St. Louis Rams Are Not Going Anyplace; CVC Move Was Expected and Not Harmful

by Kent Sterling

TUnknownhe St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission told the Rams in a letter dated July 2 that it has decided not to spend $700 million to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome.  The move was expected by the Rams and everyone else in town, and mandated by the current lease between the Rams and the CVC.

The CVC doesn’t have $700M, and has no way to get it, so this was procedural and will have no effect on whether or not the Rams move to Los Angeles or anywhere else.

Click here to follow Kent on Twitter

The Rams hierarchy has maintained for months that the team is quite comfortable moving forward without a lease, and the CVC refusing to abide by the Rams lease to maintain the Jones Dome as a top eight facility in the NFL will cause the lease to lapse after the 2014 season.  Right now, it’s closer to the bottom eight than the top eight.

Moving past this hurdle will allow negotiations to begin in earnest with the state and city to get something done without the contractually mandated meddling of the CVC.

Stan Kroenke, governor Jay Nixon, and Francis Slay are going to have to sit down to see what can be done to move this project forward if it’s a priority for Kroenke, and only if Kroenke and Nixon feel compelled to welcome Slay.  No law that the Rams can’t move to South County or Earth City.

The Rams aren’t going anywhere because there is nowhere to go to.  Los Angeles is in no position to welcome a team, and London is not viable for the Rams.

It’s a shame that something hasn’t been worked out to this point because a positive resolution would be a win for both sides.  St. Louisans can drive to Indianapolis to see what a new stadium and all the associated events can mean to a metropolitan area.  Indy was in a similar position ten years ago with reports of Colts owner Jim Irsay standing up at an NFL owners meeting, and asking, “What do I have to do to move my team to Los Angeles.”

Cooler heads prevailed.  Emmis CEO brokered the peace between Irsay and then Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson, and Lucas Oil Stadium was built.  Indy got a Super Bowl during one of the most temperate early February weeks in the city’s

These unis are much cooler than the gold and navy.

These unis are much cooler than the gold and navy.

history, and all of a sudden, more and more restaurants opened.

Had the heads of city and state governments allowed the Colts to walk, the downtown would have regressed to its India-no-place worst of 20 years ago.

St. Louis needs to understand and embrace its imperfections and develop a workable plan for a downtown revitalization, with sports at its hub.

The Rams aren’t going anywhere, but that doesn’t mitigate or excuse stonewalling partial public funding of a new home for the Rams.

If St. Louis and Missouri refuse to evolve forward, there are plenty of cities willing to, and whether or not the Rams are in St. Louis, that pride will cost the city a very bright future.

Nixon, Slay, and Kroenke should convene to get a new house for the fans, and if the Rams want to make me happy, adopt the alternate jerseys (see right) as the primaries.  The gold and navy are way too dark – especially in the natural-light-free Jones Dome

40 thoughts on “St. Louis Rams Are Not Going Anyplace; CVC Move Was Expected and Not Harmful

  1. Mackdown

    The Rams aren’t going anywhere? Well what have they done in the last 2 years that would indicate in anyway they wish to stay? If the Rams wanted to stay they would have not pushed for arbitration and would still be negotiating with the CVC. Instead, the two sides have not even spoken in more than a year and Kroenke remains 100 percent non-committal. Given the fact the Rams have ranked near dead last in attendance and revenue every year for almost a decade in St. Louis I’d say fans there have plenty to worry about. The Rams will be back in LA by 2015. Mark my words

    Reply
    1. Matt

      No way dude, Rams will stay in STL wheather it’s downtown, Earth City, or Fenton (hopefully Fenton). Silent Stan’ s plan is working and the next phase is NEW stadium negotiations.

      Reply
    2. kentsterling Post author

      The arbitration was the process the lease mandated, and precluded reasonable chances of success in negotiation. With the CVC out of the way, now something can get done. That has always been the plan for both sides – get the legally mandated procedurals out of the way, and do a deal. The Rams have been forthright publicly and privately that all of what has happened would happen, and that playing at the Jones Dome without a lease while meaningful discussions took place is the route to a new and needed stadium.

      The Rams can’t move to LA in 2015, unless the clock is turned back a year and ground is broken on a new stadium. The NFL wants expansion team(s) in LA, not existing NFL teams, but that can’t happen until this negotiation ends, and a stadium deal can be worked out in LA.

      Reply
      1. william watkins

        you must be a fool if you think the nfl dont want the rams back in LA! thats their town a perfect fit! with so many stadiums to play in till a new one is built!!!!

        Reply
      2. Chucky

        The league has stated several times there will be no further expansion, however the Rams won’t likely move since there is no GF around to pull that kind of ‘movement’ again.
        If they were to decide to move, it would by to the city where the Rams grew their brand. There would also be an enormous financial gain in the teams net worth (Forbes mag). Business is business.
        The NFL want’s a team there, only a couple teams have issues with their lease and only one is a F/A. Add ESK lives in LA part of the year, wanted to buy the Dodgers (see NFL cross ownership rules for clarification), is friends with Phillip Anchutz (although the AEG deal is on hold for now) and the team could increase it’s value up to 1/2 billion in a couple of years.
        On the other hand StL is un able to afford to renovate the Ed and has no money to build a new stadium. Also the city and state are still on the hook paying off close to half the original cost of renovating the Ed to bring the Rams there. Local taxpayers will be buried forever to get a new stadium built. In Cali, the stadium cost are on the developers wanting a slice of the team as compensation. I doubt ESK want’s to do that but it remains to be seen.
        All of which is nothing to blow off.

        Reply
      3. Don

        A. The Rams aren’t going anywhere because there is no place for them to go. With LA out of the picture the next two biggest cities without teams are Portland OR and San Antonio TX. Drink that in for just a moment.

        B. Their public is still paying for the current stadium they don’t want. There is no public money or something new. Remember that the much more loved Cardinals were told ‘no’ on a publicly funded ball park.

        C. The only option for a new stadium is for Kronke to do what the Cards and Jerry Jones did and build it himself with some government help in the way of TIF money and road improvements, etc. Exactly what the Cardinals received.

        Reply
  2. The Demise Of Bring Back The Los Angeles Rams Fans

    Like it or not, the Rams are staying in St. Louis.
    Stan Helped bring the NFL to St. Louis and he now owns the team.
    L.A. and the other people from the “Bring Back The Los Angeles Rams” facebook page can now get on with their lives and be Raiders fans, 49ers fans or become a fan of the new team that comes to L.A. in about 10 years. #STLRAMS4LIFE

    Reply
    1. Ethan Rios

      Nahhh they will go to LA the new mayor is a die hard LA Ram fan and he supports farmers field. Right now as we speak there are two seperate places the rams can play at 1 the updated rosebowl or two the soon to be updated LA colosium 🙂 both will be “NFL Standard” stadiums at least 10x better than that warehouse y’all call the dome. the farmers field was not dead just u retards at demise think so. It was at idle due to the rebid to redo part of the convention center.About 4 weeks ago AEG won the right to do so again so farmers field is back on track and will be built.

      Reply
      1. Jordan Cantillano

        @Ethan rios – you are completely right and I agree with you 100% St. Louis ain’t a football town. They have been dead last in Attendance and like Ethan said that dome looks like a warehouse lol. Farmers field is a better looking stadium anyway. Also who can beat the weather, scenery, Hollywood, and bringing the rams back home. We are the verge of getting the rams back and unless St. Louis anty ups some cash you can kiss the rams good bye. Look at the bright side at least you have the cardinals. Just a note: dodgers lead the mlb in attendance at the moment and that’s what the league wants. Just imagine the nfl stadium full of people cheering for an nfl team in Los Angeles. Last but not least “bring back the Los Angeles rams”

        Reply
          1. Chucky

            15 million people in Riverside San Bernadino, LA Ventura and Orange counties, Just over 5 million in the entire state of Missouri. 1% of the surrounding counties in LA would fill the Ed twice each Sunday. It’s a no brainer move and lots of money to be made by all. It’s just hard to unscrew what GF screwed up.

        1. Rick James

          Jordan – Just because you make up statistics, doesn’t make them correct.

          The Rams haven’t been “dead last” in attendance in the last 10 years and probably more but I can’t find the statistics to support it.

          The Rams very well could leave town but trying to make your point by hyperbole or just pure lies is not only harmful to your argument but also makes you look like a fool.

          Reply
    2. evabooie

      @demise…..you guys keep telling yourselves that 😉 but in the end & new beginnings….the Rams will be in LA, back home!

      Reply
  3. Ram Mas

    The last paragraph was the only one that was worth reading. Having said that, those Nike “highlighter pen yellow” throwbacks are a joke. They arent supposed to be that bright.

    Reply
    1. Ethan Rios

      Are u fuckin retarded those throwbacks are better looking than the current uniforms there’s a reason why the were used for decades 70s-99 cuz they are the right look for the team get the fuck Outta here ur just as stupid as demise is

      Reply
      1. Chucky

        No wait. He’s right about the Nike color scheme. That was not the same as the wore here or in the StL Superbowl/ If they get the color correct the throwback are way better then the dram ‘Georgia’ look with the Saints metal-flake copper gold. (Although that cold is almost OK when in the sunlight, which in StL is never since they’re indoors.

        Reply
      2. Chucky

        No wait. He’s right about the Nike color scheme. That was not the same as they wore in LA or in the StL Superbowl. If they get the color correct the throwback are way better then the drab revenue driven new look with that Saints metal-flake copper gold and dark blue. (Although that gold is OK when in the sunlight, which in StL is never since they’re indoors).

        Reply
  4. Matt K.

    “The Rams can’t move to LA in 2015, unless the clock is turned back a year and ground is broken on a new stadium. The NFL wants expansion team(s) in LA, not existing NFL teams, but that can’t happen until this negotiation ends, and a stadium deal can be worked out in LA.”

    Are you sure that the NFL wants expansion team(s) in L.A. (or anywhere else)? Last time I checked, Commissioner Roger Goodell has stated that the NFL will not expand for at least the next 10 years. I can see the Rams moving back to Los Angeles starting in the 2015 season.

    Reply
  5. Cameron

    Amazes me the audacity of this completely ignorant article.
    The Rams will move where the money is. Stan is a billionaire for a reason. Lets see… you want to stay in the midwest with a limited fan base. You can legally walk away after 2014. But No I will just stay. Your kidding right ?
    You can move to a huge city of MILLIONS and be the biggest show in town for the NFL. In the 2nd largest media market in the country ! No I will stay I will make more money in the farmlands….You are insane people and so is the writer of this article. The Rams will move after 2014 season….Its all about the money..drop the emotions. Billionaires are wealthy because they want more money ! This BS loyalty to St.Louis is hilarious. Why does Stan own franchises in other cities already ? Think about it and take off your emotional glasses which are blinding you! The Rams will move where the money is….PERIOD ! Its that simple.

    Reply
    1. kentsterling Post author

      Jim Irsay makes plenty of money in Indianapolis, and it has half the population of St. Louis. Until LA has a stadium deal negotiated and done, it’s the same city that the Rams left almost 20 years ago.

      What I wrote is based upon several long conversations with Rams COO Kevin Demoff among others. As a former resident of St. Louis, I have no emotional investment at all in the geography of the team other than a desire not to see the lives of friends and former co-workers disrupted.

      Reply
      1. Cameron

        Thanks for reply Kent: However since your quoting conversations with St. Louis staff. First of all Kevin Demoff is the PR man for the organization. He not going to tell a sports writer or anyone the Rams are moving. Complete conflict of interest while the Rams are under contract. He will say the right things to keep the people in the seats for the time being. That is what he is paid to do.
        On Stan Kronke and his feelings ? Stan Kronke has a lot of business in California including with a local bank I also bank with now in Santa Barbara County. He made it very clear he was seriously interested in building a complex in Los Angeles to banker partners I know personally too.
        Now that deal fell through but not because the city of Los Angeles was not supporting it. It’s all about finances. And proper logistics in money partnerships etc which caused the problem. But this ridiculous idea that a stadium has to be built or signed for construction before they move is absurd.

        When his lease is up he could temporally lease the Rose Bowl for 20 years if he so chooses. But this conversation of St. Louis loyalty is completely absurd that many St. Louis people use.
        Stan owns franchises in Colorado because they make him money. Stan can make more money in Los Angeles long term. St.Louis has made it very clear that they cannot support the Rams financially in a new stadium deal. That’s a choice, not a real fact. Again a choice without levying taxpayers. They made the choice !

        In contrast, Los Angeles is backing any valid proposal. St Louis has done the opposite. Pushed financial responsibility to the state (Governor) to handle now. The State is not responsible for St. Louis or Kansas City sports franchises. If the state assists the Rams, then the the Chiefs can cry foul and you have a huge mess. Its quite absurd. It tells Stan alot about St. Louis and its leaders.
        But in Los Angeles the Rams can play out of the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl until a new stadium deal is done. USC and UCLA draw up and over 100,000 regularly. The revenue possibilities in Los Angeles are just mind boggling !

        And my friend; To try and compare Jim Irsay in Indianapolis to Stan Kronke is a very poor comparison. Stan is a billionaire 4 times over and still increasing.
        Stan is about money and just using common since there is much more to be made in the LA market then there is in St. Louis. Its just again, plain logistics.

        On speaking of putting people out of jobs? I understand your personal concern. But… What did Georgia do to the LA market and the city of Anaheim ? It was horrific.
        Believe me I lived in Orange County 20 miles from stadium when it all went down.
        She just decimated the team top talent, up ticket prices yearly knowing she was not providing a competitive team on field. She then quietly took new stadium deal in St. Louis ignoring a even bigger offer from Anaheim in conjunction with Disneyland property and Monorail system and entertainment center etc. Just to go to St. Louis ? Are you kidding me ? She just wanted to go home… period.
        She had no business even owning the franchise. If Carroll Rosenbloom were alive the Rams NEVER leave Southern California. I lived through the mess. I know as a Ram season ticket holder in Anaheim and Los Angeles. Born and raised in Glendale , California.

        And the talk about ruining peoples lives ? That is just big business. Ask Wal Mart after they have and continue to decimate every medium town in the country with small businesses with there ridiculous Superstores which kill hundreds of business in small towns. Costco and Lowes etc the same. Big business does not care….
        Sad to say that is the last thing on Stan Kronke’s mind.

        If the deal is right over next year….the Rams will move to greener pastures..money-wise…Just reality

        Reply
        1. kentsterling Post author

          St. Louis is more complicated city than what you might guess. Just over 300,000 live in the city, but almost 3,000,000 live in the metro. The local governments there are many, and dealing with the CVC was never going to be productive. The city and county are separate entities, and the small municipalities within the area most associate with St. Louis total nearly 100. The state of Missouri is a very important player in holding on to the Rams.

          And Kevin is much more than a PR man. You are right in that he would never tell me, “Hey, between you and me, we’re moving after 2015.” But we have spoken enough that I feel confident in understanding what he is saying when he says it. The way he told me that the Rams will stay put – and the reasons he cited (some of the specific quotes I’m unwilling to share) lead me to believe that the Rams will stay put.

          The parallel between Irsay and Kroenke is only valid in the very slim context of the profitability of an NFL franchise in a smaller market.

          The revenue for current NFL owners resulting from the massive expansion fees for two teams sharing the stadium that will hold both teams will carry the day and keep any existing team from moving to LA.

          Reply
          1. Cameron

            I respect you Kent for your comments. It is nice to have a educated discussion with sport-writers rather the emotional stuff. But the problem is my friend, this discussion is not really between you and me right now. Anyone reading your article will really not understand why you said there staying but between you and me they leave in 2015 here in the comments? Make sense ? Hurts your above article validity does it not ?
            But if you have things you can’t share that lead you to writing a article to the public confirming the Rams will stay.
            I respect that.
            But for us all to believe your viewpoint then the information you cannot share must be shared if it is so valid. Otherwise it is just a opinion with no evidence to support the Rams staying.
            Anyway:

            The NFL fees involving expansion teams are not the same for existing teams. That is why Stan Kronke was on the new stadium development board when they were attempting to build a new stadium in Los Angeles that fell through last year.
            He must not have been worried about the NFL fees or he had no reason to be out here supporting it and compiling investors etc. That would be breaking NFL bylaws if the stadium was not being built to benefit his own (St. Louis Ram) organization.

            You can only own one team and have involvement in one team as a NFL owner. So that argument of huge NFL moving fees holds no water to me. The Rams are not a expansion team and are under different laws. And the NFL is desperate to get a team in the 2nd largest market in the USA. So things can be changed to make it happen. But you need a billionaire involved. You got one in Stan Kronke.

            I still feel your getting a good PR line given you by Kevin Demoff. Which I am well aware is much more then a PR guy. But to the public that is how he is viewed.
            I think the Rams are deep in negotiations with more then one venue for the team. The LA building investment deals are not dead. They just will not be given to the public until finalized. The last one falling through, put a dog ear on the LA City Council. So mum is the word until signatures are placed.
            The latest is the parking areas of Dodger stadium. The discussion is huge on trying to get former LA Dodger owner MCcourt out of the profits on the Land he still owns. They would like to build a stadium by Dodger stadium.
            And the deal in the City of Industry is ongoing. So eventually LA will support two NFL teams.
            I just can’t see Stan Kronke getting into a political mess with the state of Missouri. In fact I do not see how the State can promise a thing anyway without taxing the Missouri people legally. And the st. Louis officials promised the people that no new taxes would be produced.
            Stan will have to pull secure private investors to believe that St.Louis is viable long-term. I do not see that in comparison with Los Angeles. Sure I am aware they have over 3,000,000 in the area. But that is not close to the revenue of Southern California. Were talking well over 15,000,000
            At this point it appears dead in support in St. Louis.

            But the moving toward a stadium is in LA County. At least that is the discussion in the banking world out here.
            So we will see. But I have no problem giving you my email address if you have facts beyond what your saying publicly.
            Otherwise this is just a simple blog for all to see between two sports guys….

          2. kentsterling Post author

            What I’m saying is I choose not to quote Kevin, but have shared the reasons they will stay.

            LA is likely to get one or two expansion teams, and the cash paid to the league as a buy in would be enough to keep the owners from approving a move prior to the award of those teams.

  6. Chucky

    No expansion and LA is an NFL city so proclaims the great Roger Goodell. He’s also stated the Raiders are a bad fit for the team now run by the son of Al. The Chargers are firming up their deal in San Diego, the Vikes already resolved their issues in Minny, which leave the Jags and the Rams as the only real candidates. Poll anyone in LA and which one do you think they would vote for. And with that knowledge who do you thing the league is opting for.

    Reply
  7. Cameron

    Kent: Well then I have to disagree with your reasoning based upon your conversations with Kevin Demoff. If Kevin Demoff gave you the reason of expansion teams as a road block to Rams in Los Angeles. That was a easy out for him to stop the conversation. I do not believe that for a second.

    Kevin Demoff needs to explain then why in the world was Stan Kronke invested in the stadium deal that failed in 2012 in Los Angeles ?
    A deal he told my banking friends was the first step in bringing the Rams to Los Angeles last year.
    In fact the partner in the venture is a very close friend of his. And they can easily start up a new venture as is ongoing right now in Los Angeles. In contrast to the stagnant situation in St. Louis.

    Bottomline: The NFL will not and CANNOT stop Stan Kronke from moving to LA just because they may expand there in the next 10 years. If they do not have owners / investors and expansion teams ready for expansion with a date and year on the books. They then have no power under the present NFL bylaws to keep Stan from moving the Rams to Los Angeles. Al Davis set that precedent many years ago in court.

    If the billionaire mogul has a deal in place with a stadium build he will move the Rams to Los Angeles. Again my reasoning is based upon his past actions already as recent as last year. He was investing in the new stadium deal already. That deal fell through. However, if Stan Kronke thought the NFL was going to block his move to LA he would not have been gathering investors and spending time in Los Angeles developing the new stadium deal. He again, was on the new stadium committee.

    So that is not a road block to the Rams moving. It will come down to what the state of Missouri does. If they continue to not come forward with a stadium plan. The Rams are gone.

    But the reality is it appears strongly that the Rams will move to greener pastures in 2015. There is more money in leasing the Rose Bowl temporarily while a stadium is being built. Then staying in St. Louis with a city council and state who are stagnant on promising any support.
    Enjoy the conversations…time will tell.

    Reply
  8. bubblebuttbandit

    The stadium is the Chicken and the team is the Egg. One of them has to be first, but neither knows which.

    Reply
  9. Mark

    BUSINESS 101..

    You do not Build a stadium or do Business WITHOUT A CONTRACT OR REAL COMMITMENT…

    its Business and Financial SUICIDE….

    do you think nike or gatorade became as big as they did WITHOUT A Contract and an agreement for endorsement from Micheal Jordan??? back in the day,

    how about the Forum in Inglewood where my Lakers used to play… IT WAS NOT GIVEN THE NAME ” The Great Western Forum” UNTILL AN AGREEMENT BEtween Dr. Jerry Buss OWNER of the Lakers/Kings/Forum AND LAND, With the Bank Called Great Western

    Farmers Field and AEG have a naming Rights Agreement IN PLACE ready to go for the stadium here…. Just like the Ed Jones and the Dome in STL….

    My Point…

    NO COMMITMENT NO REAL SERIOUS AGREEMENT NO STADIUM TO BE BUILT… it would be a 1.6 Billion Dollar MISTAKE….

    the Designs and approval are already done the Stadium is Shoval Ready…..

    the Rams Lease Negotiations have COME AND GONE With No AGREEMENT in STL…..

    I will say it till the daay i die… the CITY OF STL and the Taxpaayers handed the She Devil a Deal No one can turn down unless you are smarter… AND THE TAXPAYERS ARE STILL PAYING

    We in LA and LA City are NOT PAYING A DIME, there are some Taxes that will be in Place for the city to Generate Revenue in various way… IN THE NUMBER 2 TV Marker

    DONT YOU EVER THINK This Stanley Cup Finals Wont Mean a Thinkg…. its not happened Often, but We have the Number 1 and 2 TV Markets in the Nation with the NY Rangers and LA KINGS PLAYING….

    the Talk of sports has been that more than the NBA

    so stop your yakking about NO STADIUM… WE HAVE A STADIUM… 2 STADIUMS Technically that are Shovel Ready… all stan has to do is commit to RELOCATE THE TEAM and everything is GAME ON

    so a New Stadium in STL versus New Stadium in Los Angeles…. if i was a Business Man its a No Brainer….

    take your city loyalties out of the equation

    THERE WILL BE NO EXPANSION EVERY OWNER AND THE COMMISH HAVE STATED SO!!!

    I have no ill will towards real stl rams fans who are respectful of both the LA Rams history and the fanbase…

    take Care
    RAMS4LIFE

    Reply
    1. kentsterling Post author

      Interesting comment, but I know of several stadia that have been built without a deal to bring a team – Indianapolis built the Hoosier Dome with the hope that a team would relocate. It took balls and vision, and the would be in Phoenix today if not for the Hoosier Dome being ready.

      The truth is that the NFL does not want a franchise in LA today, and that is why there isn’t one. There are cities like St. Louis that would have scant motivation to build a new stadium without the threat of the Rams relocating. The Vikings would never have gotten a new stadium, and Indianapolis is another. Oakland will be next to find a way out of its coliseum. Until all teams that want a stadium get one, LA will sit vacant.

      Never underestimate the greed of the owners when it comes to expansion. Those giant franchise fee checks make for fun family Chirstmases and Hanukkahs.

      Reply
      1. Cameron

        Hi Kent nice to hear from you a year later…..
        Long response but maybe it will enlighten you to reality here in Southern California.
        Your quote Kent from above: “The truth is that the NFL does not want a franchise in LA today, and that is why there isn’t one.”

        Well truth is Kent that statement is NOT TRUE and is quite frankly said in complete ignorance.
        A quote from last week:
        – National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell said league owners are considering all options to see a franchise in Los Angeles very soon ”
        The NFL continues to have interest in returning to the Los Angeles area,“There has been progress,” Goodell told Associated Press.

        Now I could pull up numerous other quotes but I know you will say that is all NFL propaganda Blah Blah Blah….
        Well guess what ? Why would the NFL tell millions of fans and media that the 2nd largest market in the country is of no interest to them as your implying ?
        Do you have any clue how many NFL fans reside in Southern California ? Do you realize the revenue that is being missed as a result of it ? Only Direct TV with NFL ticket is cashing in on those people. And they pay a lump sum to the NFL. But the NFL could get that and billions more with the NFL in Southern California again.
        Now some say the NFL is playing LA as you would in a game of Monopoly. And I think that is where your thinking is coming from.
        But it is completely untrue and here is why.

        The NFL is more powerful then many countries of the earth. It is a huge Billion dollar industry that effects the entire USA economy.
        If you think for a second that when they see the Dodgers sell for over 2 billion and now the Clippers sell for over 2 billion that their is no money to be had in Los Angeles and they have no interest in LA ? Then I got a Island to sell you in Tahiti !
        There is over 15 million people in the greater LA basin and the NFL has no presence there. Ask Wal-Mart Billionaire if he wants to pull out all his stores in LA and Orange County !
        Money is huge to be made in Los Angeles and Stan Kronke is no dummy.
        For example Stan Kronke bought land in Southern California next to a race track that he may buy out too. Why ?
        Too make money…period. Is it for a possible football team he owns ? Who knows…. But we know for a fact it is a venture to make money with..period !

        The city of St. Louis has done ZELCH..NADA to show they want to support the Rams.
        Stan Kronke is a billionaire who lives too make money deals. And this pipeline that LA will never get a stadium until all other teams who want stadiums have one is also a ridiculous statement you made. Sorry but you make me laugh…..

        The Raiders and Chargers both have wanted stadiums for years. But now are on year to year leases ! LA has NOTHING TO DO with Oakland or San Diego City officials. And now the St Louis Rams are months away from being a year to year lease franchise in St. Louis.
        But the NFL will see to it that Oakland and San Diego and St. Louis are taken care of because they don’t want to be in LA ? Your kidding ? That is again quite hilarious….
        The truth is the opposite of your argument.
        Because the NFL is greedy and that is why they want a team in LA as soon as possible when profits can be made.
        The NFL is not going to take care of the stadium deals for the Chargers or Rams, or Raiders or new ownership in Buffalo or Jacksonville and just use LA as a pawn. Why ?
        No profits, poor fan base, and stadiums are all old.
        Each city is ON ITS OWN ! It has nothing to do with the NFL.

        All the NFL wants is a viable owner who is stable to move a franchise to Los Angeles. They want a mover and a money maker.
        Right now that owner is Stan Kronke.
        Will Stan Move the Rams in a year or so ?
        Its a lot more likely then many think. Unless St. Louis wakes up and hands over some serious money. Sorry Misouri Tax payers..
        But in any case..please don’t tell me the NFL does not want to be in LA. Its just a ridiculous statement.
        Think about it:
        Both owners who left LA were quite nuts. Al Davis sued the NFL and Georgia who inherited the Rams when her late GREAT husband Carroll Rosenbloom died did not give a dam about the Rams. She just wanted to go home to Missouri and travel to Europe. Hell, she was not even present for Ram games until that miraculous 1999 season playoff run. We know Georgia very well here in Orange and LA County. And of course this is all well documented.

        Both organizations are under completely different ownership now. But the NFL does not like Oakland’s owner Davis because of his ties to Al Davis.
        But Stan Kronke is well respected and if he talks, the NFL will listen.
        The ball is still in St. Louis court. But will they blink or lose the franchise ?……LA will have a NFL team very soon one way or another because the NFL WANTS TO BE IN LA ! Too much money to lose..Remember ..they are GREEDY !

        Reply
        1. Mark

          Also Kent, if the NFL Didn’t want to be in LOS ANGELES, then why are there major owners who are respected speaking out FOR A TEAM TO RETURN?

          Jerry Jones, Steven Ross, and a few others, you think the Rooney Family wouldn’t want the NFL Back in Los Angeles… think again, and these are OWNERS in the NFL that have been so LONGER THAN STAN and even Georgia F

          Should the Rams Return back to Los Angeles next year ALL TEAMS WIN… because those playing the rams in LOS ANGELES Get the spot Light EVEN BIGGER on them…

          as i have mentioned in the past as a question since georgia moved the rams in 94 HOW MANY TIMES were they on National tv… MNF and then the expanded broadcasts and days for scheduling???

          since Stan took over yes they have been on maybe 2 times a year including this year… see the difference… but the city name is STL…. NOT LOS ANGELES

          from the 60s on when MNF started our LA Rams were on Regularly NATIONALLY

          Since the DEVILS DEAL… that moment, STL Had been on the Clock to prepare EVERY 10 YEARS to make sure the dome was up to par… blame your own city officials for creating the Mass renovations and new stadiums with the top tier requirement…

          i still point out there has been no super bowl in stl from the time the RAMS MOVED THERE….. WHY IS THAT??? 20 years later in the modern stadium upgrade chaos

          Los Angeles hosted Super Bowl 1 and Pasadena has hosted a number of others… and may do so again… that’s not including san fran this year or palo alto which hosted a super bowl that the whiners played in… or super bowls in San Diego…

          that’s 4 cities in California ALONE….

          a number of us in LA Have supported the Rams through out all this and should the rams come back to LA, we would hope that stl rams fans stay with the team or just move on and then we will see who truly was a real ram fan in stl…

          also the raiders are out of the running as mark davis still has to get approval of the rest of the raiders ownership for moving the team, from what i understand, plus the raiders would be committing fan base suicide AGAIN But this time far worse than 82, because it will have repeated so 2 times from the same city of its birth for the exact same city it went to…

          The NFL Wont allow that again to the same city fan base

          STL IS NOT Identical to the Above… your team were the cardinals….

          most everyone will remember super bowl 14 as the rams had and were the FIRST NFL Team to play in the super bowl IN THEIR BACKYARD… and against the Steelers who won a second back to back

          the reason most will remember the 99 title is NOT BECAUSE OF WHO THE RAMS PLAYED… but because they won with factors of who was HC tied to the la rams… the fact that a QB was given a shot because the starter went down to injury…. and a trade that brought a good RB… BUT THERE WERE STILL SOME LA RAMS PLAYERS ON THAT TEAM…. ISSAC Bruce was one of them…

          nuff fer now

          Reply
        2. kentsterling Post author

          Goodell has been very honest privately about the economic plusses of not having a franchise in LA. Until franchises in need of a new stadium are satisfied, the status quo will remain in LA.

          I never write in ignorance. If I have nothing of value to share, I don’t write.

          Reply
          1. Cameron

            Well Kent thanks again for your response. But if you believe Goodell is more concerned with St. Louis, Buffalo and San Diego and the Raiders and will satisfy their stadium needs first then you are truly misinformed my friend.
            It is NOT the NFL’s responsibility to care for teams stadium issues. It has no connection to a team moving to Los Angeles.
            The NFL has given ZERO support for example to the San Diego Chargers and the Raider stadium issues. Nor has the NFL assisted St. Louis in their stadium issue. That argument has ZERO validity.
            So as you stated..if these franchises ask for help the NFL will assist them before moving to Los Angeles ? The Raiders and San Diego have been wanting new stadiums since the mid 1990’s
            Lets see, that’s over 15 years ago and these two franchises still play in horrifically old and outdated stadiums. I sure can see the NFL taking care of them… Really ? Lets drop the thought that the NFL is trying to satisfy or will satisfy their present franchise needs before going to LA.

            And now you added that privately the commissioner sees a plus for the NFL financially not being in the 2nd largest market in the USA ?

            That is totally laughable. Tell that to the Dodgers who again sold for over 2 billion and now the Clippers as well. And the Angels and the Kings are tremendously profitable. Kings on the verge of 2nd World Championship in 3 years and selling out every game for 4 years. But there is no profits to be made ? Your kidding right ?
            Yes all those franchises are of little value so they prove nothing in Goodell’s eyes of value of the NFL in Los Angeles.

            So the NFL will ignore the LA market with the biggest and most popular game in America which is the NFL?
            Kent, sorry to tell you but now again you name someone else as your source to your opinion. This time the commissioner of the NFL himself.
            Were adults here, I can promise you my bank business partners in Montecito (SB Area) in California who are very close to Stan Kronke will laugh again when I forward your latest comments.
            Its not about the Rams moving or not, but we all would laugh at the thought that the NFL sees more money or it to be a plus to keeping the NFL out of Los Angeles.
            Not trying to offend you but there is ZERO PLUS for the NFL to staying out of the 2nd largest media market in the USA.
            Goodell is far from being ignorant to the billions that can be made in the LA market.
            When a owner wants to seriously move, whether it Stan Kronke or another team. The NFL will quickly support it. It will be a HUGE PLUS to the NFL.
            Stan Kronke did not form a stadium committee two years ago in Los Angeles for the hell of it. Yes AIG CEO backed out for his own reasons.
            But LA completely supported it. The city officials backed it etc.
            And Kronke was a partner in the whole thing as he worked with bankers and attorneys out here that I know personally through my bank.

            As I told you over a year and half ago. Lets just admit the NFL will be in LA in the future. And stop saying they rather not be because it is a plus to the NFL profit-wise.
            Lets not make Goodell look foolish. Because he is not. That assumption is absurd and ridiculous.

          2. kentsterling Post author

            The NFL has been very supportive of the Rams in their desire to get a new stadium built, just as they have been in Atlanta and Minneapolis.

            Goodell outlined his reasons for keeping LA bereft of an NFL team during Super Bowl week in 2012, and it made total sense.

            Comparing the profitability of the Angels, Dodgers, Kings, Clippers, and Lakers to an NFL franchise is ridiculous. The NFL does not sell local TV rights – the source of the majority of the Dodgers and Angels revenue, and a significant portion for the other three.

            Your bizarre rants and bleats are motivated by a civic pride that is generally lacking in those from Los Angeles. I applaud your pride, misapplied though it may be.

            LA has said goodbye to two franchises already who relocated to SoCal. Do you need a third to finally seal the deal of Los Angeles as a city unworthy of an NFL franchise.

            Do you really believe that there isn’t an NFL team in LA because it would mean an enormous bounty for all involved. If there was more money in having a team in LA than not, there would be a team there today.

            LA is leverage, nothing more.

  10. Darren

    I find it interesting to read what people thought before the Rams relocation back to Los Angeles. Any thoughts on what what you got right vs. what you got wrong?

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Matt K. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *