Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: I think both

December 13, 2016 07:46AM
Quote
AlbaNY_Ram
What we don't know:

Did Kroenke fire Fisher because the Rams weren't winning?

Or did Kroenke fire Fisher because selling PSL's would be difficult as long as Fisher was the HC?

IMO, out of all of Stan's holdings, the Rams are his crown jewel. An NFL franchise, the L.A. market, a new 2.6 billion dollar, state of the art stadium. I think it's important to him that the Rams are winners, both for the prestige and for the business side of it.

Another point is that if the Chargers move to L.A., he CAN'T become the red-headed stepchild to them. He brought the Rams back to L.A. He is building the stadium. This is HIS. If he doesn't put a winning product on the field, he looks bad. Whether that actually happens or not, we'll see.

I don't know SK so these are just my thoughts for whatever it's worth.
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

  Good post waterfield

napoli783December 12, 2016 08:06PM

  good lord.....

Rampage2K-460December 12, 2016 08:14PM

  Re: good lord.....

napoli477December 12, 2016 08:21PM

  Time to let it go

GreatRamNTheSky413December 12, 2016 10:58PM

  Re: Time to let it go

EastRam530December 13, 2016 08:35AM

  Re: Good post waterfield

AlbaNY_Ram296December 13, 2016 07:36AM

  Probably both I'd venture to say NM

LesBaker291December 13, 2016 07:41AM

  Re: I think both

RamsFanSinceLA328December 13, 2016 07:46AM

  Change for the sake of change....isn't necessarily a good thing. imo

SunTzu_vs_Camus488December 13, 2016 07:50AM

  That's fair, STvC .nm

ArizonaRamFan288December 13, 2016 10:20AM

  Actually

waterfield223December 13, 2016 11:34AM