New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

I don't know if it fits people's preconceived notions of how a Midwest city is, or it makes people feel better about their chances of getting our team, but if the lack of businesses narrative had any basis in fact the Blues and the Cardinals would also have problems. Shockingly, they do not. Want monetary support from business? Try having a winning season once every decade or so. Try working the room. Just saying, "I'm Stan Kroenke, buy boxes for my team but don't speak to me or talk to me directly" doesn't work. Surprisingly, deleted who owns the losingest team in this century doesn't do much for other executives.

Aside from the two words I deleted ( ahem... damn it ) this is pretty unavoidable - especially when talking about businesses and corporations. Businessmen know what would happen to them if they put the crappiest product on the market year in and year out. Most tend to have little patience for someone else doing that.

I don't know what the true business climate is in St Louis but judging the city by the corporate support the Rams and that product have received of late is a little ridiculous IMO.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Any other owner would have said SOMETHING at this point. Both Spanos and Davis have spoke. And yeah, I was probably over exaggerating with wanting Jerrah as an owner. But like I said, at least he makes a freakin effort. All Kroenke cares about is money. Personally I don't think he's fit to be an NFL owner. Because he doesn't seem to care very much about football. And that bugs the crap out of me.

The guy that tried not only to get an expansion team to St Louis but also bought in on the Rams to get them to St Louis doesn't care about football but all the other owners really do? By all accounts, he loves sports and considers the Rams his biggest sports endeavor. Everyone wants to know what he is thinking in all of this. I get it. But I don't find his silence to be from lack of caring. Look around at all the stadium situations. How has talking to the press worked out for most owners? Has it improved their situation? Did threatening to move give Minny fans the warm and fuzzies for their owner?

If there is nothing to be said that is conclusive in nature, I'd rather have my owner not run his jaws. At least I believe we know that when we do eventually hear from him, there will be substance and likely even some finality in what he says. Spanos and Fabiani have spoken. Hell - you can't keep Fabiani away from a microphone. How loved are they in SD? How much more informed are they in SD? How much more about Sapnos' plans do they know for sure in SD?

Well, I'm not overly emotional about his silence... but it seems clear to me that it is not helping the situation at all.

And, it's not consistent with what most other owners would do/have done.

Does that make him a monster? No.

But it surely doesn't make him a good owner in my eyes.

He'd be a good owner if he:
* Put a winning team on the field consistently
* Communicated at least a little

Really... I could give a rats ass how much wealth he's accumulating... it means nothing to me (unless he's tanking and the team is suffering as a result).

All this wealth? Haven't seen it translate to the field yet.

He was not in position to make decisions until he took over as majority owner. If you don't think he has put his money where his mouth isn't as far as rebuilding the franchise from the depths of the Frontiere/Shaw days, I don't know what to say. The product in wins/losses isn't where we want yet but still better than most of the seasons immediately preceding his tenure here. And the money spent on coaching, community outreach, etc. have been way and above what Georgia was willing to spend.

My beloved Rams have been a bad, bad team for a long time. Since 1990 this important NFL franchise has exactly 4, four, IV winning seasons - all in St. Louis. 99, 00, 01, 03. That is roughly a winning season rate of 15% for most of three decades. Horrific. It's not the city, the stadium, the grass/plastic, fans, cab drivers, beer vendors... It's the desire of ownership to put a winning product on the field.

My beloved Los Ramos have only 4 winning seasons in the last twenty-five, 25, XXV. It's an embarrassment and it rests on the golden desk in the velvet suite of yet another owner who doesn't give a s hit about the fans. The Peach taught E. Stash well. It's all about the money honey.

With the awesome display of losing the last 3 games of the losing 2014 season, my franchise has an all time record of 533-533-21. I don't care where they play. I'm a Ram fan. Let's hope things go well in week one and this can be a winning franchise again, for at least another week.

As a minority owner there are specific things you actually are not allowed unless the majority owner seeks your input. Depending on how it is structured though, the minority owner is generally a silent owner. I know - how fitting - right? Even if the majority owner seeks your input, it must be limited and not to be construed as taking an active role in the management operation.

As such - we can hold Stan accountable for the team from basically when he hired Fisher. That would be his first full year of majority ownership. IMO - comparing the last three seasons to the 25 before it I'd have to say Stan is doing a great job rebuilding the franchise. Maybe not the fan base but he has been working on the team.

 

[RamFan503]

I say that LA can be a fickle town and I get threatened to be dumped but LA guys spew untrue crap about St Louis all over the place and nothing is said? I wasn't even calling out the LA fans... All I was saying is that the corporate support can be more fickle because there are so many places that those corporate dollars can be spent.

Refer to what I deleted from your post if you need clarification. You know what you said and I won't go over it any more with you.

 

[Loyal]

Yeah, I have no doubt this is how the Rams see it and that's the argument they will make. The question is will the owner's see it that way? And it's no secret that if St. Louis finalizes the financing this thing will get much more complicated, so the too little too late thing doesn't hold much water, imo. We shall see.

Well, from the Rams side, they purchased 60 acres in Inglewood and then later partnered/created a plan with the Stockbridge group, before/around the same time as Peacock got involved. Kroenke/the Rams would say we took our future in our own hands.....Like you say, we'll see if it was too little too late, as determined by the NFL

 

[Rmfnlt]

He was not in position to make decisions until he took over as majority owner. If you don't think he has put his money where his mouth isn't as far as rebuilding the franchise from the depths of the Frontiere/Shaw days, I don't know what to say. The product in wins/losses isn't where we want yet but still better than most of the seasons immediately preceding his tenure here. And the money spent on coaching, community outreach, etc. have been way and above what Georgia was willing to spend.


As a minority owner there are specific things you actually are not allowed unless the majority owner seeks your input. Depending on how it is structured though, the minority owner is generally a silent owner. I know - how fitting - right? Even if the majority owner seeks your input, it must be limited and not to be construed as taking an active role in the management operation.

Sounds good... but... geesh... there he sat, the team is imploding right before his eyes... and he is powerless? I just don't think so... seems a little far fetched to me. He had some decent jack tied up in the team, even as minority owner.

And wasn't he the guy who made the decision on Spags?

Or was that Chip and Lucia? I'm going to go out on a limb and say they definitely sought his opinion on any major decisions while they had control. Compared to his experience, they were babes in the woods.

So, no, I think he was consulted (often). In my mind, his name is stamped all over the misery we experienced at the lowest points.

Again, I don't care how much money he puts in... I think I said that?

After at least 5 years of his majority input, the team is still sub-par and a main reason (here's where I tie it back to the point that was being discussed)... why they aren't selling out the suites, etc.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yeah, I know someone whose credit score improved from 400 to 490. Guess what, it's still a crappy credit score.

Sure, but the question isn't is the score still shitty, the question is did it improve? Is it closer to being respectable?

 

[Rmfnlt]

Sure, but the question isn't is the score still crappy, the question is did it improve? Is it closer to being respectable?

If I may, Brooks...

Answer:

It still won't get you a loan...

Just like 6-10 still won't sell many tickets and suites

 

[RAMbler]

You convienently ignored the Rams going 2-14 in 2011 under Stan's watch.

...just couldn't jettison/replace the miserable talent fast enough.... Also, was an extremely bad year for injuries, and very tough schedule.

No.... I'll take Stan & company over what was.....

 

[RAMbler]

Great analogy!

Terrible analogy. 400 to 460 credit score is still the SAME person. Georgia dies to Stanley buys.... are 2 completely different people.... in every possible way...., but especially when it comes to business.

 

[iced]

We don't know if he has or hasn't been transparent. Fabiani controls all communication with the public so know one knows what is real and what is spin. Hard to judge Spanos but Fabiani's way of doing business is well documented The Clinton's, Gore and Lance Armstrong.

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If 'is' means 'is and never has been' that's one thing - if it means 'there is none', that was a completely true statement," Bill Clinton

Again, Spanos at least gives the perception of willing to negotiate, whether its to save face or comply with "Exhaust ALL options" per the relocation rules..

Some people may be okay with Kroenke handling it the way he has - Me personally? I don't think there's anyway to spin an owner flat out ignoring the city - that makes his intention's clear, let alone the crap he is pulling with the fan base.

People keep pointing out Spanos trashing the deal - yet, I don't think there's anything said that's been untrue..nor is he doing things to destroy his fan base...

yea, I'd prefer to have an owner who atleast gives the perception of an open mind and/or willing to negotiate than one who is completely closed off while doing things to alienate his fan base.

 

[tonyl711]

I know exactly what you're saying and I'm telling you it doesn't matter if he isn't talking. It's his choice to hire somebody to do the talking for him just like every other lead man in this situation, it's his choice to get in front of a mic or not. And people getting pissed off at him for doing this and not at others is pointless and irrational. I get that people in St Louis hate him for the potential move. But he gets criticism for things that the others get a pass at.

what others have totally shut out the people they are "trying to negotiate with", we have heard from Spanos, Davis, the heads of every task force, city leaders, state leaders, who is the one person noone has heaed from?

 

[dbrooks25]

In response to the story headlined -- "Football tax revenues don't cover existing debt on Dome, says city budget director" -- stadium task force co-chair Dave Peacock issued a statement:

"The current discussion about the funding of the Dome from hotel taxes or not is not consequential to the RSA’s legal arguments. The RSA’s lawyers are not arguing that a vote is unnecessary because the voters already approved the hotel/motel tax. They are arguing that a vote would violate the RSA statute and the City Charter.

"We have said all along that the city's contribution to a new stadium would come from a combination of existing revenue streams, i.e. extending the $5-million debt service payments currently used for the Dome and the $1-million from the preservation fund payments once they expire in 2024 plus taxes generated by the game day experience.

"On the surface, I do believe the direct taxes from the Rams, the indirect taxes from game days, plus events in the Dome like tractor pulls, plus hotel/restaurant and other taxes generated by those convention goers resulting from having the Dome likely do cover the city Dome payments.

"As to whether that will be true in the new stadium, we don't know enough to say. We know the Dome will generate more revenue for our convention business with the Rams out of the building. We know the Rams exiting the Dome but staying in the market is better than having them leave altogether. We do know a new outdoor stadium positions the city better relative to attracting MLS soccer. We also know that redeveloping the North Riverfront is imperative.

"We have said for quite some time that the city's portion would come from the existing Dome payments being extended plus revenue generated by the game day experience.

"That has not changed. Bottom line, between the State and the City, we should be able to fund the public portion of the proposed new stadium without tax increases."

http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1118127

It's about time we heard a rebuttal from Peacock.

If I may, Brooks...

Answer:

It still won't get you a loan...

Just like 6-10 still won't sell many tickets and suites

Bingo, THANK YOU.

 

[dbrooks25]

Terrible analogy. 400 to 460 credit score is still the SAME person. Georgia dies to Stanley buys.... are 2 completely different people.... in every possible way...., but especially when it comes to business.

Okay then, Person A has a 400 credit score and Person B has a 490 credit score. 490 is still shitty. Is that better? Point is, shitty records are shitty records. No playoffs is no playoffs, no matter how you slice it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

If I may, Brooks...

Answer:

It still won't get you a loan...

Just like 6-10 still won't sell many tickets and suites

That doesn't answer the question at hand. The original question I asked was: If the NFL is worried about corporate support, how do you fix that? If Stan is going to argue on why he should be able to leave and the market studies indeed show there isn't an appetite for corporate support, then what? I'm not going to count on Kroenke fighting for St Louis or trying to paint a rosy picture, so that's going to fall on the city. If the city just says "Well what has Kroenke done to improve the business to make corporations want to buy suits, I don't think it's going to take them very far. First, the team has improved quite a bit since he's taken over, and second just trying to blame the Rams probably wont make the NFL happy.

We can say that the Rams are still not a good team. I'd argue that trying to say that they haven't improved is wrong, but if the NFL is worried about the lack of corporate support, then it's going to be on the city to show them that they can and will support the Rams through good times and bad. Counting on Kroenke to make that argument would be incredibly incredibly stupid, and simply blaming them would be as well.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Again, Spanos at least gives the perception of willing to negotiate, whether its to save face or comply with "Exhaust ALL options" per the relocation rules..

I'd put quite a bit of money (and I mean real money) that if you were to run that question in San Diego they would not think that Spanos or the Chargers are willing to negotiate, especially as long as he has Fabiani involved.


And I'd say I'd much rather have an owner that stays quiet and sends a representative to work with me on his behalf than an owner sit in a room, not work, and then go out and trash everything.

 

[RamFan503]

Sounds good... but... geesh... there he sat, the team is imploding right before his eyes... and he is powerless? I just don't think so... seems a little far fetched to me. He had some decent jack tied up in the team, even as minority owner.

It can seem far fetched as all hell but it's not. I'm sure he would have wanted to do something but as a minority owner, he actually must remain largely out of the position of making decisions on team management.

And wasn't he the guy who made the decision on Spags?

To fire him after allowing him to remain after a 2-14 season that followed on the heals of a 7-9 season that made Spags look like a potentially good coach? Yes.

Or was that Chip and Lucia? I'm going to go out on a limb and say they definitely sought his opinion on any major decisions while they had control. Compared to his experience, they were babes in the woods.

So, no, I think he was consulted (often). In my mind, his name is stamped all over the misery we experienced at the lowest points.

Neither them nor Stan. It was Shaw making football and organizational decisions. Stan even kept Shaw on for a year as he got his feet wet if I recall correctly. But he got rid of him as he started to rebuild the organization.

To be honest, I thought the same thing. How could an owner with the type of success and money Stan had been building sit back and let all this happen? I talked to my uncle about it. He is very well versed in how this works and happened to be business partners with Al Davis. He actually said it is just like it was with Al. As freaking weird as he was and with all the whacked out things he did, the other owners must, as minority owners, stay out of the management duties. Makes sense that junior wants to sell another minority interest in the team - right? He can garner several million dollars knowing he still won't have another cook in the kitchen.

Again, I don't care how much money he puts in... I think I said that?

After at least 5 years of his majority input, the team is still sub-par and a main reason (here's where I tie it back to the point that was being discussed)... why they aren't selling out the suites, etc.

Stan took over officially late in 2010. He kept the current build in place for one year. He then started the restructuring before the 2012 season. We are essentially heading into year 4 of the overhaul.

And I do care how much money Stan has put into the product. I think most of the recipients of Rams related community outreach would agree. I am even guessing that it will be looked at favorably by his fellow owners. Maybe not but I think it will.

 

[RamFan503]

Again, Spanos at least gives the perception of willing to negotiate, whether its to save face or comply with "Exhaust ALL options" per the relocation rules..

Some people may be okay with Kroenke handling it the way he has - Me personally? I don't think there's anyway to spin an owner flat out ignoring the city - that makes his intention's clear, let alone the crap he is pulling with the fan base.

People keep pointing out Spanos trashing the deal - yet, I don't think there's anything said that's been untrue..nor is he doing things to destroy his fan base...

yea, I'd prefer to have an owner who atleast gives the perception of an open mind and/or willing to negotiate than one who is completely closed off while doing things to alienate his fan base.

And that is an understandable position. But I don't think it makes the other opinion wrong. I call stalemate.

 

[iced]

And I'd say I'd much rather have an owner that stays quiet and sends a representative to work with me on his behalf than an owner sit in a room, not work, and then go out and trash everything.

I'd rather have an owner do that on his own instead of having to be nudged/forced from the Commissioner. I think that's about as transparent as you can get

And while people blast Fabiani for their remarks about the issues - no one has shown anything to prove their complaints are without merit

 

[RamFan503]

what others have totally shut out the people they are "trying to negotiate with", we have heard from Spanos, Davis, the heads of every task force, city leaders, state leaders, who is the one person noone has heaed from?

Ooh,,,oohh pick me. pick me. I know the answer.

Sorry - just getting a little punchy with this latest round.

 

[tonyl711]

Ooh,,,oohh pick me. pick me. I know the answer.

Sorry - just getting a little punchy with this latest round.

lol, me too, me and old school are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'd rather have an owner do that on his own instead of having to be nudged/forced from the Commissioner. I think that's about as transparent as you can get

And while people blast Fabiani for their remarks about the issues - no one has shown anything to prove their complaints are without merit

So if Kroenke put the riverfront on blast for being small, having few parking spots, being limited, having few seats, not being a Super Bowl capable site, asking him to pay over 50% of the bill, etc you wouldn't have an problem with that?