State of Affairs

by Eric Nagel on Oct 13, 2009 7:34 PM CDT in 2009 St. Louis Rams regular season

Consider this a multi-faceted post. There are a couple of things I'd like to address...first and foremost is a certain update on everyone's favorite bidder for the Rams, Rush Limbaugh. Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports (link to the full story) is reporting that enough owners have contacted them in private (or public, as is the case of the Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay) who oppose the deal to insure that it will not pass. The Rams are free to choose whoever they want for the time being, but as the commish' says:

"And then at some point, the NFL will be engaged and we’ll [look into] whatever ownership group is put forth through our process."

Wetzel uses the NHL as an example:

Legally, there is little room for debate. The NHL, for instance, has twice rejected ownership bids of billionaire Jim Balsillie because they don’t like his plan on moving teams to Canada and, quite frankly, they just don’t like him personally.

The NHL even purchased the Phoenix Coyotes itself, for about $100 million less than Balsillie offered, just to keep him out. Balsillie sued but a federal court in Arizona ruled in the league’s favor.

So, if you do decide to trust Yahoo!'s sources, you can effectively cross Rush Limbaugh (and Checketts, for that matter) off the list of possible owners of the Rams.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other thing I'm curious about is a small quote by Tim Carter, who as you all know was on the team during the offseason and the preseason:

"Hopefully my retention of the offense is pretty good. They've got some new stuff in there. … I'm looking at that and picking it up."

New stuff? What is this new stuff he speaks of? He was with the team up until Sept. 5th, which is right before the start of the season. Obviously, you're going to be tweaking your playbook as a first year OC, but could this new "stuff" be the opening up of the playbook that we saw last week? It seemed like the first four weeks was pretty much the same, so it could be a possibility. If so, why did it take four weeks to figure out you need to score points to win? Perhaps it will always be a mystery.

Enjoy your Tuesday everyone.

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Great article from Wetzel

I thought it was very well written, and addressed the reality that it’s not his beliefs or politics that ostracize him from the NFL, but the manner in which he voices them.

Your uncle molests collies.

by 3k on Oct 13, 2009 7:45 PM CDT reply actions

idk

Everyone doesn’t really listen to rush they just read things about people who don’t like rush. I used to think Rush was loud and what not but i did listen to him and he is a very knowledgeable and intelligent guy. You have to understand if the man is sinking his own money into this (which is his dream) he wouldn’t be putting his politics out their and goin off on the liberals. It’s just really sad to think a guy who has overcome a lot in life and made a lot of smart moves can’t own a ball club. If Michel Moore wanted to buy the rams i would be open to it just because it has nothing to do with what is going on the field. This is america and football if you want to own a team or partially own why not? If you have the money and the desire who should get in your way?

by keeperskillz24 on Oct 13, 2009 8:02 PM CDT reply actions

I think what the teams are afraid of

I how Rush would conduct the Rams and what not. Like the example Wetzel gives, it’s not the fact that they don’t like him personally (which they did, in the NHL) but it’s also the fact that they do not like his idea of moving teams to Canada.

Not that the Rams would move, but I think they are somewhat afraid that he would use the Rams to somehow fuel some agenda.

I’m not saying there’s any truth to that, but I don’t simply think its a we hate you, sucks type deal.

I believe in 2010

by Eric Nagel on Oct 13, 2009 8:09 PM CDT up reply actions

I think the Michael Moore comparison is fair on the surface

I’d like to see the people who back Rush or those who do not offer up on the analogy.

Your uncle molests collies.

by 3k on Oct 13, 2009 8:13 PM CDT up reply actions

The analogy is ridiculous. Rush is being shunned for his racial comments. Politics is not the issue. Michael Moore, to my knowledge, has never made derogatory remarks concerning race.

by RamFan876 on Oct 13, 2009 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Doesn't Jay-Z own part of the Nets?

Check my statement.

by LARamsFan29 on Oct 13, 2009 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions

he does.

and he’s made some pretty racial comments too. But no one seems to care since he’s just a rapper, I suppose….

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

by Tackle Box on Oct 13, 2009 9:53 PM CDT up reply actions

So racism is the issue?

I’ve never actually heard him be racist… Maybe he is, but I think this case hinges on the divisive nature of Rush and it’s implications as a business owner in a sector of the market fueled by the media and hype.

by BruinHalo on Oct 13, 2009 9:42 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

How is Jay-Z's statement not divisive?

I think he perpetrates the whole “whites hate blacks, me against the world” mentality, but no one questions that. I am a HUGE fan of Jay-Z, but I realize that these are entertainers. I don’t know Rush that well, I’ve read his comments in question, and I could present 10 comments by Jay-Z that are equally divisive if you consider African-American racism towards White people, because I feel as though there’s two sides to this coin and one is often overlooked. Everyone thought it was fine and dandy for Jay to buy the Nets, but he has said stuff that makes me scratch my head as well. Does that mean everything he says is without merit? No. But we pick and choose which things make the person look bad and ride off of that. I’m not excusing Rush, because as a person of color I find some of the things he’s said despicable, but I’m saying we need to remain unbiased in our judgments of these guys.

by LARamsFan29 on Oct 13, 2009 10:33 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't disagree with you except...

Jay-Z’s divisiveness hasn’t cost the Nets as a business. I don’t care on which side of the debate a man stands (assuming I’m an owner), but I do care how the man will affect the bottom line. If the owners and players do not view the prospect of Rush buying a team in this light, then they are wrong. Assuming that as sound businessmen, they see Rush as a bad move for business, I agree.

by BruinHalo on Oct 14, 2009 12:06 AM CDT up reply actions

JZ makes his living from music

No one takes musicians, actors, or athletes for that matter, seriously for their political beliefs. They arent paid big money to think. Real thinkers silently are amused at the idea that these people think what they have to say about serious matters is even remotely important. The only people who listen and care are the same mindless drivel who pay billions of bucks for the noise that is crapped out of the music worlds asshole these days.
It’s not that he isn’t devisive. It’s that his audience wasn’t amassed on the spirit of his political expression.

by dbcouver on Oct 14, 2009 12:11 AM CDT up reply actions

What the difference between Jay-Z and Rush?

Really?

They both speak their mind. The only difference is Jay-Z puts his words to music. Other than that, there is no difference whatsoever between the two. They’re both entertainers. Jay-Z is a musician, Rush is a radio host.

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

by Tackle Box on Oct 14, 2009 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions

exactly

so we should not care. And another thing Don’t read what other people think about rush it’s dumb just like a football game you have to watch the whole thing before you can make an assessment that goes for real life too. i have to admit i used to not like rush a couple years back but i tuned in all week once to give him a shot and his show isn’t that bad and he seems to be a real nice human being

by keeperskillz24 on Oct 14, 2009 9:37 AM CDT up reply actions

Well, don't take my question as an endorsement for Rush.

I’ve soured on Rush. At first, I simply looked at his money and his desire to keep the team in St. Louis. But what I’ve seen since is two things.

First, he has yet to make any real statements about the future, or about how he’d like the future to be, of the St. Louis Rams. It seems as if every time he talks about this, he’s whining about the way people treat him.

Second, I’ve seen the type of action this site gets just when his name is brought up and I don’t like it at all.

So, I guess you could say there is a difference between Rush and Jay-Z (actually now that i think about it, i’ve come up with two). First, I don’t think Jay-Z uses his ownership of the Nets as a way to get his name in the media and as a way to elbow in to a very powerful club. Something I fear is at the top of Rush’s list of priorities.

Second is their followers. Rush’s followers (well, many…not all) are much more vocal and defensive which is a reflection of his personality to a tee and from the responses I’ve been reading, I can already see the motives of those posters.

It’s not about the Rams….it’s about Rush. That’s him and that’s his defenders and I can do without both.

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

by Tackle Box on Oct 14, 2009 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions

eh

if we’re going to make comments like that then we can say Michel Moore hates evreything this country is. Rush is far from a racist his best friend for many years who screens all the calls is black for gods sake. And i could only take 30 mins of Fahrenheit 911 so im not going to bash Michel Moore because i didn’t see the whole picture and it would be wrong of me. Racism is just a blame game now days and something we’re self conscious about. Both Rush and Michel are out spoken and don’t care what people think about them but the media does tend to praise Michel and say nay to rush but why? All i say is don’t read articles or watch videos about people who judge Rush and critique him just listen to the man once and see what he has to say. And i find the comment on d nab to be so blown out of proportion its ridiculous i found no offense to it or any of his material and I’m a African American from the suburbs of Baltimore.

by keeperskillz24 on Oct 13, 2009 11:29 PM CDT up reply actions

Doesn't Jay-Z own part of the New York Nets?

I have every single album he has. I am not white. This is a direct quote:

“No More War, No More Iraq, No More White Lies, My President is Black.”

As a huge fan of Jay, I still realize when he’s being racist, and I think that was a pretty racist statement. No quibbles there though? I don’t know, I just think a little fairness would be good.

by LARamsFan29 on Oct 13, 2009 8:24 PM CDT via mobile reply actions

New Stuff IMO

Pat Shummer is a real moxie guy. He knew that the OL wasn"t up to par at the start of the season, so he ran what the O team could handle. The O team has now shown that they can up the ante so he has gone to the next chapter in the play book. Spags has this team on a patient, determined, and planned path. He doesn’t ask rookies to play over their heads. Good show Coach—GO RAMS!!!!!

by Knoxfan on Oct 13, 2009 8:26 PM CDT reply actions

Wait...

When did TST become a Rams football blog?

Anyway, Knoxfan, I’m just messing around. And I have to say, I think you’ve got a pretty interesting take on the situation. (I’m talking about the Shurmur stuff…I’ve held this opinion about Spags for quite some time)

What I’m going to do with this little nugget is tuck it away for a week(?) maybe two and then see what develops with the offense. All I know is, I hope to hell you’re right.

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

by Tackle Box on Oct 13, 2009 9:58 PM CDT up reply actions

I too hope to hell he's right.

by BruinHalo on Oct 14, 2009 12:07 AM CDT up reply actions

The Goose and Gander

It really seems odd that Jim Irsay would be the first to bray on the Limbaugh bid for ethical motives. I remember what he did to his mother and family to wrest control of the Colts at the age of 37, after being a ticket taker at the stadium. Then suddenly uprooting the Team, almost in the dead of night for a “really special” deal where they are now located. He burned the deals where he was before buy demanding a mountain of bennies for one of the worst team in football at that time. Shame on you Jim—-

by Knoxfan on Oct 13, 2009 8:43 PM CDT reply actions

Wouldn't be the first time an owner changed tune.

I think it was Jerry Reinsdorf who was one of the big proponents in the early 90s against over-spending and was accused of trying to collude with other owners to keep salaries down, then a few years later, he broke the bank signing Albert Belle and some other over priced FAs which really pissed off a lot of the owners.

Shit happens in business.

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

by Tackle Box on Oct 13, 2009 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions

seeing as how this was about Rush and his buying of the Rams, i will say i feel like he got the shaft and was never given nor would he ever get a fair shake at ownership because of reasons that have nothing to do with football, regardless of my own personal political and social views, theres no other way around it, people were not liking what he said about Donovan and branded him a divisive racist

by peteyweestro on Oct 14, 2009 6:51 PM CDT reply actions