Share
3,757
Life MemberLife Member
3,757

PostJan 08, 2015#251

Bernie said one out there rumor, was that Stan would sell the Rams if he does not get league approval to move. He does not want to be penalized by the NFL. He would lose any league assistance with the venue, any chance to host the Super Bowl, revenue from TV and merchandising, as well as a huge relocation fee.
The rumor states that he will sell the Rams if not approved, then buy 49% of the Raiders, move them to LA and buy the other 51% at a later date, from Mark Davis. Seems far-fetched, but the article also mentions the fact that Kroenke did the same thing, buying into the Rams at 40%, then acquiring the rest once Georgia passed away and the Rosenblooms had to sell. I like this scenario as long as the Rams are sold to a St. Louis owner or owner that FULLY commits to STL.
Then we rid the city of Stan, who has already poisoned his relationship with STL. That will either be beyond repair or take years of winning to mend. It is best that Stan be out of STL, assuming his true intention is to sh-t on STL and go to LA (That is what I believe his true intentions are btw). That is a dream scenario, however unlikely it seems.
9,544
Life MemberLife Member
9,544

PostJan 08, 2015#252

^ well if Stan is selling the Rams because he cant move them then that means anybody that wants to move them wouldnt offer to buy them...so that bodes well for the Rams staying here
3,757
Life MemberLife Member
3,757

PostJan 08, 2015#253

^ This is all assuming that Mr. Peacock & Mr. Blitz can put a REAL stadium deal on the table. If not, Stan will probably get the approval to move at some point. If he does not due to the legitimacy of the stadium deal on the table in STL, I'm sure there would be several suitors, that would be interested in the Rams, including Shad Kahn. I could see him bailing on the Jags. It is less and less likely, as he plants roots in JAX, but you never know. I'd love to see a Mark Cuban type come out of the woodwork, if Stan sells. A guy that is committed to STL and rich, very rich, would be my preference. An owner also interested in MLS. That is why I am so down about the fact that Shad didn't get the Rams. He would have been committed to STL, would have been very much in the public eye in a positive way, would have invested in the area around the stadium and also has a big interest in soccer, as evidenced by his ownership of Fulham. Maybe a Fulham US team would have been in the works, once a new venue is achieved. He would have been the best possible owner for STL. As you can see, I'm still very bitter!
8,905
Life MemberLife Member
8,905

PostJan 08, 2015#254

You are certainly passionate Dogtownbnr. You must have over 20 posts in the last 3 days about the Rams. :P


Stan helped bring the team here (home) and promised a few years ago to keep the team here. What changed?
985
Super MemberSuper Member
985

PostJan 08, 2015#255

^that is the big question. It could be that it was a lie all along or there was always in the back of his mind a move back to LA is a possible outcome, which could even go back to the lease deal 20 years ago.

There is the theory that the stadium is not necessarily for an NFL team but related to an Olympic bid proposal that is coming up soon.
3,757
Life MemberLife Member
3,757

PostJan 08, 2015#256

Moorlander, I am very passionate about St. Louis and anything and everything that makes us a better city. I think keeping the Rams benefits us as a city, well beyond the financials.

All of that aside, I think the story of the Rams will make a great book someday. I think we are living this story in real time. It is simply fascinating!
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJan 08, 2015#257

^ I think having an NFL team is status entertainment and does have some benefits beyond mere economics, but it isn't beneficial enough justify significant subsidies.
DogtownBnR wrote:Bernie said one out there rumor, was that Stan would sell the Rams if he does not get league approval to move. He does not want to be penalized by the NFL. He would lose any league assistance with the venue, any chance to host the Super Bowl, revenue from TV and merchandising, as well as a huge relocation fee.
The rumor states that he will sell the Rams if not approved, then buy 49% of the Raiders, move them to LA and buy the other 51% at a later date, from Mark Davis. Seems far-fetched, but the article also mentions the fact that Kroenke did the same thing, buying into the Rams at 40%, then acquiring the rest once Georgia passed away and the Rosenblooms had to sell. I like this scenario as long as the Rams are sold to a St. Louis owner or owner that FULLY commits to STL.
Then we rid the city of Stan, who has already poisoned his relationship with STL. That will either be beyond repair or take years of winning to mend. It is best that Stan be out of STL, assuming his true intention is to sh-t on STL and go to LA (That is what I believe his true intentions are btw). That is a dream scenario, however unlikely it seems.
I don't think that is far-fetched.... obviously we don't know all the behind-the-scenes goings on of the NFL, but from the outside it looks like Kroenke's move this week was a high-stakes gambit that burned bridges in Saint Louis and wasn't particularly well-received within the NFL.... if for whatever reason a Rams move to LA doesn't work out (and many in LA seem to think this is just more of the same ole same ole they've been exposed to these past two decades) it seems like Kroenke remaining owner of the Rams would be toxic. Teaming with Raiders seems so much more logical, imo, and would allow Kroenke to achieve his interest in returning the NFL to LA. The only flaw in this is it seems like a Kroenke-Davis partnership is kind of a clash of styles.
3,757
Life MemberLife Member
3,757

PostJan 08, 2015#258

^I think the recognition and status you get from the presence of a major sports franchise of any kind, keeps the City in the news and gives more name recognition. That goes along with branding and marketing the city to businesses, investors and other entities that bring money into the region. It is safe to say that pro sports is just one of many factors, of course, but IMO, it is a factor and has financial benefits beyond team and game-day generated revenue. I think significant subsidies should not be considered, but putting in 1/3 should be on the table for sure. Especially if the money to pay is generated from hotel and tourist related taxes. I think the owner should have a significant stake in a venue, so they are WAY less likely to move.

This is not to mention the pride and sense of community that a successful team brings to the region. A successful sports team is something all people, all colors, political affiliations, backgrounds, status etc... can get behind. I saw a lot of that in 99'. It was amazing!

I like the idea of Stan selling for all the reasons you mentioned. He has poisoned the well here in STL. It will take a monumental PR campaign to repair the wounds that Stan reopened, unless for some reason, this plays out and Stan was using LA as leverage. Can't blame him for trying to get the best deal for STL. If he is deadset on getting to LA and bold-faced lied to all of us regarding his commitment, he will be one of the biggest villains in STL history.

Anyone heard from Kevin Demoff yet? It looks like Les Snead made the rounds yesterday, but of course, was focused on the actual football related issues and distanced himself from the Rams to LA talk.

I don't think the NFL has said much either.
I'm anxiously awaiting word from both the NFL and KD.
1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostJan 08, 2015#259

Demoff turned down an interview the day of the news break. He hasn't tweeted anything since, and I don't think he's done any interviews yet either.

Frankly, I feel bad for the guy. I used to think he was Stan's mouth piece, but now I question if Stan really tells him anything. I have a feeling Stan told him very little. Probably said something like "your job is to run the St. Louis Rams." Demoff has done his best. He's been undermined by his owner. Demoff was born and raised in LA, but I've never gotten any other impression other than he likes being a part of the St. Louis community (I believe his father works here as an agent).

PostJan 08, 2015#260

By the way, I've had it suggested to me that if (for whatever reason) Kroenke puts the Rams up for sale, a legitimate bid would come from the the Taylor family with Dave Peacock holding a minority share and acting as the face of the ownership (Chairman or whatever the right title is).

That would probably be the best possible outcome, but something would have to get Kroenke to put the Rams up for sale first.

I originally heard that under the possibility that Kroenke makes a play for the Broncos when they go for sale. That's been regularly shot down by sources and the Broncos themselves, but the truth is they still don't have a succession plan, so if the Rams situation were to linger, it COULD come up as a possibility still.

But I would think the Taylor/Peacock ownership—if true—would be applicable under any circumstances in which the Rams are sold.
512
Senior MemberSenior Member
512

PostJan 08, 2015#261

As a non-football fan, I welcome any outcome that secures a team (long-term!) in St. Louis without Stan Kroenke's ownership/involvement. Either scenario works for me -- St. Louis lands one of the other teams mentioned or Stan sells the Rams to a local group so he can chase the LA Raiders (I love this idea!). A cherry on top would be a new open-air riverfront stadium (with limited taxpayer requirement) and increased convention/event opportunities for the CVC and Dome.

I recently learned that NFL owners are allowed to own other major league teams but ONLY in the same city as their football team. IF the Taylors put together a successful purchase package, that would pretty much solidify them as the dynasty family in post-industrial St. Louis, right?
7,803
Life MemberLife Member
7,803

PostJan 08, 2015#262

Deadspin's article about all this:
http://deadspin.com/rams-owner-who-just ... 1678213834

In my opinion it's about 80 to 90% that Kronke and the Rams are gone. But if by some miracle St. Louis does keep the team: surrender the Rams name. When they move to the new stadium switch the name and colors: give everything "Rams" back to Los Angeles.
3,757
Life MemberLife Member
3,757

PostJan 08, 2015#263

At least, through all of this, we can have fun, making fun of Stan's goofy looks.....







He's trying to "Sabotage" NFL football in St. Louis.... :mrgreen: .... I know... I know... bad joke....
985
Super MemberSuper Member
985

PostJan 08, 2015#264

Kevin B wrote:
I recently learned that NFL owners are allowed to own other major league teams but ONLY in the same city as their football team. IF the Taylors put together a successful purchase package, that would pretty much solidify them as the dynasty family in post-industrial St. Louis, right?

Kroneke has been flaunting this rule for four years now with his ownership of the Avalanche and the Nuggets. This is one of the reasons a number of owners don't like him and could block him in moving.

That comment on the dynasty family actually is a good point. That along with post-industrial corporate leadership is lacking and a huge factor in regional issues, since the political leadership has not been up to snuff for a long time. I heard that on 101 ESPN earlier this week saying the leaders kept relying and even when the Rams came here on groups like Boatmen's and TWA which are long gone with the vacuum not filled. This also is one of the root regional issues exposed by Ferguson.

This along with Ferguson could be a cause to show how a new leaf needs to be done in leadership on all fronts in the area and a new vision. Is one reason the corporate leadership still lacking at this point is that a lot of the corporate leaders here are relatively new?
7,803
Life MemberLife Member
7,803

PostJan 08, 2015#265

The Atlanta Hawks are for sale!
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12137 ... -sell-team
Let's bring them back! [/sarcasm]

That could be an interesting hit for Atlanta:
-Thrashers hockey to Edmonton (done)
-Braves to the suburbs (done)
-Hawks to Seattle?
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostJan 08, 2015#266

DogtownBnR wrote:^I think the recognition and status you get from the presence of a major sports franchise of any kind, keeps the City in the news and gives more name recognition. That goes along with branding and marketing the city to businesses, investors and other entities that bring money into the region. It is safe to say that pro sports is just one of many factors, of course, but IMO, it is a factor and has financial benefits beyond team and game-day generated revenue. I think significant subsidies should not be considered, but putting in 1/3 should be on the table for sure. Especially if the money to pay is generated from hotel and tourist related taxes. I think the owner should have a significant stake in a venue, so they are WAY less likely to move.

This is not to mention the pride and sense of community that a successful team brings to the region. A successful sports team is something all people, all colors, political affiliations, backgrounds, status etc... can get behind. I saw a lot of that in 99'. It was amazing!

I like the idea of Stan selling for all the reasons you mentioned. He has poisoned the well here in STL. It will take a monumental PR campaign to repair the wounds that Stan reopened, unless for some reason, this plays out and Stan was using LA as leverage. Can't blame him for trying to get the best deal for STL. If he is deadset on getting to LA and bold-faced lied to all of us regarding his commitment, he will be one of the biggest villains in STL history.

Anyone heard from Kevin Demoff yet? It looks like Les Snead made the rounds yesterday, but of course, was focused on the actual football related issues and distanced himself from the Rams to LA talk.

I don't think the NFL has said much either.
I'm anxiously awaiting word from both the NFL and KD.
This lists my top 4 reasons for wanting the Rams to stay. Well said, bro.

More fodder for the speculators, rumor mill hype men, and theorists: What if Peacock and Blitz are actually angling to buy the Rams because they knew Stan was going to sell if he can't move them? Juicy!
2,929
Life MemberLife Member
2,929

PostJan 08, 2015#267

Well, going forward we can expect the following to happen...
1. STL & MO will come correct with the Peacock-Blitz proposal, with offerings that would make most NFL owners happy.
2. MLS will likely grant STL the 24th franchise if we build whatever we have in mind.
3. Stan will not even look at it.
4. He'll announce he's moving to LA ASAP.
5. He'll then sue the NFL so they can move to an interim stadium, i.e. the Rose Bowl, and play there in August, forget that "No team in LA in 2015" bullcrap, I'm moving my team, they're my team, I'm Walmart rich, I do what I want!

The NFL's brand is weakening every day Stan's pulling off this crap. Playoffs? F that, let's talk Inglewood. Super Bowl in AZ... but they'll end up talking about LA and the Rams going to Katy Perry's new home town... For the recluse that he's been all these years, Stan's been grabbing attention for himself to build up the personal brand, trying to make himself bigger than the League of which he is merely one of 32 majority owners (even if he is the second richest of them).

Unless he personally presents flying unicorns that crap Kruggerands to all the other NFL Owners, I see easily 9+ voting against the Rams being allowed to move to LA. Stan will then try to force a move, based on the Al Davis precedent involving antitrust violations. The NFL will counter that Stan hasn't come close to following the minimum requirements to attempting to forge a new deal with the team's own city, like maybe talk to ANYONE, JUST ONCE, in that market once you become majority owner of that market's pro sports team. The lawyers will have a field day on this one.

Maybe the NFL will follow their own rules. Maybe they'll tell Stan to work a deal with STL at a potential new stadium. Maybe they'll tell him that he needs to exhaust the local market of viable options before he can relocate. Maybe they'll make him sell the Rams and buy another team for LA. Improbable, but not impossible. Most likely is that STL will be seen as a victim to an unscrupulous owner who gives all the other NFL owners a bad name, and that could foster us into being a top candidate for a future team down the road, maybe the Chargers/Raiders/Jaguars, maybe an expansion franchise. Good thing for us is that, if we do have an expansion franchise opportunity, we won't have to deal with a stumbling, mumbling Stan Kroenke at the microphone as the "face" of our expansion efforts, who does such a piss-poor job of presenting himself & the region that Freeman Bosley Jr. has to jump to the mike to reassure the rest of the NFL that we're for real. (Yes, I remember 1993 and why we lost to JAX)

Then again, maybe Stan will have a change of heart. Maybe he'll remember his promises to STL and the entire State. Maybe he'll find it in his heart to pay for a new STL stadium with his own money, or at least his wife's own money. Then again, maybe this is all the Matrix and Keanu Reeves will jump through your door in the next 30 seconds. Knock knock, Neo... (wait for it) Well, there went what was maybe the most likely of these options.

Stan Kroenke, everyone!
8,905
Life MemberLife Member
8,905

PostJan 09, 2015#268

Stan needs to follow the white rabbit
1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostJan 09, 2015#269

Dave Peacock & co. will be meeting with the media tomorrow at noon, presumably to reveal the stadium plans.
5,704
Life MemberLife Member
5,704

PostJan 09, 2015#270

GC, I think Stan K is still missing one crucial part to the plan. A Rose bowl and or another year to year stadium lease in LA area unless some one has some insight. I don't see Stan K going rogue unless he has a place to play in 2015.

I do have to say that Stan K has put NFL is position to make some decisions and or finally put an answer to other questions.

1) NFL has to admit that it truly wants an LA Market or not. Give credit to Stan K, he put together pieces that others couldn't. At same time, a new stadium in Oakland and San Diego are still pipe dreams.
2) Does NFL want to expand market by shuffling the deck and or expansion team(s)? Stan's move might actually work well for pro-expansion camp as it looks like St. Louis is on cusp of delivering NFL a stadium plan just as Stan K gives NFL a legitimate LA stadium plan. Stan K LA timeline gives San Antonio a shot at either gaining the Raiders and or a second expansion team.
3) If NLF does want expansion, will it finally give it a try full time outside of the US? London being the obvious choice, but I think Mexico City is just as much of or even a better opportunity when it comes to TV (NFL dollars flowing from Latino networks not to mention a city of 20 million people), logistically (shorter flight durations) and time zone that fits (Mexico City is in Central Time zone and will simply fit well with NFL's TV schedule).
4) Does NFL have a meaningful bylaws, control over the owners or is simply content with being the cashier for TV revenues.

The other tidbit living out here in Bay area since moving from St. Louis is the impression that the Raiders organization would be perfectly content paying a rent check on a new Oakland stadium after collecting their TV check of course (stating publically as such but not in quite those words) or moving to Texas if San Antonio obliges them with a new stadium. However, you just don't get the impression that Raiders organization has any desire to pick up and go south on I-5 only to be another team in a two team market when they would have a shot in moving to San Antonio a few years down the road.
7,803
Life MemberLife Member
7,803

PostJan 09, 2015#271

gone corporate wrote:Unless he personally presents flying unicorns that crap Kruggerands to all the other NFL Owners, I see easily 9+ voting against the Rams being allowed to move to LA.
Defenite no's
-San Diego
-Oakland

Possible no's
-Miami (Dolphins want upgrades. Maybe even a roof.)
-Tampa (fallen out of Super Bowl rotation)
-Redskins (Dan Snyder wants back to DC. Possibly a replacement for RFK)
-Jaguars (Shad Khan can't be happy with the way Stan played him)
-Bills (ramping up talk of a downtown Buffalo stadium)
Plus anyone else wanting public money for renovations to their places. Plus maybe some owners jealous of Stan tripling his team value by moving to LA.
271
Full MemberFull Member
271

PostJan 09, 2015#272



("tomorrow" = today)
3,757
Life MemberLife Member
3,757

PostJan 09, 2015#273

My biggest concern with the NFL owners is the fact that they definitely want to be in LA, no doubt. It is good for their pocket-books, good for the league, it's image and so on. The reason they have not been in LA for 20 years, if the fact that NOBODY has come up with a viable plan, much less offered to pay for it. I wonder if the NFL will put their bylaws aside, thinking this is their big shot to get back to LA and do it the right way, not some flawed plan like the City of Industry or Downtown Farmers Field. All have had flaws. While Inglewood is not perfect, Downtown LA (Farmers) had many flaws, which is why that deal was not done before. My fear is that the owners look at this deal as their big shot to get the 'LA solution' fixed the right way. They bend the rules for Stan and let him move or they put up a fight legally to save face, but in the end, cave in and let him move. If this is perceived as the best and most lucrative option for the owners, they will find a way to get it done. Most did not want the Rams in STL in the first place. Many of the same owners were around when Georgia moved the Rams, against the NFL's wishes. Based upon the fact that Stan has side-stepped the NFL's cross-ownership policy for so long, scares me. I think the moving without 'exhausting all options' clause in the league rules is much more important to the NFL, but if they want Stan's plan to provide their "LA solution" with his 80K seat venue in Inglewood, they could probably make it happen. That might be my biggest fear.
985
Super MemberSuper Member
985

PostJan 09, 2015#274

dweebe wrote:
gone corporate wrote:Unless he personally presents flying unicorns that crap Kruggerands to all the other NFL Owners, I see easily 9+ voting against the Rams being allowed to move to LA.
Defenite no's
-San Diego
-Oakland

Possible no's
-Miami (Dolphins want upgrades. Maybe even a roof.)
-Tampa (fallen out of Super Bowl rotation)
-Redskins (Dan Snyder wants back to DC. Possibly a replacement for RFK)
-Jaguars (Shad Khan can't be happy with the way Stan played him)
-Bills (ramping up talk of a downtown Buffalo stadium)
Plus anyone else wanting public money for renovations to their places. Plus maybe some owners jealous of Stan tripling his team value by moving to LA.
Wouldn't the Bronco's owner also be a possible no based on Stan's flaunting of cross-ownership rules involving the Nuggets and Avalanche? Also wouldn't some owners who are more powerful try blocking since this could be a way for Stan to gain power relative to other owners? And finally some owners might not like it due to principle and rules not being adhered to, I could picture some owners especially of the old guard not liking it due to image.

This is interesting in that this likely will force the NFL's hand on a number of issues and could actually push the idea of expansion. Though if the NFL expands I wonder if it adds four instead of two teams due to numbers working better, and to tick off multiple ideas on their end. (a 36 team league with 2 conferences with 3 6-team divisions would make sense, also this eliminates the situation of sub-.500 teams making the playoffs by having larger divisions)
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJan 09, 2015#275

^ I was thinking the same that old guard folks like the Rooney family (Steelers) would not be happy with this.... I can also see Cleveland Browns taking a dim view.

^^ My understanding is that there really isn't anything the NFL can do to legally prevent Kroenke from moving if he wants to, but what they can do is enforce financial penalties, etc. and make him a rogue.... it would be up to Stan (and his sensient toupee) to decide if that price is worth it. Do I have that right?
Read more posts (5227 remaining)
Share