New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamzFanz]

As for the signs im not debating they have let signs in to practice. Demoff said they had a rule against them. And it looks like they finally decided to enforce it. My guess is they decided to enforce them when people started putting the owner in them. They seemed to be fine with keep the team in StL and signs supporting the players and team. But my guess is when signs negative to the owner came around they decided to enforce the rule.

I'm not sure why you're stuck on these points. I never said they didn't have a plan, I said they haven't presented a plan, and they haven't.

If you think that the only day they banned signs was the day NFLN was there is a coincidence, so be it.

 

[The Ripper]

If you think that the only day they banned signs was the day NFLN was there is a coincidence, so be it.

There's no such thing as a coincidence when it comes to any of these decisions or actions by the teams or the NFL.

 

[dieterbrock]

Why wouldnt the Rams uphold the rule on signs if they were of the nature of what was posted above? Especially if the NFL network was going to be there?

 

[RamFan503]

Sam Farmer also said Spanos has the votes to block Stan as well. Why was that part left out?

That occurred to me as well.

 

[The Ripper]

Sam Farmer also said Spanos has the votes to block Stan as well. Why was that part left out?

That occurred to me as well.

I think at this point that it's been said so may times it's just assumed that we already know it.

 

[WillasDad]

Sorry, but this all seems like speculation. A list award shows in a football stadium? Multiple billions without football? I'm afraid I can't buy into that. Has anyone ever made money by NOT paying attention to ROI? The whole point of investment is ROI.

I'm not saying that SK isn't considering ROI. What I'm saying is that SK IS considering ROI, except the scope of his ROI goes beyond just the NFL and the different events I talked about earlier. He's going to build a gigantic park in a place that sorely needs one. He's building housing which is expected to net quite a lot of money, especially with the increase in property value that is expected from the build of the project. Frankly, he's looking to build a second LA Live, which if you know anything about it, you'd know it's basically what spearheaded the revitalization of downtown LA. I could see SK thinking the same things about not only the projected area, but the rest of Inglewood as well. I'm guessing Staple Center alone probably brings over 20 times the revenue the Edmund Jones Dome brings in. I know that's an apples/orange argument, but just saying.

And regarding speculation, A list award show would be held at the 6,000 seat theater that will be on the same property. Los Angeles has been reported as a serious candidate for the Olympics and World Cup. The biggest speculation at this point is that St. Louis task force believes that SK would even come around to contribute anything towards the Riverfront Project without getting so much as a conversation in regarding this very topic.

 

[RamzFanz]

Why wouldnt the Rams uphold the rule on signs if they were of the nature of what was posted above? Especially if the NFL network was going to be there?

I would ban them all the time if I were Stan. My only point was that signs were allowed except on that day. Others believed what KD tweeted.

It's just rude and anti-fan to ban them here and allow them there. They painted a false picture of the Saint Louis fans not caring and the LA fans caring very much.

 

[WillasDad]

I think at this point that it's been said so may times it's just assumed that we already know it.

The fact that SK has the votes to stop Spanos as well is the new thing. Why mention something the only thing that SL folks can hang their hats on and gets mentioned constantly?

 

[RamFan503]

Not sure why this sign thing is a real issue. I believe KD in what he said but I also believe that they didn't want a bunch of signs deriding the ownership when NFLN was there. Is that really a difficult concept? I really don't understand the angst from fans not being able to bring in signs to a practice in light of what is going on. I mean, I get it that fans in St Louis are pissed. They damn well should be. But I also have to guess - now this is just a guess on my part - that the organization knows that. Being that they know that, why would it be a surprise or even really an issue that they wouldn't allow signs in?

And just an aside - you can't let the public in and decide which signs are appropriate and which are ok unless the sign has offensive content or could be used to incite. And I don't mean calling Stan names. If you regulate signs by content, it is a First Amendment violation. In other words, if you enforce a policy of no signs over a certain size, it's ok. But you can't tell the public what they can put on those signs, even on private property once you have allowed them.

The only way for the Rams to prevent the Stan bashing signs was to say - no signs. And as long as they are consistent in that (and it can be on any given day), they are legally ok.

But bottom line.... the Rams most likely didn't want a bunch of signs about relocation and hating the owner all over NFLN. I'm shocked!

 

[The Ripper]

The fact that SK has the votes to stop Spanos as well is the new thing. Why mention something the only thing that SL folks can hang their hats on and gets mentioned constantly?

Not new but it wasn't believed. We had a few discussions when I said it a month ago.

 

[RamFan503]

I think at this point that it's been said so may times it's just assumed that we already know it.

Ha! Probably should be the case but it is generally good form to include both when using the one. No biggie but it appears as an attempt to paint it as in Stan having the upper hand in that issue.

 

[ChrisW]

I disagree, the negative signs would be out there to be seen even if the NFLN wasn't there. If the signs kept to keeping the Rams in town and the fans love their Rams we probably aren't having this talk. But people's hate of Stan was too much and they had to include him in there. You think Fisher, who doesn't want media questioning the players about relocation, wants the players to see those sign, or would he rather them see signs supporting them and the team? One guy on national radio mentioned last night he was cut off from players because after being told to not ask about relocation he told one "I was told not to ask your opinion on relocation so I won't" of course the player talks about it. Now that journalist is cut off.

Then why was it only enforced on the day the NFL Network was there? I haven't attended so I can't vouch for the days sense. But maybe @RamzFanz can tell us if there were signs allowed after that day.

 

[WillasDad]

Not new but it wasn't believed. We had a few discussions when I said it a month ago.

I know you're referring to Roggin, but he's viewed by the SL folks the way LA folks look at Bernie so best not mention it. Thank God for Sam Farmer.

 

[RamzFanz]

Then why was it only enforced on the day the NFL Network was there? I haven't attended so I can't vouch for the days sense. But maybe @RamzFanz can tell us if there were signs allowed after that day.

Yes. There were far fewer, I only saw a couple, probably because they said they were going to enforce the "rule", but there were signs after.

 

[RamFan503]

It's just rude and anti-fan to ban them here and allow them there. They painted a false picture of the Saint Louis fans not caring and the LA fans caring very much.

While I agree in principal, the Rams banned the signs at their facility. They possibly could have asked for the same at Dallas' but I doubt they would have gotten it. I don't like it either but I get it.

The fact that SK has the votes to stop Spanos as well is the new thing. Why mention something the only thing that SL folks can hang their hats on and gets mentioned constantly?

Seriously man. "The only thing"? All the work that St Louis has been doing; the support for our team they have demonstrated over the years?

Only telling one side of the argument is ALWAYS going to not only piss off the other side but make you look like you're blind to everything but your take.

 

[RamFan503]

Then why was it only enforced on the day the NFL Network was there? I haven't attended so I can't vouch for the days sense. But maybe @RamzFanz can tell us if there were signs allowed after that day.

Of course they enforced it on the day the NFLN was there. I understand the emotions of fans in the Lou but I don't understand why this is any kind of surprise or conspiracy. Regardless of the outcome of the whole stadium issue, it just shouldn't be surprising IMO.

 

[ChrisW]

Of course they enforced it on the day the NFLN was there. I understand the emotions of fans in the Lou but I don't understand why this is any kind of surprise or conspiracy. Regardless of the outcome of the whole stadium issue, it just shouldn't be surprising IMO.

It's a conspiracy because it's not allowed in St. Louis, but perfectly fine in Oxnard. I realize that the Rams don't run the camp there, but a simple request could be made to JJ to not allow signs in to the joint practice if it is as big of a deal to the team as some suggest.

 

[RamFan503]

Not new but it wasn't believed. We had a few discussions when I said it a month ago.

Yeah - it is another circular argument. No one has voted so it is just a supposed point to be used equally by either side of the debate. In reality, neither or both could have the votes - who knows.

 

[bluecoconuts]

That occurred to me as well.

Hey, when I discussed it I said they both would fail, I figured it had already been said that Spanos had votes to block.

 

[RamFan503]

It's a conspiracy because it's not allowed in St. Louis, but perfectly fine in Oxnard. I realize that the Rams don't run the camp there, but a simple request could be made to JJ to not allow signs in to the joint practice if it is as big of a deal to the team as some suggest.

Yeah - don't see that happening even if requested but I have no idea what was discussed. Besides, where the conspiracy really comes in potentially is that it seems JJ wants the Rams in LA. That's just a guess by the things he has said. In that vein though, I would suggest he actually encouraged the LA fans - not the other way around.

So I guess what I'm saying is that it was indeed a conspiracy,

Still not a surprise that the Rams would not allow the signs on the day the NFLN came to town.