St. Louis Rams SOLD (pending NFL approval)

[STL FANATIC]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/co...05?OpenDocument

Chip Rosenbloom and Lucia Rodriguez, children of the late Georgia Frontiere will soon officially put the Rams up for sale.

It's long been rumored they've been for sale, but that was never quite the case. Chip and Lucia wanted to get the Rams going in the right direction first, but they have been LISTENING to offers for a while. Part of the reason for the sale is the estate tax burden put on them by inheriting the team.

Chip strongly wants to sell to a St. Louis area buyer in order to keep the team in St. Louis, but during the listening stage, none has stepped forward, so when the Rams officially hit the market shortly, he may be forced to sell to an out of towner.

That could obviously be bad news for St. Louis fans like me.

Here's hoping...

Keep my Rams in St. Louis...

The positive is that Stan Kroenke, will keep his 40% share. If the NFL would bend their cross-ownership rule, he'd likely purchase enough to be the majority owner, but that's very unlikely to happen. Nonetheless, his control of 40% means (1) that a local buyer would need to come up with the funds for only 60% of the team, and (2) that he would still have some sway in the future of the franchise, though not the final decision.

[Mac the Knife]

Thing is though, aside from back to Los Angeles, in what other market would they be viable?

[LC]

Thing is though, aside from back to Los Angeles, in what other market would they be viable?

People will always say Chicago can support a second team.

[rams80]

Thing is though, aside from back to Los Angeles, in what other market would they be viable?

None other comes to the top of my head, although they would certainly be a good option for Los Angeles with at least the remnant fans. If they were to go to any other market, they would have to build a fanbase from square one.

Based on my years in college in the State of Indiana, I will say I am at least somewhat open to the thought of them moving to Los Angeles. I've only seen them on TV once or twice the last few seasons. I have to think that number would increase if they were to move to LA.

People will always say Chicago can support a second team.

[STL FANATIC]

Thing is though, aside from back to Los Angeles, in what other market would they be viable?

A very good point I think, but can LA be dismissed? That's my concern.

Hopefully potential local owners will jump to get something going with the news that they're now up for sale to anybody, but we'll see.

I'm also hoping the Rams move quickly into contenders. Things seem on the upswing for them, but they'll need to prove it on the field. And for them, the upswing could mean a 3-win season. Obviously, I'm hoping for more, but many analysts thus far aren't expecting it.

But even if not next year, if the team can be contenders (or even actually win a SB if we're really talking high hopes), it'll do wonders to sway public opinion not only in rallying to keep the team in STL, but to potentially finance a new stadium (or massive, massive upgrades to the Dome).

But on-field success still might not be enough. We need somethings to work out off the field for sure.

[DustDevil61]

I really can't vouch for St. Louis, but I think that it's a good sports town, all in all. They love the Cardinals, and the Blues are generally well-supported (as far as I know), while the Rams were well-supported when ownership and management were committed to putting a winning team on the field. I don't think the people of St. Louis deserve to lose another NFL team.

But I'm torn, because I think that the Rams are more of a Los Angeles team than a St. Louis team, being the first major sports franchise on the West Coast and in town (if you don't count any PCL, etc. teams).

I think that Georgia Frontiere ran the team into the ground, trading away Eric Dickerson, Kevin Greene, and Jerome Bettis for vitually nothing, then turning around and blaming the L.A. fans for not showing up. I also think that she weaseled her way out of L.A. and into her hometown of St. Louis. A guy named Clay did pretty much the same two things in running Seattle's oldest major pro sports team into the ground, blaming the fans for not showing up, then finally skipping town.

However, if the Rams must move anywhere, it better be Los Angeles. If not, then Las Vegas or Utah (but I'm probably dreaming in both those places).

In the end, I don't know exactly what to think. This shouldn't be a "we're taking back what's rightfully ours" thing for L.A., as the Rams have won a Super Bowl while in St. Louis, but L.A. was screwed over by Rams ownership. I don't think the team would leave until 2012, at least. I hate to see any decent sports city lose one of its teams (as with the Sonics case, even though I'm a Jazz fan).

Do we know any potential buyers? What about Kroenke (sp?) that owns the Nuggets/Avs? Will he sell them to buy the Rams? What about Roski and DeBartelo? Is there anyone else looking into buying the team?

[LC]

People will always say Chicago can support a second team.

Lol. Didn't say I agreed with it. We're in the same boat.

It's just always brought up.

[rams80]

People will always say Chicago can support a second team.

Lol. Didn't say I agreed with it. We're in the same boat.

It's just always brought up.

It's more the putting my love of the Rams in direct conflict with my extreme loathing of all things Chicago.

[sc49erfan15]

But I'm torn, because I think that the Rams are more of a Los Angeles team than a St. Louis team, being the first major sports franchise on the West Coast and in town (if you don't count any PCL, etc. teams).

The Los Angeles Dons and San Francisco 49ers disagree.

[DustDevil61]

But I'm torn, because I think that the Rams are more of a Los Angeles team than a St. Louis team, being the first major sports franchise on the West Coast and in town (if you don't count any PCL, etc. teams).

The Los Angeles Dons and San Francisco 49ers disagree.

Well, the 49ers and Dons beat the Rams to the punch if you count the AAFC, but I meant to say still-existing major leagues (AL, NL, NFL, NBA, NHL), and the Dons merged with the Rams in 1949 and the 49ers entered the NFL after the Rams came into Los Angeles. However, I don't know if the AAFC was considered a major league. Either way, I didn't mean to include the AAFC for those reasons.

[Quillz]

I hope the Rams return to Los Angeles. And with Los Angeles Stadium under construction, it's a possibility...

Despite originating in Cleveland, I've always felt that the Rams are a southern California team. I used to attend all the home games at the Coliseum. (Okay, most of them...) The Rams just belong in L.A. The Giants, for example, will always be a New York team. You could never imagine them playing anywhere else. That's how I feel about the Rams. The Los Angeles Rams, it just sounds so much better than "St. Louis Rams." But that's my personal bias talking, as others may disagree.

And, while I'm dreaming here, I'd also like to say that if they do move back to L.A., please return to the proper blue and yellow uniforms. Blue and yellow is what the Rams are, not navy blue and gold.

[BBTV]

... or Utah (but I'm probably dreaming in both those places).

You're certainly dreaming about that one.

[njmeadowlanders]

Other than LA, I think Toronto would be your best bet, not that it would necessarily keep the Bills in Buffalo by "blocking" Toronto.

I do think an NFL team in Detroit could work though if given the chance .

[charger77]

Damn!

I was just about to make a Detroit could use an NFL team joke.

-Dan

[STL FANATIC]

I think that Georgia Frontiere ran the team into the ground, trading away Eric Dickerson, Kevin Greene, and Jerome Bettis for vitually nothing, then turning around and blaming the L.A. fans for not showing up. I also think that she weaseled her way out of L.A. and into her hometown of St. Louis. A guy named Clay did pretty much the same two things in running Seattle's oldest major pro sports team into the ground, blaming the fans for not showing up, then finally skipping town.

Your points are all solid, but just for the record, Jerome Bettis spent a year in St. Louis before being traded, so that one doesn't apply.

Beyond that, and this isn't in response to anything you said, DD, I'd like to (not that I've got any say in it) avoid the "the Rams just belong in LA) stuff. They're in St. Louis now, where they've developed a history, albeit a short one, and if our city can support them, that is where they belong.

And our city CAN support them. But will we be screwed over by the stupid lease we signed and outside ownership's desire to put a team elsewhere? Unfortunately there's a pretty decent chance of that.

[rams80]

I hope the Rams return to Los Angeles. And with Los Angeles Stadium under construction, it's a possibility...

Despite originating in Cleveland, I've always felt that the Rams are a southern California team. I used to attend all the home games at the Coliseum. (Okay, most of them...) The Rams just belong in L.A. The Giants, for example, will always be a New York team. You could never imagine them playing anywhere else. That's how I feel about the Rams. The Los Angeles Rams, it just sounds so much better than "St. Louis Rams." But that's my personal bias talking, as others may disagree.

And, while I'm dreaming here, I'd also like to say that if they do move back to L.A., please return to the proper blue and yellow uniforms. Blue and yellow is what the Rams are, not navy blue and gold.

O/T Good Lord, you're old.

I think that Georgia Frontiere ran the team into the ground, trading away Eric Dickerson, Kevin Greene, and Jerome Bettis for vitually nothing, then turning around and blaming the L.A. fans for not showing up. I also think that she weaseled her way out of L.A. and into her hometown of St. Louis. A guy named Clay did pretty much the same two things in running Seattle's oldest major pro sports team into the ground, blaming the fans for not showing up, then finally skipping town.

Your points are all solid, but just for the record, Jerome Bettis spent a year in St. Louis before being traded, so that one doesn't apply.

Beyond that, and this isn't in response to anything you said, DD, I'd like to (not that I've got any say in it) avoid the "the Rams just belong in LA) stuff. They're in St. Louis now, where they've developed a history, albeit a short one, and if our city can support them, that is where they belong.

And our city CAN support them. But will we be screwed over by the stupid lease we signed and outside ownership's desire to put a team elsewhere? Unfortunately there's a pretty decent chance of that.

I disagree on the history front. Under the cheapskate Frontiere regime, the franchise only made very halting steps towards setting down roots and growing the fanbase in the city, and beyond the city they didn't even do that. They never really tried to make the Rams "St. Louis' team" instead of "a team that plays in St. Louis." Sadly for those fans that do exist in St. Louis, this is probably going to be what costs the city the team.

/The Cleveland Indians' owner in "Major League" is a thinly-veiled expy of Georgia Frontiere.

[DEAD!]

Damn!

I was just about to make a Detroit could use an NFL team joke.

-Dan

.. and here I was going to demand they move to Hamilton.

[buzzcut]

Damn!

I was just about to make a Detroit could use an NFL team joke.

-Dan

.. and here I was going to demand they move to Hamilton.

What? Winnipeg's taken already ?

[DEAD!]

Damn!

I was just about to make a Detroit could use an NFL team joke.

-Dan

.. and here I was going to demand they move to Hamilton.

What? Winnipeg's taken already ?

Winnipeg has a football team....

[DustDevil61]

I think that Georgia Frontiere ran the team into the ground, trading away Eric Dickerson, Kevin Greene, and Jerome Bettis for vitually nothing, then turning around and blaming the L.A. fans for not showing up. I also think that she weaseled her way out of L.A. and into her hometown of St. Louis. A guy named Clay did pretty much the same two things in running Seattle's oldest major pro sports team into the ground, blaming the fans for not showing up, then finally skipping town.

Your points are all solid, but just for the record, Jerome Bettis spent a year in St. Louis before being traded, so that one doesn't apply.

Beyond that, and this isn't in response to anything you said, DD, I'd like to (not that I've got any say in it) avoid the "the Rams just belong in LA) stuff. They're in St. Louis now, where they've developed a history, albeit a short one, and if our city can support them, that is where they belong.

And our city CAN support them. But will we be screwed over by the stupid lease we signed and outside ownership's desire to put a team elsewhere? Unfortunately there's a pretty decent chance of that.

I don't think that you are calling me out for anything, STLFanatic (and I thank you for mentioning that), but I'm not trying to say that the Rams absolutely belong in Los Angeles; they belong where they'll be supported. If they never move back to Los Angeles, then I'd rather see them stay in St. Louis (which would be an all-around viable spot, provided that ownership is committed to the city and to putting a competitive team on the field), with their history. While relatively short at this point, the Greatest Show on Turf is one of St. Louis' defining sports years. It's just my personal view that I think the Rams come to mind as a Los Angeles team than a St. Louis team, but if St. Louis can do a better job at consistently supporting the team than L.A., then St. Louis deserves to have them.

Unfortunately, it seems that upper management has been rather incompetent not long after the Super Bowl loss to the Patriots (i.e., letting Kurt Warner go), and that can scare just about any otherwise loyal fanbase away. I feel bad for St. Louis NFL fans, with the way the Bidwells treated the city, and now this potential change in ownership and the possible stadium demands that go with that.