[TSFH Fan]

Good listen, and I wouldn't have listened to it except for your guys' comments. Thanks all who did.

The radio dudes say shocking!?!?!? Da'fuq? w/e

After scouring the relocation guidelines, reading the NFL constitution, and Googling, I still don't know exactly where this "exhaust all possibilities" stuff comes from. Grubman has stated that there's no such requirement, but whatever . . .

Via Gehlken, Grubman pointed out that a team must simply “engage in a good faith effort” before changing addresses.

“It doesn’t need to exhaust all possibilities,” Grubman said.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... celerated/

Grubman has already said in a radio interview with a SD channel that the Rams have fulfilled the NFL's expectations. It was linked here a while back and Grubman cited the arbitration regarding the top tier lease clause and the Rams winning as the reason.

Uhhh, I hate to ask, but anyone got that SD radio interview. I mean I just listened to the 18min deal with Sileo and didn't hear it in there. And I went and found the link to the transcript for the StD interview where he says the relo guidelines aren't up to him:

Do you think Kroenke has satisfied the NFL's relocation guidelines?

"That's not for me to judge. The relocation guidelines are written down, they're available to people. Ultimately, that's a subjective judgement. There are a lot of steps that are outlined...it puts obligations on the club and puts obligations on the league. We're doing our best...to make those tests in each case. Ultimately, it's the same owners...to get 24 votes, the owners would have to reach the conclusion that the club met the NFL guidelines."

Grubman also says this which does not answer the question:

Does the league agree with Stan Kroenke's argument the Rams have the right to move because St. Louis breached the lease because the Dome didn't reach first-tier status?

"I think it's pretty clear. It went through an arbitration procedure. The lease was clear for both sides as to what the rights and remedies were. There was a dispute over what the definition of a first-class stadium was. The resolution...called for an arbitration process, which the Rams won. It's pretty clear...the Rams won that argument."

The question asks about the "right to move" and Grubman references first-class stadium dispute and the Rams won that argument (about the definition of a first-class stadium") but does not answer whether the league agrees with Stan Kroenke's argument about the right to move. And no, you can't read into or imply anything from what Grubman says, because he's Grubman.

[Stranger]

Interviews like TB"s almost demands that the NFL release some anti-Inglewood stuff tomorrow -- Anti-Inglewood Friday!

Yup, their PR machine will most definitely address TB's comments, but the response could be subtle. Will be interesting.

[Elvis]

Edit: -- Interviews like TB"s almost demands that the NFL release some anti-Inglewood stuff tomorrow -- Anti-Inglewood Friday!

That's a good point. Should be another bad news Friday.

And really, Bradshaw has to walk this back. I'd think Fox and the NFL are gonna push him to say something a little less difinitive.

Maybe he can say he was just trying to psyche the Rams out before their game with his Steelers and he can then start saying every team the Steelers are about to play are 100% gone...

[Hacksaw]

Possibly, but as I said in another thread or somewhere, if he doesn't recant or reword (or Fox doesn't) it will gain steam.
It's a bit early to tell if the league is all about appearances and maintaining the status quo. If they don't rebut this, game over.

[Elvis]

Possibly, but as I said in another thread or somewhere, if he doesn't recant or reword (or Fox doesn't) it will gain steam.
It's a bit early to tell if the league is all about appearances and maintaining the status quo. If they don't rebut this, game over.

Also a very good point...

[dieterbrock]

Possibly, but as I said in another thread or somewhere, if he doesn't recant or reword (or Fox doesn't) it will gain steam.
It's a bit early to tell if the league is all about appearances and maintaining the status quo. If they don't rebut this, game over.

Not sure what to think. They didnt make Buck recant any of his words. Im not so sure that if Bradshaw does in fact go back on what he said if that makes it look worse or better for St Louis. They really ought to let it go IMO

Fortunately for Fox, its a CBS game this weekend.....

[Elvis]

Don't think this counts as bad news, or any kind of news really, but here's Bernie's latest:

http://www.101sports.com/2015/09/25/dai ... n-respect/

Rams rumbles:

Dave Peacock, co-chair of the St. Louis stadium task force, has been busy speaking with members of the six-owner committee that’s in charge of the Los Angeles decision that will, among other verdicts, determine whether the Rams stay in St. Louis or move to team owner Stan Kroenke’s proposed football-entertainment complex in Inglewood. Peacock declined comment on these affairs but a source close to him tells us Peacock is encouraged by the feedback coming his way … unrelated to that observation: there’s been a new round of buzz — unconfirmed — of Kroenke exploring a bid to purchase majority ownership in the Oakland Raiders. But that one stays is in the rumor file for now …

And in another new theory being put out there, the NFL may put only one franchise in Los Angeles for the foreseeable future. That would seemingly favor Kroenke. But I did some snooping around, and I believe that theory is being dished by a pro-Kroenke NFL executive that has no real authority over the process. We’ll see. … Terry Bradshaw, LOL. Where I live there’s a neighborhood street cat that we take care of when kitty needs a meal. And Bradshaw knows about as much on Rams/LA as the cat does.

[Rams the Legends live on]

Don't think this counts as bad news, or any kind of news really, but here's Bernie's latest:

http://www.101sports.com/2015/09/25/dai ... n-respect/

Rams rumbles:

Dave Peacock, co-chair of the St. Louis stadium task force, has been busy speaking with members of the six-owner committee that’s in charge of the Los Angeles decision that will, among other verdicts, determine whether the Rams stay in St. Louis or move to team owner Stan Kroenke’s proposed football-entertainment complex in Inglewood. Peacock declined comment on these affairs but a source close to him tells us Peacock is encouraged by the feedback coming his way … unrelated to that observation: there’s been a new round of buzz — unconfirmed — of Kroenke exploring a bid to purchase majority ownership in the Oakland Raiders. But that one stays is in the rumor file for now …

And in another new theory being put out there, the NFL may put only one franchise in Los Angeles for the foreseeable future. That would seemingly favor Kroenke. But I did some snooping around, and I believe that theory is being dished by a pro-Kroenke NFL executive that has no real authority over the process. We’ll see. … Terry Bradshaw, LOL. Where I live there’s a neighborhood street cat that we take care of when kitty needs a meal. And Bradshaw knows about as much on Rams/LA as the cat does.

LMAO.......Truly Bernie, the self aggrandizer and self proclaimed genius can come up with something better than his comments about Bradshaw otherwise he just reads as jealous and pissed off about market economics and the theory the market will determine your value. Which Bernie's knows no way that can be true as if it was his value and opinion would only be a fraction of Bradshaw's since he Bernie has only risen to the pinnacle of local StL sports as a media type and Bradshaw has reached the national level. So I am really let down that someone such as Bernie who's ego has it's own time zone could only come back with a comment that just leaves him looking jealous.......LOL

[bluecoconuts]

Don't think this counts as bad news, or any kind of news really, but here's Bernie's latest:

http://www.101sports.com/2015/09/25/dai ... n-respect/

Rams rumbles:

Dave Peacock, co-chair of the St. Louis stadium task force, has been busy speaking with members of the six-owner committee that’s in charge of the Los Angeles decision that will, among other verdicts, determine whether the Rams stay in St. Louis or move to team owner Stan Kroenke’s proposed football-entertainment complex in Inglewood. Peacock declined comment on these affairs but a source close to him tells us Peacock is encouraged by the feedback coming his way … unrelated to that observation: there’s been a new round of buzz — unconfirmed — of Kroenke exploring a bid to purchase majority ownership in the Oakland Raiders. But that one stays is in the rumor file for now …

And in another new theory being put out there, the NFL may put only one franchise in Los Angeles for the foreseeable future. That would seemingly favor Kroenke. But I did some snooping around, and I believe that theory is being dished by a pro-Kroenke NFL executive that has no real authority over the process. We’ll see. … Terry Bradshaw, LOL. Where I live there’s a neighborhood street cat that we take care of when kitty needs a meal. And Bradshaw knows about as much on Rams/LA as the cat does.

Back to him buying the Raiders? Who's he selling the Rams to then? Peacock?

[aeneas1]

StL is in denial.

no doubt... honestly, i don't have a dog in the fight, will pull for the guys in horns wherever they set up shop, always have, but they've always been the l.a. rams to me, never got used to "st. louis" rams, or the "arizona" cardinals for that matter... anyway i thought the rams have been as good as gone for a while now, and the notion that it was simply a kroenke leverage play wishful thinking, tough to believe there's any way the rams stay in st. louis imo...