This is kinda like believing in that bilderberg bullshit. You're giving him too much credit. He didn't orchestrate all of this, but he did take advantage of it when it happened. I seriously doubt he was thinking about moving the Rams back to LA in 1994. And I seriously doubt that he helped move them to STL just so he could execute his master plan to take over the Rams and move them back to LA.
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
This is kinda like believing in that bilderberg bullshit. You're giving him too much credit. He didn't orchestrate all of this, but he did take advantage of it when it happened. I seriously doubt he was thinking about moving the Rams back to LA in 1994. And I seriously doubt that he helped move them to STL just so he could execute his master plan to take over the Rams and move them back to LA.
You have heard of Kroenke Sports Enterprises, right? They don't buy and sell teams to turn a quick profit. They buy and hold teams. In fact i'm not sure Kroenke has ever sold any team he's owned He's having a hard enough time turning over the deed for his Denver teams to his son.
It really seems that for Kroenke it's about legacy and net worth...
bluecoconuts
Legend
I don't think he bought in back in 94 so he could move the team back, but I think he knew that he was very likely going to have lots of options when push came to shove, which made it a low risk high reward investment. Either St Louis was going to keep things top tier, or they were going to knock his socks off with an offer, or he could sell, or if things were right relocate if needed. I'm sure he didn't expect LA to stay open though. Either way, he couldn't lose.
This, anybody who thinks he's going to sell the team to a local investor or swap with the Davis for the Raiders really hasn't looked into Stans business past. I think (yes this is my personal opinion I've stated before) the only way he isn't owning the Rams is if he moves them to LA and arranges a franchise swap where he ends up owning the Bronco's. And this isn't as easy to do if the value of the franchise stays low as they're a renter in St Louis. But it's possible that the value will raise enough on the Rams as they're an owner of a stadium in LA.
I agree that he likely did not buy the minority share with the idea to move them back to LA. He seemed determined to get a team in St Louis. I do however believe that he bought the minority share with the idea that he would likely buy the remaining shares. I think the first right of refusal clause almost proves that.
But do you think he believed that the CVC would at least come forward with a reasonable proposal? I think he at minimum expected that. I don't know for sure of course but that could have really soured him on the market if it is also true that city leaders were acting like they had all the cards and didn't need to negotiate anything to keep the team there.
One, what constitutes a reasonable proposal? Would he be willing to give more than a 10 year extension for that money? To me, anything less than an additional 20 years is a stupid investment for ST Louis.
Two, do you really buy into the notion that city leaders blew off a billionaire investor who was supposedly "local"? It's been my experience that politicians kiss the asses of those type of people. What's more likely? City leaders blew off a source of investment and political donations, or that city leaders recognized that $350-700 million investment plus the loss of the conventions over construction just for the chance to fight about it again in 10 years was not very bright.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Neither, I would guess that in tough economic times, politicians figured out that spending money on what most see as an unnecessary luxury could lose them points in the polls, and thus the election. Hence why they didn't say anything until after elections, then came out with a heavy PR campaign to ensure that even if the Rams do leave, they're not really blamed for it.
This all came about with the memory of the Wall Street bailouts fresh on everyone's mind, the mass outcry over spending hundreds of billions for them, bonuses being paid out, people being hit hard and trying to recover from a tough recession. Essentially the worst possible time for all this, there was a need to spend money to keep the team, and no public appetite to do so. I don't think they blew him off because they wanted to, I think they blew him off because they felt it was the best move for their careers.
My point about Roggin is what he has said. @WillasDad , listen to the audio I quoted - he does say that he thinks that if the San Diego mayor went to the NFL and pleaded their case, how could they possibly allow the Chargers to leave? Yet he keeps thinking Inglewood is a done deal and has been very dismissive to St.Louis, while its been pretty common knowledge St.Louis's plan is ahead of the rest and Peacock/Nixon have been working directly with the NFL since January...yet, he believes the Rams will be able to move? So what, do the relocation guidelines apply to San Diego and not St.Louis? That's the type of crap that makes it obvious there's some bias, and that's not even with comparing which plans are more viable/which aren't. If he believes the NFL can block the chargers from moving with the mayor going to them now, then there's no way in hell the NFL should let the Rams move, under his logic. That's my point. The rule should apply broadly - not just to the Chargers as he's clearly making it sound.
The more I listen/read about him the less credence I give him.
As to Bernie, I don't think even that many on the St.Louis side give him much credence or tolerance either. In fact the only St.Louis reporter that carries any weight for me is Shane Grey - and not because he's a poster here. It's because his articles are always well thought out, researched, and articulated in a neutral manner (or as close as one could get from a position of bias).
Last edited:
Exactly - but when i keep hearing "he won't go against him" , that only deters my belief that he will, and why I think it's a waste of time to even consider that possibility until we do start hearing he will go against it.
The Ripper
Starter
The problem for the Chargers which in the end might not matter is that they talk too much, statements and offers that they have made may come back on them.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Roggin acknowledges that the Rams may be told they have to stay in St Louis. One of the main reasons why he thinks Inglewood gets done is because they've told him that the stadium is being built no matter what. He's even joked that there's a possibility the Inglewood High School football team will have one hell of a stadium. He says he'll continue to believe that until he's told differently. While it's a little hypocritical, he does say that the Rams might be forced to stay in St Louis, he doesn't ignore that.
Or it could help them too - whether you agree with them or not, they have made it a point to continually meet with the city - both him and fabiani..
The task force had to complain to the NFL just to get Kroenke to send Demoff.....and to me, no matter how someone's want to spin it, sounds either disrespectful/disingenuous... I don't think you can compare the two owner's and their actions and come off saying that Kroenke has been acting in just as much good faith as Spanos. I think the fact that the Spanos and Fabiani have met with San Diego three times in the last month over negotiations is telling enough - even if it didn't result in a deal, when you compare how Kroenke has dealt with St.Louis.
I don't condone with how they have handled things - but I don't see how one could compare the two and come out saying that Kroenke has been on the same level..
Even Jerry Jones I bet sat in all his stadium meetings - do you really think if an owner was serious about building a stadium he would just send someone, or show up himself?
The Ripper
Starter
It's not the talking but what they say "agnostic in terms of site" or vote next May or telling SD to just present a plan. It's hard to hide when you put it right on the website or send it in an email.
So then what do you make of Kroenke's actions? From his unwillingness to communicate to putting Practices in LA/Oxnard area?
I'm just saying - I see Spanos and Fabiani meeting with the city, and not moving practices to LA as opposed to Kroenke being the opposite.
And Jerry Jones little speech on the "Flavor of LA" did him no favors, except for maybe the LA area
IIRC the biggest thing to do with that was closing the dome for those renovations, causing a huge loss of income for the city... I think that was the biggest sticking point, and something they never worked around.
A shame Dave Peacock wasn't working on it then...
Kinda like imagine how this team would look if Snead were here then as opposed to Devaney
I don't think it ever got to that level. But I am just guessing that if they heeded what Dierdorf was suggesting many years back there could have been a deal made. Just guessing of course.
That is the word I have seen in some articles - that city leaders were trying to play hard ball because they thought they had all the leverage and that he would never move the team. Here's an example of where I'm not going to take the time to dig up those articles but I know for sure that at least one of them was posted in this thread and it may have been the one that talked about Dierdorf warning them to stop screwing around or else they will lose another team.
To your question - No. It would not be smart for them to spend $350 - $700 million without assurances or an extension of the lease. But do you think that if they came to the table with a realistic proposal that Stan wouldn't listen and counter? I don't.
Agree on all of this in the essence that I don't put a lot of stock in Roggin's opinions or Bernie's either. I do with Shane for the same reasons you stated. I was more addressing the way Spanos/Fabiani have gone about things. I think there is a legitimate case to be made that SD has as much right to that claim as St Louis.
Yeah - not much point in arguing it unless we hear he is considering it and from a good source at that.
You mean like them saying they liked the Mission Valley site several years ago and then it was all about downtown or nothing?
- Status