227 posts
  • 11 / 23
  • 1
  • 11
  • 23
 by Hacksaw
9 years 7 months ago
 Total posts:   24523  
 Joined:  Apr 15 2015
United States of America   AT THE BEACH
Moderator


 by Hacksaw
9 years 7 months ago
 Total posts:   24523  
 Joined:  Apr 15 2015
United States of America   AT THE BEACH
Moderator

Andy Banker ‏@andybankertv
#Giants John Mara on when #stlnfl @stlstadium plan needs to be finalized: "pretty soon...end of the month" @FOX2now

 by Stranger
9 years 7 months ago
 Total posts:   3213  
 Joined:  Aug 12 2015
United States of America   Norcal
Superstar

Hacksaw wrote:Andy Banker ‏@andybankertv
#Giants John Mara on when #stlnfl @stlstadium plan needs to be finalized: "pretty soon...end of the month" @FOX2now

Great!

 by Hacksaw
9 years 7 months ago
 Total posts:   24523  
 Joined:  Apr 15 2015
United States of America   AT THE BEACH
Moderator

Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer

The Rams' proposal of a full partnership in Inglewood was sent to the committee, not the teams, and made w/o specifying a team as partner.

Cool If the Raiders were to be left out, they'd be seen as a wild card that could go in a number of different directions.

7) Reasons that Rams/Chargers in LA makes the most sense ... Inglewood's progress, Kroenke's capital, support to get Spanos a solution.

6) Some owners are wary of disregarding relocation guidelines -- again, it's required a market "failed" -- b/c of antitrust implications.

5) The Rams' issue, of course, would be that St. Louis has done more to keep its team than Oakland and San Diego have done to keep theirs.

4) One thing raised to me, re: Relocation guidelines ... Argument could be made Raiders' market didn't "fail" b/c Levi's is in it.

3) Inglewood could have a shovel in the ground tomorrow if approved today. And Kroenke's ability to just start writing checks matters.

2) To that end, it's highly unlikely there will be 2 teams in LA and the Chargers in SD. So either 2 LA teams, or 1 LA team and Bolts in SD.

1) The one absolute for the league here -- Dean Spanos will have a stadium solution at the end of this, whether it's in LA or San Diego.

Sorry if already posted.

 by majik
9 years 7 months ago
 Total posts:   1269  
 Joined:  Aug 31 2015
United States of America   New Jersey
Pro Bowl

Regarding No. 6 Explain under antitrust law how a city can sue a private business for leaving to relocate in search of greater profits?

 by moklerman
9 years 7 months ago
 Total posts:   7680  
 Joined:  Apr 17 2015
United States of America   Bakersfield, CA
Hall of Fame

5) The Rams' issue, of course, would be that St. Louis has done more to keep its team than Oakland and San Diego have done to keep theirs.
Failed to live up to lease. Refused to accept arbitration. Backed out of lease. Current proposal doesn't even cover 35% of stadium costs yet Kroenke won't control it, benefit from it or have a say in designing it.

Yeah, they've really done a lot to keep the Rams.

 by Hacksaw_64
9 years 7 months ago
 Total posts:   2686  
 Joined:  Sep 08 2015
United States of America   Inglewood, CA
Moderator

 by RamsFanSince82
9 years 7 months ago
 Total posts:   5851  
 Joined:  Aug 20 2015
United States of America   So. Cal.
Hall of Fame

Hacksaw wrote:StLoo: Their public vote bill dies in committee, voted down 5 No - 3 Yes.


That was the BoA bill. The STL fans wanted it to die. The bill being vetoed is a non factor for us LA fans.

 by RamsFanSince82
9 years 7 months ago
 Total posts:   5851  
 Joined:  Aug 20 2015
United States of America   So. Cal.
Hall of Fame

moklerman wrote:
5) The Rams' issue, of course, would be that St. Louis has done more to keep its team than Oakland and San Diego have done to keep theirs.
Failed to live up to lease. Refused to accept arbitration. Backed out of lease. Current proposal doesn't even cover 35% of stadium costs yet Kroenke won't control it, benefit from it or have a say in designing it.

Yeah, they've really done a lot to keep the Rams.


+1. Well said.

 by Hacksaw
9 years 7 months ago
 Total posts:   24523  
 Joined:  Apr 15 2015
United States of America   AT THE BEACH
Moderator

moklerman wrote:
5) The Rams' issue, of course, would be that St. Louis has done more to keep its team than Oakland and San Diego have done to keep theirs.
Failed to live up to lease. Refused to accept arbitration. Backed out of lease. Current proposal doesn't even cover 35% of stadium costs yet Kroenke won't control it, benefit from it or have a say in designing it.

Yeah, they've really done a lot to keep the Rams.


They have done more mokler, it just isn't nearly close enough. Now they are scrambling to get the 'stadium bill' financials rearranged again. $75 M is a large sort fall.
With comptroller Greens bill going down in flames as expected in StL (I hate it when they are right), can they get the State or who ever to come around anyways?

I was wondering, if Spanos call poo poo the stadium proposals in SD, so could Kroenke. Why does Deano have a better footing?
1) The one absolute for the league here -- Dean Spanos will have a stadium solution at the end of this, whether it's in LA or San Diego.
So is this still leverage talk or is there an uneven amount of love going on around there?

^tfw

If Kroenke is opening the door to the Raiders too, what,, is Spanos trying to deadlock this thing and delay the relocation another year? It's obvious that it works for him and weakens Kroenke.
So even if Spanos stays in SD in a shiny redone downtown Convadium, he give StL a better chance and his alleged market share is intact.

  • 11 / 23
  • 1
  • 11
  • 23
227 posts Jul 12 2025