04-30-2016, 12:01 PM
(04-29-2016, 06:00 PM)Benton Wrote: To the bold, mainly because every time this issue has come up, you've said the city doesn't deserve an NFL team, as if its residents are a bunch of sports hating morons who tar and feather coaches. The truth is, the city and area supported the team. The team just quit being any good. When you're picking in the top 10 a lot, your fan base is going to shrink.
As far as the agreement, it was top 10, and that was an incredibly dumb agreement that should have included some kind of reciprocation — like fielding a team in the top 10. Hell, the top 20. But even that aside, the city was trying to make renovations, the Rams wanted no part in it. The city even proposed an alternative stadium. Again, the Rams wanted no part.
And that's ok, it's his team. Like I said, I think it was a good move for them. But to say STL didn't try and doesn't deserve a team is either ignorant or dishonest.
Ok on my mobile so I can't get it bolded. But to the part about the agreement. Yes I totally agree it was a ridiculous lease that they should have never signed or proposed. But without that ridiculous lease they never get the Rams. And they stay in LA. I doubt field catching on fire was top 10. If St. Louis was a great city the raiders would be considering their proposal.
As far as blasting the city of St. Louis..... Personally I don't feel like any city should be considered for a team once they lose 2. LA was never meant to be a 2 team city so losing raiders doesn't count. I would never have replaced the Browns. Cleveland has lost several teams. New city options are what we need not retreads. I am happy to see the raiders exploring Vegas and San Antonio
