[LoyalRam]

The only time I've been to the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl was for the '84 Olympics. Got to see a couple soccer matches there. Can't wait to go to an NFL game in Inglewood though

My last time at the Coliseum was in 1973..Rams vs Browns..there was close to 80,000 fans there....Just amazing

[Stranger]

The only time I've been to the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl was for the '84 Olympics. Got to see a couple soccer matches there. Can't wait to go to an NFL game in Inglewood though

My last time at the Coliseum was in 1973..Rams vs Browns..there was close to 80,000 fans there....Just amazing

When the attendance dropped below 50K I thought it was a small crowd.

[majik]

Echoing above about how NFL owners are possibly (mis-)treated by St. Louis, I think the MO pro-stadium politicians are getting a free pass in this situation.

I keep falling back to the Andy Banker article about how they tried to strongarm Stan:

political leadership here adopted a "leverage game" strategy with the Rams. Within the past two years those leaders and StL media experts (except for Bryan Burwell) were still saying the Rams had nowhere to go; LA was years from getting a feasible stadium plan together. The goal was to get Kroenke to finance the bulk of a new stadium or dome renovations if he insisted they were necessary. The CVC's proposal for dome upgrades reflected as much.

The Rams counter proposal was far more realistic. They won arbitration. Political leaders here ignored the ruling -- imagine their reaction had the Rams/Kroenke lost arbitration and ignored the decision. Instead of engaging the Rams in meaningful negotiations, StL leadership kept with the short-sided "leverage" strategy, even heading into this season. They believed there was still nowhere for the Rams to go and they had "leverage" over Kroenke.

Also, when Nixon hitched the task force to the CVC, it seems it ruled out any option to allow Stan to fund and build his own stadium. I mean, if they had offered oodles of infrastructure improvements, tax breaks, and subsidies to encourage Stan to build a stadium of his own, in a location of his own choosing, this could be a different story. Instead, Stan has been offered a take it or leave it "choice" of being a tenant in someone else's stadium that is part of someone else's redevelopment project in a location someone else chose -- not exactly a formula I would use to keep a billionaire happy.

Ultimately, as fans, I get the Stan hate. But I think the politicians over there could use some heat too.

Fantastic post. Maybe someone should post this for the ostriches over at the PD

[OldSchool]

Echoing above about how NFL owners are possibly (mis-)treated by St. Louis, I think the MO pro-stadium politicians are getting a free pass in this situation.

I keep falling back to the Andy Banker article about how they tried to strongarm Stan:

political leadership here adopted a "leverage game" strategy with the Rams. Within the past two years those leaders and StL media experts (except for Bryan Burwell) were still saying the Rams had nowhere to go; LA was years from getting a feasible stadium plan together. The goal was to get Kroenke to finance the bulk of a new stadium or dome renovations if he insisted they were necessary. The CVC's proposal for dome upgrades reflected as much.

The Rams counter proposal was far more realistic. They won arbitration. Political leaders here ignored the ruling -- imagine their reaction had the Rams/Kroenke lost arbitration and ignored the decision. Instead of engaging the Rams in meaningful negotiations, StL leadership kept with the short-sided "leverage" strategy, even heading into this season. They believed there was still nowhere for the Rams to go and they had "leverage" over Kroenke.

Also, when Nixon hitched the task force to the CVC, it seems it ruled out any option to allow Stan to fund and build his own stadium. I mean, if they had offered oodles of infrastructure improvements, tax breaks, and subsidies to encourage Stan to build a stadium of his own, in a location of his own choosing, this could be a different story. Instead, Stan has been offered a take it or leave it "choice" of being a tenant in someone else's stadium that is part of someone else's redevelopment project in a location someone else chose -- not exactly a formula I would use to keep a billionaire happy.

Ultimately, as fans, I get the Stan hate. But I think the politicians over there could use some heat too.

I said from the beginning and was told by some people I was crazy, but St Louis from the get go should have gone to Stan and asked him what he wanted. Not presented him with a plan where he had to pay half a stadium costs for the honor of sharing a stadium and paying rent in it.