The most important player in the future of the St. Louis Rams, emphasis on St. Louis

by Ryan Van Bibber on Jul 24, 2009 8:58 AM CDT in St. Louis Rams sale

The St. Louis Business Journal has a profile of St. Louis Rams minority owner Stan Kroenke, who recently upped his ownership share, to 29%, in the Arsenal of the English Premier League...that's soccer in case you're wondering.

Kroenke's the one to watch in the Rams ownership sweepstakes. Not only does he have the rights to match any offer for the Rosenbloom/Rodriguez majority share, he's speculated to be the most likely buyer for controlling interest in the Rams. Of course, that will still require some finagling with the NFL's cross-ownership rules given his ownership share in the Denver Nuggets and Colorado Avalanche. Basketball is Kroenke's passion, and the piece speculates whether or not he'd be willing to part with the Nuggets to become the majority partner with the Rams. Of course, he'd still have his stake in the Denver regional sports television network, Altitude, which would still be a pretty lucrative connection to the Nuggets. He can also convince NFL owners to waive the rule; it would be unwise to rule out that scenario.

A happy footnote for St. Louis area fans who would like to see the team stick around are the circumstances that led to the Missouri native's purchase of a 40% stake in the Rams in the first place:

Kroenke purchased his 40 percent stake in the Rams and helped relocate them to St. Louis from Los Angeles in 1995 after an attempt to land an NFL expansion team here flopped.

It's hard to say what the timeline for the Rams ownership saga to play out looks like. The economy certainly complicates things in both the sale and the ability to develop a new stadium, something that would almost certainly be required to keep the team in St. Louis. Stay tuned.

Hey, speaking of a new stadium, if that happens would you prefer to see an outdoor stadium or another dome?

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Dome or no dome

I would love to see the new stadium be NO DOME. I am a IOWA HAWKEYES season ticket holder and there is nothing more exciting a home game in November cold with a brisk wind. GO HAWKS>>>>GO RAMS !!

Chris

by chrisrmsfn on Jul 24, 2009 11:52 AM CDT reply actions

A totally new stadium seems so unlikely to me, but...

if it were to happen I would vote for both types of stadiums like Arizona’s.

Go Rams!

"We can't run. We can't pass. We can't stop the run. We can't stop the pass. We can't kick. Other than that, we're just not a very good football team right now." --- Bruce Coslett, New York Jets Head Coach circa 1990s

by Nbr1RamFan on Jul 24, 2009 11:55 AM CDT reply actions

I went to a preseason game against the Bears at Busch Stadium, and the atmosphere was awesome. Football was meant to be played outdoors. Although, the steady 72 degree climate of the dome would be missed in January.

by mooseknuckles41 on Jul 24, 2009 3:30 PM CDT reply actions

I vote we play all future games at 3k Memorial Stadium

Your uncle molests collies.

by 3k on Jul 24, 2009 5:09 PM CDT reply actions

that looks

delicious?

Turf Show Times

by Ryan Van Bibber on Jul 24, 2009 8:08 PM CDT up reply actions

New Stadium??

A new, and outdoor, stadium would great, but I really don’t see it happening. I don’t know where you would build it; the current configuration of the ballpark, arena, and stadium is well-placed. It would be nice to have the team play on grass which would help keep the Rams’ players healthier.

by modans55 on Jul 24, 2009 5:43 PM CDT reply actions

stadium

As an old time LA rams fan, I’d like to see them move back, but that probably isn’t going to happen, so building a new outdoor stadium would be second best. Please Rams, go outdoor. no sliding roof thing that adds billions and billions to the cost and you only need it maybe once or twice. just build a great outdoor stadium. think of rams fans, bad weather can help your home team. it can be an advantage the way the bad weather was an advantage for the Vikings back in the 70’s. Grass and an outdoor stadium, it is the way football was meant to be played! the rams need toughness, and an all outdoor stadium would help develop that. I live in Seattle, and their outdoor stadium is a HUGE advantage. it gets extreemely noisy even though it’s not a dome. OUTDOOR! GRASS! OUTDOOR! GRASS! oh, and change the uni’s back to the blue and white retro look. and one more thing, get a qb, bulger has had it. they are sticking too long with him.

by fredgarv on Jul 24, 2009 9:33 PM CDT reply actions

I spent many years watching the Cardinals

at Busch outdoors. When the weather was bad I hated it. Why sit out there freezing your can off in zero degree weather when you can be indoors in 72? Just to prove how tough you are? No thanks. If they build an outdoor stadium, my season tickets will be for sale.

by andyrose on Jul 24, 2009 10:52 PM CDT reply actions

count one for "outdoor"

I am a Seahawks fan who will be moving to StL this year to attend Wash U Law, which explains my interest in whether or not the Rams will be staying in town—I’m excited to be able to watch my Hawks play live at least once a year.

Although everyone here in Seattle has great memories of the Kingdome, going with an outdoor Qwest Field was definitely the right decision. The weather is really not as big an issue as you’d think coming from a dome, and the gameday experience is easily superior outside. If you all are given the choice you should absolutely demand an outdoor stadium.

by t.hast12 on Jul 26, 2009 1:35 AM CDT reply actions