[RedAlice]

That's Bernie being embarrassed and playing tough.

It's Bernie acting like St. Louis is the epicenter of this entire issue. It will never cease to amaze me how the people in St. Louis believe so corely that they really are the center of everything that happens.

[Hacksaw]

This is all fine and dandy. I truly enjoyed today. There were strong signals again.

But don't forget, there are still those pesky owners and adgendas.

StLoo is going to have a vote tomorrow. Then another one presumably around the 18th (special session) if I remember correctly. Noteworthy is the Rams will have completed their 2015 home schedule by then. (2 games in 4 days). So here is going to be a lot of StLoo in the news over the next few weeks.

Question to the masses, why haven't we heard from Spanos if the NFL is screwing with the Charaiders charade partner about Oakland? Especially in light of Grubmans bold proclamation.

My guess is we get another round of Carson spin in, , , , , 3 - 2 - 1

[Elvis]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/M ... uture.aspx

A Take on Grubman's Latest Interview Surrounding Rams' Future

Tim McKernan posted on December 09, 2015 18:26

NFL Executive Vice President Eric Grubman made local waves Wednesday when he spoke about the St. Louis stadium project during an interview on 101 ESPN's Bernie Miklasz Show.

Tim McKernan listened to the interview and gave his opinion about Grubman's comments on The Ryan Kelley Morning After Facebook Fan Page. Here's what he had to say:

I wanted to wait to comment on the Bernie interview with Eric Grubman until I actually had a chance to listen to it in its entirety.

I've had a chance to do so now.

Before commenting, let me put the official disclaimer on it in that:

a. I like Bernie. I respect Bernie. I tried to hire Bernie for our radio station earlier this year. So, any observation is not personal...whether it be about Bernie or Grubman...is not personal.

b. I've listened to the entire interview. If you want to partake in the discussion, I respectfully request that you have done the same. One of the issues that I think leads to a lack of civil discourse is that communication is often done impersonally and via Twitter in 140 characters...therefore leaving out context.

c. It was great radio. Similarly to how I was raving about how great Frank's interview with Martz was yesterday, I couldn't get enough of the 43 minutes in which Bernie and Grubman went back and forth. Tip of the cap to both gentlemen.

With those things established, I didn't think the interview was as big of a deal as much of what I've read on Twitter, forums, our text inbox, etc. made it out to be.

While we were on the air, someone texted in that "Bernie just got schooled by Grubman." I didn't hear it that way at all.

I saw someone call it "awkward" as they were both going back and forth.

I didn't hear it that way at all. It was passion on both sides...and two people who disagree. I think it's much better for people to talk and disagree as opposed to lob shots over social media or email and never have a discussion on the phone or face to face. So, perhaps in the current culture in which much of the communication is conducted in that non-confrontational, passive-aggressive manner, when people actually have a disagreement, I suppose it may sound "awkward," but I personally wouldn't describe it as awkward at all. They were both respectful throughout even when they disagreed. Not easy to do.

So, to the heart of the issue, I *think* the reason why this is coming off to some St. Louisans as eye-opening or substantial is because of the way this story is portrayed by many of the people in town.

And, therefore, understandably, the public---which has jobs of their own and personal lives of their own to tend to---trust what they're hearing and reading locally...and get a Fox News/MSNBC tilt to some of the facts.

This is a quote from Grubman toward the end of the interview:

"I want the facts out. I don't want people to operate under an illusion. So there's no revelation in my comments."

And that's how I saw it.

He was restating facts, or as he called it...the math of the deal.

He pointed out that Bernie was making emotional arguments.

As someone who recognizes emotional arguments, knows how to manipulate with emotional arguments, and also hates to get engaged in emotional arguments, I appreciated him pointing that out...because I think so much of what has gone on over the last couple of years regarding this discussion locally is either stated emotionally or cloaked in "facts" when in reality rooted in bias (aka emotion).

Whether we like it or not, the deal that is currently on the table from the Task Force is not as favorable to the Rams as the deal that Kroenke won in arbitration.

That is a fact.

That's not up for debate.

The adjectives used to describe the manner with which Kroenke has handled this are up for debate. But, as far as the process goes, he went to arbitration, he won, and therefore, he has the right to go year-to-year and/or leave St. Louis.

By no means am I taking Kroenke's side, but for the purpose of having a discussion honestly and with math/business involved as opposed to the emotion, by discussing these elements and acknowledging them, I think many in the audience wouldn't be as caught off guard by Eric Grubman saying what he said today.

Furthermore, it speaks to the manner with which we get our information...local or national...sports or news.

If the gatekeeper of the information...and then the conduit of that information...color the information with opinion under the guise of being news, it pollutes the public with bullshit vs. the truth.

This is something I'm noticing more and more and more over the last few years. I think it's playing a major role in the domestic issues we face from a governmental standpoint...and I'm of the opinion it's playing a major role in this story locally.

It is not a good development.

You know who has been right on this subject...and when we put him on the air a number of people complain?

Ray Hartmann.

He has said for years that he thinks Kroenke is going to try to move when a number of people dismissed it. Then he said the worst thing for St. Louis football fans wanting an NFL team here would be if Kroenke's not allowed to move, he'd just go year-to-year and stick it to St. Louis by staying in The Dome.

Well, he was clearly right on #1. And, over the last week, we're hearing more and more about that second prognostication being a real possibility.

My point in bringing that up is that some people---and by no means *all* people---dismissed Hartmann's perspective...because he's a liberal...or he hates St. Louis...or he wants the Rams to move.

And, by focusing on the messenger as opposed to the message, his point got dismissed.

It goes back to opening one's mind to the unpopular information/opinions that conflict with a perspective that one may have held for years...whether that be in reference to politics or sports.

It's unhealthy, in my opinion, to dismiss an opinion or information simply because the person delivering it oftentimes doesn't match one's politics...or the information/opinion doesn't jive with one's preconceived opinions or his "team"...whether that be a political party or a sports team.

I'm experiencing it right now with my observation that, at this moment, I don't believe the 2016 Cardinals are going to be a good team. I don't have ill will toward anyone on the team. I'm simply looking at it from an analytical standpoint that 3/8 of the lineup (Holliday, Molina, Peralta) are aging, oft-injured players who, from a value standpoint, are declining assets...but because of their salaries...they will be in the lineup 90% of the time if deemed fit to play. That doesn't even address the question marks at the other positions from a health or productivity standpoint. And then there's a question mark with every member of the current four-person rotation. Those are a hell of a lot of if's even *if* they were to sign Jason Heyward.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm quite confident I'm not. And, therefore, I give my opinion.

But, as opposed to focusing on my reasoning as to why I think the 2016 Cardinals are in trouble, I am receiving personal attacks about it...because it's an unpopular opinion to share.

If we try to smoke out and attack the messengers that differ with our own, then we risk missing the boat on topics that are much more important than the 2016 Cardinals.

And, I think the reaction to Grubman's comments today speak to this broad point. He didn't say anything new from *my* standpoint as someone who has been reading/talking to people on both sides of it. But, if you only read/listen to those giving you one side, then I can see how it may have come off as new or stunning.

Personally, I think Grubman did himself a disservice by disagreeing with Bernie by saying, "I call BS" and lines like that. It was unnecessary, and he could've made his point in a manner that was less cable news and more to the facts...especially while calling Bernie on making an emotional argument. And, from Grubman's perspective, I appreciated that even though it made for a disagreement, he pointed out that some of what Bernie was responding with were emotional arguments...and those lose sight of the economics of this situation...as unpleasant as they may sound to the passionate St. Louis NFL fan.

Bottom line: it was a great listen. Bernie and I have exchanged texts discussing it. Really good stuff on the part of both Bernie and Grubman. However, from a stadium standpoint and the future of the NFL in St. Louis, it doesn't impact my view on where things currently stand in any capacity.

[Hacksaw]

Here's Fred's take.

http://thebeast980.com/audio/the-fred-roggin-show
2-09-15, Hour 2, around the 19:19 min mark.

Talk's StLoo , UK, league owners ,, ,, ,,

[Stranger]

Here's Fred's take.

http://thebeast980.com/audio/the-fred-roggin-show
2-09-15, Hour 2, around the 19:19 min mark.

Talk's StLoo , UK, league owners ,, ,, ,,

Nice summary of the major points by Fred.

[RamsFanSince82]

Here's Fred's take.

http://thebeast980.com/audio/the-fred-roggin-show
2-09-15, Hour 2, around the 19:19 min mark.

Talk's StLoo , UK, league owners ,, ,, ,,

I'm fine with what Roggin said, but lately he doesn't really take a stand like he did before. It seems like since he switched to the 3-6 pm time slot he became more pc.

[dieterbrock]

Shane is now calling Grubman an NFL "employee doing the Rams dirty work on the radio" /quote]

Shane finally gets it:

Stan Kroenke tells the NFL what to do, not the other way around...

I've been fortunate enough to be friends with you for a very long time. And I have to say, I love the way you see things and the way you say it.
This is a great example.
Well said

[The Ripper]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/McKernan/tabid/61/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/19762/A-Take-on-Grubmans-Latest-Interview-Surrounding-Rams-Future.aspx

A Take on Grubman's Latest Interview Surrounding Rams' Future

Tim McKernan posted on December 09, 2015 18:26

I am not of fan of his show but Tim has done a great job of his reporting on relocation. His California trip was pretty unbiased since he just reported what he was told.

[den-the-coach]

I'm fine with what Roggin said, but lately he doesn't really take a stand like he did before. It seems like since he switched to the 3-6 pm time slot he became more pc.

I concur, Fred was so pro Inglewood with having Mayor Butts on several times and now he makes a comment about the Rams leaving St. Louis, but maybe not for LA. However, right before that he conversed about Oakland staying in Oakland and in the end, that is what will happen and Spanos will be forced to partner with Kroenke, but he'll get a sweetheart deal where it's with the Rams or San Diego.

[SoCalRam78]

Roggin is accurate on the interview analysis. Basically, SK is done with St. Louis one way or another. That doesn't mean they'll be in LA next year although I think they will. He has 9 one year lease options, but long term, St. Louis doesn't move the needle for him in any form. Maybe if they build him Jerry's World for free and give him all the proceeds, but that will never happen.

If, and big if, the Charaiders are both in LA next year, I'd imagine the Rams would be in another city within 3 years and I wouldn't rule out Northern California if the Raiders are dumb enough to leave that market. I think London is very pie in the skyish.