Rams Fans United - Los Angeles Rams Fan Discussion Forum

BrooklynRam74 wrote:I'm on the side of St. Louis should have ALWAYS had an NFL Team. The Cardinals shouldn't have left, but when they did, St. Louis should have been awarded a team the next expansion, along with Baltimore. Those 2 spots went to Jacksonville and Carolina, a big mistake IMO setting off the whole Rams to St. Louis and back shitshow. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I am very pro St. Louis.

The Cardinals should have never left Chicago. The football Cardinals should have been contracted and the crappy Bidwill family out of the pro sports team business. They should have never been moved to St. Louis to block the AFL team that would have been owned by the Busch family and would probably still be here.

St. Loser Fan wrote:I'm talking about St. Louis' unwillingness to put any more (or not much) public money in to any pro sports venues.
-We voted down the MLS stadium public funding and that ended getting built with 99% private money.
-The Blues got half of what they wanted to renovate Enterprise Center with the money coming from the parking garages/lots the City of St. Louis owns around the arena.
-the Cardinals baseball team wanted public money to renovate Busch Stadium III and the blow back was so loud the whole thing was pulled back.

Yes, and a good thing, too. More and more cities are just saying no to public funding of sports facilities. And fewer and fewer will be doing so as time goes on, until this is a thing of the past. There are other ways to get this done.

Yes, it's cost some cities their teams, and probably will continue to for a while. And that's a shame. But communities (and taxpayers) need to stand up to people like Tepper and tell them to find their money elsewhere. And they will.

Good for St. Louis.

St. Loser Fan wrote:The Cardinals should have never left Chicago. The football Cardinals should have been contracted and the crappy Bidwill family out of the pro sports team business. They should have never been moved to St. Louis to block the AFL team that would have been owned by the Busch family and would probably still be here.

Well they should have left Chicago. I understand it would have worked out better for St. Louis with their own AFL Franchise but Chicago is not a 2-Franchise town like New York or Los Angeles. They THINK they are but they're not.

rams74 wrote:Yes, and a good thing, too. More and more cities are just saying no to public funding of sports facilities. And fewer and fewer will be doing so as time goes on, until this is a thing of the past. There are other ways to get this done.

Yes, it's cost some cities their teams, and probably will continue to for a while. And that's a shame. But communities (and taxpayers) need to stand up to people like Tepper and tell them to find their money elsewhere. And they will.

Good for St. Louis.

The problem is nobody is telling NFL owners "no" or offering much of a challenge.

-the state of New York handed over hundreds of millions to the Bills for their new stadium. It also helped the the governor's husband is a vice president for the concessions company.

-Nashville and the state of Tennessee gave the Titans over a billion dollars for their new dome. Made sure to not put it up to public vote and passed the bills in the middle of the night (literally like 2 in the morning).

-the KC Chiefs can move to the Kansas side of the metro area with the Star bonds that state just gave them. Once again Kansas pulled some shady stuff like prohibiting debate and keeping most of the details so private that even a Sunshine Lawsuit is prohibited.

-the Chicago situation is far too complex and fast moving to go in to. But they seem to be heading down the same path for either a new Soldier FIeld or a move to the suburbs paid for with public money.

And I'm sure all of those owners are saying things like "You don't want to be like St. Louis, do you?"

BrooklynRam74 wrote:Well they should have left Chicago. I understand it would have worked out better for St. Louis with their own AFL Franchise but Chicago is not a 2-Franchise town like New York or Los Angeles. They THINK they are but they're not.

The Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox would like a word with you.

St. Loser Fan wrote:The problem is nobody is telling NFL owners "no" or offering much of a challenge.

-the state of New York handed over hundreds of millions to the Bills for their new stadium. It also helped the the governor's husband is a vice president for the concessions company.

-Nashville and the state of Tennessee gave the Titans over a billion dollars for their new dome. Made sure to not put it up to public vote and passed the bills in the middle of the night (literally like 2 in the morning).

-the KC Chiefs can move to the Kansas side of the metro area with the Star bonds that state just gave them. Once again Kansas pulled some shady stuff like prohibiting debate and keeping most of the details so private that even a Sunshine Lawsuit is prohibited.

-the Chicago situation is far too complex and fast moving to go in to. But they seem to be heading down the same path for either a new Soldier FIeld or a move to the suburbs paid for with public money.

And I'm sure all of those owners are saying things like "You don't want to be like St. Louis, do you?"

St. Louis' agreement on the "top-tier" Stadium clause sealed their fate. Why agree to something where actual "market size" matters in an otherwise fairly salary capped sport? St. Louis COULD HAVE agreed to the judges order and built the Rams a state-of-the-art Stadium but declined.

St. Loser Fan wrote:The Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox would like a word with you.

Yeah, and how are the White Sox doing, attendance wise? How come Chicago doesn't feature 2 teams in Basketball and Hockey like N.Y. and L.A. do? I see you're going with the exception there instead of the rule.

And by the way, if Chicago is a "big-city behemoth" how come they've only had ONE NFL team in the City since 1959???

BrooklynRam74 wrote:Yeah, and how are the White Sox doing, attendance wise? How come Chicago doesn't feature 2 teams in Basketball and Hockey like N.Y. and L.A. do? I see you're going with the exception there instead of the rule.

And by the way, if Chicago is a "big-city behemoth" how come they've only had ONE NFL team in the City since 1959???

The White Sox are also the worst team in baseball right now so their attendance is down. When they're playing decent baseball the stadium has good crowds. I've been to games at Wrigley and Comiskey II a ton of times. Including last summer where we went to a Sox game in the afternoon and a Cubs game at night: all done just riding the red line that runs between the two stadiums.

I'm not saying Chicago should be a two team town for every sport. The main reason Chicago still has both the Cubs and Sox is they've differentiated themselves socially and demographically in their fanbases.

My only LA analogy is if the Rams had gotten a new stadium built Anaheim in the 1990s and stayed in Orange County while the Raiders never gone back to Oakland.

St. Loser Fan wrote:The Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox would like a word with you.

I guess I'd say they're not a two-football team town. You could probably put 5 MLB teams in Chicago (or St. Louis) and they'd thrive, though.

I too am amused at the image of St. Louis shaking its fist at the NFL and saying "You're not welcome here!!" But we just got St Loser Fan back!! Let's not re-litigate all this. Lots of hurt feelings on both sides, prob time to move on ...

Tepper is a dipshit.