire the loans? It isn't a lot of money ($10-$20 million?), shared by the city, county and state?

So you are saying, without securing 100% of the funding, no basis for a suit? I was also wondering if stadium interest will wane if/when the Rams leave.

Anyways, I hope St. Louis gets another team if the Rams leave. I have no question it is a good football town as far as the fans.
I'm not sure what they still owe on the dome.

I suppose they could sue if they didn't have it completely publicly funded, but that would make their case even more solid. Here are the guidelines for relocation and here are some pertinent items that the league takes into account when a team wishes to move:

2. The extent to which fan loyalty to and support for the club has been demonstrated during the team's tenure in the current community;

3. The adequacy of the stadium in which the club played its home games in the previous season; the willingness of the stadium authority or the community to remedy any deficiencies in or to replace such facility, including whether there are legislative or referenda proposals pending to address these issues; and the characteristics of the stadium in the proposed new community;

6. The degree to which the club has engaged in good faith negotiations (and enlisted the League office to assist in such negotiations) with appropriate persons concerning terms and conditions under which the club would remain in its current home territory and afforded that community a reasonable amount of time to address pertinent proposals;

7. The degree to which the owners or managers of the club have contributed to circumstances which might demonstrate the need for such relocation;
According to those rules, Kroenke can't move the team. But what are rules to a guy worth $6B?
2. Rams are last in attendance and have been near the bottom since 2008.

3. The city didn't fulfill the terms of their lease agreement and waited until Kroenke had already purchased land for a new stadium in Los Angeles to negotiate.

6. Kroenke isn't negotiating now but I'll argue that he engaged in good faith negotiations over the dome lease.

7. Kroenke hasn't done anything negative in that regard, unless you count staying out of the public eye.
How do you figure that? The only negotiation they did was ask for $700 million to improve the dome to counter the $250 million offer from the city and then break the lease (as was his right). Since then there has been no communication with Stan. Not even the Governor can get him to return a phone call.

As for attendance, the Rams have been a dumpster fire for more than a decade. And the last 3 years all we've had is rumors of the team moving PLUS losing home games to London which, btw, was a violation of the lease that was still in effect at the time..

 
Rams were 7-8-1 in 2012 and 7-9 in 2013, not sure I'd call that a dumpster fire.

I thought the reason the stadium authority didn't do more to work something out earlier in the process was that Kroenke blindsided them in 2014? How blindsided could they have been in the above scenario?

* Last five years in LA (actually OC):

'90) 5-11

'91) 3-13

'92) 6-10

'93) 5-11

'94) 4-12

Point taken the Linehan/Zygmunt/Shaw and Spags/Devaney "brain trusts" were heinous.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheFanatic said:
Is it true they are still paying off the dome until 2020 or 2021 before they fully retire the loans? It isn't a lot of money ($10-$20 million?), shared by the city, county and state?

So you are saying, without securing 100% of the funding, no basis for a suit? I was also wondering if stadium interest will wane if/when the Rams leave.

Anyways, I hope St. Louis gets another team if the Rams leave. I have no question it is a good football town as far as the fans.
I'm not sure what they still owe on the dome.

I suppose they could sue if they didn't have it completely publicly funded, but that would make their case even more solid. Here are the guidelines for relocation and here are some pertinent items that the league takes into account when a team wishes to move:

2. The extent to which fan loyalty to and support for the club has been demonstrated during the team's tenure in the current community;

3. The adequacy of the stadium in which the club played its home games in the previous season; the willingness of the stadium authority or the community to remedy any deficiencies in or to replace such facility, including whether there are legislative or referenda proposals pending to address these issues; and the characteristics of the stadium in the proposed new community;

6. The degree to which the club has engaged in good faith negotiations (and enlisted the League office to assist in such negotiations) with appropriate persons concerning terms and conditions under which the club would remain in its current home territory and afforded that community a reasonable amount of time to address pertinent proposals;

7. The degree to which the owners or managers of the club have contributed to circumstances which might demonstrate the need for such relocation;
According to those rules, Kroenke can't move the team. But what are rules to a guy worth $6B?
2. Rams are last in attendance and have been near the bottom since 2008.

3. The city didn't fulfill the terms of their lease agreement and waited until Kroenke had already purchased land for a new stadium in Los Angeles to negotiate.

6. Kroenke isn't negotiating now but I'll argue that he engaged in good faith negotiations over the dome lease.

7. Kroenke hasn't done anything negative in that regard, unless you count staying out of the public eye.
How do you figure that? The only negotiation they did was ask for $700 million to improve the dome to counter the $250 million offer from the city and then break the lease (as was his right). Since then there has been no communication with Stan. Not even the Governor can get him to return a phone call.
The lease required the Rams to have a top 8 stadium and it would have cost closer to $700M than $250M to do that. The city had chance to counter $700M with something close but they didn't.

 
Is it true they are still paying off the dome until 2020 or 2021 before they fully retire the loans? It isn't a lot of money ($10-$20 million?), shared by the city, county and state?

So you are saying, without securing 100% of the funding, no basis for a suit? I was also wondering if stadium interest will wane if/when the Rams leave.

Anyways, I hope St. Louis gets another team if the Rams leave. I have no question it is a good football town as far as the fans.
I'm not sure what they still owe on the dome.

I suppose they could sue if they didn't have it completely publicly funded, but that would make their case even more solid. Here are the guidelines for relocation and here are some pertinent items that the league takes into account when a team wishes to move:

2. The extent to which fan loyalty to and support for the club has been demonstrated during the team's tenure in the current community;

3. The adequacy of the stadium in which the club played its home games in the previous season; the willingness of the stadium authority or the community to remedy any deficiencies in or to replace such facility, including whether there are legislative or referenda proposals pending to address these issues; and the characteristics of the stadium in the proposed new community;

6. The degree to which the club has engaged in good faith negotiations (and enlisted the League office to assist in such negotiations) with appropriate persons concerning terms and conditions under which the club would remain in its current home territory and afforded that community a reasonable amount of time to address pertinent proposals;

7. The degree to which the owners or managers of the club have contributed to circumstances which might demonstrate the need for such relocation;
According to those rules, Kroenke can't move the team. But what are rules to a guy worth $6B?
2. Rams are last in attendance and have been near the bottom since 2008.

3. The city didn't fulfill the terms of their lease agreement and waited until Kroenke had already purchased land for a new stadium in Los Angeles to negotiate.

6. Kroenke isn't negotiating now but I'll argue that he engaged in good faith negotiations over the dome lease.

7. Kroenke hasn't done anything negative in that regard, unless you count staying out of the public eye.
How do you figure that? The only negotiation they did was ask for $700 million to improve the dome to counter the $250 million offer from the city and then break the lease (as was his right). Since then there has been no communication with Stan. Not even the Governor can get him to return a phone call.
The lease required the Rams to have a top 8 stadium and it would have cost closer to $700M than $250M to do that. The city had chance to counter $700M with something close but they didn't.
Again, why would someone spend $700 million on a 20 year old stadium that cost $500 million to build and would probably be rendered obsolete within years of spending that cash. It's a dumb money to spend and the city tried to call Kroenke's bluff and found out the hard way that Kroenke wasn't bluffing. He used those failed negotiations as further fuel for the BS fire that the NFL doesn't work in St. Louis. That's just a flat out lie.

As a tax payer, I would much rather spend the extra couple hundred million and build a new, open air stadium that will be around for 30 years (as long as we write a better lease than the last nimrod who wrote the one Kroenke just opted out of ), rather than spend $700 million and find out in a decade that we need a new stadium because a 30 year old stadium with a 10 year old facelift is still a 30 year old stadium.

 
Just Win Baby said:
STADIUM TALK: San Diego's Hail Mary Pass: How the city can build a stadium downtown and keep the Chargers

Speculation here that Rams go to LA for 2016 but no other team goes until 2017. That would create an opportunity for San Diego to stay with a downtown stadium deal, in which case the Raiders would become Kroenke's tenant.
Why do either the Rams or Raiders have to move to LA with the Rams next season? The stadium will take a couple of years to build and then one of them can come as a tenant then.

 
Again, why would someone spend $700 million on a 20 year old stadium that cost $500 million to build and would probably be rendered obsolete within years of spending that cash. It's a dumb money to spend and the city tried to call Kroenke's bluff and found out the hard way that Kroenke wasn't bluffing. He used those failed negotiations as further fuel for the BS fire that the NFL doesn't work in St. Louis. That's just a flat out lie.

As a tax payer, I would much rather spend the extra couple hundred million and build a new, open air stadium that will be around for 30 years (as long as we write a better lease than the last nimrod who wrote the one Kroenke just opted out of ), rather than spend $700 million and find out in a decade that we need a new stadium because a 30 year old stadium with a 10 year old facelift is still a 30 year old stadium.
I won't argue that it was a terrible deal for St. Louis and Kroenke was in a win-win situation: if he got the $700M, great, if not he gets to move the team to LA and double his investment.

 
Rapoport said lst week that the league vote on Los Angeles relocation may get pushed back from January 2016 to March 2016. There's still talk of San Diego having a vote on a new stadium in June 2016 but obviously this thing will be decided by then.

 
I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.

 
St. Louis Bob said:
I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.
They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the Bradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.

 
St. Louis Bob said:
I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.
They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the Bradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.
All of this is just more evidence that St. Louis doesn't support the NFL. IT'S A BASEBALL TOWN!!!!!!

 
St. Louis Bob said:
I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.
They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the Bradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.
All of this is just more evidence that St. Louis doesn't support the NFL. IT'S A BASEBALL TOWN!!!!!!
No, the real proof is the pictures at kickoff of the crowd that proves St. Louis is the only town that does not pack the stadium at the start of each game.

 
St. Louis Bob said:
I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.
They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the Bradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.
All of this is just more evidence that St. Louis doesn't support the NFL. IT'S A BASEBALL TOWN!!!!!!
No, the real proof is the pictures at kickoff of the crowd that proves St. Louis is the only town that does not pack the stadium at the start of each game.
Exactly. Attendance is down everywhere. Like I posted here, going to Rams games sucks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
St. Louis Bob said:
I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.
Oh yeah, there's also this.

 
St. Louis Bob said:
I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.
They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the Bradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.
All of this is just more evidence that St. Louis doesn't support the NFL. IT'S A BASEBALL TOWN!!!!!!
No, the real proof is the pictures at kickoff of the crowd that proves St. Louis is the only town that does not pack the stadium at the start of each game.
But they don't show up after kickoff, either.

When, exactly, do they finally arrive?

Or, do the attendance figures lie like the pictures do?

 
GDogg said:
I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.
They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the Bradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.
All of this is just more evidence that St. Louis doesn't support the NFL. IT'S A BASEBALL TOWN!!!!!!
No, the real proof is the pictures at kickoff of the crowd that proves St. Louis is the only town that does not pack the stadium at the start of each game.
But they don't show up after kickoff, either.

When, exactly, do they finally arrive?

Or, do the attendance figures lie like the pictures do?
People don't want to spend their time and money on a team that is horrible on and off the field. Oh and they want to leave town. Shocking.

There were a lot of empty seats at that game last night. I guess New England doesn't have real fans either. Or perhaps its because the game sucks now in person. Unless you like constant flags, timeouts, replay reviews and the refs trying to figure out WTF the actual rules are.

 
GDogg said:
I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.
They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the Bradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.
All of this is just more evidence that St. Louis doesn't support the NFL. IT'S A BASEBALL TOWN!!!!!!
No, the real proof is the pictures at kickoff of the crowd that proves St. Louis is the only town that does not pack the stadium at the start of each game.
But they don't show up after kickoff, either.

When, exactly, do they finally arrive?

Or, do the attendance figures lie like the pictures do?
People don't want to spend their time and money on a team that is horrible on and off the field. Oh and they want to leave town. Shocking.

There were a lot of empty seats at that game last night. I guess New England doesn't have real fans either. Or perhaps its because the game sucks now in person. Unless you like constant flags, timeouts, replay reviews and the refs trying to figure out WTF the actual rules are.
Yeah, this team really gives the fans an incentive to come to the games. The owner dies, new owner buys controlling interest and then immediately starts gobbling up land to build a stadium across the country, then goes from covertly trying to move them to overtly doing everything in his power to move the team. GDogg could you honestly say you would show up for every game to support a team that was doing that? Be honest now.

 
GDogg said:
I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.
They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the Bradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.
All of this is just more evidence that St. Louis doesn't support the NFL. IT'S A BASEBALL TOWN!!!!!!
No, the real proof is the pictures at kickoff of the crowd that proves St. Louis is the only town that does not pack the stadium at the start of each game.
But they don't show up after kickoff, either.

When, exactly, do they finally arrive?

Or, do the attendance figures lie like the pictures do?
People don't want to spend their time and money on a team that is horrible on and off the field. Oh and they want to leave town. Shocking.

There were a lot of empty seats at that game last night. I guess New England doesn't have real fans either. Or perhaps its because the game sucks now in person. Unless you like constant flags, timeouts, replay reviews and the refs trying to figure out WTF the actual rules are.
Yeah, this team really gives the fans an incentive to come to the games. The owner dies, new owner buys controlling interest and then immediately starts gobbling up land to build a stadium across the country, then goes from covertly trying to move them to overtly doing everything in his power to move the team. GDogg could you honestly say you would show up for every game to support a team that was doing that? Be honest now.
No, I'm not saying that I would. And, as was pointed out, people didn't show up in Anaheim under the same or similar circumstances in 1994-95. And, that owner killed the previous, beloved owner, then moved the team back to her hometown against the wishes of the previous owner's adult children. I get it. That was only a 4 year period, though, and like now in St. Louis, the Rams, that final year, played under a cloud where they made it clear to the fans they were leaving.

But, you guys have claimed (perhaps tongue in cheek, I don't know) L.A./Anaheim doesn't support teams while saying that St. Louis does (you might have a point with Anaheim to be honest). But, it's been about 8 years (2007) since St. Louis was above #27 in the NFL in both attendance and percentage of capacity, usually slotting in at 29-31. St. Louis is now doubling the worst and only stretch for the Rams when they were in L.A./Anaheim when they ranked in the 20s in attendance.

I'm just asking for a little honesty and objectivity here. At what point are you guys just going to admit that St. Louis no longer supports the Rams (not necessarily the NFL or football)? They clearly aren't and it's not pictures that are lying. The numbers couldn't be more clear. Be it whether the Rams suck, the fans hate Kroenke, they didn't like Bradford (and now Foles and now Keenum) and his face, whatever the reason may be. Just admit that they don't support the Rams by going to games and haven't for a very long time.

L.A. gets a bad rap, but the truth is that fans of most franchises in almost any sport are fair-weather fans. Suck long enough and the fans will find something else to do. St. Louis is no different. And, if the Rams go back to L.A., St. Louis will have lost as many NFL teams as L.A. has.

 
GDogg said:
I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.
They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the Bradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.
All of this is just more evidence that St. Louis doesn't support the NFL. IT'S A BASEBALL TOWN!!!!!!
No, the real proof is the pictures at kickoff of the crowd that proves St. Louis is the only town that does not pack the stadium at the start of each game.
But they don't show up after kickoff, either.

When, exactly, do they finally arrive?

Or, do the attendance figures lie like the pictures do?
People don't want to spend their time and money on a team that is horrible on and off the field. Oh and they want to leave town. Shocking.

There were a lot of empty seats at that game last night. I guess New England doesn't have real fans either. Or perhaps its because the game sucks now in person. Unless you like constant flags, timeouts, replay reviews and the refs trying to figure out WTF the actual rules are.
Yeah, this team really gives the fans an incentive to come to the games. The owner dies, new owner buys controlling interest and then immediately starts gobbling up land to build a stadium across the country, then goes from covertly trying to move them to overtly doing everything in his power to move the team. GDogg could you honestly say you would show up for every game to support a team that was doing that? Be honest now.
No, I'm not saying that I would. And, as was pointed out, people didn't show up in Anaheim under the same or similar circumstances in 1994-95. And, that owner killed the previous, beloved owner, then moved the team back to her hometown against the wishes of the previous owner's adult children. I get it. That was only a 4 year period, though, and like now in St. Louis, the Rams, that final year, played under a cloud where they made it clear to the fans they were leaving.

But, you guys have claimed (perhaps tongue in cheek, I don't know) L.A./Anaheim doesn't support teams while saying that St. Louis does (you might have a point with Anaheim to be honest). But, it's been about 8 years (2007) since St. Louis was above #27 in the NFL in both attendance and percentage of capacity, usually slotting in at 29-31. St. Louis is now doubling the worst and only stretch for the Rams when they were in L.A./Anaheim when they ranked in the 20s in attendance.

I'm just asking for a little honesty and objectivity here. At what point are you guys just going to admit that St. Louis no longer supports the Rams (not necessarily the NFL or football)? They clearly aren't and it's not pictures that are lying. The numbers couldn't be more clear. Be it whether the Rams suck, the fans hate Kroenke, they didn't like Bradford (and now Foles and now Keenum) and his face, whatever the reason may be. Just admit that they don't support the Rams by going to games and haven't for a very long time.

L.A. gets a bad rap, but the truth is that fans of most franchises in almost any sport are fair-weather fans. Suck long enough and the fans will find something else to do. St. Louis is no different. And, if the Rams go back to L.A., St. Louis will have lost as many NFL teams as L.A. has.
G - Freaking - Dogg

BOOM

 
GDogg said:
I also LOVE how there isn't any national discussion about how awful Fisher is as a coach and why he still has a job. He should have been gone at the end of last year. Unless of course you like an undisciplined team that commits tons of penalties and can't execute plays, then Fish is your guy.
They are so good at spotting talent on Defense, but I'm pretty sure my mom is better at evaluating rookie talent on offense than the Rams scouting department. The guy doesn't have much to work with on offense, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. They bought into the Bradford Hype and that killed them. The dumping of Sam for Foles is pretty much a wash, but it's another year with no QB and nobody to throw to besides a midget like gadget player that was drafted way too high.
All of this is just more evidence that St. Louis doesn't support the NFL. IT'S A BASEBALL TOWN!!!!!!
No, the real proof is the pictures at kickoff of the crowd that proves St. Louis is the only town that does not pack the stadium at the start of each game.
But they don't show up after kickoff, either.

When, exactly, do they finally arrive?

Or, do the attendance figures lie like the pictures do?
People don't want to spend their time and money on a team that is horrible on and off the field. Oh and they want to leave town. Shocking.

There were a lot of empty seats at that game last night. I guess New England doesn't have real fans either. Or perhaps its because the game sucks now in person. Unless you like constant flags, timeouts, replay reviews and the refs trying to figure out WTF the actual rules are.
Yeah, this team really gives the fans an incentive to come to the games. The owner dies, new owner buys controlling interest and then immediately starts gobbling up land to build a stadium across the country, then goes from covertly trying to move them to overtly doing everything in his power to move the team. GDogg could you honestly say you would show up for every game to support a team that was doing that? Be honest now.
No, I'm not saying that I would. And, as was pointed out, people didn't show up in Anaheim under the same or similar circumstances in 1994-95. And, that owner killed the previous, beloved owner, then moved the team back to her hometown against the wishes of the previous owner's adult children. I get it. That was only a 4 year period, though, and like now in St. Louis, the Rams, that final year, played under a cloud where they made it clear to the fans they were leaving.

But, you guys have claimed (perhaps tongue in cheek, I don't know) L.A./Anaheim doesn't support teams while saying that St. Louis does (you might have a point with Anaheim to be honest). But, it's been about 8 years (2007) since St. Louis was above #27 in the NFL in both attendance and percentage of capacity, usually slotting in at 29-31. St. Louis is now doubling the worst and only stretch for the Rams when they were in L.A./Anaheim when they ranked in the 20s in attendance.

I'm just asking for a little honesty and objectivity here. At what point are you guys just going to admit that St. Louis no longer supports the Rams (not necessarily the NFL or football)? They clearly aren't and it's not pictures that are lying. The numbers couldn't be more clear. Be it whether the Rams suck, the fans hate Kroenke, they didn't like Bradford (and now Foles and now Keenum) and his face, whatever the reason may be. Just admit that they don't support the Rams by going to games and haven't for a very long time.

L.A. gets a bad rap, but the truth is that fans of most franchises in almost any sport are fair-weather fans. Suck long enough and the fans will find something else to do. St. Louis is no different. And, if the Rams go back to L.A., St. Louis will have lost as many NFL teams as L.A. has.
The big difference here that proves that St. Louis supports football and wants football here is that in less than 25 years, St. Louis is on the verge of building a second football stadium with no guarantee of an actual team being here. LA has had teams flirt with it for years and threaten to move only to be used as leverage to get a new stadium in ___________ team's current market. But if LA stepped to the plate and built a stadium, a team would've come running. LA needs to have Kroenke build a stadium for them in order to get behind football in that market. St. Louis is willing to put their money where their mouth is.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top