Stan Kroenke now owns the Rams
by Ryan Van Bibber on Aug 25, 2010 1:19 PM CDT
in St. Louis Rams sale
Email
PrintThe NFL approved Stan Kroenke as the new owner of the St. Louis Rams today with a unanimous vote by the league's owners.
That's good news for the Rams as they no longer have to operate amidst the background noise of a pending ownership change. There was plenty of speculation during the offseason that the team held back in free agency because of the looming change of the guards, but that theory never made much sense, especially after the Rams drafted QB Sam Bradford with the first overall pick in the 2010 NFL Draft, guaranteeing him a contract worth close to $80 million with $50 million guaranteed.
To me the biggest issue around the ownership question was, like I said above, the additional uncertainty for a franchise in transition. After more than half a decade of instability, the Rams finally got on the right course following the 2008 season when they cleaned out the front office and made Billy Devaney the general manager in place of the incompetent bureaucrat Jay Zygmunt. Last season the ground under foot was still shaky as Devaney and an all new coaching staff tried to piece together a team from the ashes of decaying rubble that passed for a roster.
Already, things are starting to look up for the Rams, though they have a long way to go. Kroenke assumes the role of the Rams' sole owner with two big challenges already on the horizon. Normally, fans would already be speculating about what the Rams might do in free agency next year, but the only speculation happening now is whether or not there will be a football season. Even with some protections measures in place, like a guaranteed stream of TV revenue whether there's anything to broadcast or not, the Rams will be in a tough position as a small market team desperately trying to repair its relationship with a fanbase that hasn't been buying tickets lately. Beyond that, the Rams have a looming stadium issue when they reach an out clause in their lease on the Ed Jones Dome in 2014. At that point, the Rams will have to find a new home, be it in the St. Louis Metro area or some other market.
Anyway, that's all down the road a bit, so let's just extend a big fan welcome to Stan Kroenke.
70 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As a die hard Los Angeles Rams fan first, I really believe this signals the end of the Rams in the Stl area.
Kroenke is a very intelligent business man and no scenario where the Rams stay in Stl is good business.
He won’t sign an extension with the Dome. He will say all the right things though, to please the fans until the lease ends.
The Rams were always the most logical buy, because of their lease ending soon.
I don’t see what makes the city attractive as they move on.
Dude, don't start that, 'Back to LA crap again'...
This team is in St. Louis. Theres a significantly good chance that they will stay put. Theres also a better chance for LA to land another team in the next 3 years. The Jags are in a much worse venue than the Rams are and will have make that hard choice of leaving their town much sooner than the Rams. Theres a more evidence that Kroenke won’t move this team than there is indicating he will. Dream on…
Read between the lines
The realistic part of that is that everybody knows we like to be competitive. Our teams we think are competitive. To be competitive, you have to have revenue.
Sorry but no. Jags sold a boatload of tickets and got a new sponsor on the stadium, on top of having one of the largest premium ticket revenues in the NFL.
Big Cat Country, The #1 Jaguars blog on the net
by Jonathan Loesche on Aug 25, 2010 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions
Problem is...
Thats the first year in awhile that thats happen. Jags fan have to do that consistently, not every blue moon. All it takes is a 5 or 6 win season and ticket sales will be back in the tank and LA Jaguar talk will start again. Not trying to get you mad, but thats just the current state of the NFL.
You L.A. guys keep telling yourself that
if it makes you feel good, but it isn’t likely to happen. Kroenke wants to keep the team here, and I think it would take some terribly stupid moves by the politicians here to cause him to move the team. Is it theoretically possible? Sure, no one ever overestimated the chance of politicians making a dumb move. But is it likely? No. The odds are heavily in favor of the team staying in St. Louis.
Stan is a Missouri guy...
So much so, that when he bought the Nuggets, fans were worried that they’d become the St. Louis Nuggets.
"All the world's indeed a stage, and we are merely players."
"God I'm excited for those two to fail miserably." - SBNation writer Andrew Sharp on Josh McDaniels and Tim Tebow.
Quitter's People United Member #18
by Tempestuous Binary on Aug 25, 2010 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions
He's also intelligent
This team keeps losing fans and short on ticket sales, he’d be dumb not to move them to the most logical venue
Los Angeles is a terrible place to have a football team.
If the Rams were losing there, even less people would show up because fans in LA are the most fairweather of any city in America. When your team is the worst in the league, but has better attendance percentage-wise than 3 other teams, and overall is better than 4 teams, that’s pretty darn good.
St. Louis endured 26 bad seasons to go with only 2 good seasons in a span of 28 years, but managed to keep the team and still supported them. When the LA Rams were losing, the same could not be said. Even now, the St. Louis Rams are still not doing too poorly in attendance. The Dome still was 85% full last year on average despite the fact that the Rams were in the worst 3-season span in the history of the NFL.
Look LA fans, I’m sorry because I know you guys are as die hard as any fans in the NFL. But you are too few in number to get an NFL team. That’s just the way it is.
To be clear, that 28-years was with the St. Louis Cardinals, who did eventually
move at the end of that awful span.
Im in NC now so I'm fine with the Rams in Stl. but
1.
St. Louis endured 26 bad seasons to go with only 2 good seasons in a span of 28 years, but managed to keep the team and still supported them.Are you talking about the Arizona Cardinals?
2. Better attendance percentage wise? 10% of 40,000,000 is greater than 100% of 300,000, by what, 13 to 1.
3. There is a flip side to poor attendance in bad times. There is attendance during good times. The Rams were actually good most of the years they were there. How many Stl fans have attended a game with 100,000+ fans?
4. Too few? Stl may not even be the 3rd largest city in LA county. If placed there.
St. Louis city
is small. But the metro area isn’t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St.Louis,Missouri
Lots of places are bigger than Stl – but when competitive they’ve consistently sold out games. Still better attendance than Oakland, year after year.
But does St. Louis does support its sports team
whether they win or lose. LA doesn’t unless they win. 100,000 fans that show up for a couple headline games in a 12-win season doesn’t cut it. How about showing up in a 1-win of 4-win season? St. Louis has a history of backing their pro football franchises through thick or thin no matter whether they’re winning or losing. Only when Bidwell started making the motions to move his team to Phoenix did St. Louis fans stay away in droves. Taking the Rams back to L.A. to learn the same mistake is just plain foolish no matter how pretty the window dressing looks.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Thats hard to answer
I never saw the LA Rams have a 1 win season. Yet the comming late and going home early stuff is a bunch of BS. My guess, heard on TV but never attended a game in LA.
Anywhere is a terrible place to have a football team when
1) There are 2 of the worst football teams in the same city
2) You have the 2 worst owners in sports running the city’s football teams
You can’t deny the market LA is. Los Angeles has been drooling over an NFL team for years now.
When you have a city as big as Los Angeles begging for an NFL team, you’d be a fool not to give it to them.
Look at the Dodgers and Lakers.
2 of the most profitable franchises in sports
But...
St. Louis put up with one the worst (if not the worst) owner in the NFL for over 25 years. Bill Bidwill had no interest in winning. None. He only wanted the revenue from owning an NFL franchise and was motivated only by greed. He used the bickering by St. Louis city and county officials over the location of new stadium as an excuse to leave St. Louis. Later he made it look like no one in St. Louis supported his Cardinals franchise, which was a total lie. When he got to Phoenix he jacked ticket prices up 50 percent for that suck-hole franchise. I’ve live in St. Louis and Phoenix for most of my life. Bidwill would have moved the team out of Arizona (and to L.A.) had they not built that Taj Majal stadium in Glendale. The funny thing is it took him over 20 yrs to get his new stadium; had he stayed in St. Louis he would have gotten it a lot sooner.
He's intelligent
So he’ll move to the city that has lost 3 teams already? The Chargers (AFL), Raiders, and Rams all played there. If its such a great place for revenue, why aren’t they still there? If its like the Dodgers fans, its probably because they’ll show up just before halftime and leave just after the start of the 3rd quarter.
Also the Jags need to move first, they were in playoff contention last year and they still had 7 out of 8 home games blacked out. Who needs it more? The losing team with 3 blackouts or the near playoff team with all but one game blacked out? All we have to do is start winning and there will be revenue.
Shurmur, your career is in 3rd and long. Don't run a draw.
Onobun > Gates
Really!
Screw LA and Stl and move the team to Ashville NC.
The Chargers played a season in LA while their stadium was being built in SD.
The Traitors only moved to and then away from LA because Davis was trying to strong-arm the stadium operators.
Mrs., run my favorite team into the ground, Rosenbloom moved the Rams to Stl. because that is where she came from.
The ability to attract crowds or TV revenue had nothing to do with any of those moves.
Listen, I hate Los Angeles fans as much as anyone
I have to be around them at all times out here and it’s true. Most of them are band wagoners, but you can’t deny the money these teams make.
Even if they sucked, they might be hated for a bit but they’ll be making a whole lot of money.
And if Stan builds a winner out here, it’s the biggest jackpot out there for him
Band wagoner here
When the Rams won the Super Bowl some one saw my hat an accused me of just that. I told him to look at my hat again. When he saw Los Angeles Rams he could do nothing but apologise.
I don't see what makes LA more attractive than St. Louis.
St. Louis has better attendance in losing seasons with no hope than the LA Rams had when they were doing okay and Eric Dickerson was breaking all sorts of records. Sorry, but that’s the truth. Also, Kroenke is a Missouri guy, so I doubt he’d move the place.
Why is LA more attractive than St. Louis?
Sheer volume of people. The greater LA area is currently supporting 2 NBA teams, 2 MLB teams, 2 NHL teams, 2 MLS teams, and 2 PAC-10 teams. Yes the market is pretty saturated, but I’m pretty confident the most popular spectator sport in the US that isn’t NASCAR (which has two races in the greater LA area) would be able to carry a crowd.
Let’s not forget that the Rams were based in Anaheim, at a baseball stadium, and competing with another NFL team for fans (fans die-hard and foolhardy enough to continue stabbing each other in the name of that team even though they’re long gone as well). I challenge St. Louis to try to entice a team to stay in that environment.
Things are different now: no competing NFL franchise; brand new (potential) stadium built for football, and an NFL-loving city with no local team to root for (my own anecdotal experience will have to suffice here since I can’t find any research regarding this claim).
More money, better weather, a city that would appeal to free agents, and a celebrity pool that garners media attention- LA is much more attractive than St. Louis.
The Rams didn’t leave because St. Louis was more attractive than LA. They left because Georgia wanted to go home.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
by BruinHalo on Aug 25, 2010 7:20 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Let us know when that potential brand new stadium is built.
I plan to be around for another 20 years or so. Think it will be done by then?
Hey
I’m just addressing why LA is more attractive than St. Louis.
To be honest, I live in Portland now and have no personal interest in seeing them back in LA. I just think there’s a lot of hating on LA going on here that blinds people from thinking about this objectively.
LA is the promised land for the NFL. It just might take 40 years before a team can enter it.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
by BruinHalo on Aug 26, 2010 1:13 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
A lot of legit reasons there
I don’t live in LA either (although I would be able to attend games if they went there), but I think many people are stuck in simplistic “They left once already” mode and that keeps them from being objective about what LA could offer. The new stadium, for example, is Huge.
by CoachConnors on Aug 26, 2010 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions
It's possible
But there is no reason to believe they would move back to LA. That market has again and again shown incapable of supporting an NFL franchise. As a St. Louis native, I hope Kroenke works with the sports commission to get something done. Frankly, if they start winning games soon, it’s not going to matter because you flat out need good attendance in the NFL
The Rams didn't stay in LA last time.
So why go back there? California itself is on the verge of bancrupcy and LA not much better so he’s smart enough to know he wouldn’t get a lot of help finacially from the state like tax-incentive wise. LA doesn’t have a stadium just a proposed stadium and that project too is in financial limbo.
Now, why should he keep the team here?
Well here are the reasons:
1. Kroenke is a businessman, loaded with money, his wife has even more money. So he has two choices right off the bat:
a) Bring the current stadium up to the standards required.
b) Build a new stadium in St. Louis county (Chesterfield)
2. The Rams are already established here with a great facility at Earth City, which is in the county which means no city tax.
3. Kroenke is in real-estate and he currently owns a ton of land out in Chesterfield and Chesterfield is financially sound.
4. He would be in a much better situation to get tax breaks out in Chesterfield. And Missouri is not on the verge of bacrupcy.
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 Aug 25, 2010 2:08 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Nailed it
He is part of team Walmart. Seems to me the stadium in St Lou is slipping, and being a real estate mogul, where can he buy on the cheap and what can he do to put a city on a map?
Do you really think Chesterfield will not welcome him and a thousand jobs? Dudes, vote for f’n Pedro.
The Raiders went back to Oakland, too. It happens.
The Rams would easily be profitable in the new stadium they’re building in LA.
by CoachConnors on Aug 26, 2010 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions
To be honest the real discussion should be
with all his money why does it look like he is wearing a wig?
Man, I hope with this whole affair done, Stan will end the "Cheap Stan" era that has emerged.
"All the world's indeed a stage, and we are merely players."
"God I'm excited for those two to fail miserably." - SBNation writer Andrew Sharp on Josh McDaniels and Tim Tebow.
Quitter's People United Member #18
by Tempestuous Binary on Aug 25, 2010 2:44 PM CDT reply actions
There was talk about him buying the old chrysler plant off hwy 44 as a possible stadium location.
But LA is nothing but a joke when it comes to a NFL team. There reason revenue has droped is the front office run the team like Al Davis.
LA
I’m in LA and we don’t really need the Rams here…. St Louis NEEDS them way more than us Southern Californians. We have plenty to keep us busy here.
The Lakers keep winning NBA Championships, the women are BEAUTIFUL, from beaches to the mountains. The weather is NICE!
St Louis has the Cardinals and the Rams. Poor babys!!
You mean one of the best franchises in baseball that is currently has the best player in baseball and has been winning consistently for the last decade?
I wonder why.
Shurmur, your career is in 3rd and long. Don't run a draw.
Onobun > Gates
A football team shouldn't ever be second fiddle to another team in the city
Football is America’s passion now. Baseball used to be, I’ll give you that but come on
That doesn't mean anything
the Yankees, Cubs and Red Sox all mean more to their respective cities than the Giants/Jets, Bears or Patriots. The only places where football succeeds the most is where baseball has been mismanaged or lacks tradition.
Chicago is a Bears town
You can make a pretty legit argument about the Pats.
The Yanks, I’ll give ya but that’s the whole damn country loving that team
I hate the Yankees
so put me in that group…
I should be working right now...
No
Chicago is Cubs, Cubs and Cubs. And New England loves the Pats so much that their love nearly drove the Patriots to St. Louis.
It's been 15 years...
in all that time, under two commissioners, a few franchise shifts and at least a couple of expansions that I can think of, if nobody thought it was important enough to put an NFL franchise in Los Angeles, why do it now or even 5 years from now, when the economy and the real estate market doesn’t figure to be much better than it is at this point. I’m not saying it will never happen, with the Rams or anyone else. I just don’t see anybody knocking down any doors to make it happen. That includes the TV networks and even the league itself.
Remember, the expansion for the 32nd team was originally awarded to LA without much of a competiton. It was only when the NFL realized the group didn’t have any idea of what it was doing that they subsequently awarded it to Houston.
Big Cat Country, The #1 Jaguars blog on the net
by Jonathan Loesche on Aug 25, 2010 8:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Ah, thank you...
I do recall that now that you mention it. That does prove my point, in a way. Even with the league opening the door for a team in L.A., no one with any competence stepped up. Maybe things will change in time.
LOAD NOISES!
I am a Rams fan no matter where they are. I started as an LA Rams fan growing up in SoCal and stuck with them ever since. I live in AZ now and will be a Rams fan if they stay in StL, move to LA, Toronto, or Wyoming.
My only concern is that Stan ensure they are in a position to compete. If, when the dust settles on the new CBA etc, revenue sharing will continue as it does today and StL can deliver a new stadium for more rev – then I see no reason for them to leave. If by chance, when the dust settles on the new CBA etc, and revenue sharing is not equal and becomes MLBish – then I expect/hope Stan will leverage the situation and provide the team with outs (ie – moving to bigger market/LA where revenue can be had more easily).
Now, I can say that because my allegiance to the team is already sealed – I know some in StL prob feel differently (as did many in LA when they moved).
I should be working right now...
Suppossed to be LOUD
wow and the a isn’t even close to the u on the keyboard…..fail.
I should be working right now...
Ok since everyone is starting the will he/won't he
move the Rams conspiracy theories how about we add this little gem to the mix. To be clear i don’t in anyway believe this but it does have elements of feasibility. There was some talk a while back about London getting a franchise (an idea i am totally against). Stan is the largest shareholder in Arsenal football club and if he looked to completely buy the club he would also own the Emirates stadium a 60,000+ capacity state of the art stadium in central(ish) London. What would stop him upping sticks in 2014 and moving the club across the pond without need to build a brand new stadium. Not likely to happen but probably as likely from what i have read as moving the team back to LA in the current climate
I don't know why anyone else in the NFL would want an overseas team.
The travel would be taxing on the players and they’d have to change the name of the entire league. The National Football League doesn’t really work if its international.
Shurmur, your career is in 3rd and long. Don't run a draw.
Onobun > Gates
Aren't we the 53rd State already?
Special relationship and all that.
But seriously, there are several million insurmountable obsticles preventing international expansion – can you imagine the wives of America tolerating another Sunday game starting at 9 or 11am before your normally scheduled US based Sunday games? Never gonna happen.
How many times does LA need to lose an NFL franchise before we all agree LA truly doesn't want one?
LA Chargers, LA Rams, LA Raiders …
If LA meant revenue for this country’s most popular sport, then the NFL would have found a way to get a team back into LA.
LA just won’t support one (for some reason).
I can take a beating ... I'm a Rams fan.
And once we start winning we'll have plenty of revenue here anyway
So we wouldn’t have to.
Shurmur, your career is in 3rd and long. Don't run a draw.
Onobun > Gates
Outside o LA.....
Toronto is one of the only other feasible large markets available (within N.A.)…..and that is only if it is feasible because I can only imagine the Bills would piss, stomp, hold their breath, and do whatever it took to prevent it.
I should be working right now...
No thanks
No kraft dinner at my football games.
kthxbai.
I'm glad the ownership issue is resolved
Let’s not talk about moving until it comes up in 2014. Let’s just talk football please.
by dbcouver on Aug 25, 2010 5:41 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Bottom Line...
The Rams are here and not there. Three times is a charm and LA lost 3 NFL teams already so NO MORE!
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
The LA bartering chip
LA has been used as a bartering chip to get new stadiums built, and has a poor history retaining teams. Currently, this same rabble is being talked about for the following teams:
Vikings
Bills
Jags
Panthers
Rams
The Rams do have history with the town, and without any thought bias involved, they could possibly move. Luckily for us fans of the team being in STL (me being one of them due to my location in Cincinnati), the “sky is falling” for a lot of teams, and they all can’t possibly be moving to LA.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Turf Show Times
Related FanShots on Turf Show Times
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cover the web with Turf
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
