Quote
Rampage2K-
Quote
zn
Quote
Rampage2K-
Quote
zn
Quote
Rampage2K-
Quote
zn
Quote
Rampage2K-
Either way you want to say it...it was a horrible or genius lease, depending on which way you want to look at it.... The Rams would still be in St Louis if the CVC did fulfill the promise of keeping the stadium top tier... They declined to and the Rams said thank you. As I'm sure they were hoping and banking on them not fulfilling such a bad lease agreement and the rest is history.
Which is simply to say Kroenke wanted to move to LA. A community-centered owner could have found a way to keep them there. So I never buy the "St.L blame" thing. I don't think LA fans need that either. They don;t have to go around finding ways to say St.L did something to itself. They could just admit that SK simply wanted to increase the value of the team cause that's his main thing (period), and lucky for LA fans he did.
Exactly... I don't blame St Louis for not holding up that lease promise, it was insane.....but at the same time, it was those same CVC that agreed to such an insane lease in their desperation to woe Georgia out of LA.
And
I don't blame Stan for taking advantage of that situation and returning the Rams to LA.
I do. In this sense. I don't have a high regard for values associated with becoming the most valuable and richest team. I have a much higher regard for values associated with community. So I like the Rooney NFL more than the Jones/Kroenke NFL. I don't care if they "grow the product." Especially when that comes at the expense of things I do value. It's a choice to think like that and it's one I do not honor.
HOWEVER, there's no point in fighting about that...that's not me throwing a gauntlet down to LA fans. LA fans are not part of that equation. They aren't responsible for SK's motives. They're just Rams brothers like me and I have no quarrel with them. I am sorry for the St.L fans we lost (and that includes some old friends), but the LA fans had nothing to do with that, they're just glad they have their team, and that's not something to be criticized.
...
I understand the frustration, but Its big business... Stan didn't become one of the richest men in the world by making bad business decisions
First off I am not frustrated by this. I am a nomad, I don't live either place. I have no emotions in it either way. But this is what I am saying. No it is
not inevitable that someone chooses the "team value" first approach. That's a
choice. There's nothing inevitable or final about that choice. He chose to be that, and other successful NFL owners chose NOT to be that. Khan for example is a successful businessman too--in my mind, far more than Kroenke (Khan actually invented something) and he would have chosen the community over the "grow the brand" ideology. So yes there are people who are successful who do NOT make value first/community second choices. And the latter is not "bad business." It's just one form of business and one choice among others. That's not my emotions talking, that's cold hard real world logic talking.
The idea that people like him just do the inevitable, natural thing is to me just not a very real picture of how things work. He chose those values over other (and to me better) values, and he would have been ridiculously wealthy no matter which choice he made.
...
Not to get into a debate on this , but Khan did start from humble beginnings, didn't invent anything...he started working for Flex-Gate and ended up buying the company and turned it into a multi-billion dollar company by becoming the main bumper supplier for Toyota,.He also is very much into the grow the brand ideology as he took over for the Rams as the team that will play in London for the next three years... Stan also started with nothing and built a realestate empire as is worth more then Khan, and that's not even including Stan's wife's money. So I wouldn't say Khan is a "far better business man" then Stan.
People seem to think this move was strictly about money, but like you said, he would be ridiculously rich either way, so to me it makes sense that this move was more about a legacy then money... When you have more money then you could ever spend in ten lifetimes it is more about leaving a legacy and returning the Rams to their home of 50 years was an incredible way to do that...if it takes his team from bottom feeder to one of the most valuable at the same time, why wouldn't you do it.
Oh I can assure you the move had absolutely nothing to do with their "home of 50 years" and near as I have seen he hasn't even been brazen enough to claim that. It would be outrageous (and funny) if he did. And he's not interested in money as the end goal, he's interested in value. I doubt he ever sells, but the goal is to die owning big monopoly streets. That's a goal in itself. The team increases in value because it moved to that market, and by owning a huge big deal sports complex, he's the king of the hill. It has zero to do with anything else.
.
.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2016 02:47PM by zn.
