New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[dbrooks25]

I listen to local STL radio shows via podcasts at insidestl.com daily. I'm s truck driver so I have spare time and also have Siriusxm hooked up. Anyway the majority of the radio hosts in STL think the Rams are gone. And nationally via mad dog radio and NFL radio think the Rams are gone. Spanos and Mark keep on saying we want to stay but Stan is dead he's not doing anything.

I listen as well as I'm local and there is a doom and gloom thing going on from some of the reporters but a lot of them haven't concluded that the Rams are gone. I was just listening to the fast lane and Randy Karraker (who gets a lot of insider info, btw) doesn't think they are gone. He used to feel that way, but the day before yesterday he and D'marco Farr were talking about the trolling of the LA fans (not here, obviously) and how they have come to the conclusion that the Rams were moving to LA. Randy actually stated that when they DON'T move he will troll those particular LA fans back. Now, the fact that he said that doesn't mean squat as far as the team actually moving but I'm just pointing out that those two don't think the team will move. I know Kevin Wheeler hasn't concluded that they will move either. I'm not sure what Frank Cusumano feels as I haven't listened to him in a while.

 

[dbrooks25]

The NFL can't force him to stay in St. Louis. Anti trust laws see to that. They can enforce penalties for not abiding by the bylaws, but can't force and owner to stay.
IMO the thing that will "force" SK to stay in St. Louis is if the owners agree to the project and subsequent move for San diego and oakland to Carson.
I'd have to believe that even Stan would find having 3 teams in LA excessive

Now see, THAT is your opinion. You don't know that he would take them to court at all, let alone win. Again, my point was that the NFL can't force Stan to stay in the dome and the scenario you presented is an example of what I meant when I said "force him to stay." Do the owners not represent the NFL?

 

[dieterbrock]

Now see, THAT is your opinion. You don't know that he would take them to court at all, let alone win. Again, my point was that the NFL can't force Stan to stay in the dome and the scenario you presented is an example of what I meant when I said "force him to stay." Read, please.

The NFL can not force Stan to keep the Rams in St louis

 

[ChrisW]

The NFL can not force Stan to keep the Rams in St louis

The penalties are what force him to stay. At this point, as I said a few pages back, you're arguing semantics.

 

[dbrooks25]

I never said that I KNOW what's going to happen. But I've got an opinion based on what I see and read. And IMO, Stan has paved a a brilliant path to LA. For himself and the NFL. I believe the NFL has always wanted back into the 2nd largest market in the country, and the entertainment capital of the world. But they've been looking for the right circumstances. Stan gives them their best shot in 2 decades. And its a real doosie!

After all that has come out, I do not believe SK is using LA as leverage. And I do not believe the NFL will try to "force" him to stay in St Louis. IMO, Stan will announce the move of the Rams to LA later this year, or early next year, and the NFL will be backing him.

Now just to be clear......., thats what I THINK will happen. Am I 100% sure? Of course not. But I'm right around 95%.

I don't believe he's using LA as leverage either, but I do believe he is playing both sides of the fence which is why, imo, the guy is saying absolutely nothing. The problem with some of you pro LA folks is that you are only willing to see the LA side of things and just simply choose to ignore the fact that there is a good possibility that the Rams will not be in LA. In fact, to many of you it's a forgone conclusion that they will be there. As a pro Stl person, I am open to all of the possibilities and I believe this thing can go either way. I will say that the Stl stadium financing will get done, so then the question is what will the NFL do about that? Many of you guys seriously underestimate how good Dave Peacock is at what he does and the relationships he has with the important people in the NFL. Again, I'm not sure what will happen but one thing I know is that a lot of the pro LA folks are gonna be on suicide watch if this team stays in St. Louis because they have closed their minds to the possibility of the team not relocating at all.

 

[dbrooks25]

The penalties are what force him to stay. At this point, as I said a few pages back, you're arguing semantics.

Thank you! Some just like to lean on wishful thinking.

 

[ChrisW]

Thank you! Some just like to lean on wishful thinking.

I don't think it's wishful thinking. He's right that you can't literally force him not to move. But, the purpose of the vote, and penalties is to keep owners from moving at will.

 

[dbrooks25]

I don't think it's wishful thinking. He's right that you can't literally force him not to move. But, the purpose of the vote, and penalties is to keep owners from moving at will.

Right, but I believe he's picking at words as the point of my post was that he can't be forced to stay in the dome. He chose to pick the "force him to stay" part of my post. May be a bad choice of words, but the vote and penalties and such are summed up lazily by myself as forcing him to stay.

The wishful thinking part that I was talking about is the anti trust stuff. We don't know that Stan will even take the NFL to court if he is blocked from moving. Then there's the reporting that he will supposedly not go against the NFL when it comes to this issue.

 

[dieterbrock]

What is really sad is it seems this place is going to lose an awful lot of great people if the Rams move to


such a shame

Agree. And I also fear that we could lose some loyal LA guys if they stay in St Louis. Having no dog in the fight (being from neither place) it seems we lose friends either way. Just a bad sitch all together

 

[dieterbrock]

The penalties are what force him to stay. At this point, as I said a few pages back, you're arguing semantics.

Its not semantics though.
Its not out of the realm that he would go rogue, that door is left open in many a conversation
Now as to my point that started this conversation, a Carson project being officially in place for San Diego and Oakland would be more damaging to the possibility of him doing so than the St Louis project IMO.
I cant see any scenario where Kroenke goes rogue to be a 3rd team in LA, in a stadium built for 2....

 

[dieterbrock]

Thank you! Some just like to lean on wishful thinking.

What does that mean?

 

[ChrisW]

Now as to my point that started this conversation, a Carson project being officially in place for San Diego and Oakland would be more damaging to the possibility of him doing so than the St Louis project IMO.

Really? So you think that Carson would go further at keeping him from moving that a fully funded ready to go stadium in STL? You're basing this off his wishes, I guess. Because the St. Louis stadium is what's going to sway the owner's vote more than anything.

 

[dieterbrock]

Really? So you think that Carson would go further at keeping him from moving that a fully funded ready to go stadium in STL? You're basing this off his wishes, I guess. Because the St. Louis stadium is what's going to sway the owner's vote more than anything.

Wow. Ok, no point in continuing here. I get that you're emotionally invested here but try to keep stuff in context.

 

[Goose]

Agree. And I also fear that we could lose some loyal LA guys if they stay in St Louis. Having no dog in the fight (being from neither place) it seems we lose friends either way. Just a bad sitch all together

And that is the unfortunate tragedy of this process. The fans are the ones that suffer. There is going to be a fan base that loses. I was to young to be impacted by the Cardinals moving but if the Rams move it would crush me. I am not sure I'd want anything to do with the NFL if it happens.

 

[ChrisW]

Wow. Ok, no point in continuing here. I get that you're emotionally invested here but try to keep stuff in context.

No need to dismiss my post. It's a valid point. Do you really think the owners will vote yes with a valid and funded stadium in a downtown location? I honestly don't see how you can think it's so easy for him to move just because he has the land. He still has to go through all the voting before he can uproot the franchise, and AS ALWAYS, the host city is the biggest factor in the move.

 

[den-the-coach]

I was die hard STL Football Cardinals fan, was sick when they moved, but you know what, as soon as the Rams became the ST. LOUIS RAMS, they became my team. I think there would be plenty of fans in LA who would have changed allegiances over the past 20 years had one of the other teams followed thru on their leverage plans and moved. I realize not all, but many.

And I get it and totally understand and did that somewhat in college football. When you start going to the games and the game day experience I understand, but if the team is not part of your community one would surmise that would be different. I guess in the end the way you end up rooting for your team does not matter and like friends & relationships you can always move on regardless of the situation.

 

[blue4]

Not saying this is the case in your situation, but I do find it somewhat convenient for some "long time Ram fans" from LA to say its always team over location, when they haven't had a local team for 20 years.

I was die hard STL Football Cardinals fan, was sick when they moved, but you know what, as soon as the Rams became the ST. LOUIS RAMS, they became my team. I think there would be plenty of fans in LA who would have changed allegiances over the past 20 years had one of the other teams followed thru on their leverage plans and moved. I realize not all, but many.

I agree. If the Rams had not come here I would be a Oilers/then Dolphins fan. And probably talking team over city. Also the fact that I'm older now and realize having a football team in the city is more than just a game to watch on Sundays. It's very good paying jobs to build the stadium. It's permanent jobs maintaining and running the organization. It's tax revenue. Local pride. Etc and so on. Far more than just painting your face certain colors and barbecuing.

 

[drasconis]

The NFL can not force Stan to keep the Rams in St louis

That is undetermined at this point. There have been many conversations over the last 190 pages about this. The fact is the case law leans towards Stan, but it written so as to not be absolute. An anti-trust lawsuit by him , while likely, is not a 100% win. If the NFL won they could do EXACTLY that...legally.

 

[Hacksaw]

Here is some leaked photos from the Inglewood project that was presented this week. Wow it's detailed.

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fb....177083695980&source=43&l=f4043cd87c&refid=13

This is way beyond conceptual renderings..

 

[dbrooks25]

No need to dismiss my post. It's a valid point. Do you really think the owners will vote yes with a valid and funded stadium in a downtown location? I honestly don't see how you can think it's so easy for him to move just because he has the land. He still has to go through all the voting before he can uproot the franchise, and AS ALWAYS, the host city is the biggest factor in the move.

I don't think there is any emotion involved in your point as this is a question that many people in the national media are asking as well. dieterbrock's point is valid as well as I would think that Kroenke wouldn't want to challenge the owners and the NFL just to be the third team in LA, but to think this is the only scenario where the Rams stay in St. Louis is a bit short sighted.