[majik]

Which if you have a functioning brain (not you, the powers that be in St. Louis) and you determine the $700M revamp of the Dome is not doable) then you move onto building a new stadium. The $700M revamp was part of the negotiations to the top tier clause. So when St. Louis is coming up with a way to keep the Rams after that point, it takes them years to come up with the Riverfront proposal at the last minute, with questionable financing.

The response should have been, Stan, we will give you the land (that the eventual Riverfront Stadium was proposed for) and take care of mass transit and road connections, you build a palace.

[St. Loser Fan]

Which if you have a functioning brain (not you, the powers that be in St. Louis) and you determine the $700M revamp of the Dome is not doable) then you move onto building a new stadium. The $700M revamp was part of the negotiations to the top tier clause. So when St. Louis is coming up with a way to keep the Rams after that point, it takes them years to come up with the Riverfront proposal at the last minute, with questionable financing.

Yes, the very next step should have been to start discussions about a whole new stadium elsewhere in the metro area. I fully admit that error.

If I was the CVC I would have tried to meet with Demoff and said "Look, we agree the Dome is shit, can't be redone and is in a landlocked location not suitable for any redevelopment. What do you want?"

But on the flip side Stan never asked for a plan B. IIRC Demoff never came to the CVC saying "We want 200 prime acres, cleared and prepped on your dime. We want complete ownership of that land along with all parking and development rights. We want "X" hundred million in no strings attached public money."

[majik]

I would not want to deal with the CVC. I truly think the movers and shakers truly believed that there was no way the Rams could move back to LA, even though that as early as 2013 once the CVC lost its arbitration case with the Rams, it was clear as day that Stan would be a free agent after 2015.

The relocation guidelines that this lawsuit seems to be hanging its hat on involves the NFL and its owners, it does not bind a franchise to a city. In fact, from a business perspective it would make no sense for the NFL not to provide its owners with leverage in negotiations with cities and states when a new facility must be built or a contractual obligation in the form of a lease expires by forbidding teams from moving.

[St. Loser Fan]

I would not want to deal with the CVC. I truly think the movers and shakers truly believed that there was no way the Rams could move back to LA, even though that as early as 2013 once the CVC lost its arbitration case with the Rams, it was clear as day that Stan would be a free agent after 2015.

Yes. Nothing worse than dealing with a weird quasi governmental board of appointed and connected people.

I truly think the movers and shakers truly believed that there was no way the Rams could move back to LA, even though that as early as 2013 once the CVC lost its arbitration case with the Rams, it was clear as day that Stan would be a free agent after 2015.

Not trying to white knight for them, but I think the CVC had more time. I think they also felt too secure acting like Stan was a St. Louis guy. He juked with this statement

I'm going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Just as I did everything that I could to bring the team to St. Louis in 1995. I believe my actions speak for themselves. There's a track record and I've always stepped up for pro football in St. Louis. And I'm stepping up one more time.

And they froze. Then Demoff said this, and we froze again.

Always assume an owner or his key proxy is not telling the truth.

[moklerman]

Sorry, but the whole basis for this grumbling is based on the idea that the CVC and Stan had no talks before it was too late. That is a LOT to assume. Sure, there were no public statements but that doesn't mean there weren't negotiations happening behind closed doors.

We don't really know what ESK proposed or what his actual attempts at keeping the Rams in St. Louis entailed. But that doesn't mean that his statement was contradictory or even false. It seems pretty clear that there were huge miscalculations by St. Louis. Either that, or they weren't sincere about keeping the Rams and their efforts were just theater.

Greed and arrogance were their downfall IMO. Simple as that. Which is nothing new from what little I know of their dealings with sports franchises. Losing the Cardinals, losing out on the Stallions/Jaguars, losing the Rams...at what point does St. Louis hold themselves accountable?

[Hacksaw]

Yes. Nothing worse than dealing with a weird quasi governmental board of appointed and connected people.

Not trying to white knight for them, but I think the CVC had more time. I think they also felt too secure acting like Stan was a St. Louis guy. He juked with this statement

And they froze. Then Demoff said this, and we froze again.

Always assume an owner or his key proxy is not telling the truth.

Quite possible. So if your last point is a rule, then why proceed under that assumption?
We really don't know everything that was said out of the public earshot by either side. Just the response by RK in that tweet would make me want to take my ball and go home to LA too.

Everyone wanted answers. High stakes and uncertainty were driving the sports pages. BM was being his usual self. Still the more I look back, I think that ESK would have stayed if everything lined up, but StL played greedy hardball instead. Then local media got stinky and he likely thought 'why bother?', there is a huge upside in the 2nd largest market and I'm going to work on that option now. As things developed, Peacock-Nixon-Blitz tried to strong arm him to force his team to stay against his will. Would you be happy about that either?

And we can't overlook that if not for Spanos & Davis (and their Charaiders Carson toxic waste dump stadium plan), ESK likely would have bolted a year earlier just to get away. The River-false-front stadium would have never even gotten to the drawing board so that point ('we had a stadium planned even though the books are funky') is also moot.

Butt hurt is not grounds for a lawsuit, just vexatious litigation run amok.

[majik]

I think everyone was shocked when Jacksonville (which did a great job supporting the USFL for two seasons) got an expansion franchise over St. Louis. I remember hearing about the St. Louis Stallions were a shoo-in. How would have history been different if St. Louis did get that expansion franchise

[St. Loser Fan]

Sorry, but the whole basis for this grumbling is based on the idea that the CVC and Stan had no talks before it was too late. That is a LOT to assume. Sure, there were no public statements but that doesn't mean there weren't negotiations happening behind closed doors.

We don't really know what ESK proposed or what his actual attempts at keeping the Rams in St. Louis entailed. But that doesn't mean that his statement was contradictory or even false. It seems pretty clear that there were huge miscalculations by St. Louis. Either that, or they weren't sincere about keeping the Rams and their efforts were just theater.

Greed and arrogance were their downfall IMO. Simple as that. Which is nothing new from what little I know of their dealings with sports franchises. Losing the Cardinals, losing out on the Stallions/Jaguars, losing the Rams...at what point does St. Louis hold themselves accountable?

We did. The CVC board got entirely flipped. The mayor and county executive executive were voted out of office. Dave Peacock is a mid level executive for a local grocery chain.

When the St. Louis MLS team asked for public money they were told to pound sand. Three times: once by the general public vote and twice by the St. Louis City board of aldermen. As a result the new soccer stadium is still getting built, but with 100% private money. The baseball Cardinals finished off paying the bonds for Busch Stadium and they had the option to go to the state to re-issue them to finance another tower at Ballpark Village: they declined.

That's why were going full speed ahead with the lawsuit. We already know we're done as an NFL city and any sort of win just takes it from 99% certainty to 100%.

[St. Loser Fan]

I think everyone was shocked when Jacksonville (which did a great job supporting the USFL for two seasons) got an expansion franchise over St. Louis. I remember hearing about the St. Louis Stallions were a shoo-in. How would have history been different if St. Louis did get that expansion franchise

The problem was the lease at the Dome was "dirty". Too many chefs in kitchen as nearly a dozen groups/people had claims to part of the lease. For example they gave Walter Payton a small part (3%) to show minority participation. The NFL was still gun shy from the first Al Davis lawsuit so they didn't want to put a team where the lease would put them back in court. Jacksonville was clean and they gave them the team.

You know who bought the leases all out and facilitated the move of the Rams to St. Louis? Stan Kroenke.

I still think the biggest error was letting the Cardinals move from Chicago to St. Louis in 1961 to block an AFL expansion. They should have just let the Bidwells go bankrupt in Chicago and contracted the team. An AFL (later AFC) St. Louis expansion team owned by the Busch family would still be here and never given the Rams a place to move.

[Rams the Legends live on]

Dave Peacock is a mid level executive for a local grocery chain.

He no longer the President and COO of Shnuck's?