[willasdad]

It's been incredibly quiet with a smattering of articles essentially recapping things that we all already know. Updates, even unsubstantiated rumors, would be greatly appreciated. These Peacock articles are so irritating I need something to balance out the crap.

[Rams the Legends live on]

Ah I would not sweat it bro. A small dog always yaps more than a big one. A small dog knows he has no real bite so he yaps to look like he is a menace. So all that is going on.

[ramfaninsd]

Ah I would not sweat it bro. A small dog always yaps more than a big one. A small dog knows he has no real bite so he yaps to look like he is a menace. So all that is going on.

hilarious!

[Hacksaw]

Ah I would not sweat it bro. A small dog always yaps more than a big one. A small dog knows he has no real bite so he yaps to look like he is a menace. So all that is going on.

hilarious!

Hilarious reality. Where I live I'm surrounded by women and they all have small dogs. Those little suckers have a lot to say.

[SoCalRam78]

you won't hear much, the one field product dominates all the headlines for now. How NFL wants it, and part of the reason the October meeting won't involve relocation.

[Hacksaw]

Delay in STL Pitch to NFL Owners May Help
Posted by: Bernie Miklasz in Bernie Miklasz, Major League Baseball September 16, 2015

As you have probably heard by now, the National Football League called an audible on the plans to invite delegations from St. Louis and San Diego make formal presentations to the 32 franchise owners. Market representatives anticipated having an opportunity to make a direct case for keeping their teams _ thus preventing a move to Los Angeles after the 2015 season.
Well, the invitations to the meeting (Oct. 6-7) in New York were rescinded.

But if you’re a Rams fan based on St. Louis, don’t sweat it.

I’ll explain in a while. First, let’s reset: Rams owner Stan Kroenke is competing against the San Diego Chargers’ ownership and Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis in the race to LA. Kroenke is willing to build a new stadium-entertainment complex in the Inglewood, an LA suburb. The Raiders and owners are partnering to fund and construct a new football stadium in Carson, which is south of Los Angeles. The NFL is trying to decide between the two plans.

The St. Louis stadium task force guided by Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz was preparing their pro-STL pitch to the owners. Mayor Kevin Faulconer was set to advocate on behalf of San Diego’s save-the-Chargers movement.
The St. Louis and San Diego campaigns are centered around plans to build new football stadiums, with STL well ahead of SD in a complicated process.
Leadership in the city of Oakland is in danger of losing the Raiders but hasn’t offered a viable solution for its longstanding stadium problem there. Because of the inactivity, the NFL didn’t to invite Oakland to address the full NFL ownership.
Don’t feel bad, Oakland.

St. Louis and San Diego were disinvited.

The news was delivered by Eric Grubman, the NFL Executive VP that’s overseeing the Los Angeles relocation process.
“At this stage of the project development, we’ll get much better dialogue with the committees who are really digging into the details,” Grubman said via email to the San Diego Union Tribune. “If the cities were to present, they would just get polite attention. At a league meeting, in that room, nobody hears anything, particularly when there are outsiders and when we have a full agenda. They would be short presentations, and you’d be bringing in the state or city leadership in to do a big dog, horse and pony show and then nobody asks a question, or if they do it’s just sort of a polite one.”

Grubman strongly prefers having the groups from St. Louis and San Diego have a more substantive session with the six-member “Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities.” There’s a chance _ but only a chance _ that the STL and SD contingents will address the full ownership later in the fall.
So what does this mean for St. Louis?
I’d say the initial reaction on social media was a mix of confusion and anxiety.
Personally, I don’t see anything to worry about here. Not much, anyway.
Sure, you’d like to see Peacock and Blitz get in front of the owners, show off the new-stadium plans, make a compelling (and rather obvious) argument on how our city has done its share to retain the Rams based on the NFL’s own guidelines _ and then take questions to answer genuine concerns or clear up false perceptions.

If some NFL owners haven’t paid attention, this was a chance to engage them. If some owners aren’t sure what to do, this was a chance to inform them, convince them.
(Then again, Peacock has quietly toured the NFL circuit, meeting with individual owners. Which is a more effective way of making a personal connection … and making sure that your message is being heard. Those 1-on-1 sessions are ideal for that.)
If an owner likes what St. Louis has on display _ a new venue and a lucrative future _ well, that owner can have his people call Peacock and set up a private meeting.

If some of the owners are inherently corrupt, totally in the tank for Kroenke, and sneering at St. Louis’ good intentions _ well, this would provide ample motivation for filing those lawsuits if ultimately necessary.

The other minus, at least in theory, is that a delay would give San Diego time to catch up to St. Louis in the stadium game in advance of a meeting with all 32 owners. But I don’t think that’s a factor now. If STL and SD indeed are summoned to discuss their respective stadium details with the owners _ again, don’t count on it _ there’s no way San Diego would have everything in place. The stadium issue in San Diego is complex, and it will take considerable time to make it through a maze obstacles _ if that’s actually possible. But by the end of 2015? No chance.
Looking ahead, a new San Diego stadium is more likely to come into play if the NFL tables Los Angeles for a year, and switches the timetable to a 2017 move. That could work against St. Louis. But my NFL sources remain skeptical of San Diego’s chances of getting anything done..
So what, if anything, did Peacock and Blitz gain by the NFL’s decision to close the door and deny a meeting with full ownership?

Two things:
First, depending on when the meeting with the Big “6” Committee is held _ perhaps late October, early November _ Peacock and Blitz could have the stadium land secured and stadium funding finalized. (Or very close to it.) That’s an obvious plus.
Second _ and this is significant _ the six-owner committee is our town’s best chance of keeping the Rams. (A reminder that the six are New England’s Robert Kraft, the NY Giants’ John Mara, Pittsburgh’s Art Rooney II, Kansas City’s Clark Hunt, Carolina’s Jerry Richardson, Houston’s Bob McNair.)
I’ve said this before, and I’ll amplify the remarks: I strongly believe this six-man committee has genuine empathy for St. Louis, will insists on treating St. Louis fairly, and is unwilling to sign off on a corrupt process that blatantly disregards the NFL’s relocation guidelines.

For instance, if Grubman or another high-ranking league executive are maneuvering behind the scenes to assure a favorable outcome for Kroenke, the “Big 6” collectively will have nothing to do with being a part of a fix.
Among other things, fixing the LA sweepstakes in a way that abandons a market that’s about to build a second NFL stadium in less than 25 years would would leave the NFL extremely vulnerable on the legal front, and could jeopardize the league’s antitrust exemption. Considering the league’s humiliation in the U.S. courts in recent years _ five consecutive, embarrassing defeats _ the risk of being sued presumably would make key NFL folks nervous.

Peacock and Blitz have allies on that committee, and this could be hugely important if the “Big 6” wield powerful influence with their fellow owners. That’s how it usually works when commissioner Roger Goodell appoints a special committee and fills it with the league’s most respected owners. A group of owners that serve as the NFL’s conscience. Or, if you prefer, a Supreme Court. When that committee makes a recommendation, the other owners go with it.
So the STL task force can use this time _ this more personal and comprehensive committee meeting _ as a way to enhance the resolve of the “Big 6.”
And if the “Big 6″ sides with St. Louis, will the other owners fall in line?

Obviously there are no guarantees _ after all, this is the greediest league on the planet _ but if the process is legit, I’d like our chances.
This is what Grubman told the San Diego Union Tribune: “After talking to a number of owners, I felt that Committee members would want to engage with and talk to the presenters in some detail, and that the full group of owners might benefit from a back and forth discussion about the potential projects.”

At least for now, the “Big 6” is carrying the football in this game. And that doesn’t hurt Peacock, Blitz and St. Louis.
To relocate in observance of NFL rules, a team that files for relocation requires approval of 24 of the 32 owners. If the NFL proceeds with plans to put one or two teams in Los Angeles for the 2016 season, a vote would likely be held in early January of ’16. Sam Farmer (Los Angeles Times) and Ken Belson (New York Times) have suggested the league may delay the entry into Los Angeles until 2017. With this league, who knows? But even if the “Big Six” are in the STL corner, it means nothing unless Peacock and Blitz can complete their mission on the stadium project.

Thanks for reading …
–Bernie

[Rams the Legends live on]

LMAO.......Seriously Bernie really makes me laugh I have never seen such a walking example of hypocrisy in my life. Peacock is visiting one on one with the owners silently. Which makes me question how silent it is if Bernie knows as he has no investigative skills. So Peacock visiting one on one is cool cause he is building allies and anyone who likes Stan's idea is corrupt.............LOL I only wish Stan was visiting one on one with the owners so I could enjoy Bernie calling that a corrupt conspiracy while praising Peacock for building allies......LOL He also alludes to a lawsuit if the Rams get to move. Seriously what would the suit and case be on and about? Would they sue the Rams over the original lease as unfair because the Rams lawyers were well aware they were dealing with desperate incompetents. If the city could only find a way to turn Bernie's bs into gold all their financial problems would be solved.

[bubbaramfan]

Any delay will give Missouri politicians more time to get on the Anti-stadium bandwagon. the list is getting longer.

[Elvis]

The truth is the owners don't care what the cities are doing.

It's about the owners, not the cities.

But they need to at least give the appearance of caring about the cities and their fans so that's why this is a little interesting...

[majik]

Is Bernie confusing the NFL with MLB? The NFL doesnt have an antitrust exemption. Didnt Missouri AG Jay Nixon threaten to sue the NFL for violating antitrust law if the NFL didn't allow GF to move her franchise to St. Louis twenty odd years ago? The hypocrisy runs amok