[dieterbrock]

And at turf show times an article has a headline "is Kroenke's plan on the ropes?"

I guess being delusional is the norm.

Everyone in St. Louis is banking on trotter's tweet.

Gotta say, I'm pretty impartial to this deal and feel the 50/50 is Kroenke's haymaker
Hope it lands, but if it doesnt?

[SoCalRam78]

And at turf show times an article has a headline "is Kroenke's plan on the ropes?"

I guess being delusional is the norm.

Everyone in St. Louis is banking on trotter's tweet.

Gotta say, I'm pretty impartial to this deal and feel the 50/50 is Kroenke's haymaker
Hope it lands, but if it doesnt?

NFL owners may be more rich than bright, but I think Kroenke sealed the deal. Take away the teams involved, and the league prefers inglewood. Anyone who thinks the NFL prefers Carson is deluding themselves. What owners may favor is Spanos. Kroenke is offering a split deal as far as construction costs and game day revenue. It's a win win.

[SoCalRam78]

I read comments on the compost and people write crap like "the FAA won't approve inglewood" like it's their call. Hilarious.

[Stranger]

And at turf show times an article has a headline "is Kroenke's plan on the ropes?"

I guess being delusional is the norm.

Everyone in St. Louis is banking on trotter's tweet.

Gotta say, I'm pretty impartial to this deal and feel the 50/50 is Kroenke's haymaker
Hope it lands, but if it doesnt?

If not SD or OAK, than an expansion team in 2018 or later will take the other half of the deal.

[Hacksaw]

Over at PD "Kroenke still hasn't said he intends to move the Rams to LA". Krroenke's 50-50 offer to another owner flys right over their head.

That's another reason to call that place 'fly-over ville".

And at turf show times an article has a headline "is Kroenke's plan on the ropes?"
I guess being delusional is the norm.
Everyone in St. Louis is banking on trotter's tweet.

But we know Trotter is in Spanos' bunhuggrs. His twitter photo is of Jr Seau

[moklerman]

Personally, I don't like the idea of a shared stadium and don't see why it's being forced. LA had just the Rams for decades without any problems. It's not like Kroenke doesn't already have more money than the other owners so I just don't get it. The tv revenues are shared so what's the problem? Kroenke has a team, has the money, has the land and is ready to build. If someone else wants to do so, let them. But they don't.

It's like they're doing everything they can to screw up LA having a team. Again.

[max]

Personally, I don't like the idea of a shared stadium and don't see why it's being forced. LA had just the Rams for decades without any problems. It's not like Kroenke doesn't already have more money than the other owners so I just don't get it. The tv revenues are shared so what's the problem? Kroenke has a team, has the money, has the land and is ready to build. If someone else wants to do so, let them. But they don't.

It's like they're doing everything they can to screw up LA having a team. Again.

It's pretty clear the owners want 2 teams in LA either now or eventually. The problem with eventually is that whoever goes in there then is way behind the 8 ball. The owners want something more like what they have in NY.

But I do think they will give Spanos the option of staying in SD and/or moving to LA eventually, if he totally refuses to team up with Kroenke in January.

One thing I can't see is the owners approving Carson with the options they have in front of them now.

[Hacksaw]

I agree that this is a compromise. As many have pointed out, (max had a great list) of all the logical reasons that Inglewood makes sense, that comment by one of the owners, the behavior of the league and many 'other side' pov's makes me still take pause. That owners said that "No team will be allowed to move if a city comes up with a plan" and StLoo is much further ahead than SD / Oak. So there are some who don't consider this a slam dunk.

I see celebrations all over the net by pro LA posters, but I wouldn't count my chickens just yet. The league owners are wealthy but that doesn't mean they all think like business men. Remember many got gifted their wealth or NFL power.

The StL BoA was talking originally about a January vote for the funding. Will that get moved up due to the NFL deadline?
Will Sen Schaff be able to delay the funding through his pre-filed appeal?

It's coming down to the wire. 14 shopping days left before Christmas. (aka calendar business if they all work right up to Christmas eve). Are the government employees willing to work weekends and through the holiday to get this done?

[moklerman]

Personally, I don't like the idea of a shared stadium and don't see why it's being forced. LA had just the Rams for decades without any problems. It's not like Kroenke doesn't already have more money than the other owners so I just don't get it. The tv revenues are shared so what's the problem? Kroenke has a team, has the money, has the land and is ready to build. If someone else wants to do so, let them. But they don't.

It's like they're doing everything they can to screw up LA having a team. Again.

It's pretty clear the owners want 2 teams in LA either now or eventually. The problem with eventually is that whoever goes in there then is way behind the 8 ball. The owners want something more like what they have in NY.

But I do think they will give Spanos the option of staying in SD and/or moving to LA eventually, if he totally refuses to team up with Kroenke in January.

One thing I can't see is the owners approving Carson with the options they have in front of them now.

I don't disagree with your premise but it flies in the face of history if they truly feel that way. The Raiders didn't have any trouble garnering fans back in the '80's for example.

The only thing I think they truly care about is the tv market and having an AFC/NFC split for the networks. Why that is so important that they'd sour the whole deal is what is beyond me. Chicago has only one team for example so Fox presumably owns all of that tv coverage there. Not quite the same scale as LA but it's a fair comparison IMO.

There's just no need to hold things up for that reason. It's REALLY unfair for Kroenke. He has the money, resources and drive to make things better for his team but isn't being allowed to do so. I mean, if he was trying to force his way out of St. Louis and get league help to pay for his new stadium in LA I could see a problem.

Whis IS the problem. Kroenke's doing all of this on his own dime but the league wants him to help pay for whichever other team is being forced into the situation. That's just wrong and if it truly is that way, I hope Kroenke goes rogue and lets the league pay for their own stadium for Oakland or San Diego or whichever poor billionaire has his hand out.

[Hacksaw]

Personally, I don't like the idea of a shared stadium and don't see why it's being forced. LA had just the Rams for decades without any problems. It's not like Kroenke doesn't already have more money than the other owners so I just don't get it. The tv revenues are shared so what's the problem? Kroenke has a team, has the money, has the land and is ready to build. If someone else wants to do so, let them. But they don't.
It's like they're doing everything they can to screw up LA having a team. Again.

Could be appearances,, but it looks to me like ESK wasn't sure he was going to get his way and had to start back peddling. I can't imagine why the league would look at the gift horse and risk losing a no brainer project though. Spanos must be a real bro and the league likes to make business deals based on emotions. Why else would ESK accept a shared arrangement? Unless that has been the plan all along.

The way I see this is that Kroenke factored the cost of building vs the game day revenue split as a wash. He still get's full development control and every thing else. Less jack out of his pocket but 1/2 the GD revenue to repay the construction costs.

It has to be perceived as a great olive branch and puts Spanos on the spot. Deans stance may still be leverage against SD and is more willing than he was quoted but I'm not so sure.

2 teams at once in LA seeems foolish to me. I really on't know how well it will be received. Is there even a venue for them to play at? Rams at Coliseum is a given but where are the Chargers going to play. Haden ruled them out and everyone else said no. Perhaps that will change. I mean the Bruins and Chargers are both powder blue.

Bottom line is, if we get the Rams back (and out of StLoo) I will be happy.