New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.
RamFan503 said:
My suggestion is either state them or don't bring them up. But then they probably have already been brought up so.... Still, a friend of a friend once told me I shouldn't quote him.
Click to expand...

I spoke about them several hundred pages ago, and the statement wasn't about proof of lies, it was about how one man's benevolent half truths is another man's lies.
 
RamFan503 said:
Not really. I am not going to say that people in St Louis have not been paying attention to the SD saga over the years but I have and those 14 years have been pretty much Spanos saying to SD to build him a stadium and he'll put in a little more than the NFL G4 - and BTW - I want it built downtown or Mission... no... only downtown will do... but I am not going to say I will only accept downtown.
Click to expand...


And that's worse than Stan's "I'm not talking about anything at all?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: D L and iced
I'm getting caught up circular arguments again, when I should be sleeping for work. So, I'll have to step away.
 
iced said:
No one has been in the position Stan is either. That piece of land can easily be used for something else. How many other owners are real estate developers like stan?

So no I don't agree that all the threats for LA were just some small smoke screens (Which were clearly effective btw in getting a better deal)
Click to expand...

The Vikings owner literally made his money in real estate development. So did Spanos and I believe a few others. He could have done the exact same thing if he wanted, and frankly he probably had the opportunity.


blue4 said:
ike I said, after 14 years it's hail mary time. Things get toxic after 14 years, my point is St Louis isn't doing that stuff
Click to expand...

Doing what, throwing up Haily Mary's? Sure they are, they're using loopholes, suing themselves in phony lawsuits to give themselves legal permission, etc. If you mean suing Demoff, that's because they have no reason to, which makes the Rams look better.

blue4 said:
Not sure why Demoff half truths are viewed as so benevolent. To me it's a half truth. And the Rams don't have a whole lot of ground to bash the city. What are they going to say? They keep calling us during dinner trying to work a deal?
Click to expand...

Not so much the city, but they could have trashed the project. It probably would have nearly or totally killed the project because there would be much less public support for a project that is being trashed by the team.

blue4 said:
I just don't see how the story of helping the city will fly. I don't think he'd even try it.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's going to phrase it as helping the city, because the NFL probably don't really care about the cities, but rather phrase it to help the NFL. Owners coming up on expiring leases now have something to dangle over the cities or an option if the city can't make it work for them.
 
blue4 said:
They keep calling us during dinner trying to work a deal?
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO:

blue4 said:
And that's worse than Stan's "I'm not talking about anything at all?"
Click to expand...
For my money? Yes. I don't even have a stake in anything going on in SD other than having some friends and relatives that are Chargers fans (very much non-Spanos/Fabiani fans BTW) and I would like to punch Fabiani in the pie hole every time I hear him speak. THAT dude is a douche of the highest order.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldSchool
iced said:
No one has been in the position Stan is either. That piece of land can easily be used for something else. How many other owners are real estate developers like stan?

So no I don't agree that all the threats for LA were just some small smoke screens (Which were clearly effective btw in getting a better deal)
Click to expand...

If anything, the dog and pony show was to push San Diego and Oakland into putting offers on the table. And it's worked magically.
 
iced said:
Except Oakland... and Alameda wants out of the sports world

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/A-s-Raiders-landlord-looking-to-bail-6413166.php

Gotta love the NFL - where the only owner who truly wants to stay can't even get a decent proposal and the ones who want to move have options
Click to expand...
Alameda wants out because their take is small and it would make more sense for them to sell their interest than keep being a stick in the mud that the stadium sits on. It is actually progress having Alameda out of the picture - if not for the Raiduhs - for the As and Warriors. Either way, Alameda gots to go.
 
RamFan503 said:
Alameda wants out because their take is small and it would make more sense for them to sell their interest than keep being a stick in the mud that the stadium sits on. It is actually progress having Alameda out of the picture - if not for the Raiduhs - for the As and Warriors. Either way, Alameda gots to go.
Click to expand...
That's the county Alameda too not the city.
 
The Ripper said:
The issue is not so much the fan support but how long it would take for an expansion to team to get up and running. It would most likely be 2020 before a team would be ready. That time frame fits for the tv contracts and the new owner would only be out 2 years of shared revenue. The NFL might be working on that for a 2nd team in LA or an expansion team for one or two of the home markets. The same way they did it in Cleveland. They had the stadium proposal ready but the revenues were greater in Baltimore so the team was allowed to move and the NFL guaranteed the owners contribution for the stadium that was paid back from an increase in the expansion fee.

The NFL is too far along for there not to be a team in LA in 2016.
Click to expand...
ill agree, i have no doubt there will be a team there next year. i just think it would have been smarter to go the expansion route before it came to all this, they had to see it coming.
 
RamFan503 said:
The clause was part of the agreement that would send it to arbitration - so no - I can't see how it is out the window.

And though the proposed new stadium is cool and new, I haven't seen where many consider it and its capabilities as top tier - as dumbass as the whole top tier issue is.
Click to expand...
the clause stopped being an issue as soon as the Rams won arbitration and went year to year on the lease, so yes it is out the window.
same question i asked before, what stadiums besides Jerry world are better?
 
RamFan503 said:
Alameda wants out because their take is small and it would make more sense for them to sell their interest than keep being a stick in the mud that the stadium sits on. It is actually progress having Alameda out of the picture - if not for the Raiduhs - for the As and Warriors. Either way, Alameda gots to go.
Click to expand...

although the problem is Oakland doesn't have a proposal and is refusing to use public money (no shocker there)..

i just find it funny how the only owner who is truly transparent in wanting to stay is the only one who doesn't have options.... Looks like the only way to get a decent deal is portraying the threat of moving, which is sadly how the nfl has conducted business for the past 20 years in regards to LA
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonyl711
tonyl711 said:
the clause stopped being an issue as soon as the Rams won arbitration and went year to year on the lease, so yes it is out the window.
same question i asked before, what stadiums besides Jerry world are better?
Click to expand...
Sorry but I can't agree that the clause is not an issue going forward. It may be convenient to assume so but there will be some level of evaluation based on the previous lease. I ALMOST guarantee it.

But that wasn't what Riper or I were referring to in that specific part (well, at least me). I'm referring to the relocation aspect of the CVC not living up to the top tier. Free to relocate or negotiate with other parties kicked in BECAUSE of the top tier clause not being met. And I'm not saying that the relocation wording means that he is free to move from the St Louis NFL market. That remains to be seen as the NFL still has to make a decision. I would say that legally it allows him to do so but not much more than that. It would only come in likely if Stan decided to try and go rogue - which I think we all doubt he would.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ripper
Rmfnlt said:
Thanks... pretty useless, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah - I'm not going to read through it all again but if I recall right, it dealt mostly with details specific to the Dome.

They supposedly have some measurables for parking and seating and such but I think that is more to do with hosting SBs. You'd have to connect the dots that top tier included hosting SBs. Maybe it does - maybe it doesn't. Still, I'm going to guess the NFL has some basic benchmarks in several categories for measuring stadium levels and most of that no doubt has to do with ability to generate funds and produce prestige for the owner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ripper and Rmfnlt
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back