Good question. If the Rams are forced to stay in St. Louis, which already has a stadium plan, he is going to be one livid team owner.

He's not forced to stay anywhere.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-05/local/me-394_1_antitrust-suit'>http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-05/local/me-394_1_antitrust-suit</a>

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

He's not forced to stay anywhere.

 

He is not allowed to move out of St. Louis without approval from the NFL.

---

He is not allowed to move out of St. Louis without approval from the NFL.

Read the link. The NFL told the late Al Davis the same thing.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

I really like cheese.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I really like cheese.

 

Me too.  I like just about any kind of cheese but a real good sharp cheddar sounds good at the moment.

 

A good gouda works well for me too.

---

Read the link. The NFL told the late Al Davis the same thing.

 

And Al Davis lost his $1 billion lawsuit. So no, he was not allowed to move back to Los Angeles.

---

And Al Davis lost his $1 billion lawsuit. So no, he was not allowed to move back to Los Angeles.

. In 1980 he attempted to move the Raiders to Los Angeles but was blocked by a court injunction. In response Davis filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL. In June 1982 a federal district court ruled in Davis' favor and the team officially relocated to Los Angeles for the 1982 NFL season.

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Davis#Legal_battles'>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Davis#Legal_battles</a>

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

And Al Davis lost his $1 billion lawsuit. So no, he was not allowed to move back to Los Angeles.

 

I don't think this is what happened....

---

I don't think this is what happened....

 

You don't remember that lawsuit after the Raiders moved back to Oakland?

---

You don't remember that lawsuit after the Raiders moved back to Oakland?

 

You don't remember the Raiders did move to LA?

---

You don't remember the Raiders did move to LA?

I think it's past her bedtime.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

I think it's past her bedtime.

 

I'm honestly lost.

---

I'm honestly lost.

You and me both.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

You don't remember the Raiders did move to LA?

 

I remember they moved FROM Los Angeles. After that, Al Davis was banned from moving back.

---

I remember they moved FROM Los Angeles. After that, Al Davis was banned from moving back.

They moved back. In 1982 I believe. They then moved to Oakland in 1995ish. I'm too disinterested to look it up.

---

So why did the NFL let him buy the Rams?

Because the NFL wants a team in LA almost as much as Kroenke wants the Rams to be that team.

 

But the NFL just wanted a team there and still does not know if they want the Rams to be that team.

They didn't much care at the time. They had a prospective owner willing to invest heavily in LA and give them an alternative to the train wrecked Ed Roski and AEG stadium plans, and they could figure out the rest later.

 

I'm not sure the NFL was too concerned about which team, let alone the Rams, moved to LA.

 

What I'm more curious to see is what Kroenke does if the Rams are not allowed to move to LA.

Tons of ideas have been floated around, but the most realistic imo, in order of likelihood:

 

1. Try and get whichever team(s) do move to LA to play in his stadium to avoid taking a financial bath on the land purchase, then sell the Rams--probably with financial compensation from the NFL above and beyond what the new owner pays--and sulk off into oblivion.

 

2. Explore moving the team to another city, probably San Antonio, for the 2017 season, then suck it up and play to an empty house in St. Louis in 2016.

 

3. Sue the crap out of the NFL, although he probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on because of option #4...

 

4. Move the Rams himself, independently of the NFL. He is allowed to do this, but he would forfeit any relocation assistance from the NFL. If the NFL moves the Raiders and Chargers, this is a scenario that would be nightmarish for them. One city cannot support almost 10% of the league's teams, and they'd almost certainly pull out all the stops, including offering another city up, ponying up big to get the St. Louis stadium done or just paying Kroenke to go away. If the NFL only formally moves one team, it may well be under a wink-nudge with Kroenke that they wouldn't try to block his moving the Rams using his own money.

 

He is not allowed to move out of St. Louis without approval from the NFL.

Yes, yes he is. Look up antitrust laws. NFL owners cannot collude to prevent Kroenke from doing what he wants to with his business.

---

https://youtu.be/ks072waMayk

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!