Kroenke: St. Louis Rams not for sale

by Ryan Van Bibber on Jun 10, 2011 6:30 PM CDT in St. Louis Rams sale

LOS ANGELES CA - FEBRUARY 01: Tim Leiweke President and CEO of AEG holds a football after he announced naming rights for the new football stadium Farmers Field at Los Angeles Convention Center on February 1 2011 in Los Angeles California. AEG has reportedly sold the naming rights for the proposed stadium to Farmers Insurance Exchange for $650,000 calling the stadium "Farmers Field." (Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)

The St. Louis Rams are not for sale, according to owner Stan Kroenke who purchased 100 percent of the franchise not even a year ago. Kroenke's unwillingness to sell is notable on a day when reports revealed that sports and entertainment company AEG approached five NFL teams, including the Rams, about purchasing a majority stake and relocating to Los Angeles.

Kroenke wasn't responding specifically to the AEG news today, but, according to the Post-Dispatch, he has said that he is unwilling to sell. He also continues to remain adamant about keeping the team in St. Louis, notable in and of itself.

If accurate, the idea that AEG is approaching these five teams about buying a majority share strikes me as a little odd. Obviously, I'm most familiar with the Rams, and given that Kroenke has owned it less than a year, it doesn't take Warren Buffet (that sums up my rich guy knowledge) to tell you that it wouldn't make much sense for him to sell now. Of course, from AEG's perspective, the real money is in owning the team and the venue, so why not try.

The Raiders also rebuffed AEG, telling the press that the team was not for sale. Minnesota was less direct about it, but they could also be using it as leverage to get a deal around the Twin Cities.

Farrar has an interesting take at Yahoo, noting that the NFL could recoup some of the money likely to be lost in the new CBA, from the initial extra $1 billion owners were seeking. The money would come from the fees from the sale of a team. He also raises the specter of an expansion team in LA as a way to bring in that bacon. (Is there enough talent for an expansion?)

Then again, having an NFL-less LA gives the league some leverage in stadium fights in other cities too.

For now, we know that the Rams aren't a likely candidate to be sold, and, as I pointed out this morning, likely to be moved by Kroenke into a new home that he doesn't own.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Oakland Raiders, St. Louis Rams

Comments

I live in LA

Don’t remember when they were here but happy to say they were…..Wont be happy if they say it again…..IDK to be honest and sure running into SJax in Whole foods one day would be great and if there was another lockout it would be great to see them practicing at my old high school and even have them have a Superbowl parade down a main street would be even better….but…..I kinda like the St. Louis Rams.

"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no PLAYOFFS."
Winston Churchill

by SMASH44 on Jun 10, 2011 6:39 PM CDT reply actions

I'd say create an expansion team

but make 4.

I want to see more teams and thus more competition, but hate the idea of relocating teams.

As a UK resident moving teams is alien to me and I can’t understand how it works.

Just make more teams.

More teams = more revenue + more competition.

Sure immediately the expansion team will suck balls but in time they’ll compete.

LA’s issue is the lack of a homegrown team for LA residents to support. There are a lot of Cali teams with established fanbases and moving teams within Cali makes little sense to me.

Bradford to Onobun!

by Infemous on Jun 10, 2011 6:49 PM CDT reply actions

too many teams would be horrible for the NFL

with more teams the talent level of each team drops. yes the league would be more competitive but you would never have any 12-4 and 13-3 teams every year. You would have more 8-8 and 9-7 teams and the problem with that is most teams that are mediocre don’t bring in many fans nor revenue. No matter how much people hate dominate teams like the steelers and patriots they are actually very good for the NFL in creating money which is then share with other teams thus making the NFL as profitable as possible. More teams would actually lead to less growth and less interest in football, because how fun would it be if everyone went 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7 each year?

I AM SAMACUS!!!!!!

by Brick Top on Jun 10, 2011 7:15 PM CDT up reply actions

i dont wanna sound dumb....

But wouldn’t that mean 4 expansion teams and another re alignment of the divisions? Or would it mean less teams and still division changes? It happened before….just not asap…anybody got any clarity on this?

by teatech2 on Jun 10, 2011 7:49 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

The NFL is a TV revenue League

Adding more teams only waters down the pot. Sure the LA market will be huge to an individual owner but since they don’t share that portion of the revenue stream like the TV contract it would do little to help the League as a whole. I suppose if you believ the LA market is under developed in terms of TV viewership due to the lack of a team you could argue it could strengthen the value of the TV contract but everything I’ve heard is counter and in fact there is a theory that the LA market prefers getting the hot games every weekend instead of being tied to the alligence of just one team. LA loves a winner and pays absolutely zero notice to anything less.

by Sggladden on Jun 10, 2011 8:25 PM CDT up reply actions

I live in Los Angeles (55years)/Original-Ram STH

Dont care if they come back.My NFLSunday ticket/HDTv (fantastic)

by Thomas W on Jun 10, 2011 8:30 PM CDT reply actions

AEg knows they will have to drop the demand to be majority owners

Of the team that comes to Cali….the way I see it, AEG will not get approval to build if they go after a Cali team, Gov Brown already stated this…so Chargers are out….if the Vikes come out here Minnesota would riot and burn buildings, they aren’t going anywhere…Jags and/or Rams make the most sense. Rams won’t have to change divisions, they have a decent fan base still and Stan loves money….it just makes sense

by JordansDad on Jun 10, 2011 9:16 PM CDT via mobile reply actions

Keep telling yourself that

if it makes you feel better.

by andyhawk on Jun 10, 2011 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions

Haha

So a team that has more history, or at least winning history in St.Louis with an owner who has been a minority owner in St.Louis since the day they arrived here is all of a sudden going to pick up and move? Yeah, obvious clueless Sunday fan with no actual knowledge using only specualtion as his base argument should probably just continue to ignore stories like this. They are obviously above you and going over your head. Oh, and the stadium in LA is owned by AEG, which would mean that they would have to agree to a minority ownership while Kroenke would have to give up a percentage of ownership to move to a building that isn’t his. Yeah, makes sense. Please refrain from watching football or replying to any football stories for the rest of your life.

by DaFranchiZe on Jun 11, 2011 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions