Quote
waterfield
It wasn't "necessary". They could have remained in St. Louis and made money. (they certainly wouldn't have lost money). St. Louis is a great sports town and has lots of culture and history behind it. What it is NOT is a S---Hole city. Personally, I love it-saw a few Ram games there and enjoyed out door concerts and several fantastic Italian meals on "the hill".
So why did the Rams move back to L.A. ? To make even MORE $$-lots more. Capitalism on steroids. In many ways its like a game or even an addiction with super wealthy people: don't stop moving forward, always advance, if you don't you lose.
I would say that's only part of it. How St. Louis dealt with Kroenke was another big part IMO. They tried to push him around and force him to do what he didn't want to do. Not only did they continually not meet the terms of the lease, when it came time to renovate, they wanted Kroenke to pay in tons of money without giving him any additional control or benefits.
I would be far more understanding if St. Louis had kept up with the top tier status and had an actual plan in place with secured finances. They did none of that though so I really don't understand why St. Louis feels that they are owed anything or were slighted because Kroenke said thanks, but no thanks to their ridiculous proposals.
