Rams in St. Louis a problem not going away

[badnews]

What happened to Rams fans in the early 90s doesn't make it ok to do it to different Rams fans now.

Wrong is wrong is wrong. The fans in STL did no more to steal the team back then than the fans in LA did to get them now.
LA fans didn't get the team because they deserve them, they got them because a billionaire saw $$$.
STL fans didnt lose the team because they weren't supportive, they lost them because the NFL saw $$$.

Listening to one more LA fan tell STL fans how to feel is just a little less enjoyable than a root canal.
Be happy.... be excited to have them back... but the hardline asshole "get over it" response does nothing.
The fact is that 20 years is PLENTY long enough for a team to become part of someone's life. My daughter didn't "choose to support a team that was stolen..." she just became a Rams fan because they were on and she fell in love with them just like the rest of us.
I have a big fat middle finger for those who insult STL fans.

This team isn't anyone's birthright. It doesn't belong to any city or state. It belongs to an owner who doesn't give a damn about what this team means to any of us..

 

[Riverumbbq]

You keep misunderstanding Kroenke said out of his own mouth that this site is perfect for a stadium that's what he said and that's what he always intended to do with that site. You're right it was a money decision that's why the NFL forgoes their own relocation guidelines in order to let them move. You say the city didn't want to spend the money but the city was building a 1.3 billion dollar stadium. Had all the financing and even had naming rights set that would have been the 3rd highest in the NFL. Trust me I understand the money play. The NFL didn't have to come out of any money for Stans stadium and even got money from him for the relocation fee. I don't know any stl fans that don't understand that aspect of it. It's the fact that for over a yr the city was constantly told to this do that when in reality the NFL and Kroenke already knew they was moving no matter what

First of all, it was days after the Kroenke/Stockbridge partnership agreement was announced that St. Louis unveiled those so-called final plans. And no, not all the money & rights to make it happen had signed on the dotted line yet. Whether St. Louis was going to build a $1 billion or $100 billion dollar stadium was of little consequence when the actual tenant had not agreed to what he'd be paying for. Not only did Kroenke not sign off on the stadium plans, he hadn't agreed to the new terms of the lease which were to be foisted upon him. This stadium and the terms were being offered to the NFL as much as they were intended for Kroenke, and the NFL didn't bite either. The politicians which oversaw this financial debacle, paying for plans to be drawn without a willing tenant, paying for lawyers to upend a binding contract, they are the guys the city should getting rid of.

 

[Dxmissile]

First of all, it was days after the Kroenke/Stockbridge partnership agreement was announced that St. Louis unveiled those so-called final plans. And no, not all the money & rights to make it happen had signed on the dotted line yet. Whether St. Louis was going to build a $1 billion or $100 billion dollar stadium was of little consequence when the actual tenant had not agreed to what he'd be paying for. Not only did Kroenke not sign off on the stadium plans, he hadn't agreed to the new terms of the lease which were to be foisted upon him. This stadium and the terms were being offered to the NFL as much as they were intended for Kroenke, and the NFL didn't bite either. The politicians which oversaw this financial debacle, paying for plans to be drawn without a willing tenant, paying for lawyers to upend a binding contract, they are the guys the city should getting rid of.

Maybe I'm not being clear enough, let's start from the beginning in Demoff received a call from Kroenke in 2012 about the land in La. Kroenke told Demoff that this land is perfect for a stadium. These are words that Demoff himself confirmed. Kroenke didn't buy the land until 2 yrs later. That's when the sale was finalized it takes a while for a big acquisition to go through.

http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/nfl...r-stan-kroenke-buys-60-acres-land-los-angeles

And no the City had a fully finalized stadium plan that didn't require a public vote or anything. The city was ready to go.

Fisher is on record stating that Kroenke told him the team WAS moving when he was Hired. So tell me this if they was planning on moving as early as 2012 why keep telling the city to do this and do that

 

[PARAM]

I feel bad for the fans in St. Louis. Having said that the City of St. Louis didn't do "everything" the NFL asked. But they have a history that a good look will confirm. Back when the Cardinals were in town they wouldn't build them a stadium despite Busch being one of the smallest venues in the league. The Cards often made more money on 40% of road gates than they did with the 60% take of home games. So they left after years of trying to get a new place.

After they left St. Louis attempted to get one of the two expansion teams and they couldn't get it together enough for the NFL. Something about confusion with who had control of the Dome. Probably a few politicians wanting a slice of the pie. Then they coax the Rams away from Anaheim giving them the moon, including agreeing to pay 20 mil of the 29 mil relocation fee. Early on they realize they can't afford it, miss a couple of payments to the Rams and sue the NFL because "their relocation rules made it too hard for teams to move and created a one sided deal causing St. Louis to overpay". Now they claim the NFL "misled" them and made false statements that caused them to spend money to get a stadium plan in place.

Truth is St. Louis has always been a day late and more than a dollar short. They knew as far back as 2010 they weren't going to be able to honor the lease agreement and had ample time to design a new stadium. But instead they dragged their feet hoping the NFL would prevent Kroenke and the Rams to move. Only after ESK purchased the land in L.A. did they realize they had to get serious and still they dragged their feet, finally throwing together a stadium plan in the 11th hour. Still there were many questions from where the money was going to come. It's almost comical.

Now they sue again. They might get something though IMHO, they don't deserve a dime. If I were a judge I might award them something but only a percentage of what they're asking. Maybe the same percentage they offered in renovations (149 mil?) to what it was actually going to cost to make the EJD a top 25% venue (well over 700 million). And as a final word I would tell them the next time they entertain the thought of acquiring another NFL franchise, have a party, get loaded and forget about it.

 

[RamInferno]

It's the fact that for over a yr the city was constantly told to this do that when in reality the NFL and Kroenke already knew they was moving no matter what

Please don't take anything I'm about to say personally. This is just how I see it.

They didn't know they were moving no matter what because they couldn't know what the result of the owner's vote would be. Clearly the Rams wanted to move, intended to move, took action to precipitate a move. They will argue that this was all justified due to the first tier clause that you think this isn't about, but it is very much about it. I haven't seen the lease agreement, but according to the Ram's relocation statement the Ram's remedy in case of default on the first tier clause was expressly laid out in the lease as "termination of the Lease with the right to relocate from St. Louis." They then quote the lease itself as saying the Rams were "entitled to negotiate and execute a lease with any person or entity and to relocate."

The relocation statement also says that the Rams "told Governor Nixon, Dave Peacock and the League that the Rams will not forego the contractual right in the Lease to relocate and to no longer deal with the RSA." So there's no argument that the Rams or the league deceived them into spending money to stay. St. Louis knew the Rams intended to relocate but was trying to force the Rams to stay against their expressed will and the will of the league by getting enough owners to vote against the relocation - that's what they spent their money on.

Any public statements by Kroenke or Demoff about wanting to stay in St. Louis, not using the land purchased in Inglewood for the stadium, etc. are irrelevant. The St. Louis parties could not be stupid enough to rely on these public statements when the Rams were very open about their intentions in their direct communications with them. And the NFL asked the Rams to speak nicely in public because they didn't know what the owner's vote would be and they had to be prepared in case relocation was denied.

 

[Riverumbbq]

Maybe I'm not being clear enough, let's start from the beginning in Demoff received a call from Kroenke in 2012 about the land in La. Kroenke told Demoff that this land is perfect for a stadium. These are words that Demoff himself confirmed. Kroenke didn't buy the land until 2 yrs later. That's when the sale was finalized it takes a while for a big acquisition to go through.

http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/nfl...r-stan-kroenke-buys-60-acres-land-los-angeles

And no the City had a fully finalized stadium plan that didn't require a public vote or anything. The city was ready to go.

Fisher is on record stating that Kroenke told him the team WAS moving when he was Hired. So tell me this if they was planning on moving as early as 2012 why keep telling the city to do this and do that

I'm not buying that the new stadium plan was 100% set in stone, that would have to be signed off by the NFL League Offices, and I can't find a single link which suggests this to be the case. Either way, you didn't have a tenant once the lease was broken early to mid 2014 by the EJD, only a month to month rental agreement until the Rams found a more permanent location, and i've seen no language suggesting that next location had to be within the city of St. Louis. If you are leasing a house and after the lease expires you tell the owner you aren't going to renew, is he going to force you onto another property of his without your agreeing to its size, location, parking or financial terms ? I think not. I'll repeat ; "In February of last year (2014), an arbitrator heard both proposals and ruled in favor of the Rams. Soon after, the commission made it clear it does not intend to follow through with the plan, meaning the lease will almost certainly expire after next season."

All i'm hearing is conjecture, where are the actual quotes and links to quotes which brings an exactness of authenticity to phrases which have been bandied about for years ? Where is the text which makes these statements into facts and not some second or third hand gossip ? We are not likely to receive this information unless this actually gets to court, ... and there better be a paper trail or witnesses if it does.
Kroenke telling Demoff a piece of property may make for a perfect stadium location isn't the final answer if you have other contractual interests. After having known of the property for a few years, perhaps Kroenke was worried another buyer might be preparing to make a move on it. Having a back-up plan is not a crime, nor is it a breach of contract. Kroenke is a big time developer, no doubt he had other options for this land if St. Louis had lived up to the terms of its stadium lease. These same statements attributed to Fisher may have been more like ... 'be prepared if we have to move' rather than the absolute of 'we are moving no matter what'.
We can go back and forth on all this nonsense for years without knowing what exact words were used or knowing the details of the principals involved, or maybe we should just let the courts sort it out and enjoy football.

 

[Leuzer]

I choose the win-win-win situation: The Rams play 4 regular season games in LA, 4 regular season games in St. Louis, and Kroenke will still be a savior/asshole to our fan-base.

 

[Rabid Ram]

Ok guys please explain to me how people who aren't is the Rams top office or a STL city official belive they can argue about who will when. WE WEREN'T BEHIND CLOSE DOORS people. Can we get back to talking football and let the lawyers bicker instead

 

[Memento]

As a St. Louisan, I hate these kinds of threads. It divides us too much. We all love this team, everything else be damned. That's the way it should be.

As for me, I'll follow this team into the afterlife. I know nothing else.

 

[Dxmissile]

I'm not buying that the new stadium plan was 100% set in stone, that would have to be signed off by the NFL League Offices, and I can't find a single link which suggests this to be the case. Either way, you didn't have a tenant once the lease was broken early to mid 2014 by the EJD, only a month to month rental agreement until the Rams found a more permanent location, and i've seen no language suggesting that next location had to be within the city of St. Louis. If you are leasing a house and after the lease expires you tell the owner you aren't going to renew, is he going to force you onto another property of his without your agreeing to its size, location, parking or financial terms ? I think not. I'll repeat ; "In February of last year (2014), an arbitrator heard both proposals and ruled in favor of the Rams. Soon after, the commission made it clear it does not intend to follow through with the plan, meaning the lease will almost certainly expire after next season."

All i'm hearing is conjecture, where are the actual quotes and links to quotes which brings an exactness of authenticity to phrases which have been bandied about for years ? Where is the text which makes these statements into facts and not some second or third hand gossip ? We are not likely to receive this information unless this actually gets to court, ... and there better be a paper trail or witnesses if it does.
Kroenke telling Demoff a piece of property may make for a perfect stadium location isn't the final answer if you have other contractual interests. After having known of the property for a few years, perhaps Kroenke was worried another buyer might be preparing to make a move on it. Having a back-up plan is not a crime, nor is it a breach of contract. Kroenke is a big time developer, no doubt he had other options for this land if St. Louis had lived up to the terms of its stadium lease. These same statements attributed to Fisher may have been more like ... 'be prepared if we have to move' rather than the absolute of 'we are moving no matter what'.
We can go back and forth on all this nonsense for years without knowing what exact words were used or knowing the details of the principals involved, or maybe we should just let the courts sort it out and enjoy football.

That's what the discovery phase is about during trial. And yes Kroenke and Demoff said I repeat said that they knew they was moving back to LA even before the lease expired. They knew they were gone. That's one of the reason why during Discovery that when Fisher say yes Kroenke told me he was moving the team not might but was. We are going to get all the info out and Kroenke Demoff Fisher Grubman Goddell all left paper trails and voice trails because they all came out and said it.

You're simplifying things a little to extreme this is way different then leasing a house. Arbitration was about what is the dollar amount needed to make the stadium top tier when they ruled in the Rams favor it allowed the lease to go month to month. It did not allow for them to leave. The NFL and the relocation committee with the rest of the owners are the only ones that can allow a team to leave. That's why this lawsuit is focusing on the Relocation guidelines and the basis that it was all for naught after statements that was made by league officials and Kroenke after the move was made

 

[Dxmissile]

Please don't take anything I'm about to say personally. This is just how I see it.

They didn't know they were moving no matter what because they couldn't know what the result of the owner's vote would be. Clearly the Rams wanted to move, intended to move, took action to precipitate a move. They will argue that this was all justified due to the first tier clause that you think this isn't about, but it is very much about it. I haven't seen the lease agreement, but according to the Ram's relocation statement the Ram's remedy in case of default on the first tier clause was expressly laid out in the lease as "termination of the Lease with the right to relocate from St. Louis." They then quote the lease itself as saying the Rams were "entitled to negotiate and execute a lease with any person or entity and to relocate."

The relocation statement also says that the Rams "told Governor Nixon, Dave Peacock and the League that the Rams will not forego the contractual right in the Lease to relocate and to no longer deal with the RSA." So there's no argument that the Rams or the league deceived them into spending money to stay. St. Louis knew the Rams intended to relocate but was trying to force the Rams to stay against their expressed will and the will of the league by getting enough owners to vote against the relocation - that's what they spent their money on.

Any public statements by Kroenke or Demoff about wanting to stay in St. Louis, not using the land purchased in Inglewood for the stadium, etc. are irrelevant. The St. Louis parties could not be stupid enough to rely on these public statements when the Rams were very open about their intentions in their direct communications with them. And the NFL asked the Rams to speak nicely in public because they didn't know what the owner's vote would be and they had to be prepared in case relocation was denied.

When Jerry Jones come out and say I knew the Rams was going back to LA no matter what. When Demoff Goddell Grubman they all knew that's how Stan stadium plan got passed. What they didn't count on was the city actually having a very viable stadium plan. They thought it was going to be another San Diego another Oakland but it wasn't.

Tell me what financial plans wasn't set yet.? Because they were and you say the 11th hr everything gets done in the 11th hr. And Kroenke told the Cvc to forgoe the annual upgrades. Then he turn around and use that as ammunition. 750 million dollar upgrade was facsimile he knew that. So in the 11th hr you call it the city came up with a stadium plan after the Arbitrator ruled in the Rams favor.

How many other teams where on month to month leases and never even had a stadium plan in sight but the Rams was on a month to month lease for one year and the next was gone even after a viable plan was in place. So no Kroenke and the NFL never intended to stay because the Kroenke deal was too good for them to pass up.

The NFL relocation guideline says that the owner has to do everything he can to stay in the home market and that the home market has to have a viable stadium plan with financing and a show how that city can support a NFL franchise. The city did its part but Kroenke just wanted out its simple

 

[OldSchool]

When Jerry Jones come out and say I knew the Rams was going back to LA no matter what. When Demoff Goddell Grubman they all knew that's how Stan stadium plan got passed. What they didn't count on was the city actually having a very viable stadium plan. They thought it was going to be another San Diego another Oakland but it wasn't.

Tell me what financial plans wasn't set yet.? Because they were and you say the 11th hr everything gets done in the 11th hr. And Kroenke told the Cvc to forgoe the annual upgrades. Then he turn around and use that as ammunition. 750 million dollar upgrade was facsimile he knew that. So in the 11th hr you call it the city came up with a stadium plan after the Arbitrator ruled in the Rams favor.

How many other teams where on month to month leases and never even had a stadium plan in sight but the Rams was on a month to month lease for one year and the next was gone even after a viable plan was in place. So no Kroenke and the NFL never intended to stay because the Kroenke deal was too good for them to pass up.

The NFL relocation guideline says that the owner has to do everything he can to stay in the home market and that the home market has to have a viable stadium plan with financing and a show how that city can support a NFL franchise. The city did its part but Kroenke just wanted out its simple

The problem is the plan wasn't really viable. It required a real estate/property magnate to pay for most of the stadium and not own it and not have any say in stadium management or usages. While they may have provided a financial model that on paper succeeded they didn't provide one that appealed to any of the 32 owners.

But then again this has all been argued many times around here and won't accomplish anything. It's just going to hurt feelings.

 

[551staaa]

All I can say from the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains is that I just want to watch the Rams play some football. I grew up a Los Angeles Rams fan, I became a St. Louis rams fan, and now I'm a Los Angeles Rams fan again. I understand the hurt being felt in St. Louis just like I understood the hurt that was felt in Los Angeles. All of the legal maneuvering and posturing only serves to annoy me. ALL of the business side of the sport only detracts from my passion for the team that takes the field every week in the autumn. I just want to watch MY team play. Winning is good, too.

 

[dieterbrock]

Maybe we should change the topic to something we all agree on
Like Warner or Bulger

 

[OldSchool]

Maybe we should change the topic to something we all agree on
Like Warner or Bulger

Everett!

 

[bubbaramfan]

OP is wrong. Its not a Rams "problem" and it WILL go away

 

[Dxmissile]

The problem is the plan wasn't really viable. It required a real estate/property magnate to pay for most of the stadium and not own it and not have any say in stadium management or usages. While they may have provided a financial model that on paper succeeded they didn't provide one that appealed to any of the 32 owners.

But then again this has all been argued many times around here and won't accomplish anything. It's just going to hurt feelings.

The plan was viable and it's the same type of deal that every other owner has beside jerry. And that's the point really. Kroenke wanted his own palace like his buddy that's why he paid for the entire bill. The city of stl proposal would have been more than enough for any other owner.

This topic shouldn't hurt feeling. I think people misunderstand STL fans we aren't upset that they left it's how the city was played into thinking it was a chance they could stay and then it's the words of Kroenke after he left.

 

[bubbaramfan]

DX you keep saying the Rams "played" the fans of St. Louis, yet you NEVER acknoweledge the fact that your own politicians "played" those same fans.


Anyway, its all moot now.

 

[OldSchool]

The plan was viable and it's the same type of deal that every other owner has beside jerry. And that's the point really. Kroenke wanted his own palace like his buddy that's why he paid for the entire bill. The city of stl proposal would have been more than enough for any other owner.

This topic shouldn't hurt feeling. I think people misunderstand STL fans we aren't upset that they left it's how the city was played into thinking it was a chance they could stay and then it's the words of Kroenke after he left.

You say it was more than enough for any other owner yet after the vote the question was asked of most owners. And they all said they wouldn't take the St. Louis deal or suggest it for others. Spanos and Davis specifically said it wasn't a deal they'd take and they were both looking for a stadium. The deal worked on paper for the politicians of the area so they could go to the people and say they did their best it's not their fault.

 

[Dxmissile]

You say it was more than enough for any other owner yet after the vote the question was asked of most owners. And they all said they wouldn't take the St. Louis deal or suggest it for others. Spanos and Davis specifically said it wasn't a deal they'd take and they were both looking for a stadium. The deal worked on paper for the politicians of the area so they could go to the people and say they did their best it's not their fault.

I haven't seen anyone say they wouldn't take that deal.

The NFL approved the Rams' Inglewood proposal with a 30-2 vote by the owners on January 12, 2016. Following the vote, Houston Texans owner Bob McNair expressed some concern with the proposed funding for National Car Rental Field, and that requiring the extra $100 million from the league "certainly did not help their proposal".[33] In that same meeting, the owners voted to allocate an additional $100 million in league financing to the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers, should they have elected to stay in their respective cities.[34]The Chargers elected to join the Rams in Los Angeles with the Raiders electing to relocate to Las Vegas.

That was about the funding. Grubman went to Dave Peacock and told them to add in that extra 100 million to the financing plan that the NFL WOULD give them. The original proposal didn't mention 300 million from the NFL because the City wasn't asking for it until Grubman said that they would get it. But isn't it funny how the NFL decided not to give that to the Stl but decided to give it to Oakland and San Diego if they stayed. lol everything about this process was a farce. I'm in St. Louis so I followed it very closely. To all my LA brothers and sister I know you guys are happy that they are back and rightfully so this isn't about them moving to La is about the way they moved and the way the NFL allowed it to happen.