Let's break these down:
Billionaire Stan was offered $500MM+ in free money for no other reason than he's a billionaire.
Part 1: 500MM to help build a stadium. So what? That 500MM gets paid back to the city via the lease, loss of ad revenue, loss of concessions revenue, loss of parking revenue, etc... (heck, the city would get that 500MM back on the NFL alone in the first year) meanwhile, Kroenke, by building his own stadium in LA pays no lease and has all revenue going to him - even non-football event revenue which, again, he could not get from St Louis. Business decision. Had St Louis let him build his own stadium and keep everything, as he is getting in LA, then the team probably would not have moved. St Louis never offered that as an option - due the greed of the damn St Louis city politicians that have been that way for all 50 years of my life.
In return, he refused to meet with city officials, he completely ignored the fan base, he referred to himself as a victim, and he wrote a 30 page report of half truths about how terrible the city is.
Was St Louis ever going to offer a total ownership of the Stadium option to Kroenke? I never saw one anywhere. Every St Louis proposal involved the City owning the Stadium, which again, does not beat what Kroenke will earn in LA by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 20-30 year when ALL revenues are considered. Yes, the 30 page letter part is utter crap on Kroenke's part. At the same time, would St Louis honestly have ever offered a total ownership of a new stadium option to Kroenke, considering that's what the deal is in LA?
The offer from St. Louis was a good one. It was good enough for an NFL team and I have a hard time believing many other markets would have given better offers. It just wasn't as good as LA. But, again, that's because LA is one of the top 3 markets in the country, not because St. Louis is insufficient as a market.
Was it good enough to beat all revenue from the stadium going to the owner of the Rams? No. It was not. Again - simple business decision.
Even if it was a simple business decision, the way he treated St. Louis in the process of it was nothing short of slimy. And then he had the audacity to ask the city for $100MM a month after leaving so he could develop some land in the city that he just got finished saying couldn't support anything.
It's only audacious because he is still acting like a businessman who assumed people would accept a business decision which actually favored him making billions vs losing 70% of those billions based on what St Louis offered.
It's personal to Rams fans, including me, because St Louis lost the Rams and he acted like a dick afterwards. Objectively speaking, the city never offered anything matching what Kroenke will earn in LA. Look at the damn revenue before being so ticked at the business side of it.
Feel free to be ticked about the slimy letter, but don't be disingenuous by suggesting St Louis politicians would ever agree to total ownership of a stadium by a private entity. That was never on the table in any offers I read about. And, yes, I read about lots of them - not just "ESPN".
I kept asking on the Rams forum I frequent if anyone had heard anything about a serious offer for Kroenke to build his own facility in St Louis. The only thing anyone mentioned were rumors about a possible Earth City project, but nothing in an official offer from the city anywhere in relation a total ownership, no lease, all revenues option - which is what the city had to actually friggin' beat for this not to be a no-brainer business decision.
I was saying this in December of 2014 noting the Rams would move unless the city offered Kroenke a total ownership, build his own stadium option - which is what he was doing in LA. They never did. And I was lambasted for saying so by Rams fans who can't seem to comprehend that the NFL is a business first.