487 posts
  • 41 / 49
  • 1
  • 41
  • 49
 by majik
1 month ago
 Total posts:   859  
 Joined:  Aug 31 2015
United States of America   New Jersey
Veteran

We don’t know what happened behind closed doors, but I got the initial impression that St. Louis officials approached the coming negotiations regarding the out clause in 2015 as if they holding all the cards and that is why Stan started exploring the LA option to get some kind of leverage.

I mean the initial stadium proposal was like Stan you provide the funding for most of the stadium but St. Louis gets most of the benefits.

 by Hacksaw
1 month ago
 Total posts:   19554  
 Joined:  Apr 15 2015
United States of America   AT THE BEACH
Moderator

moklerman wrote:St. Louis broke the lease long before the Rams decided to not renew. Not only was the stadium not kept in the top 25%, the Rams had to waive maintenance and upgrades for years. The city never met it's 5 year benchmarks. If they didn't even have the money to keep up what they promised, how could the Rams count on them catching up with what they owed AND renovate/build a new stadium, much less allow the Rams to be profitable?

But, this is all secondary to what the real problem was. Control. St. Louis refused to let Kroenke build and control his own stadium. Not only that, they wanted him to foot at least half the bill for what they were proposing and then wanted to maintain control and share in the profits. St. Louis, IMO, could have easily offered something along the lines of what Inglewood offered and had a good chance to keep the Rams.

The local government in St. Louis is just a mess.

In a way it's almost laughable that these guys even pursue this considering how culpable they are of non compliance and piss poor judgment. They were lucky or were counting on GF looking the other way which she did.
Even if ESK was thinking about cutting out before he bought out Chip and Lucia, so what? It's not a crime to aspire to get better or to put yourself in a position to win, especially after StL showed how they intended to roll.
And didn't they gladly / arrogantly take the Rams from LA? Perhaps they should notice how LA handled their disappointment 20+ years ago and just move on. Or perhaps start a BBTStLR (Bring back The StL Rams) organization and compel the Rams to notice their undying commitment.

 by Elvis
1 month ago
 Total posts:   30074  
 Joined:  Mar 28 2015
United States of America   Los Angeles
Administrator

moklerman wrote:St. Louis, IMO, could have easily offered something along the lines of what Inglewood offered and had a good chance to keep the Rams.


I doubt this is true. Building your own stadium in a relatively small market just doesn't make as much business sense as it does in a top market.

You only see privately funded stadiums in NY, L.A. and SF, unless (i'm forgetting some). Even Jerry World was a combination of public and private money.

David Tepper is the richest owner in the NFL and here's what he says about a new stadium in Charlotte:

"There's no way in hell that I would build a dome stadium in Charlotte, especially after COVID. The weather is too beautiful and if anything shows you, it's an advantage to have that kind of building. At some point, that building [Bank of America Stadium] will fall down. I've said it before and I'll say it again; I'm not building the stadium alone. The community is going to have to want it. If I'm a third, the community is a third, and if other people or PSL guys are a third, we can do it. It's a partnership and if people don't want it, they don't want it. I don't want to force it on anybody. I'm not going to force it on anybody. In the meantime, we'll just try to make the building we have the best possible building we can have. We'll continue to make different changes there and different enhancements."


L.A. was calling. Sucked for the fans in St. Louis but the Rams were the best most logical choice. It was gonna be a hard train to stop but Spanos sure gave it the old college try...

 by moklerman
1 month ago
 Total posts:   7680  
 Joined:  Apr 17 2015
United States of America   Bakersfield, CA
Hall of Fame

Elvis wrote:I doubt this is true. Building your own stadium in a relatively small market just doesn't make as much business sense as it does in a top market.
May be, but wasn't ESK trying to buy the land in St. Louis for a proposed site? I know how things turned out but IMO, his plans changed mid-stream. I don't think it was his original intention to leave St. Louis or that all of his talk about making St. Louis a sports hub just a ruse.

So, if that was the case, but St. Louis wanted too much of the pie, I think that lines up with ESK burning bridges and sticking it to them. Not only did they not let him do what he wanted for the Rams(and soccer and NCAA and the Olympics), they tried to strong-arm him.

 by St. Loser Fan
1 month ago
 Total posts:   7652  
 Joined:  May 31 2016
United States of America   LA Coliseum
Hall of Fame

Hacksaw wrote:Perhaps they should notice how LA handled their disappointment 20+ years ago and just move on.

I don't deny that Los Angeles is superior to St. Louis in every way and how they handled Georgia's/John Shaw's move. You are better than us.

But I offer this rebuttal and possible justification for us being petty.
1) In 1994/95 did Los Angeles (or a suburb) have a secured stadium site, with naming rights, a designed stadium and hundreds of millions of dollars in public money allocated to give to build a venue to keep the Rams in LA?
2) Did Georgia fire off a blistering (and yes, partially true) indictment of the city and how bad it's football fans were? One so harsh it ensures that Los Angeles would never secure a football team ever again?
3) When the Rams left LA the league said they would try and get a team back there as soon as possible. They lied and it took 20 years. But they could have easily rolled the same lie out again for St. Louis and ensured that no lawsuits would ever see the light of day.

This lawsuit wouldn't have gotten out of the Blitz law firm office if Stan and the NFL had just been a bit more careful with their words and actions.

 by St. Loser Fan
1 month ago
 Total posts:   7652  
 Joined:  May 31 2016
United States of America   LA Coliseum
Hall of Fame

Hacksaw wrote:Or perhaps start a BBTStLR (Bring back The StL Rams) organization and compel the Rams to notice their undying commitment.

St. Louis is done as a NFL town. End of discussion.

 by Hacksaw
1 month ago
 Total posts:   19554  
 Joined:  Apr 15 2015
United States of America   AT THE BEACH
Moderator

St. Loser Fan wrote:I don't deny that Los Angeles is superior to St. Louis in every way and how they handled Georgia's/John Shaw's move. You are better than us.

But I offer this rebuttal and possible justification for us being petty.
1) In 1994/95 did Los Angeles (or a suburb) have a secured stadium site, with naming rights, a designed stadium and hundreds of millions of dollars in public money allocated to give to build a venue to keep the Rams in LA?
2) Did Georgia fire off a blistering (and yes, partially true) indictment of the city and how bad it's football fans were? One so harsh it ensures that Los Angeles would never secure a football team ever again?
3) When the Rams left LA the league said they would try and get a team back there as soon as possible. They lied and it took 20 years. But they could have easily rolled the same lie out again for St. Louis and ensured that no lawsuits would ever see the light of day.

This lawsuit wouldn't have gotten out of the Blitz law firm office if Stan and the NFL had just been a bit more careful with their words and actions.

1) There were groups working on it (primarily Steinberg) but nothing that was compelling enough for GF to sell or take part. Riverfront wasn't in stone either. Peacock, Blitz and Nixon just tried to sell it that way. The money wasn't clean or clear and way past last minute to be acceptable.
2) Not at departure but her "right decision" comments after the Superbowl burned as hot. And it wouldn't have mattered anyway, LA is what it is and nobody would have bought it if she said it.
3) A promIse the state and city wouldn't help keep. Stadiums are at the root of it all. Taxpayers weren't going for it. A few teams tried to roll in here but they were turned back. I truly think the Rams were on the backburner the whole time.

Really StLoser, I'm not trying to measure up LA vs StL bro, , they aren't comparable. .

 by St. Loser Fan
1 month ago
 Total posts:   7652  
 Joined:  May 31 2016
United States of America   LA Coliseum
Hall of Fame

Hacksaw wrote:1) There were groups working on it (primarily Steinberg) but nothing that was compelling enough for GF to sell or take part. Riverfront wasn't in stone either. Peacock, Blitz and Nixon just tried to sell it that way. The money wasn't clean or clear and way past last minute to be acceptable.
2) Not at departure but her "right decision" comments after the Superbowl burned as hot. And it wouldn't have mattered anyway, LA is what it is and nobody would have bought it if she said it.
3) A promIse the state and city wouldn't help keep. Stadiums are at the root of it all. Taxpayers weren't going for it. A few teams tried to roll in here but they were turned back. I truly think the Rams were on the backburner the whole time.

Really StLoser, I'm not trying to measure up LA vs StL bro, , they aren't comparable. .


Yes, I already know that you and LA are superior to us in St. Louis. I’m not going to deny that.

I was simply trying to explain why we handled the move poorly. But if you want to dismiss anything I offer as an explanation, then I’d like for you to tell me why you think we acted badly: other than LA is great and St. Louis isn’t.

 by snackdaddy
1 month ago
 Total posts:   8200  
 Joined:  May 30 2015
United States of America   Merced California
Hall of Fame

snackdaddy wrote:Is this a good time to bring back Bernie Miklasz's article trolling LA back in 1995?

viewtopic.php?t=1121


Lulz, I forgot how I got everyone off the subject with the Get Smart comment. :lol2:

  • 41 / 49
  • 1
  • 41
  • 49
487 posts Aug 02 2021