Let's say the NFL allows the Chargers and Raiders to relocate to LA, leaving the Rams in Saint Louis? Would Stan Kroenke try to sell the team to a local Saint Louis owner?
WI: The Rams Stay Put in STL?
- Thread starter AltHistoryNerd
- Start date
I think the Chargers would still get booed upon their LA arrival.
As far as St Louis goes, it'll probably be Bill DeWitt Jr who might try to buy the Rams to keep them in St Louis. Him or maybe the current Blues owner.
As far as St Louis goes, it'll probably be Bill DeWitt Jr who might try to buy the Rams to keep them in St Louis. Him or maybe the current Blues owner.
Yes my computer RAM would stay put like it always has. I don't need to worry about it running away from me every time.
Given that the city just wasn't going to build a stadium and Kroenke was going to get his stadium one way or another, the Rams staying in STL borders on ASB. It would be a far more likely scenario that the Rams never flee to STL in the first place, in which case the city probably never gets a team.
You want to keep a team in STL, make the Cardinals more successful in the 80s.
You want to keep a team in STL, make the Cardinals more successful in the 80s.
Actually, St. Louis was planning on building the Rams a new stadium, it just would not have been owned by Kroenke and he would not get the profits, which is what he really wanted.
Cardinals were never successful anywhere under Bill Bidwell (Chicago, St. Louis or Arizona); it was only when he let Michael start running the team and they hired some professional football people did the team begin to be successful.
Cardinals were never successful anywhere under Bill Bidwell (Chicago, St. Louis or Arizona); it was only when he let Michael start running the team and they hired some professional football people did the team begin to be successful.
Actually, the Chargers and Raiders had a handshake agreement to build together in Carson, but the NFL voted for the Rams in Inglewood instead.
If they had done it, I imagine either the Chargers or Raiders (probably Chargers) would've moved to the NFC West, and somebody else (probably the Cardinals) would move to the AFC West.
Which would have meant that one of the AFL's original teams would have gone to the NFC in exchange for the oldest team in professional football that is one of only two surviving teams from the NFL's inaugural season.
Thank God that didn't happen, especially since STL wouldn't have kept the Rams long term anyways.
Also, didn't St Louis strike down a couple of proposals to update the Edward Jones Dome?
Yeah, I think so. They had chances to prove their seriousness about keeping the team and squandered them.
Didn't the Cardinals also try to build a stadium in St Louis before going to Arizona?
Yeah one at the site would be the Dome but that one was more an open Stadium(like Arrrowhead) but seems the Bidwell with the promise a domed one in phoneix moved, sadly the plans got sidetracked with 80's economical issues and the cards got stuck in Arizona State Stadium till 2005 when Cardinal Stadium got build(and for the best, card stadium is better anything build in the 80's) so maybe make bidwell wait a little and he might get the Dome early
Actually, you are quite wrong. In both instances, St. Louis had developed plans for new stadiums.
For the Cardinals, they had plans to build a new 70,000 seat stadium in West County. Bidwill killed the plan when he stated that he wouldn't allow beer to be sold in the new stadium. "However, (Mayor) Schoemehl said he knew Bidwill was not negotiating in good faith 18 months ago when Bidwill said he did not want beer to be sold in a new stadium."
In 2015 to keep the Rams, St. Louis had developed plans and secured funding for a $1.1 billion stadium along the riverfront contingent upon the NFL putting up a $300 million loan. The NFL said they would only contribute $200 million to building a new stadium. Ironically, they gave the new LA Rams a $200 million load towards their new stadium and then gave the new LA Chargers a $200 million towards the same stadium that is applied to their rent.
The fix was in. The NFL wanted to get back to Los Angeles and St. Louis was the fall guy for their scheme.
How could you not want beer sold at your games if you play in the home of the one of the biggest beer companies in the country? Makes no sense to me. That would've been like Miller Park without Miller or PBR beer, right?
That is the opposite, ST lOUISE FORBIDDEN BEER TO BE SOLD ION THEIR STADIUM AND Bill wanted that money flow in his new park, the city say either the law uphold or the family would make the stadium themselves.
That article is somewhat confusing and inaccurate. There were 2 proposals for stadiums, one in West County that was domed and another in downtown St. Louis.
Bidwill turned down the West County stadium because it was too far out. Ironically, the population shifted west and that location now would be the most centrally located for the majority of the area's population.
The downtown stadium is what the ESPN article is referring to and it was Bidwill that requested the beer ban, not St. Louis.
This article from the New York Times spells it out correctly.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/20/sports/scouting-a-hard-swallow-in-st-louis.html.
Randy K has been reporting on St. Louis sports for a long time and normally he has his story straight but on this particular one he is wrong. There have been so many twists and turns in the story about pro football in St. Louis it it hard to keep them straight.
Bidwill turned down the West County stadium because it was too far out. Ironically, the population shifted west and that location now would be the most centrally located for the majority of the area's population.
The downtown stadium is what the ESPN article is referring to and it was Bidwill that requested the beer ban, not St. Louis.
This article from the New York Times spells it out correctly.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/20/sports/scouting-a-hard-swallow-in-st-louis.html.
Randy K has been reporting on St. Louis sports for a long time and normally he has his story straight but on this particular one he is wrong. There have been so many twists and turns in the story about pro football in St. Louis it it hard to keep them straight.
@Gunner's_Quadrant Seems maybe the idea was to be out the city(IIRC Bidwell was not happy Irsay won him to go Indianapolis new stadium) but seems is so confused the truth at times....
Bill Bidwill definitely wanted to leave St. Louis, as I said, he hated playing second fiddle to the St. Louis baseball Cardinals.
Irsay moving the Colts to Indianapolis definitely got his attention that he could get a better deal somewhere else.
I heard that during the last session or two, the window to renew season tickets was reduced to six weeks. Management did lots of things to discourage fans and lower attendance. That would make is easier to sell to the league that they weren't being supported.
Irsay moving the Colts to Indianapolis definitely got his attention that he could get a better deal somewhere else.
I heard that during the last session or two, the window to renew season tickets was reduced to six weeks. Management did lots of things to discourage fans and lower attendance. That would make is easier to sell to the league that they weren't being supported.
According to NFL Network's The Timeline special Last Day in LA, the OC was bankrupt in late 94. Leigh Steinberg said something about how they would have built a new stadium for the Rams if the bankruptcy didn't happen.
With the Rams staying in LA in early 95, I wonder if Oiler owner Bud Adams would have considered St. Louis as a relocation city. I don't think he had anything official done with Tennessee yet at that point.