New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Loyal]

dont confuse them with facts, dont you know St Louis should have had a new stadium being built long before arbitration? lol

No..just following Top Tier requirements in the 1st Place would have shut down Stan cold..or following the results of arbitration..St Louis did neither.

 

[tonyl711]

Quit acting like every time someone reports here what was said on the NFL channel or in print or... really about anywhere... they are holding it up as fact for you to act as truth slayer.

A great many reports have been put up on this thread. I think we all get that the reporters know as much as they have been told or can surmise. As you said, YOU can believe what you wish. I on the other hand, don't need to be reminded of that every time someone posts something from a media stiff.

So I'm asking you politely to either discuss the topics or don't hit the "Post Reply" button.

when these articles are presented as fact, why dont he have a right to question them?

 

[The Ripper]

Except the San Diego deal is pretty bad, and has not been well received by spanos nor the NFL itself.... It was said when the proposal was made public, and nothing has changed.

30% in public money is not realistic but I think SD is holding back the land that they removed for the EIR for the Chargers. This was one of the items that the Chargers asked for in their last few Mission Valley proposals.

 

[Rmfnlt]

It is. The average over 20 years is close to 60% and 10 years 50%. It's out there and even some of Chargers reporters have stated that.

One more time... the split won't be a major factor in the NFL's decsion whether the Rams stay or go.

 

[ramfaninsd]

Except the San Diego deal is pretty bad, and has not been well received by spanos nor the NFL itself.... It was said when the proposal was made public, and nothing has changed.

then perhaps spanos and the nfl should tell the city what the hell they want, all they do is reject and criticize.

 

[tonyl711]

No..no...We have never actually "heard" him say that he wants to move the Rams..Until we hear it, it aint so!

503 why isnt he being told not to taunt?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Except the San Diego deal is pretty bad, and has not been well received by spanos nor the NFL itself.... It was said when the proposal was made public, and nothing has changed.

San Diego has said that the NFL has been supportive and to keep working, if the NFL had a ton of issues with it we would probably know. That doesn't change the fact that Spanos hasn't been sincere with the city though.

 

[The Ripper]

One more time... the split won't be a major factor in the NFL's decsion whether the Rams stay or go.

The agreements made was to provide a facility at no cost so it will be a factor. If it wasn't a factor why would Peacock mention it in his testimony in front of the legislators.

In SD, the split is 30 % and will the Chargers have to take that just because it's public money? A bad deal is a bad deal the same way it was in Cleveland.

 

[tonyl711]

I thought we were staying away from personal attacks. My point with that comment was the page before he had asked that question. Another member answered it and his answer was ignored. That same answer has been shown to be true several times yet the other posters answer still got ignored.

my point is that opinions are put out here numerous times by everyone, noone has a right to tell someone,"weve already heard that so dont say it" honestly were all pretty much rehashing things that were already said in almost every post.

 

[OldSchool]

my point is that opinions are put out here numerous times by everyone, noone has a right to tell someone,"weve already heard that so dont say it" honestly were all pretty much rehashing things that were already said in almost every post.

The point of the discussion was no city ever lost a team when a viable plan was on the table with public funding. Cleveland was pointed out to have lost the Browns to Baltimore under those circumstances.

 

[RamFan503]

I'm not sure what anyone can hang their hats on... I don't think prior deals will drive what happens here.

Correct me if I'm wrong... but has there ever been a scenario where three teams are possibly moving from three different cities to potentially three other cities? When it finally comes down to who goes and who stays, I have a feeling financing will be pretty far down on the list.

Just a hunch.

To the bolded: Not that I have ever heard of.

I am not sure that we will know what the financing really is or how to honestly compare them anyway. It seems every proposal has a different angle on the same monies. If I read you right, I agree that it will be more likely to come down to what makes the most money for all the owners and if they trust their crystal ball, what makes more money in the future. Protect the shield (with platinum plating).

 

[RamFan503]

Not sure I follow... I see it this way:
1] Potential revenue for the owner (doesn't affect the NFL unless they decide it's in opposition to the by-laws based on what is going on in the owner's current market)
2] NFL increased revenue (larger market, merchandising, whatever other means they get money from franchises)

As best I can see, the private financing doesn't help the NFL.. so I don't see it as a very important factor in their decision making process.

Except that there is about $200 million they wouldn't be giving up with the Inglewood project as far as I understand. That is the only project that apparently is not seeking the G4 monies.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Except that there is about $200 million they wouldn't be giving up with the Inglewood project as far as I understand. That is the only project that apparently is not seeking the G4 monies.

Have we ever got any definitive answer on if the NFL will allow G4 money for LA? People have suggested it may happen, but nothing confirmed. I also thought I read that the NFL was playing with the idea of allowing more than 200 million for current markets in order to help the Chargers or Raiders since they're cash strapped.

 

[The Ripper]

Except that there is about $200 million they wouldn't be giving up with the Inglewood project as far as I understand. That is the only project that apparently is not seeking the G4 monies.

Have we ever got any definitive answer on if the NFL will allow G4 money for LA? People have suggested it may happen, but nothing confirmed. I also thought I read that the NFL was playing with the idea of allowing more than 200 million for current markets in order to help the Chargers or Raiders since they're cash strapped.

Nothing from the NFL but it has been reported that they would make an exception in LA because of the lack of public funds.

 

[RamFan503]

The Rams can SAY the sky is hot pink and the clouds are made from m&ms but it doesn't mean that it is legally true.

Probably not going to play that kind of hand if they are just blowing smoke. Goodhell is a former attorney after all. I think he would call that bluff pretty quickly.

 

[WillasDad]

Grubman may have said something about SD's plan but no such tweet from VB.

 

[RamFan503]

Im glad Stan feels the need to freak over STL fans cause he wasn't vocal about a breach of contract. It's your team Stan, don't blame other people. You should have taken care of it.

Not sure where you're going with this. Was he supposed to stand on a mountain and yell BREACH? Why is he to blame for what may be the CVC's breach of contract (if that is what it actually was) and how was he supposed to take care of it?.

 

[MrMotes]

So, yeah, private... public... kinda doesn't matter when it comes to whether the Rams move or stay.

Agree 100%

 

[RamFan503]

dont confuse them with facts, dont you know St Louis should have had a new stadium being built long before arbitration? lol

If you say so.

yra because we were really thinking a 15 year old stadium needed to be replaced, get real

I'm done. Have fun reading for a while.

 

[Legatron4]

Not sure where you're going with this. Was he supposed to stand on a mountain and yell BREACH? Why is he to blame for what may be the CVC's breach of contract (if that is what it actually was) and how was he supposed to take care of it?.

He could have said something. ANYTHING to the fans to educate them on what's going on. Now STL hates him and rightfully so. The right thing to do was to come out to a microphone and say something about it. Just like Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Spanos, and basically every other owner in the league.

How would you feel if you worked at a restuarant and the owner tells you he's shutting it down and you're fired, because the manager stole money 3 years ago? Not your fault and he should have said something before and you could have: A) Told him to give it back and told the owner or B) Get other people to help pay it back, tell the owner and get a better manager. I realize this is not the best analogy but I've been up since 5:30am for work.

The point is, the fans are what make you money. Maybe you should tell your money makers what the hell is going on.