# Rams to relocate to L.A.; Chargers first option to join



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The Los Angeles Rams are back.

NFL owners in Houston voted 30-2 to ratify the Rams' relocation application for an immediate move to L.A., where the team will eventually begin play at owner Stan Kroenke's proposed stadium site in Inglewood in 2019. It's a seismic decision that returns the highest level of professional football to the country's second-largest media market after a 21-year absence.

The Rams could be joined by the Chargers, who have a one-year option to decide if they want to relocate and join the Rams in Inglewood. Per NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport, the Chargers will have up until the conclusion of owners meetings (March 20-23) to decide if they're playing in L.A. or San Diego in 2016. The window creates the possibility -- however slight -- that the Chargers could remain in San Diego. The city is hosting a June vote for $350 million in public funding toward a new facility to replace Qualcomm Stadium. It is possible that the Chargers put off a final decision until that vote takes place.

Story with video ...
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000621645/article/rams-to-relocate-to-la-chargers-first-option-to-join

Sorry St Louis ... and possibly San Diego.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

As a long time Charger Season Ticket holder, I find this to be rather funny. Team owner Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis pushed for the Carson site. Neither of them really got anything. 

The real crotch punch to them is that if one of them does end up sharing the stadium with the Rams, they will just be a mere tenant and have to pay rent to Kroenke. They'll be missing out on any revenue the stadium brings in. The vote in June is huge. The funding mentioned does come out of the general fund and not in the form of new taxes.


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

James Long said:


> The Los Angeles Rams are back.
> 
> NFL owners in Houston voted 30-2 to ratify the Rams' relocation application for an immediate move to L.A., where the team will eventually begin play at owner Stan Kroenke's proposed stadium site in Inglewood in 2019. It's a seismic decision that returns the highest level of professional football to the country's second-largest media market after a 21-year absence.
> 
> ...


Heard that last night on the news. Now there be a reason for looking at feetball.

Sent from my iPad 4 128GB using DBSTalk mobile application.


----------



## Soccernut (Jan 20, 2004)

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> As a long time Charger Season Ticket holder, I find this to be rather funny. Team owner Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis pushed for the Carson site. Neither of them really got anything.
> 
> The real crotch punch to them is that if one of them does end up sharing the stadium with the Rams, they will just be a mere tenant and have to pay rent to Kroenke. They'll be missing out on any revenue the stadium brings in. The vote in June is huge. The funding mentioned does come out of the general fund and not in the form of new taxes.


You are correct, that's why I don't think the Rams will have company.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> As a long time Charger Season Ticket holder, I find this to be rather funny. Team owner Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis pushed for the Carson site. Neither of them really got anything.
> 
> The real crotch punch to them is that if one of them does end up sharing the stadium with the Rams, they will just be a mere tenant and have to pay rent to Kroenke. They'll be missing out on any revenue the stadium brings in. The vote in June is huge. The funding mentioned does come out of the general fund and not in the form of new taxes.


Actually, they would also have to work out if they want to be partners and share everything, or be a tenant. Evidently both options are on the table, so they might get an equity stake.

I am not surprised by this, Rams never should have left LA in the first place, so as bad as I feel for St Louis, I really don't.... And this choice gives the league the most leverage against the other cities still as well.

It lets Charges try and make a deal work in san diego and if not, they have a new home waiting, so they are getting a new stadium in three years too one way or the other... And it sets a firm deadline for a new deal in San Diego.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> As a long time Charger Season Ticket holder, I find this to be rather funny. Team owner Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis pushed for the Carson site. Neither of them really got anything.
> 
> The real crotch punch to them is that if one of them does end up sharing the stadium with the Rams, they will just be a mere tenant and have to pay rent to Kroenke. They'll be missing out on any revenue the stadium brings in. The vote in June is huge. The funding mentioned does come out of the general fund and not in the form of new taxes.


From the reports I've seen and read, Carson was more limited. While it was a great stadium, it wasn't much more than that. The Inglewood site will have stadium, shops, theater/auditorium, and a place for a West Coast extension of the Hall of Fame.

While a tenant might not have the income of the whole complex, they also don't have the whole costs. Unless they negotiate poorly, renting won't be too bad for them. Similarly, if they open a proshop onsite, they get those revenues.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> From the reports I've seen and read, Carson was more limited. While it was a great stadium, it wasn't much more than that. The Inglewood site will have stadium, shops, theater/auditorium, and a place for a West Coast extension of the Hall of Fame.
> 
> While a tenant might not have the income of the whole complex, they also don't have the whole costs. Unless they negotiate poorly, renting won't be too bad for them. Similarly, if they open a proshop onsite, they get those revenues.
> 
> ...


The carson site was a disaster in the making for its cleanup issues. I wonder if it would have even been able to be built without millions more than they where expecting to be spent on cleanup.


----------



## dynne (Mar 18, 2009)

Well, lets just forget about the fans in St. Louis, lost both the Cardinals and Rams - too bad they can escape with the team name? The name should remain in the city, I know Houston didn't use the Oilers, and Chicago might have kept the Cardinal name, but another team could return, not likely for St. Louis. The city is centrally located, for Midwesterners and fairly easy stadium access? On occasion St. Louis did provide a snowy game that is always fun to watch!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> The carson site was a disaster in the making for its cleanup issues. I wonder if it would have even been able to be built without millions more than they where expecting to be spent on cleanup.


That's right, I had forgotten that part too. Thanks!

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dynne said:


> Well, lets just forget about the fans in St. Louis, lost both the Cardinals and Rams - too bad they can escape with the team name? The name should remain in the city, ...


The Rams spent nearly 50 years in LA before they moved to St Louis. One could argue that the Rams historically are more of a LA team than a StL team.

Perhaps with the team's record in St Louis fans should be accustomed to losing? :sure:

The StL Rams website is offering 2015 season tickets ... Imagine having 2016 season tickets and getting the notification "the location of your seats has been changed ..." by 1587 miles.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> I am not surprised by this, Rams never should have left LA in the first place, so as bad as I feel for St Louis, I really don't.... And this choice gives the league the most leverage against the other cities still as well.


Leverage? Give me a break. For the past 20 years they've been using the LA market to extort money from other cities by threatening to move teams there if they don't get taxpayer money to fund new stadiums. These are billionaire owners who think ordinary people like us should pay for their stadiums so they can make billions more. These guys are so corrupt they can't even follow their own relocation rules. They allowed Kroenke to blatantly ignore the NFL's own relocation rules. They follow their own rules only when it suits them. If they see an opportunity to make more money for themselves, the rules go out the window, as they did in this case.


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

Immediately after the vote, 75-year-old, former L.A. Ram QB Roman Gabriel announced his availability as either QB coach or starting QB, whichever opportunity comes first.

Welcome home, Rams, we've missed you.


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

TXD16 said:


> Immediately after the vote, 75-year-old, former L.A. Ram QB Roman Gabriel announced his availability as either QB coach or starting QB, whichever opportunity comes first.
> 
> Welcome home, Rams, we've missed you.


That will not work. 75 years behind him. Nooooo that is wayyyyy to young. Have to be atleast 80.

Sent from my iPad 4 128GB using DBSTalk mobile application.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Business is business... I don't invest much in these sorts of things beyond the entertainment factor... but on the business front... It wasn't all that long ago that both Raiders and Rams were in LA... and apparently they couldn't get out of there fast enough... so I'm wondering what is expected to be different this time around?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The greener grass they went to yellowed. I agree, when LA starts looking yellow more moves could happen.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Business is business... I don't invest much in these sorts of things beyond the entertainment factor... but on the business front... It wasn't all that long ago that both Raiders and Rams were in LA... and apparently they couldn't get out of there fast enough... so I'm wondering what is expected to be different this time around?


They had bad teams and were playing to half-empty stadiums. Same will happen again if they don't offer a better product.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

James Long said:


> The Rams spent nearly 50 years in LA before they moved to St Louis. One could argue that the Rams historically are more of a LA team than a StL team.
> 
> Perhaps with the team's record in St Louis fans should be accustomed to losing? :sure:


Yes, St. Louis stole them away from LA. They were so desperate for a team after losing the Cardinals and failing to get one of the expansion franchises, they were willing to agree to just about anything. They started building the dome there before they even had a firm commitment from a team, and they gave the Rams a sweetheart deal that allowed them to get out of the lease at 10-year intervals if the stadium wasn't in the top 25% of stadiums. Most teams have gotten new stadiums built since that time, so of course that stadium is no longer in the top 25%. That's what allowed Kroenke to get out of the lease 10 years early and move the team, even though St. Louis was willing to put up $400 million of public money to build yet another new stadium.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> The greener grass they went to yellowed. I agree, when LA starts looking yellow more moves could happen.


More like Los Angeles won't give people public money and those two owners couldn't afford to build their own stadiums and other towns offered them millions.

Still about the only place that won't give money to stadiums too... Yet they are coming back because it's one of the few markets where they can book the stadium enough to not need public money...

And raiders go walk off a short cliff. I don't want them back. I lost all respect after what they did to irwindale. Granted they where dumb too but still... They should not have done that. Zero ethics and down right wrong. Id have sued them if I lived in that city.

I personally think it's wrong for any public funds to be used for stadiums period. Should be against the federal law. There is zero need for it.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> More like Los Angeles won't give people public money and those two owners couldn't afford to build their own stadiums and other towns offered them millions.
> 
> Still about the only place that won't give money to stadiums too... Yet they are coming back because it's one of the few markets where they can book the stadium enough to not need public money...
> 
> ...


Agree 100%. There should be a federal law to prohibit the practice of using public money to build sports stadiums. Otherwise these thugs will keep playing communities against each other to enrich themselves.

As a former St. Louisan, I have mixed feelings about the move. I feel bad for the St. Louis area losing the team, but they set themselves up for it by agreeing to the deal to begin with. The existing stadium is still being paid for with taxpayer money from both the city and county, while the owner is free to move and enrich himself further.

From my own perspective, it's not like I ever go to a game. I have DirecTV and can follow any of these teams if I so choose. I followed the Cardinals when I lived there, but I never followed them again after they left St. Louis. Of course, there was no Sunday Ticket in those days, either. I always admired the Rams when they were in Los Angeles, so it's possible I'll continue to follow them now. A lot of LA fans have continued to follow the team over the years they were in St. Louis.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Here a good commentary from Jeff Schultz with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the move:

http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/football/st-louis-rams-fans-you-get-no-sympathy-here/np5MW/


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Public officials should apply the same basic analysis for assisting any project within their area. Basically if the total analysis looks as a positive, I don't have a problem with public fund being used where the expectation is more public monies will be raised than spent. Many businesses receive forms of assistance to stay or move into an area, sports complexes should be the same.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> More like Los Angeles won't give people public money and those two owners couldn't afford to build their own stadiums and other towns offered them millions.
> 
> Still about the only place that won't give money to stadiums too... Yet they are coming back because it's one of the few markets where they can book the stadium enough to not need public money...
> 
> ...


I agree on public funds. Many of the times there is not any reason for a new stadium.

Sent from my iPad 4 128GB using DBSTalk mobile application.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Tom Robertson said:


> Public officials should apply the same basic analysis for assisting any project within their area. Basically if the total analysis looks as a positive, I don't have a problem with public fund being used where the expectation is more public monies will be raised than spent. Many businesses receive forms of assistance to stay or move into an area, sports complexes should be the same.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


If they did the same kind of analysis that is done for other businesses, none of these sports stadiums would get public money.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

the2130 said:


> They had bad teams and were playing to half-empty stadiums. Same will happen again if they don't offer a better product.


Yeah... but the Rams were one of those bad teams... and they are a bad team right now... so it kinda seems like deja vu all over again to me!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

the2130 said:


> If they did the same kind of analysis that is done for other businesses, none of these sports stadiums would get public money.


There have been too many deals for me to assume than not one of them was worthwhile.

These teams bring economic benefit to their communities. So do many of the other businesses that receive taxpayer support for their expansions. Unfortunately "give us money or we will move our operations" works outside of the NFL. And competing cities willing to give money have been able to get established businesses to abandon their current cities.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah, the NFL isn't the only game that tries to extort cities and states to support their business. I tire of that in all industries. The problem is, even if your city or state refused the game, other cities and states will keep playing to entice business. I wish the bribery game would stop.

Individual people are raked over the coal for asking for help making ends meet, but corporate threats to "take their ball and leave" (in the case of NFL, literally taking a ball too!) are all too often met with capitulation.

I love me some sports... but I don't like tax dollars going to fund a stadium. The owner doesn't give me a share back of the profits for use of my tax dollars. IF he can't make his team/business profitable, maybe he's in the wrong business?


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

James Long said:


> There have been too many deals for me to assume than not one of them was worthwhile.
> 
> These teams bring economic benefit to their communities. So do many of the other businesses that receive taxpayer support for their expansions. Unfortunately "give us money or we will move our operations" works outside of the NFL. And competing cities willing to give money have been able to get established businesses to abandon their current cities.


I guess it's possible that one of these deals was worth the cost to the region, but I've never seen any data associated with any of them that show that. Here's a piece from the NY Times on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/sports/football/st-louis-should-be-glad-it-lost-the-rams.html


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Incentives to businesses to stay or relocate are usually in the form of tax breaks, not building their facilities for them. Building a sports stadium not only isn't good economics in most cases, it doesn't give the team any incentive to stay. In the case of the Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis (originally called the Trans World Dome), it was built entirely with public funds, making it easy for Kroenke to simply walk away at the first opportunity and leave taxpayers holding the bag.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

As much of a fan as I have been... I've never paid to go to a basketball or a football game. When I was a student at NC State, we got free tickets... so I went to a bunch of football games. The price of admission has gone above my threshold of "worth" a long time ago and on top of that, all too often the view of the game isn't nearly as good as I get at home... and with most games being televised these days, it's a hard sell to get me to a game in person anymore.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Stewart Vernon said:


> As much of a fan as I have been... I've never paid to go to a basketball or a football game. When I was a student at NC State, we got free tickets... so I went to a bunch of football games. The price of admission has gone above my threshold of "worth" a long time ago and on top of that, all too often the view of the game isn't nearly as good as I get at home... and with most games being televised these days, it's a hard sell to get me to a game in person anymore.


It's becoming a hard sell to get _most_ people to go to games in person anymore. If you watch carefully on TV, you can occasionally get a glimpse of the crowd and you'll see that there are lots of empty seats at most of these games. I saw a lot of empty seats at the Panthers stadium yesterday and that was a playoff game. The ticket prices have gotten so high and the viewing experience TV so much better in the last few years, most people are just staying home.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

the2130 said:


> It's becoming a hard sell to get _most_ people to go to games in person anymore. If you watch carefully on TV, you can occasionally get a glimpse of the crowd and you'll see that there are lots of empty seats at most of these games. I saw a lot of empty seats at the Panthers stadium yesterday and that was a playoff game. The ticket prices have gotten so high and the viewing experience TV so much better in the last few years, most people are just staying home.


It's never a problem in Green Bay... 

According to the official game stats, for the Panthers game there were only about 1,200 empty seats of the 75,400 available. Not bad. (I was at one Packer game with eight empty seats.) 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Tom Robertson said:


> From the reports I've seen and read, Carson was more limited. While it was a great stadium, it wasn't much more than that. The Inglewood site will have stadium, shops, theater/auditorium, and a place for a West Coast extension of the Hall of Fame.


True, but does that justify the NFL ignoring its own relocation rules and conducting a rigged process where St. Louis spent millions of dollars and a year's time on a game they had no chance of winning?

The NFL relocation rules provide that an owner cannot move a team until he has exhausted all efforts to resolve the stadium situation in his own market, and that he cannot relocate just to better himself financially. Think those rules were followed in this case? Kroenke not only didn't exhaust all efforts, he refused to even talk to the task force appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon to get a new stadium built with $400 million of public money. He had his sights set on LA and he wasn't interested in anything St. Louis might do to get him to stay.

Goodell and NFL Executive VP Eric Grubman publicly praised the St. Louis effort when the plan for a new riverfront stadium was first unveiled, and indicated they were on the right track as far as keeping the team. It became clear over time that this was a sham, and that they were backing Kroenke's efforts. How do I know this? Well, look at the sequence of events leading up to the vote. Just days before a Board of Aldermen vote on financing for the plan, Grubman arranged a radio interview with a St. Louis stadium in which he dissed the plan and said St. Louis would "fall short" in its efforts. Bernie Miklaus, who conducted the interview (details can be found on 101sports.com), has confirmed that it was the NFL that initiated the request for the interview, not the radio station. It was clearly intended to sabotage the vote by the Board of Alderman, which approved the financing anyway.

Then on the Saturday before the owners' meeting, Goodell issued a report stating that St. Louis had not done enough to keep the team and that Kroenke was free to move. And this was before the owners even voted. He repeated Kroenke's assertion that St. Louis had "breached" the lease on the Edward Jones Dome, and that once the CVC (Convention and Visitors Commission) rejected Kroenke's demand for $700 million dollars of upgrades to the Dome, Kroenke was under no further obligation to negotiate, even though they were offering to build a new stadium for him. And he further asserted that Kroenke had _*met the NFL's relocation rules*_, which is simply preposterous. In what way does refusing to even talk to a task force that is trying to build a new stadium for him constitute "exhausting all efforts"?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Well he planned on moving when he bought the land in Inglewood.

So what happened before that? I wonder if there where not some things said that made Kronke say forget it, I wont do business with you. They are politicians so maybe they even asked for kickbacks for their votes.. Who knows. But I wouldn't be surprised if they had a lot of fighting before the more public stuff started happening that sealed the fate. 

I have heard some rumors and read some things in the paper that make me think Carson never really had a chance here because of the corruption that is all over its politicians...


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

the2130 said:


> True, but does that justify the NFL ignoring its own relocation rules and conducting a rigged process where St. Louis spent millions of dollars and a year's time on a game they had no chance of winning?
> 
> The NFL relocation rules provide that an owner cannot move a team until he has exhausted all efforts to resolve the stadium situation in his own market, and that he cannot relocate just to better himself financially. Think those rules were followed in this case? Kroenke not only didn't exhaust all efforts, he refused to even talk to the task force appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon to get a new stadium built with $400 million of public money. He had his sights set on LA and he wasn't interested in anything St. Louis might do to get him to stay.
> 
> ...


I read Monday Morning QuarterBack's review and supposition on the vote and relocation process this morning. Peter King mentioned one core aspect--St. Louis did not live up to the original contract, which was to pay for a top 8 facility. And St. Louis couldn't. And probably shouldn't, for that matter. Yet in the 90's when they desperately wanted a team, that was the contract they offered to any team moving there.

Times change, St. Louis is in breach.

Was Kroenke dealing in bad faith? Possibly. Was St. Louis? Possibly. Was St. Louis when they offered the original terms? Probably not, yet hugely myoptic as to what living with that contract might mean with Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, et al creating billion dollar facilities. They might not have known, yet they did put themselves in a huge liability.

As for Goodell's assertion, did it require a owner vote for him to declare it? The owners don't vote on every individual step and assertion. They vote on key milestones and empower Goodell to do the job. The could reject his assertion that St. Louis was in breach.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Tom Robertson said:


> I read Monday Morning QuarterBack's review and supposition on the vote and relocation process this morning. Peter King mentioned one core aspect--St. Louis did not live up to the original contract, which was to pay for a top 8 facility. And St. Louis couldn't. And probably shouldn't, for that matter. Yet in the 90's when they desperately wanted a team, that was the contract they offered to any team moving there.
> 
> Times change, St. Louis is in breach.
> 
> ...


If you only read Peter King's MMQB, you would think it was an honest deal and the league was just voting on a legitimate relocation request. It doesn't even mention the league's relocation policy, or that the owners were simply ignoring it when they voted to approve the relocation.

As to St. Louis being "in breach", that is simply not true. The lease gave Kroenke the right to get out of the lease and go year-to-year if St. Louis didn't ensure that the stadium was in the top 25% of the league. That's not the same as breaching the lease. And it doesn't change the fact that the NFL's relocation policy requires an owner to exhaust all efforts to resolve the stadium situation in his own market before relocating. Kroenke not only didn't exhaust all efforts, he refused to even talk to the task force that put together a plan for a new stadium, let alone negotiate.

And don't forget what I mentioned previously about Goodell and Grubman. They praised the effort to build a new stadium when it was first unveiled, saying St. Louis was moving in the right direction to keep the team. Then at the end, Goodell claimed that once the CVC refused Kroenke's demand for $700 million of upgrades to the existing dome, it was all over and Kroenke was free to relocate. In other words, St. Louis was moving in the right direction with plans for a new stadium, even though it was all over at that point as far as keeping the team.

The truth is, Goodell and Grubman didn't think St. Louis would get as far as it did with a new stadium plan. They tried to sabotage the Board of Aldermen vote on public financing with a radio interview days before the vote, and when that didn't work they claimed it didn't matter anyway - that St. Louis had come up short with its plan and that Kroenke was already free to leave anyway. There's more, but I'm getting tired of typing, so I'll leave it at that. If you want to read additional details about the move, follow the link to Jim Thomas' weekly chat on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website:

http://sports.live.stltoday.com/Event/NFL_chat_with_Jim_Thomas?Page=0


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> Well he planned on moving when he bought the land in Inglewood.
> 
> So what happened before that? I wonder if there where not some things said that made Kronke say forget it, I wont do business with you. They are politicians so maybe they even asked for kickbacks for their votes.. Who knows. But I wouldn't be surprised if they had a lot of fighting before the more public stuff started happening that sealed the fate.


Some think Kroenke was planning the move from the time he got control of the team, but nobody knows for sure. When he rejected the CVC's initial proposal for modest upgrades to the dome, it went to arbitration, and the arbitrator ruled that it would take $700 million of upgrades to put the existing stadium in the top 25% of the NFL. The CVC rejected that request, which allowed Kroenke to get out of the lease. In his relocation application, he claimed they "breached" the lease, but that really isn't true. I don't think there is any way St. Louis would have come up with $700 million, but if they had it only would have tied him to the lease for another 10 years, at which time he could have come back and demanded more.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Here's a link to a column by Bernie Miklaus the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 2010, when Kroenke was seeking approval to buy control of the team:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/from-the-archives-kroenke-s-pledge-to-keep-the-rams/article_3b49e97d-2799-50aa-8b7b-5a82bf5d5a4b.html

Note the comments Kroenke made at the time:

"I'm going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis," Kroenke said in a phone interview Tuesday night. "Just as I did everything that I could to bring the team to St. Louis in 1995. I believe my actions speak for themselves."

"There's a track record," Kroenke said. "I've always stepped up for pro football in St. Louis. And I'm stepping up one more time."

The column also notes speculation about Kroenke's motives, which he addressed as follows:

"I'm born and raised in Missouri," Kroenke said. "I've been a Missourian for 60 years. People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy."


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

In an interview yesterday with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon spoke out on the Rams relocation. He said the NFL fabricated reasons to reject the St. Louis stadium proposal and approve the relocation to LA:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_7485c490-a4a7-5659-8a63-3b2d7908a317.html#.VqLKmQtgNWk.twitter


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

There are still dozens of millions of dollars still owed on the bonds that built the dome in St. Louis. I think the state is on the hook for $36M and the city of St. Louis is on the hook for $18M and another city or county entity owes $18M.

I still remember James Orthwein buying the Patriots and everyone thought he was going to move them to his home in St. Louis. Then the Rams happened. Victor Kiam bought the team from him and the disasters continued to pile up (the "Patriot Missile" debacle). Eventually Robert Kraft bought the Patriots and the rest is history.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Didn't St. Louis build that stadium and already have those loans before they even had a team?


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> Didn't St. Louis build that stadium and already have those loans before they even had a team?


Yes, construction of the dome started in 1992, before they had a commitment for a team. They were hoping to get one of the two expansion teams that were awarded in 1993. St. Louis was considered a front-runner, but the franchises were unexpectedly awarded to Charlotte and Jacksonville. Stan Kroenke would have been the owner of the St. Louis team, which was going to be called the Stallions.

After St. Louis lost out on the expansion teams, Kroenke bought a 40% stake in the Rams from Georgia Frontiere, a St. Louis native. Frontiere wasn't able to get any public money for a new stadium and didn't have the kind of money needed to build her own. Attendance was sagging after a string of losing seasons seasons and she decided relocation was her best option, especially with a new stadium under construction in St. Louis and a sweetheart deal being offered to lure a team. Kroenke's stake also gave him the option to match any offer if the team was ever sold. He was said to be instrumental in getting the team moved to St. Louis.

After Georgia Frontiere died in 2008, her 60% of the team went to her son and daughter, Chip Rosenbloom and Lucia Rodriguez. They took control for a short time, but weren't really interested in being NFL owners in a remote city, and they also owed estate taxes on their inheritance of the team. So they made a deal to sell the team to Shad Khan, a Central Illinois businessman. Kroenke's option to match the offer was complicated by the NFL cross-ownership rules, since he owns hockey and basketball teams in Denver. He waited until the last day (6 months from when the sale to Khan was announced) to exercise his option to buy control of the Rams. It has been reported that Kroenke offered to let the sale to Khan go through in exchange for a payment of $100 million, but Khan declined. The NFL accepted Kroenke as the new owner and gave him time to comply with the cross-ownership rules, which he planned to do by transferring ownership of his Denver teams to family members.

The state of Missouri is paying $12 million a year through 2021 on the bonds that were issued, while the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County pay $6 million each. The total cost of the stadium, which opened shortly after the 1995 NFL started, was about $280 million, a lot less than new stadiums cost today. The new stadium they were planning to build would have cost about $1 billion and would have received about $400 million of public financing.


----------



## cmasia (Sep 18, 2007)

I'll be curious to see what happens with FOX and CBS broadcasts in the TV markets surrounding LA.

In Vegas, we've had the luxury of getting the 3 best available games in the 2 Sunday afternoon windows, with no "home" team.

No one here will be happy if we get stuffed with 16 Rams games.


----------

