New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[MrMotes]

I don't get the obsession with fan support.

I know i've said this before but Georgia didn't move to St. Louis because of the L.A. fans. She moved because of all the money St. Louis gave her. And if Stan leaves it won't be because of the St. Louis fans, it will be for the opportunity L.A. presents.

That might not be how The Rams and the NFL will spin it, but that will be what happened...

 

[blue4]

You can blame on field performance but ignore that over the last 3 years the Rams have improved just like the rest of the division. There was no one initiating anything prior to last November so who was he supposed to call. Nixon and Slay both waited till after last falls election to start publicly speaking about a solution to the stadium issues. Rumors causing businesses not to commit my be true for last year and this year but not the rest. It's not rumors that caused issues prior to Kroenke purchasing the land it was the uncertainty that existed. You can also blame Kroenke for not speaking but no one else was either.

The truth is neither you or I have any idea who spoke to who and when. What we do know is only what has been said. And absolutely nothing from the Rams have been in any way positive about staying here. The "un huh, that's nice" regarding the new stadium doesn't really count as positive. I know someone is going to try to make that argument.

 

[dbrooks25]

I don't get the obsession with fan support.

I know i've said this before but Georgia didn't move to St. Louis because of the L.A. fans. She moved because of all the money St. Louis gave her. And if Stan leaves it won't be because of the St. Louis fans, it will be for the opportunity L.A. presents.

That might not be how The Rams and the NFL will spin it, but that will be what happened...

This is one thing I can definitely agree with you on. This whole fan support argument is stupid as hell. It's been said many times that fans love winners and there is a lot of truth to it. Some of you can say what you want, but under the circumstances, the fans in St. Louis have supported the Rams well the last 10 years. Nobody is asking for a contender year in and year out, they just don't want a below .500 team for 10 fucking consecutive years!!!! All one needs to do is look at attendance through 2004-05 to see that. I really don't see why some of you want to shit on the fan support in Stl. Get over it, please.

 

[iced]

You can blame on field performance but ignore that over the last 3 years the Rams have improved just like the rest of the division.

They've regressed over the last 3 years
7 wins/ 3rd nfc west -'12
7 wins/4th - '13
6 wins/4th - '14

There was no one initiating anything prior to last November so who was he supposed to call.

Supposedly Peacock has been on this thing for a minute now - but lets also remember Kroenke hasn't been answering the phone and a couple of months ago, Peacock said he saw him once in the last 18 months. So yea, I would just ask "why didn't you try communicate?"

Nixon and Slay both waited till after last falls election to start publicly speaking about a solution to the stadium issues. Rumors causing businesses not to commit my be true for last year and this year but not the rest. It's not rumors that caused issues prior to Kroenke purchasing the land it was the uncertainty that existed. You can also blame Kroenke for not speaking but no one else was either.

He created the uncertainty on his own. Like I said, the 18 month remark. And I'm not believing the "uncertainty" of it anyway since he intentionally triggered the release with a proposal they knew wouldn't be accepted, given how long Peacock has been working on it, and his reluctance to answer the phone. You can't claim uncertainty when he never even peaked into the window.

 

[dbrooks25]

Might as well save your breath Ripper. Kroenke is the anit-christ, the team hasn't improved under his ownership and we're not set up even better for the future than the Rams have been in decades, we're set up even better now than we were coming out of the SB win. The Rams were very very bad for a few years and it was minority owner Kroenke's fault. The temperatures are rising and California is in a draught and it's Kroenke's fault. We know that the Rams bad years and the fan apathy can be traced back to three people: Georgia Frontierre, John Shaw and Jay Zygmut. But it's easier to put all your hate in one basket and ignore reality and just blame Kroenke.

Please cut the sarcastic drama. People in St. Louis are mad at Kroenke and rightfully so. I don't know about the placing blame for losing seasons on Kroenke, but most of us fans in Stl are simply defending the fanbase here. The bad thing about it is of all of the cities who can throw hate, it's the fans in LA who are doing it and everyone knows that city has had issues in that area.

 

[dbrooks25]

So they're supposed to wait 100 years and become a constant powerhouse if they want to consistently fill the stadium? That's not very reassuring..

No, because even the Cardinals haven't been a consistent powerhouse. Lay roots and not threaten to move every twenty something years and put a winning product out there more. Nobody is asking for a powerhouse, but damn, 10 years of losing football?

 

[blue4]

So they're supposed to wait 100 years and become a constant powerhouse if they want to consistently fill the stadium? That's not very reassuring..

Is that a quote from Georgia circa 1995?
It's not fair now, and it wouldn't have been fair then.

 

[Isiah58]

I think any objective, rational person looking at the Rams' situation must acknowledge several truths.

First, any deficiency in the support for the team is not attributable to the fan base of St. Louis, but rather the sustained lack of on field support combined with few if any "stars" that would capture the community's interest. When the Rams were good and had the Faulks, Bruces, and Warners, the Dome was the hottest ticket in town and always packed.

Second, no community supports a loser forever, least of all a franchise with no generational roots in place.

Third, there is uncertainty as to whether Los Angeles would support an NFL team like a Chicago or a New York, but it is anticipated that corporate support would be strong (at least initially). The issue will become whether a greater population to draw from outweighs a perceived greater tendency for apathy towards floundering sports teams.

Thus, the petty squabbles about if St. Louis has brought this situation upon themselves seem mean spirited and predictably lead to defensive responses about reasons for any shortcomings. Ad infinitum.

In my opinion, this isn't about support, and it isn't about money. Most people believe that SK is trying to move his team to make more money, and that his actions are purely driven by economic factors. For this reason, many suggest logically that he will pick the option that provides the most financial gain. I see it differently.

Los Angeles is a vintage Ferrari. Kroenke wants to be in Los Angeles not to make himself rich but to make himself one of the most powerful and influential owners in the NFL. The Los Angeles Rams can be an iconic franchise, like the Los Angeles Lakers or the New York Yankees. It would make him the owner of one of the most valuable franchises in the World. Wealthy people don't buy vintage Ferraris because they are a good investment, they buy them because they are rich and they want to show them off at parties. It doesn't matter that St. Louis is generously offering to buy Kroenke a brand new BMW (i.e., the Riverfront Stadium) if he stays because nobody at his parties care about brand new BMWs. Even though the BMW is a much greater financial benefit than spending your own money on the vintage sports car, money is not the driving force here, IMO.

For the most part, nobody gives a rip about who owns the Tennessee Titans, or the Jacksonville Jaguars, even if those owners are making tons of money. Like the Rams, they are mostly non-descript, generic NFL franchises. But everyone knows who owns the Cowboys or the Patriots. Stan wants a seat at the big boys' table, and moving his franchise is an opportunity to get there. Making this about low attendance or broken leases in my opinion misses the big picture. This is about power and prestige, and about a rich and powerful man's attempt to ascend to the top of this figurative mountain, no matter the collateral damage that it causes in the pursuit.

It is unclear if the NFL will allow Stan to implement his plan, but if they block him it will not be without Stan exploring every avenue to reach his goal, even if it is not the most lucrative financially. He has made enough money to ensure his grandkids' grandkids never have to work. He will spend what is necessary to get what he wants, and I think he is more committed than Spanos and Davis to see his vision fulfilled.

 

[beej]

So they're supposed to wait 100 years and become a constant powerhouse if they want to consistently fill the stadium? That's not very reassuring..

you're an intelligent guy, you knew what I was saying.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I don't get the obsession with fan support.

I know i've said this before but Georgia didn't move to St. Louis because of the L.A. fans. She moved because of all the money St. Louis gave her. And if Stan leaves it won't be because of the St. Louis fans, it will be for the opportunity (pronounced money) L.A. presents.

That might not be how The Rams and the NFL will spin it, but that will be what happened...

If that's the case, why would anyone defend Kroenke? And yet....

Why the venom toward Frontiere? After all, she was just being a business woman.

 

[blue4]

I think any objective, rational person looking at the Rams' situation must acknowledge several truths.

First, any deficiency in the support for the team is not attributable to the fan base of St. Louis, but rather the sustained lack of on field support combined with few if any "stars" that would capture the community's interest. When the Rams were good and had the Faulks, Bruces, and Warners, the Dome was the hottest ticket in town and always packed.

Second, no community supports a loser forever, least of all a franchise with no generational roots in place.

Third, there is uncertainty as to whether Los Angeles would support an NFL team like a Chicago or a New York, but it is anticipated that corporate support would be strong (at least initially). The issue will become whether a greater population to draw from outweighs a perceived greater tendency for apathy towards floundering sports teams.

Thus, the petty squabbles about if St. Louis has brought this situation upon themselves seem mean spirited and predictably lead to defensive responses about reasons for any shortcomings. Ad infinitum.

In my opinion, this isn't about support, and it isn't about money. Most people believe that SK is trying to move his team to make more money, and that his actions are purely driven by economic factors. For this reason, many suggest logically that he will pick the option that provides the most financial gain. I see it differently.

Los Angeles is a vintage Ferrari. Kroenke wants to be in Los Angeles not to make himself rich but to make himself one of the most powerful and influential owners in the NFL. The Los Angeles Rams can be an iconic franchise, like the Los Angeles Lakers or the New York Yankees. It would make him the owner of one of the most valuable franchises in the World. Wealthy people don't buy vintage Ferraris because they are a good investment, they buy them because they are rich and they want to show them off at parties. It doesn't matter that St. Louis is generously offering to buy Kroenke a brand new BMW (i.e., the Riverfront Stadium) if he stays because nobody at his parties care about brand new BMWs. Even though the BMW is a much greater financial benefit than spending your own money on the vintage sports car, money is not the driving force here, IMO.

For the most part, nobody gives a rip about who owns the Tennessee Titans, or the Jacksonville Jaguars, even if those owners are making tons of money. Like the Rams, they are mostly non-descript, generic NFL franchises. But everyone knows who owns the Cowboys or the Patriots. Stan wants a seat at the big boys' table, and moving his franchise is an opportunity to get there. Making this about low attendance or broken leases in my opinion misses the big picture. This is about power and prestige, and about a rich and powerful man's attempt to ascend to the top of this figurative mountain, no matter the collateral damage that it causes in the pursuit.

It is unclear if the NFL will allow Stan to implement his plan, but if they block him it will not be without Stan exploring every avenue to reach his goal, even if it is not the most lucrative financially. He has made enough money to ensure his grandkids' grandkids never have to work. He will spend what is necessary to get what he wants, and I think he is more committed than Spanos and Davis to see his vision fulfilled.

It is mean spirited and completely unfair. Just as the same accusations rang hollow about 1995. What's got me upset more than anything is suggesting the move in 1995 was due to fair weather or transient fans will bring swift recriminations from everyone. Saying the exact same thing about St Louis gets no response at all unless it's from a St Louis resident. Georgia is a valid excuse for LA. Stan is not for ST Louis. And these little potshots have been increasing.

 

[MrMotes]

If that's the case, why would anyone defend Kroenke? And yet....

I'm not sure i understand the question.

Kroenke has improved the team (first and foremost by firing Spagnulo and Devaney) and i want them to move to L.A. He doesn't need any defense from where i'm sitting.

I get why St. Louis will (and does) hate him for what he's doing. But there's a lot of fans who applaud his silent methodical approach. (Compare how the Rams are playing this to how the Chargers are, in open war with the mayor of SD). And if this all ends in the Rams playing in a great new stadium in St. Louis, i'll applaud that too...

 

[bluecoconuts]

No, because even the Cardinals haven't been a consistent powerhouse. Lay roots and not threaten to move every twenty something years and put a winning product out there more. Nobody is asking for a powerhouse, but damn, 10 years of losing football?

Yeah, I don't blame anyone for being upset about the last decade, I'm more trying to look at it how I think the NFL will look at it. These guys are all about money, I don't know how happy they're going to be if they're not seeing a lot of money coming in, regardless of what various excuses there are for the reasons. I just don't know how comforting it is that the team needs to be a good team otherwise they're going to fall in attendance or they need to be there long enough to counter balance that. They're going to want short term results that carry over into long term profits without a lot of questions. The NFL probably isn't too giddy about another team potentially going to St Louis (MLS) that could cut into NFL profits either, since they seem to be under the impression that there's only so much money to go around so they need to fight with the other teams to get that cut.

 

[Irish]

It is mean spirited and completely unfair. Just as the same accusations rang hollow about 1995. What's got me upset more than anything is suggesting the move in 1995 was due to fair weather or transient fans will bring swift recriminations from everyone. Saying the exact same thing about St Louis gets no response at all unless it's from a St Louis resident. Georgia is a valid excuse for LA. Stan is not for ST Louis. And these little potshots have been increasing.

That is because the entirety of football nation wants the Rams to return to LA except for, get this, St. Louis residents. I frequent the NFL subreddit, and you wouldn't believe how they treat St. Louis fans. Moving the Rams is a foregone conclusion, they may as well start selling merchandise in Inglewood yesterday.

They are totally empathetic to San Diego, using words like "criminal" or "tragedy" or "appalling" to discuss a potential move, but St. Louisans are vilified for wanting to keep our team, often being told that a cross country move is no excuse to stop being a Rams fan.

Quite frankly, I want St. Louis to keep the Rams at this point just to see the disappointed look on everyone else's faces when our little, mid market, engine that could flyover town gets to keep their team as much as any other reason. The way St. Louis is treated like second class citizens by the rest of the country is ridiculous, and that is not "little brother complex" talking.

 

[Rmfnlt]

They've regressed over the last 3 years
7 wins/ 3rd nfc west -'12
7 wins/4th - '13
6 wins/4th - '14

Meanwhile...
Seattle:
11 wins/2nd... SB appearance
13 wins/1st... world champions
12 wins/1st... another SB appearance
This after previous 4-12, 5-11, 7-9 and 7-9 seasons.

San Francisco:
11 wins/1st... SB appearance
12 wins/2nd... playoffs
8 wins/3rd
Prior to winning 13 games in 2011? 5-11, 7-9, 8-8, 6-10

Arizona:
5 wins/4th
10 wins/3rd
11 wins/2nd
Prior to that, 9-7, 10-6, 5-11 and 8-8

Yes, the Rams have improved over the putrid product they fielded under Spagnuolo... but it's clear that their degree of improvement pales in comparison to the other teams in their division.

Keep coming back to that "degree of improvement" and is it enough to really get the fan base excited? Yes, ROD is excited (with even a few skeptics here)... but the overall fan base?
I have to be fair and see why they might not be.

But the Rams lead the league in community service! Let's go!!
(sorry, that last sentence may be over-the-top, just for effect )

 

[MrMotes]

Seattle played in the last 3 SB's?

 

[RamFan503]

They've regressed over the last 3 years
7 wins/ 3rd nfc west -'12
7 wins/4th - '13
6 wins/4th - '14

Come on man. That is like taking a stat and saying that is the whole story. Do you honestly believe this team has regressed? If so, I suppose that is your opinion but I personally can't agree with it at all.

Supposedly Peacock has been on this thing for a minute now - but lets also remember Kroenke hasn't been answering the phone and a couple of months ago, Peacock said he saw him once in the last 18 months. So yea, I would just ask "why didn't you try communicate?"

Peacock may not have spoken with Stan for 18 months. So? Hasn't spoken to him since November? OK. That has some merit to the conversation. Why would Stan be calling Peacock before then? Because Peacock was quietly doing some research on the viability of a new stadium project? I get that people don't like that Stan has been incommunicado (as far as we all know) with the leaders of the St Louis stadium project. As I've said before, I don't either. But I still look around at the "communication" many owners have given in contentious stadium negotiations and I think I would take no statement over the bickering to the public and spewing their stories of woe any day.

I'm not sure if I would feel the same if I lived in St Louis but harkening back, I wanted to puke every time Georgia would make a statement saying essentially that she was going broke and couldn't afford to stay in the LA market.

He created the uncertainty on his own. Like I said, the 18 month remark. And I'm not believing the "uncertainty" of it anyway since he intentionally triggered the release with a proposal they knew wouldn't be accepted, given how long Peacock has been working on it, and his reluctance to answer the phone. You can't claim uncertainty when he never even peaked into the window.

I just don't get how the CVC continually gets a pass in all this. They were on the hook to maintain the top 25% clause. They negotiated to get an extension when they didn't do it the first time. With that extension, they essentially did nothing. Then, when it was time to go to arbitration, they put forth a really quite insulting proposal that would have left any owner with a bad taste in his mouth. They could have quite possibly at minimum saved some face with a decent proposal and possibly would have even won arbitration with it.

I don't see where it was up to Stan to then initiate proposals - especially when he no doubt knows the market inside and out and also sees an opportunity to do something on a much grander scale.

Then the November elections happen and the powers that be have a lame duck Governor (not meant to be an insult - just a real political term) giving authority to Peacock/Blitz to get something done.

If I'm a businessman with the means to do what I want and not have to rely on politicians, I think I'm doing exactly what Stan is doing. Sorry and it sucks.

I think back to what the Metro council in Oregon tried to pull with Boeing a while back. By the time they came back with less restrictive proposals for the new facility Boeing was going to build, they had already moved on with a project in Texas or some other state. There might not be fans involved, but there were a crap load of real wage jobs, that the people whose job it was to foster a relationship with a large employer, just threw in the shit can by playing politics.

From the sounds of it, the city and the CVC pretty much gambled on a political plan and may have lost. Not having been privy to any of the negotiations as I'm sure no one else was, I can only make assumptions. But from what I understood from reading articles in the past, the CVC nor the city were actively pursuing a solution.

Please cut the sarcastic drama. People in St. Louis are mad at Kroenke and rightfully so. I don't know about the placing blame for losing seasons on Kroenke, but most of us fans in Stl are simply defending the fanbase here. The bad thing about it is of all of the cities who can throw hate, it's the fans in LA who are doing it and everyone knows that city has had issues in that area.

I completely agree with the first part of this reply.

I would also urge anyone trying the sarcasm and smack talk to either tone it down or back away from the bar. I deleted several posts and blocked a couple members from this thread already today.

So if you feel the urge to be a smart ass toward any fan base or member of this site, go for a walk. I have an extremely short fuse right now and will issue no further warnings. I don't care if I'm here talking to myself. Hell... I make the most sense anyway.

 

[The Ripper]

They've regressed over the last 3 years
7 wins/ 3rd nfc west -'12
7 wins/4th - '13
6 wins/4th - '14

The other 3 teams made the playoffs

Supposedly Peacock has been on this thing for a minute now - but lets also remember Kroenke hasn't been answering the phone and a couple of months ago, Peacock said he saw him once in the last 18 months. So yea, I would just ask "why didn't you try communicate?"
He created the uncertainty on his own. Like I said, the 18 month remark. And I'm not believing the "uncertainty" of it anyway since he intentionally triggered the release with a proposal they knew wouldn't be accepted, given how long Peacock has been working on it, and his reluctance to answer the phone. You can't claim uncertainty when he never even peaked into the window.

The CVC lost in arbitration and since they decided not to do the improvements it's their responsibility to come back with a plan in a timely manner. Demoff responded to the letter from the CVC when they declined to do the improvements and never got a response.

Read the arbitration report, The CVC is the one that came up with a plan that did not meet any of the first tier requirements and they didn't dispute any of the Rams improvements except demolishing walls, increasing the footprint and closing the dome all of which would have occurred in their plan too. The arbitrators said it wasn't there job to decide if the plan had to just meet the standard or exceed the standard because it was thoroughly negotiated and that the parties intended what they wrote.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Los Angeles is a vintage Ferrari. Kroenke wants to be in Los Angeles not to make himself rich but to make himself one of the most powerful and influential owners in the NFL. The Los Angeles Rams can be an iconic franchise, like the Los Angeles Lakers or the New York Yankees. It would make him the owner of one of the most valuable franchises in the World. Wealthy people don't buy vintage Ferraris because they are a good investment, they buy them because they are rich and they want to show them off at parties. It doesn't matter that St. Louis is generously offering to buy Kroenke a brand new BMW (i.e., the Riverfront Stadium) if he stays because nobody at his parties care about brand new BMWs. Even though the BMW is a much greater financial benefit than spending your own money on the vintage sports car, money is not the driving force here, IMO.

For the most part, nobody gives a rip about who owns the Tennessee Titans, or the Jacksonville Jaguars, even if those owners are making tons of money. Like the Rams, they are mostly non-descript, generic NFL franchises. But everyone knows who owns the Cowboys or the Patriots. Stan wants a seat at the big boys' table, and moving his franchise is an opportunity to get there. Making this about low attendance or broken leases in my opinion misses the big picture. This is about power and prestige, and about a rich and powerful man's attempt to ascend to the top of this figurative mountain, no matter the collateral damage that it causes in the pursuit.

Nice post and interesting theory as to motive (as with most everything in this thread, I think it's been broached before).

Just two thoughts, if I may:
1] The franchises you mention (Lakers, Yankess, Cowboys, Patriots) got to be Ferraris over a long period of sustained success. I don't think you are going to find as prolonged and severe a downturn in those franchises as the Rams circo 2004-present. If Kroenke moves to L.A. and continues to produce the same results, he'll end up with a Buick (not that there's anything wrong with Buicks)

2] Those owners are active with their fan bases. They are the face of their franchise. When an issue arises, they come to the forefront and address it... take Kraft's behavior during all the mess his franchise is dealing with. In other words, those men act like big boys... Kroenke stays in the shadows and let's others do his dirty work.
I'm sure Demoff is paid very handsomely but, ever since Inglewood was announced, I'd guess there have been times when he's wondered if the money was really worth the headaches.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I'm not sure i understand the question.

Kroenke has improved the team (first and foremost by firing Spagnulo and Devaney) and i want them to move to L.A. He doesn't need any defense from where i'm sitting.

I get why St. Louis will (and does) hate him for what he's doing. But there's a lot of fans who applaud his silent methodical approach. (Compare how the Rams are playing this to how the Chargers are, in open war with the mayor of SD). And if this all ends in the Rams playing in a great new stadium in St. Louis, i'll applaud that too...

Whether he has improved the team enough is up for debate... as has been said umpteen times now, going from pitiful to mediocre is nothing to get awards for.

It's really very simple:
If Georgia was wrong for moving the team for personal financial gain, then so is Kroenke.

Not so sure you haven't defended Kroenke. It'd be hard for someone who wants them to move back to L.A. not to (defend him). But he's still as wrong as Georgia was.

Probably never should have moved in the first place... but two wrongs don't make a right.