throwback week



Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 43
  1. #16
    RamFan876's Avatar
    RamFan876 is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeoriaRam View Post
    And guess what? There is a need for a replacement for the Edward Jones Dome. Dire or not in your mind, the need is there and the Rams need to act on it.
    Texas Stadium 1971-2008

    Giants Stadium 1976-2009

    Edward Jones Dome 1995-??

    I understand the need for a new stadium after 30+ years. I find it hard to understand a dire need for a new facility after 15 years.

    If the Rams were winning and filling up the stadium, would this even be an issue?


  2. #17
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    Quote Originally Posted by RamFan876 View Post
    Texas Stadium 1971-2008

    Giants Stadium 1976-2009

    Edward Jones Dome 1995-??

    I understand the need for a new stadium after 30+ years. I find it hard to understand a dire need for a new facility after 15 years.

    If the Rams were winning and filling up the stadium, would this even be an issue?
    The Edward Jones Dome has 3 major issues.

    1. It was built on the (relative) cheap.
    2. Its design predates the revolution in luxury boxes and club seats that are ubiquitous in Major League 20th Century stadia.
    3. It is one of the older stadiums in the NFL-and many of the ones that are older are likely to be replaced in a few years.

    The Edward Jones Dome is kind of like the NFL's Tropicana Field or US Cellular Park-a stadium that was outstripped ahead of its time because of the rapid changes in major league stadium construction in the last 15 years.

    Also, the St. Louis city fathers were improvident fools when they wrote that lease with the verbiage that gives the Rams an automatic out in 2015 if the stadium wasn't in the top quarter of NFL stadia. This might be less of an issue if that clause did not exist.

  3. #18
    lordwhttgr's Avatar
    lordwhttgr is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    I live in Danville Illinois, I work all over the USA.
    Posts
    759
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    Here is another juicy tid bit your all missing, or maybe not.
    Dallas, new stadium and guss what, the NFL granted them a Super bowl.
    Indianapolis, new stadium and guess what, the NFL granted them a Super Bowl.
    New York, new stadium and, I hope you can guess where the super bowl is going to be played.
    Miami,,same, even though Miami is where the NFL likes to play super bowls as well as New Orleans.
    Correct me if I'm wrong but Detroit and Minnisota fit in this as well.

  4. #19
    lordwhttgr's Avatar
    lordwhttgr is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    I live in Danville Illinois, I work all over the USA.
    Posts
    759
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    Look, I owned a buisness that needed to move. I was offered land to build on at with a lease of 1 Dollar a year for 100 years. Industrial parks do this all the time. Kroenke's wife is involved with Wall Mart and I'm sure that she gets the same deals all the time. Thus Kroenke knows it too. If he builds a stadium in LA and moves the Rams there the chances he hosts a Super Bowl and makes millions of it are better than real good. He can pick up the land for nothing, build a stadium on the backs of the people in LA. What is there for him to gain in ST Louis?

    My point is this. If we want ST Louis football to continue, Khan is our man. If we want to see the team go into decline, i.e. more of the same of the last 3 years, then by all means support Kroenke. A run down team is easy to move. Kroenke's intrest is not 100% in the Rams franchise or he would have done it long ago when Georgia was ill. He was a 40% owner over the last 3 years and he let the franchise get this way. Who lets thier investment flounder like this? You would not have put up with this if it was a head coach. Kroenke is going to continue to dampen the team till he gets his way, subvert the NFL's cross ownership rule, drag the team along with no clear future. The NFL has stated it won't be till the first games before they approve him.

  5. #20
    Fargo Ram Fan's Avatar
    Fargo Ram Fan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Fargo,ND
    Age
    50
    Posts
    747
    Rep Power
    19

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    Wow...just wow. The only thing missing off this guy's ever growing list of conspiracy theories is that Stan is a Jew. It's gotta be coming at some point.
    "You people point your 'f'in' finger and say theres the bad guy....what that make you....good?" Tony Montana

  6. #21
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,044
    Rep Power
    171

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    As far as I am aware, Stan Kroenke is not Jewish

    Why would it be an issue if he was?
    Last edited by AvengerRam; -05-28-2010 at 11:21 PM.

  7. #22
    Rambunctious's Avatar
    Rambunctious is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,198
    Rep Power
    53

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    Wait... so Kahn is our man?

    He is buying this team out of the goodness of his heart?

    He doesn't want to make money like Kroenke?

    How does everything you speculated for Kroenke not apply to Kahn?

  8. #23
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    Quote Originally Posted by lordwhttgr View Post
    Here is another juicy tid bit your all missing, or maybe not.
    Dallas, new stadium and guss what, the NFL granted them a Super bowl.
    Indianapolis, new stadium and guess what, the NFL granted them a Super Bowl.
    New York, new stadium and, I hope you can guess where the super bowl is going to be played.
    Miami,,same, even though Miami is where the NFL likes to play super bowls as well as New Orleans.
    Correct me if I'm wrong but Detroit and Minnisota fit in this as well.
    So....if St. Louis builds a stadium they might get to host a Super Bowl?
    The NFL has shown an inclination to "reward" cities that build brand new NFL pleasure palaces with a one-time-only Super Bowl. Indeed, such an inclination has been used as justification to build the stadia in question.

    However....

    Foxboro, Baltimore, Denver, Seattle, Charlotte, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Nashville have all built newer stadia than the EJD-no dice on a Super Bowl. Furthermore Green Bay and Chicago underwent massive "the stadium might as well be new construction" renovations at a similar time period. No luck there folks.

    So, it's really not guaranteed unless you build a roof. Or bring New York's entertainment options to the table.

  9. #24
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    Quote Originally Posted by lordwhttgr View Post
    Look, I owned a buisness that needed to move. I was offered land to build on at with a lease of 1 Dollar a year for 100 years. Industrial parks do this all the time. Kroenke's wife is involved with Wall Mart and I'm sure that she gets the same deals all the time. Thus Kroenke knows it too. If he builds a stadium in LA and moves the Rams there the chances he hosts a Super Bowl and makes millions of it are better than real good. He can pick up the land for nothing, build a stadium on the backs of the people in LA. What is there for him to gain in ST Louis?

    My point is this. If we want ST Louis football to continue, Khan is our man. If we want to see the team go into decline, i.e. more of the same of the last 3 years, then by all means support Kroenke. A run down team is easy to move. Kroenke's intrest is not 100% in the Rams franchise or he would have done it long ago when Georgia was ill. He was a 40% owner over the last 3 years and he let the franchise get this way. Who lets thier investment flounder like this? You would not have put up with this if it was a head coach. Kroenke is going to continue to dampen the team till he gets his way, subvert the NFL's cross ownership rule, drag the team along with no clear future. The NFL has stated it won't be till the first games before they approve him.
    Let me spell one thing out for you: If St. Louis doesn't get a stadium deal in place by 2013 at the absolute latest, the Rams are gone by 2015. This holds true for any possible owner-Khan, Kroenke, Checketts, Pujols, Bill Gates, the Busches, anyone. Why? Because yes, Los Angeles has more potential revenue and upside than St. Louis, and has a brand new state of the art stadium to boot. This is not a conspiracy, this is simply rational business.

    However....

    If St. Louis gets a stadium deal done, the Rams will stay under either Khan or Kroenke. Why? Because while St. Louis is not as good a potential market as Los Angeles, a modern stadium still goes a long way to keeping the team competitive, and more importantly, the NFL is not in the business of bolting town on cities that build fancy new stadia, leaving tax payers in the lurch.

  10. #25
    helorm341 Guest

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    Let me spell one thing out for you: If St. Louis doesn't get a stadium deal in place by 2013 at the absolute latest, the Rams are gone by 2015. This holds true for any possible owner-Khan, Kroenke, Checketts, Pujols, Bill Gates, the Busches, anyone. Why? Because yes, Los Angeles has more potential revenue and upside than St. Louis, and has a brand new state of the art stadium to boot. This is not a conspiracy, this is simply rational business.

    However....

    If St. Louis gets a stadium deal done, the Rams will stay under either Khan or Kroenke. Why? Because while St. Louis is not as good a potential market as Los Angeles, a modern stadium still goes a long way to keeping the team competitive, and more importantly, the NFL is not in the business of bolting town on cities that build fancy new stadia, leaving tax payers in the lurch.

    Lol you have a very confusing post here.

    You say that:

    "Because yes, Los Angeles has more potential revenue and upside than St. Louis, and has a brand new state of the art stadium to boot. This is not a conspiracy, this is simply rational business."
    I don't mean to be a smart-ass here but could you take a picture of this brand new state of the art stadium and show it to me?

    If a new stadium will get built in a non-NFL city it will be Los Angeles but there isn't one that's even remotely close to breaking ground. And if there is a strike in 2011 I think that will kill and LA stadium projects for at least a decade while the NFL recovers.

    Why? Because while St. Louis is not as good a potential market as Los Angeles
    Couldn't that be said about the majority of NFL cities?
    the NFL is not in the business of bolting town on cities that build fancy new stadia, leaving tax payers in the lurch.
    Ummm, so isn't that an argument on why the NFL isn't going to leave St Louis?

    If St. Louis doesn't get a stadium deal in place by 2013 at the absolute latest, the Rams are gone by 2015.

    That just isn't true at all. Stadium talks wouldn't even start in earnest at the earliest until 2014 in a best case scenario and everyone surrounding the team knows it. The Rams new owner and the CVC will meet in late 2013 to discuss the next round of upgrades to the team

    One more key element I think you are missing: The Ram's aren't even close to being the best possible suitor for relocation. There are teams with worse stadiums, financial situations and earlier opt-out clauses. The Chargers and Vikings are on the fast-track to Los Angeles, not the Rams. And even beyond them, there's at least 1 and possibly two others that are more likely.

    One last point. Stan Kroenke himself has extremely strong ties to St Louis and has expressed his support of the city and keeping the Rams located here and I've never seen Stan being labeled as deceitful.

  11. #26
    NJ Ramsfan1 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    2,464
    Rep Power
    74

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    A couple of you guys are making this WAY more complicated than it needs to be and reading into the issue WAY too much.

    No one has a clue as to Stan Kroenke's "motives" other than the fact he wants to pursue primary ownership. I'd be willing to bet few on the board , myself included, have given Stan Kroenke anything more than a passing thought while he's been minority owner the past 15 years. Now all of a sudden, a few of us are engaging in wild speculation about his true intentions as if we have intimate knowledge of the guy. Ridiculous. I guess news is slow this time of year.

    And lastly, the NFL has specific rules about franchise relocation. You can't just pack up and move a team; you must show hardship (i.e. the team isn't supported at the fans at the gate) and meet a host of other criteria. I refuse to engage in a "well, what about so-and-so, they moved" argument concerning past teams, but that is the gist of it. A heckuva lot would have to happen for the Rams to be moved.

  12. #27
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    33
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    Quote Originally Posted by helorm341 View Post
    One more key element I think you are missing: The Ram's aren't even close to being the best possible suitor for relocation. There are teams with worse stadiums, financial situations and earlier opt-out clauses. The Chargers and Vikings are on the fast-track to Los Angeles, not the Rams. And even beyond them, there's at least 1 and possibly two others that are more likely.
    I think this is an often overlooked point that bears repeating. In order to maximize revenues, the NFL would probably prefer that if it has 32 teams, they should be in approximately the top 32 largest metropolitan areas (with a few exceptions for cities that can support two teams). St. Louis ranks 18th on that list. St. Louis is bigger than Tampa, Denver, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Indianapolis...Obviously, most of those cities have developed enough support locally that they woudn't want to move, but a St. Louis owner would have a hard time arguing the kind of small market problems that teams like Jacksonville or Buffalo have.

  13. #28
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenfleece View Post
    I think this is an often overlooked point that bears repeating. In order to maximize revenues, the NFL would probably prefer that if it has 32 teams, they should be in approximately the top 32 largest metropolitan areas (with a few exceptions for cities that can support two teams). St. Louis ranks 18th on that list. St. Louis is bigger than Tampa, Denver, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Indianapolis...Obviously, most of those cities have developed enough support locally that they woudn't want to move, but a St. Louis owner would have a hard time arguing the kind of small market problems that teams like Jacksonville or Buffalo have.
    No, but he, or any other Ram owner, can argue that he is playing in an over-saturated or unsalvageable market. The Chiefs dominate much of Missouri, the Bears dominate much of Illinois, and El Birdos command the affections of the locals year-round. Furthermore, the criminal unwillingness on the part of the Frontiere/Rosenbloom regime to spend the money to promote the team outside of Metro St. Louis has left the team with an unusually small regional fanbase. The Rams are in many ways worse off than an expansion team; obsolete stadium with no short term hope of replacement, no novelty factor because they are "established", and a recent track record of spectacular failure.

    Quote Originally Posted by helorm341 View Post
    Lol you have a very confusing post here.

    You say that:



    I don't mean to be a smart-ass here but could you take a picture of this brand new state of the art stadium and show it to me?
    The Roskis are waiting for word of an NFL team coming to town before they start building. However, every other duck is lined up and in a row for that stadium-Rams owner "X" would know that they can expect one quite shortly.


    If a new stadium will get built in a non-NFL city it will be Los Angeles but there isn't one that's even remotely close to breaking ground. And if there is a strike in 2011 I think that will kill and LA stadium projects for at least a decade while the NFL recovers.
    See the above. City of Industry/Roski stadium is ready to start the second an NFL team moves.

    Couldn't that be said about the majority of NFL cities?
    Yup. Only they have better stadia, better leases, or at least leases without giant-arsed escape clauses that kick in in the next 5 years.


    Ummm, so isn't that an argument on why the NFL isn't going to leave St Louis?
    Only if a stadium deal is hammered out in the next few years. It doesn't really apply to obsolete stadiums that really weren't that nice to begin with.


    That just isn't true at all. Stadium talks wouldn't even start in earnest at the earliest until 2014 in a best case scenario and everyone surrounding the team knows it. The Rams new owner and the CVC will meet in late 2013 to discuss the next round of upgrades to the team
    Umm....yeah...you're going to want to move faster than that. Seeing as stadia take a couple of years to build and all, Rams Owner "X" is going to want to see some definite progress on an EJD replacement by 2013.

    One more key element I think you are missing: The Ram's aren't even close to being the best possible suitor for relocation. There are teams with worse stadiums, financial situations and earlier opt-out clauses. The Chargers and Vikings are on the fast-track to Los Angeles, not the Rams. And even beyond them, there's at least 1 and possibly two others that are more likely.
    The Rams are the most portable team in the NFL. The Chargers and Vikings have better and more established fan bases, even if the stadia itself is old. The Jaguars owner, as stupid as it sounds, also seems hell-bent on making the city work.

    One last point. Stan Kroenke himself has extremely strong ties to St Louis and has expressed his support of the city and keeping the Rams located here and I've never seen Stan being labeled as deceitful.
    He's also not exactly a bad businessman nor bad at PR. The off field and stadium status quo in St. Louis is unsustainable. He knows it, Khan knows it, hopefully the city fathers either know it or figure it out well before 2013. But at the same time they aren't going to say "Sayonara Suckers" now. They'll give a good shot at building the stadium, but they won't wait for long.

    However, Kroenke did marry a Walton, so concerns about the opinions of the hoi polloi may not exactly be high on his list of worries.

  14. #29
    MauiRam's Avatar
    MauiRam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Maui, Hi.
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,960
    Rep Power
    79

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    If an owner's responsibility is to do what is best for his team, moving his team to a location where there is a chance of more butts in the seats could be construed as creating a more positive environment for said team when it plays home games.

    Obviously a winning team will sell more tickets, but moving to an area where the demographics indicate a larger market share combined with a huge state of the art stadium replete with gazillions of luxury boxes, acres of parking, and other fan friendly amenities, is clearly something that would come under the consideration of an owner contemplating a move ..

    Now before any of you in St. Louis, or its outlying areas start throwing rocks at me, let me state clearly - I have no agenda when it comes to where the Rams play. NONE! ... Well, to be honest, I would be really pissed if they moved say to England. (Sorry Dez, Steve, and Julian) I retain the right to be selfish when it comes to my team moving to another continent.

    Kroenke, after he's been vetted and accepted - which he will be - should prove to be an excellent owner. He will not be depending on revenue generated by the team for financial liquidity as it apparently Georgia had to. If Stan does move the Rams, that doesn't translate as him "not being good for the Rams." Pulling out all stops to improve the team's talent in the areas of FO, coaching, and player talent will be his immediate task after the sale goes through, and he is 100% owner of the Rams. (Maybe Stan could be persuaded to sell say .. 1% to ClanRam - we could all pitch in - ) Although now that I do the math, fund raising could prove thorny as we're talking 7 mil plus, or thereabouts ..

    This (for me anyway) begs the question: How much input (if any) as minority owner did Stan have when it came to hiring Billy D. and Spags .. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Chip and Stan presumably had a meeting of minds regarding the replacement of Shaw and Ziggy along with Scottie .. Love to hear anyone's opinion on this .. My guess is he probably had plenty of input, but who knows?
    Last edited by MauiRam; -05-30-2010 at 02:07 AM.

  15. #30
    lordwhttgr's Avatar
    lordwhttgr is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    I live in Danville Illinois, I work all over the USA.
    Posts
    759
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Why I don't think Stan Kroenke is good for the Rams.

    I was not tracking a Chargers Vikings move to LA. However The jags and Bills are looking real hard at it.

    Khan does not have any plans in the works for a move to LA. He would want to protect his investment in building a better team here. I just don't see him wanting to loose money in the intrest of more money later. Kroenke on the other hand has his wife's money to burn. Yes Khan could buy the team and move it, but that is not my point at all. Is in my intrest for the Rams to move to LA as its closer to Korea and the west were I will likely be stationed. It's nothing for me to jump in a plane and see the Rams live any where in the world. Please bear with me.

    My point was as to who would be the better owner. Khan will build a better team. Kroenke has too many plans that don't involve the best intrest of the Rams. That is my point. I have stated facts as to why I believe this. Khan is the one with all the marbles to lose here. A couple bad seasons and he looses too much money. Kreonke looses seasons and replaces them with an NBA championship or Stanley Cup. Think about it for yourself.

    If Kreonke does not get the Rams, so what, he builds his stadium in LA and gets a expansion or the Jags Bills as a booby prize.

    Khan is a self made man, he is not going to risk his hard eaned cash on failure. I see him as the owner that brings stability. I see him as the owner that brings in the Atogwe's and he will be the one standing at Peppers door at midnight getting him to come play for the Rams. He will be the owner that brings in Tomlinson to back up Jackson. And just maybe, maybe he will build a bigger better stadium in ST Louis. Like the one Jones did in Dallas.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Jim Thomas Live
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -11-23-2008, 08:57 PM
  2. Gordo Post Game Chat
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -11-03-2008, 02:27 PM
  3. Jim Thomas Live-Feb. 5th
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -02-06-2008, 12:24 PM
  4. Postgame With Gordo, Dec. 30
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -12-31-2007, 03:31 PM
  5. Jim Thomas Live, October 30
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -10-30-2007, 08:58 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •