expect Rams to be back in LA next year.

[Papageorgio]

^^^^troll bitch alert^^^^

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Rams players coaches not worrying about possible move to LA FOX Sports

Bernie Can STL be the next Cleveland in NFL Sports
funny.

BS from the st louis media as always.they are so much in denial/

Gov. Jay Nixon s Stadium Misdirection Play - St. Louis Magazine

How valuable is your home team Medium

I'm banned from the ktrisl page, but it amazes me how any of them keep beating the drum about NFL bylaws requiring majority voting for the team to move. Have these people never heard of anti trust law and the legal precedent that exists from the Raiders moving to Oakland? The NFL can't stop the Rams or Kroenke. The best they can do is embrace it. Stan's team is worth more to him in LA than STL. He's moving for the money, and I'm fine with that.

First it's just an announcement. There's so far no funding, the legal hurdles haven't been cleared and they don't control 100% of the land. The other factor is that in order for the NFL to approve any stadium proposal the lease and revenues splits must be completed. Stadium construction is still a long way off, "early 2017".
YEP.

St Louis has a 300 million dollar shortfall. Can't just make that money up. Inglewood is fully funded.
YEP.

drivel from shane grey as always.

Gray 5 Topics on Rams Future in St. Louis insideSTL.com - St. Louis Sports Music Entertainment and Nightlife STL Rams

 

[Papageorgio]

^^^^troll bitch alert^^^^

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[Papageorgio]

^^^^troll bitch ALERT!!^^^^

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here^

 

[LA RAM FAN]

great article here.

On the NFL’s status with the L.A. market: “I think you’re going to see one -- if not two – teams in L.A. next season. The teams will begin construction, but also play in a temporary venue, because it’s hard to say, ‘Hey, we’re moving to L.A. We’re building a new stadium. But we’re going to stay here for the next two seasons.’ That’s a very tough sell. ... You’ve got the Inglewood site that is shovel ready. It’s much further ahead than any other site. ... Carson is a viable site, but Inglewood is ahead because you could literally start tomorrow.”

49ers Jed York Anticipates At Least One NFL Team Playing In L.A. For 16 Season - SportsBusiness Daily SportsBusiness Journal SportsBusiness Daily Global

NOT SO GREAT article.

NFL s return to L.A. in 2016 has become inevitable ProFootballTalk

 

[LA RAM FAN]

this guy is a clown.


Six Reasons to Believe the Rams Will Stay in St. Louis - 101Sports.com


Interesting comment from Fred Roggin today. He alluded to Stl being a dead market, and probably only a 1 team market. Said he got this info about a week ago, which is right about the time those market surveys were released. They can say that Chargers & Raiders need a new stadium more than the Rams do, but it appears the Rams need a new market more than the other 2. Which is more important? Seems pretty logical to me.

HE NAILED IT.


RAMS NOT INTERESTED IN ST LOUIS.
Andre Jeanbart - Andre Jeanbart s Photos Facebook


http://www.insidestl.com/…/Tuesdays-Show-Audio--Lousy-With-…Ray hartmann seg 2


UH OH.

Lawmakers say Nixon is accountable for stadium financing plan News


Alex Carr on Twitter VeniceMase LAIreland The Patriots of baseball http t.co KBBBB6yp3v

 

[Papageorgio]

^^^troll bitch ALERT!!^^^^

 

[Stan Fan]

man when they left they should have changed their name to st least SAINT LOUIS "LAMBS" that at LEAST has a ring to it.saint luis rams is the most retarded name for a football team.arizona cardinals is right up there with them the facts they dont even migrate there.

I will be constanty updating this thread with new information,this has been known since 2012 it was going to happen so for now,I'll just post a few videos form the past to get everyone started with for the weekend,football can FINALLY be fun for me again.I lost interest in the NFL when my team,the TREU rams,the LA RAMS,moved away.

I think you'll find all these videos interesting.

The position of the NFL is that the league owns the rights to the Los Angeles territory. To move a club requires a 2/3 vote of the owners, and until the LA market vacancy is replaced with a club, any team desiring to move to another city, must go to Los Angeles. That is why Oakland can't play the San Antonio card off against city leaders, neither can St.Louis, threatening to leave for new stadium or concessions. I don't know what St.Louis' attendance figures are, but low attendance isn't exactly a reason for a team to move.

All the clubs share the league television revenues with the big market teams in New York, Washington, Dallas, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston carrying the small market teams. If that wasn't so, the legendary Green Bay Packers would have left decades ago for greener (no pun intended) pastures. One of the lowest teams attendance wise is located in Jacksonville where they tarp off Alltel Stadium down to 62,000 seats (it can hold 80,000 for the Gator Bowl and the annual Florida - Georgia game there). Jags don't even come close to hitting the 62,000 - ever, but they have no intention of moving.

The key to the LA market must be a stadium, if they had one, that was up to NFL standards, some owner would have moved there ages ago. But, the heart of the matter was that someone would move there because of the huge population (ignoring the fact the city turned its back on the NFL, twice), and play a couple of years in the antiquated LA Coliseum, in a dangerous neighborhood. No owner would buy that deal, and LA only recently voted on a referendum to possibly build a football stadium in Inglewood. End of Raiders moving there. I will believe the new stadium when construction starts there.

Whatever the St.Louis owner is up to regarding the Rams, their movement back to Los Angeles isn't a given. The Chargers (the team the league would love to have move up to LA), are negotiating for a new stadium. Rams ownership isn't even speaking to St.Louis officials. My guess is a football stadium in Inglewood just might be a pipe dream, and the Rams will remain in St.Louis and not be back in LA in 2016 or 2017. "If you build it they will come" - but Los Angeles hasn't managed to build it since the Rams left originally, and wouldn't want to be a Ram fan forced to go to the Coliseum to see them play. Matter of fact, if that was the case, doubt St.Louis ownership could get the necessary votes to move.

 

[Stan Fan]

I just wanna know how one gets to be a paid shill for the internet.

Links?

theres a bunch of them that have penetrated this site,rightwinger happens to be one of them.ask him. although he would only lie to you and not tell you the truth and never give you an honest answer.He has no interest in facts or truth so it would be a miracle if any of these government paid shills like him ever actually spilled the beans and told you the truth about it.lol.

btw,sticking to the topic here,loyal bush dupe antiquity,if i didnt know any better,i would think that HE actually lives in saint louis and is a rams fan the way he posts because his behaviour I would expect out of a fan in saint louis in denial that they are going to lose their team.I run into THEM all the time at this LA RAM site i post at.

they have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER WHY the Rams left LA in the first place.the majority of them. When you point out to them the facts that attendance at the dome in saint louis is ranked almost dead last in attendance there ranking 31st out of the 32 teams they evade those facts either accusing you of being a liar or when they acknowledge it,they quickly change the subject saying the rams moving back to LA would be a bad idea saying they moved out of LA in the first place because of poor attendance.

Huggy even YOU as a seahawk fan,know thats not true,that attendance had nothing to do with it.that attendance was not an issue there.i know that for a fact,i have many aquintances that live in LA who were season ticket holders there all the way up till their final season there till they left.

those games were ALWAYS packed there. You know as well as I do that the ONLY reason they left LA was that evil bitch owner was a showgirl from saint louis who did not respect her husbands wishes to keep them in LA. you point out those facts to that troll seahawk fan and instead of admitting he is wrong and cluless,he'll go and say some stupid shit like-LA has been trying to get a team forever,its not going to happen,stop being negative.

you shouldl be embarrassed to have him as a fellow seahawk fan. I know i would. not only that,he is ALSO clueless about WHY the raiders and chargers left LA in the first place as well.

the chargers were there for one year and left for san diego because they could not compete with the rams to have quality attendance numbers that one year they were there so they BOLTED,no pun intended.

the faiders when they left,it was no surprise to LA folks because everybody knew al davis was just going to be there briefly till he got the stadium deal he wanted in oakland so when he moved them back,it was no surprise to LA folks at all.the older ones anyways.

where when the Rams left it was a major shocker to everybody.Nobody believed that was going to happen because they had been there forever with a long history of over 50 years.everybody figured the NFL would never allow that for them to leave the second biggest market in the NFL for some second rate has been city. the NFL owners initially voted against the move but then caved in and approved it only AFTER the bitch threatened to move them.

I bring up to him cold hard FACTS that the rams in LA have a HUGE following there which guarantees it will be packed so its a win /win situation for stan if he moves them back where its nothing but a lose/ lose situation if he stays in the least valued stadium in america.i even spelled it out to him dummies style the NFL has been trying to get a team back in LA for at LEAST 10 YEARS NOW.

Logic and common sense doesnt seem to register with him though even though i mentioned as well that the rams will be free agents free to leave saint louis after this season if they so desire.

Lets see,stan makes the purchase of that land near the lakers stadium,the rams can leave saint louis after this year,they are ranked 31st out of 32 teams in attendance which changes instantly if they move back to LA,the value of an NFL franchise is four times what its worth in LA than in saint louis,the owners have been trying to get a team back in LA for at least 10 years now,yet he actually believes Stan Kronke will stay in saint louis and lose out on billions of dollars he could make from the move to LA next year deciding NOT to move there next year to stay in that dump in saint louis.comedy gold.you got to love it.what a troll who cant think for himself.

Can understand your passion regarding the possibility of the Rams returning to Los Angeles. The NFL owners were not paying any attention in the past, and let owners dictate how the league was organized, where the teams played, and to move at will, whenever they thought they had greener pastures.

The great tradition of the Baltimore Colts ended forever when Irsay packed the team up at midnight, and disappeared without permission and resurfaced in, of all cities, Indianapolis. Irsay has held up that city a couple of times since for new stadiums also if I remember correctly.

Al Davis went to court and beat the NFL to move out of Oakland to Los Angeles, than, after winning a Super Bowl, moved that team out of LA back to Oakland. The feared silver & black haven't been competitive since.

Art Modell in Cleveland, one of the cheapest owners ever, for years tried to hold up the city for a new football stadium. Not saying that the old "mistake on the lake" Cleveland Municipal wasn't a dump, but the place had seating for 84,000 and the Browns used to sell it out routinely, whoever was in town. Modell mortgaged the money year after year, and when the city father's were not buying it anymore, he up and moved them to Baltimore, ending the run of one of the NFL's greatest franchises. And in Baltimore? All they did was win a Super Bowl quickly - one that should have been Cleveland's.

Not sure about Ram attendance, used to live in Los Angeles, only saw one Ram game there. Always was a stadium issue, as the Coliseum isn't up to NFL standard's. How well they drew in Anaheim, when they moved into essentially a baseball stadium, don't remember.

Than there were the Houston Oilers, 5th largest city in the country, playing in the 52,000 seat Astrodome, with the great moniker of "The House Of Pain" abandoning Texas for, of all places, tiny Nasvhille, Tennessee. That club also got to a Super Bowl, 1999 I believe, and lost by a yard on the final play to - the St.Louis Rams with Kurt Warner. The New England Patriots began their great run of Super Bowl appearances by beating the Rams on a final play FG the next season.

In the cases of Cleveland and Houston, they got back expansion teams - not the same as the originals. Baltimore got Cleveland's team, and continues to be a force. St.Louis got Los Angeles' Rams, and due to inadequate stadium facilities, the owner moved them, right after her husband's death. No expansion team has ever been considered for Los Angeles.

At some point, the NFL owner's wised up. No way does Los Angeles, Baltimore, Cleveland and Houston lost NFL franchises, long established and profitable to the likes of St.Louis, Indianapolis and Nashville. I watched the videos, seems the headlines and rhetoric don't match. The Rams owner bought 60-acres in Inglewood, a tough neighborhood, but not as tough as where the Coliseum is located, and Inglewood's politicians have promised to build a stadium there. You don't build a quality NFL stadium in 1-2 years, anywhere. Even the Army Corps of Engineers or Halliburton couldn't pull that off. To me, appears to be wishful thinking on Ram fans part.

What also is required, and this is something nobody seems to post about, is no team may relocate in the current NFL, and no expansion franchises are going to be issued, for at least 8-10 years, unless the vacant Los Angeles territory is filled first. Rumors of small market teams that might be considering it over the past 8-10 years were Jacksonville, where attendance is as bad as in St.Louis; New Orleans, losing half of their population to Hurricane Katrina, and playing in a dump called the Superdome, where the lights went out during the Super Bowl; Buffalo, where the late owner Ralph Wilson passed away at 96, but the Bills got local ownership, deep pockets, that owner also owns the Buffalo Sabres NHL club, and yes, St.Louis, a baseball town, which has lost three professional teams in its history - baseball - St.Louis Browns; NFL football - St.Louis Cardinals; NBA basketball - St.Louis Hawks. Plus their hockey franchise, the St.Louis Blues came close to being contracted about 20-years ago when they were owned by the dawg food company.

I understand fans desire to have the Rams return to Los Angeles, but what about Ram fans in St.Louis, working to get a new stadium? Is the league going to let them move when a new stadium is in the works or being negotiated? Rams owner isn't even speaking to the government officials there who are trying to build a new stadium. If they let him leave, with a poor team to boot, it will be three years before the team arrives on the West Coast. Unless they are stupid enough, and no team has considered it, to play in the LA Coliseum. Right now the owners and the league commish are satisfied with the current status of the league. All that has been done is the St.Louis Rams owner, a real estate mogel, has purchased a 60-acre parking lot in Inglewood. The odds of that remaining a parking lot, or becoming a Super Wal Mart or mega-shopping mall, very good. Odds of a mega expense NFL stadium going up there? Questionable. St.Louis is a lot like Portland, Oregon or Salt Lake City. A one sport town when it comes to professional sports.

As to a Super Bowl being played in Los Angeles in 2018 as the wishful thinking reporter in one of the video's reported, highly unlikely. Miami, which has hosted 11 of them, has their stadium (Sun-Life) undergoing a multi-billion dollar renovation, simply because Goodell took them off of the Super Bowl host list, the same way he did San Diego, for stadium reasons. Two best party cities in the country - he gives the game to - - - Tampa - - - odds are they won't even wake up over there long enough to remember the game is being played in their tiny (66,000 seat) stadium, Raymond James. BTW, appears the Tampa Rays AL East franchise stands a very good chance of moving to Montreal at the end of their lease in St.Petersburg. Again, attendance and stadium issues.........luck to LA, but I don't really think all the excitement being displayed is going to come to pass. Odds are the NFL eventually dumps an expansion team in there. Football has been out of the City of Angels too long.............

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Political infighting could cast Carson in poor light in NFL stadium race - LA Times


st louis they violated the terms of the league agreement.where san diego,they have not negotiated in good faith there so the mayor can sit down and explain to the NFL fabiani is full of hot air saying we are ready to go with stadium.they cannot even communicate with the chargers.fabiani called mayor a liar so the NFL will make chargers negotiate.

they are the big dog in san diego,but if they move to LA,they wont be that big dog anymore.best to stay in sd.

Fred Roggin Fabiani is stalling to prevent Inglewood from starting construction Mighty1090AM



San Diego advisor Chargers were never at the table - LA Times

yep.


This is all just a reminder of how LA has been used and abused by teams wanting to leverage deals in their cities. The Chargers don't want to be in LA. If they really did they would have worked out a deal with AEG or Roski. The Chargers have a solid fan base in San Diego which spreads well into OC and counties north. IF they put a winning, championship contending team on the field, even if the Rams come to LA, they will be fine. The Rams alone in LA, playing in a stadium built for two only helps maintain this LA leverage threat with the entire league going forward. I think the league is better off with The Rams only in LA with the continued threat of a second team moving. The Chargers are better off solidifying their San Diego situation, focusing on putting a winning team on the field to compete for OC and inland empire fans. LA proper DOES NOT WANT THE CHARGERS! Not only that, but if the Chargers fuck up the RAMS return to their rightful home, LA fans will do nothing but resent them bitterly. -- "Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski!"

 

[LA RAM FAN]

http://www.insidestl.com/…/Tuesdays-Show-Audio--Lousy-With-…Ray hartmann seg 2

Could U-T s new owner steal Chargers for L.A. San Diego Reader

gets interesting at 3 min mark.

Audio The Beast 980

Today jeannie zelasko said that ucla had been contacted by kroenke's people to see if they r interested in moving games to inglewood. Rose bowl lease expires in 2018.....

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Rams L.A. popularity makes for natural practice partner for Cowboys - Dallas Cowboys Blog - ESPN

carson a mess.lol



fabiani such a shit.

Fabiani LA far more lucrative Faulconer not capable of managing stadium issue - 10News.com KGTV ABC10 San Diego


NFL in Los Angeles Latest News Rumors and Speculation on Potential Move Bleacher Report

 

[Papageorgio]

^^^^troll bitch alert^^^^

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah, hand job said that the Rams would be in LA this fall!

He said the Rams owner would tell the other NFL teams in June and move them. He said this just a couple months ago.

It looks like hand job just gave himself a hand job.

 

[Papageorgio]

When are the Seahawks going undefeated? that is hilarious, that was hand jobs worst prediction.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[LA RAM FAN]

sometimes the truth hurts.

Is STL an NFL city Rams Exec VP Kevin Demoff isn t sure - Rams Roundup - Mobile Adv


They have refused to give us one single document responsive to our request. They appear to be operating as if the stadium authority is a private business.”

Dome authority refuses to release stadium records St. Louis resident sues News

See, I have said it from the beginning: SD and Oak have NOTHING. They dont have the $$$, nor do they have the legal precedent on their sides. Kroenke is the only owner of the 3 to have a breach of the lease in his market. Oak is year to year, and SD actually has to break their lease to leave. This whole thing is restraint of trade on a GRAND level. I hope that Kroenke lets them have it with both barrels.#larams

hopefully this keeps the chargers in SD.