by Hacksaw 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 24523 Joined: Apr 15 2015 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #101 GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS by Hacksaw 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 24523 Joined: Apr 15 2015 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #102 Andy Banker @andybankertv #Giants John Mara on when #stlnfl @stlstadium plan needs to be finalized: "pretty soon...end of the month" @FOX2now GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS by Stranger 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 3213 Joined: Aug 12 2015 Norcal Superstar Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #103 Hacksaw wrote:Andy Banker @andybankertv #Giants John Mara on when #stlnfl @stlstadium plan needs to be finalized: "pretty soon...end of the month" @FOX2nowGreat! New HC. New L.A. Stadium. Future is Bright. by Hacksaw 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 24523 Joined: Apr 15 2015 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #104 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS by majik 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 1269 Joined: Aug 31 2015 New Jersey Pro Bowl Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #105 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 Bakersfield, CA Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #106 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 Inglewood, CA Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #107 by RamsFanSince82 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 5851 Joined: Aug 20 2015 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #108 Last edited by RamsFanSince82 on Dec 02 2015, edited 1 time in total. 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 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #109 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 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #110 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?^tfwIf 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS Reply 11 / 23 1 11 23 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 227 posts Jul 12 2025 FOLLOW US @RAMSFANSUNITED Who liked this post
by Hacksaw 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 24523 Joined: Apr 15 2015 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #102 Andy Banker @andybankertv #Giants John Mara on when #stlnfl @stlstadium plan needs to be finalized: "pretty soon...end of the month" @FOX2now GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS by Stranger 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 3213 Joined: Aug 12 2015 Norcal Superstar Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #103 Hacksaw wrote:Andy Banker @andybankertv #Giants John Mara on when #stlnfl @stlstadium plan needs to be finalized: "pretty soon...end of the month" @FOX2nowGreat! New HC. New L.A. Stadium. Future is Bright. by Hacksaw 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 24523 Joined: Apr 15 2015 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #104 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS by majik 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 1269 Joined: Aug 31 2015 New Jersey Pro Bowl Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #105 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 Bakersfield, CA Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #106 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 Inglewood, CA Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #107 by RamsFanSince82 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 5851 Joined: Aug 20 2015 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #108 Last edited by RamsFanSince82 on Dec 02 2015, edited 1 time in total. 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 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #109 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 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #110 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?^tfwIf 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS Reply 11 / 23 1 11 23 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 227 posts Jul 12 2025 FOLLOW US @RAMSFANSUNITED Who liked this post
by Stranger 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 3213 Joined: Aug 12 2015 Norcal Superstar Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #103 Hacksaw wrote:Andy Banker @andybankertv #Giants John Mara on when #stlnfl @stlstadium plan needs to be finalized: "pretty soon...end of the month" @FOX2nowGreat! New HC. New L.A. Stadium. Future is Bright. by Hacksaw 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 24523 Joined: Apr 15 2015 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #104 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS by majik 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 1269 Joined: Aug 31 2015 New Jersey Pro Bowl Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #105 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 Bakersfield, CA Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #106 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 Inglewood, CA Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #107 by RamsFanSince82 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 5851 Joined: Aug 20 2015 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #108 Last edited by RamsFanSince82 on Dec 02 2015, edited 1 time in total. 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 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #109 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 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #110 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?^tfwIf 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS Reply 11 / 23 1 11 23 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 227 posts Jul 12 2025 FOLLOW US @RAMSFANSUNITED Who liked this post
by Hacksaw 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 24523 Joined: Apr 15 2015 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #104 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS by majik 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 1269 Joined: Aug 31 2015 New Jersey Pro Bowl Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #105 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 Bakersfield, CA Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #106 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 Inglewood, CA Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #107 by RamsFanSince82 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 5851 Joined: Aug 20 2015 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #108 Last edited by RamsFanSince82 on Dec 02 2015, edited 1 time in total. 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 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #109 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 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #110 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?^tfwIf 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS Reply 11 / 23 1 11 23 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 227 posts Jul 12 2025 FOLLOW US @RAMSFANSUNITED Who liked this post
by majik 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 1269 Joined: Aug 31 2015 New Jersey Pro Bowl Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #105 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 Bakersfield, CA Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #106 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 Inglewood, CA Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #107 by RamsFanSince82 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 5851 Joined: Aug 20 2015 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #108 Last edited by RamsFanSince82 on Dec 02 2015, edited 1 time in total. 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 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #109 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 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #110 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?^tfwIf 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS Reply 11 / 23 1 11 23 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 227 posts Jul 12 2025
by moklerman 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 7680 Joined: Apr 17 2015 Bakersfield, CA Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #106 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 Inglewood, CA Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #107 by RamsFanSince82 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 5851 Joined: Aug 20 2015 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #108 Last edited by RamsFanSince82 on Dec 02 2015, edited 1 time in total. 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 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #109 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 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #110 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?^tfwIf 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS Reply 11 / 23 1 11 23 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 227 posts Jul 12 2025
by Hacksaw_64 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 2686 Joined: Sep 08 2015 Inglewood, CA Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #107 by RamsFanSince82 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 5851 Joined: Aug 20 2015 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #108 Last edited by RamsFanSince82 on Dec 02 2015, edited 1 time in total. 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 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #109 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 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #110 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?^tfwIf 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS Reply 11 / 23 1 11 23 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 227 posts Jul 12 2025
by RamsFanSince82 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 5851 Joined: Aug 20 2015 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #108 Last edited by RamsFanSince82 on Dec 02 2015, edited 1 time in total. 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 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #109 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 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #110 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?^tfwIf 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS Reply 11 / 23 1 11 23 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 227 posts Jul 12 2025
by RamsFanSince82 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 5851 Joined: Aug 20 2015 So. Cal. Hall of Fame Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #109 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 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #110 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?^tfwIf 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS Reply 11 / 23 1 11 23 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 227 posts Jul 12 2025
by Hacksaw 9 years 7 months ago Total posts: 24523 Joined: Apr 15 2015 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: December Owner's Meeting POST #110 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?^tfwIf 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. GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS Reply 11 / 23 1 11 23 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business