[The Ripper]

We know we made promises and guarantees last time but trust me this time will be different.

[moklerman]

I don't blame St. Louis for wanting to re-do that awful deal they agreed to but there had to be a middle ground somewhere. Who knows, maybe there wasn't? Maybe Stan held their feet to the fire and was hell bent on leaving regardless.

But I have a real hard time believing, especially based on all that I read when he took over the Rams, that Stan didn't propose something very similar to St. Louis like what he's doing in Inglewood now. But that St. Louis balked and is doing what they're doing now. Instead of inviting Stan to build what he wants and let him benefit from it, they tried to steal his idea and then want him to pay for it.

[TSFH Fan]

But I have a real hard time believing, especially based on all that I read when he took over the Rams, that Stan didn't propose something very similar to St. Louis like what he's doing in Inglewood now. But that St. Louis balked and is doing what they're doing now. Instead of inviting Stan to build what he wants and let him benefit from it, they tried to steal his idea and then want him to pay for it.

I've wondered about the "real story" behind Fenton -- I mean Stan's a developer and there was that huge plot of land right there. I can see the possibility of Stan seeking minor permitting/development concessions and getting a "no".

And then there was that thing from StL Reporter Andy Banker "I personally know this to be true: political leadership here adopted a "leverage game" strategy with the Rams. Within the past two years those leaders and StL media experts (except for Bryan Burwell) were still saying the Rams had nowhere to go; LA was years from getting a feasible stadium plan together. The goal was to get Kroenke to finance the bulk of a new stadium or dome renovations if he insisted they were necessary."

So, my Spiderram Spidey-sense seems to tingle in agreement -- or that might just be a random itching, but anyhow. . . .

[moklerman]

But I have a real hard time believing, especially based on all that I read when he took over the Rams, that Stan didn't propose something very similar to St. Louis like what he's doing in Inglewood now. But that St. Louis balked and is doing what they're doing now. Instead of inviting Stan to build what he wants and let him benefit from it, they tried to steal his idea and then want him to pay for it.

I've wondered about the "real story" behind Fenton -- I mean Stan's a developer and there was that huge plot of land right there. I can see the possibility of Stan seeking minor permitting/development concessions and getting a "no".

And then there was that thing from StL Reporter Andy Banker "I personally know this to be true: political leadership here adopted a "leverage game" strategy with the Rams. Within the past two years those leaders and StL media experts (except for Bryan Burwell) were still saying the Rams had nowhere to go; LA was years from getting a feasible stadium plan together. The goal was to get Kroenke to finance the bulk of a new stadium or dome renovations if he insisted they were necessary."

So, my Spiderram Spidey-sense seems to tingle in agreement -- or that might just be a random itching, but anyhow. . . .

I don't think it falls under the tinfoil hat category at all.

It was my firm belief(not hope) that Stan intended and planned to keep the Rams in St. Louis. SOMETHING happened. When he took over, the talk was all about international branding and helping make St. Louis an international hub. Stan had a vision and I think, if supported, he would have made it happen. Between the NFL, soccer and all of his other interests, I firmly believe he could have brought life back to St. Louis. Instead, the infamous local government there apparently soured the deal. Which might also help explain the corporate departures in that region. If they ran Stan off, then who's to say they have done the same to others?

I mean, it wasn't that long ago that to me, the only real threat to the Rams leaving St. Louis was if Stan was assigned the task of taking of London. Which seemed far-fetched. It's almost sad that what St. Louis is coming up with to "wow" everyone is pretty unimpressive. I mean, we're talking about a vision at this point and they can't even draw a top tier venue. How are they going to actually build one and have it prosper if they can't even imagine it?

[TSFH Fan]

Let me put on my bombastic-radio-talkshow-host hat for a second (read with a loud, screeching voice):

You know what, I think they flat out lied when they agreed to that top tier clause. I don't think they ever intended to keep that promise -- they made the top tier promise without ever intending to comply with it. Why do I think that?

Look, let's think of just a basic home remodel. When you or I think about remodeling, there's at least 2 things we think about before we start: (1) Where do we go during the remodel; and (2) how do we pay for the damn thing.

Fast forward to the dome arbitration. An excuse they made for not complying with the award was because of disruption of dome convention business. Now wait a minute, they made this top tier promise. In order to fulfill this promise they knew, or should have foreseen with braille, that they were eventually going to need to do some big time remodeling -- it was a 30 year lease right? That's a long time, right?

So wait, when they promised top tier, they didn't have contingency plans for relocating dome business and there weren't even plans to formulate plans in the future?!? Yes, they made this promise of top tier without an answer to one of the basic questions of remodels, (1) Where do we go during the remodel.

Money. Last year it came out that there wasn't enough money for basic maintenance on the dome. If they didn't have money for basic maintenance, it's no surprise that they didn't have money for a remodel. Again, though, they made this top tier promise. Way back when they made the promise, they knew it was going to cost money. But no, not only did they fail to find/designate money for the remodel, they didn't even figure out how to pay for basic maintenance. They made this promise of top tier without an answer to one of the basic questions of remodels, (2) how do we pay for the damn thing.

Way back when they made the top tier promise, they didn't care about what to do about dome business during construction. They didn't care about having to pay for construction. Why? It's obvious. They NEVER considered complying with the top tier clause. This is worse than just breaking their promise, they made that promise without ever intending to keep that promise. They lied! (Off with their heads!)

(/Remove bombastic-radio-talkshow-host hat)

[TSFH Fan]

I don't think it falls under the tinfoil hat category at all.

Just to be safe here, and just in case -- I didn't intend to suggest anyone was a tinfoil hat wearer. I was agreeing with the sense that -- something seems to have gone afoul over there and Banker seems to support that sense.

[The Ripper]

Let me put on my bombastic-radio-talkshow-host hat for a second (read with a loud, screeching voice):

You know what, I think they flat out lied when they agreed to that top tier clause. I don't think they ever intended to keep that promise -- they made the top tier promise without ever intending to comply with it. Why do I think that?

That's definitely the case since the CVC filed an antitrust suit against in 1997 the NFL and the other 29 teams because of the lease.

[bubbaramfan]

You guys just outlined why Stan is moving and why the NFL can't do business with St. Louis again.

[Hacksaw]

What was the outcome of that '97 antitrust lawsuit?

[The Ripper]

What was the outcome of that '97 antitrust lawsuit?

NFL won the suit. The problem was that the NFL tried to have the it thrown out saying that the NFL and the teams are a single economic entity but the court reaffirmed that the teams were all individual businesses.

http://economics.mit.edu/files/1380