[PARAM]

And if St. Louis hadn’t done anything you’d be “St. Louis were big fools for not trying. The Rams would have stayed if they’d just produced a financed stadium proposal and detailed designs.”

Either way we’re idiots in your eyes.

Not YOU. Or any other fans. The powers that be knew it was coming. Should have started a couple of years sooner. Or maybe not. Kroenke was going no matter what, it seems.

[majik]

No. St. Louis needed to realize that the lease that was signed in the 90’s made the Rams a free agent due to the top tier stadium clause. Instead, St. Louis acted as if the Rams were an exclusive rights free agent. The Rams were under no obligation to take any offer St. Louis threw out there.

[AvengerRam]

A plaintiff saying “we are seeking $1B” is like a guy going to his local bar and declaring “I’m going to hook up with a girl who looks exactly like Kate Upton tonight.” Yeah...good luck with that.

[PARAM]

No. St. Louis needed to realize that the lease that was signed in the 90’s made the Rams a free agent due to the top tier stadium clause. Instead, St. Louis acted as if the Rams were an exclusive rights free agent. The Rams were under no obligation to take any offer St. Louis threw out there.

But the theory is they led them on so they are seeking damages to reimburse what they spent. I think the Rams were lured and led on with that upper 25% clause. But St. Louis is not the only city to lose a team. And like L.A. and Cleveland, they lost 2 teams. I think they're a bit chapped because Cleveland got a new franchise and L.A. got two. Hell, even Houston got a replacement team. Baltimore got one back also. It's time to stop the nonsense. Two chances and both times they failed.

[majik]

It is called free agency. For the Rams to get the best deal, of course, they have to say nice things to its suitors.

Preparation H should move their headquarters to St.Louis

[St. Loser Fan]

But the theory is they led them on so they are seeking damages to reimburse what they spent. I think the Rams were lured and led on with that upper 25% clause. But St. Louis is not the only city to lose a team. And like L.A. and Cleveland, they lost 2 teams. I think they're a bit chapped because Cleveland got a new franchise and L.A. got two. Hell, even Houston got a replacement team. Baltimore got one back also. It's time to stop the nonsense. Two chances and both times they failed.

Yes, we failed. We’ll never have an NFL team ever again and we don’t deserve consideration if someone else is looking to move or if the league goes to 36. How many times can I state that?

Just pay us the money we paid for the rush redesign when Demoff said “Good job. We like the first renderings of the National Rent a Car stadium but tweak these things.” and give Rams Park to a youth sports league.

[Hacksaw]

@St. Loser Fan no one is equating you with StL so you needn't assume responsibility.

StL waited way to long to get serious about honoring the lease they offered. Shaw's poison pill was also agreed to.

That fuzzy math regarding stadium finances was a non starter especially after waiting so long that the Rams made a move toward relocation. The natural term of the original lease may have been a target departure window but after the city sports authority tried to block them, they became adversaries. How'd that work out?

Either way, so what? StL was able to fence the LA Rams into their StL backyard. That must have felt empowering. Blustering Bernie certainly was.
Now, the other way around, not so much.

To add insult is the $1B amount.
Seems 2 faced.

Sure, give Rams Park to kids but not $.10 to the city, county and especially that legal team..

jmo

[sloramfan]

agree totally hacksaw...

stl deserves exactly what they gave back to LA when they took the rams...

in fact the lawyers deserve less in my book because they deliberately conned the fans into believing there was a good deal and it was solid( which it was far from)...

hey stl, sue the asshole's that lied to the fans..

go rams

slo

[St. Loser Fan]

stl deserves exactly what they gave back to LA when they took the rams...

The Rams left LA in the 1990's because you wouldn't build them a stadium. St. Louis "stole" the Rams because we had a stadium sitting empty.

hey stl, sue the asshole's that lied to the fans..

You mean this guy?

[Hacksaw]

The Rams left LA in the 1990's because you wouldn't build them a stadium. St. Louis "stole" the Rams because we had a stadium .......

The empty dome was built prior to a team agreeing to come. Somewhat risky move right there. Our first clue about the sports authorities way of doing business?

But exactly like when the Rams left, LA (Leigh Stienberg) was attempting to buy the Rams and still hadn't exhausted all stadium avenues. GF flat ignored everyone. Just like in StL the attempts ramped up in LA when the threat of relocation became real. Both occurrences were driven by improving the Rams financial stability and value. Not to mention Georgia's bloated paycheck.

The differences begin with the tactics used in the moves. The Rams owner in '94 threatened to sue the NFL in an attempt to leverage leaving,, now 20+ years later that recipient city is suing the current owner and the NFL for letting them leave. And all this after the NFL didn't want them to leave LA in the first place.
The irony.