New Poster, my 2 cents
PostPosted:9 years 9 months ago
Got banned by idiots over at PD because I said Bernie's Raider sale to SK was made up nonsense. He must have been upset after Davis denied wanting to sell or move to St. Louis. I wasn't inflammatory or insulting. Anyway that place stinks and is ruined by 4 local idiots who post non stop about how the Rams will stay plus the format style is antiquated garbage that is hard to read. The best part of Rams moving will be Bernie eating his words.
Here's my analysis.
1. The Rams are moving. SK has been cultivating this since 2010 and his first shot was buying the Dodgers and doing it at Chavez Ravine. Once that fell through, he was all in on Inglewood. Bias aside, this dwarfs the other proposals in terms of site, stadium and surrounding area. No one can argue otherwise, it's also the most expensive. The Rams want nothing to do with the St. Louis plan and would have moved if Goodell didn't kibosh 2015. The NFL wants a beautiful site in LA, and I doubt the NFL will choose against a facility of that magnitude.
2. Carson is fabricated reactionary BS solely as a result of number 1 above. Neither the Raiders or Chargers actually want to move they just want to have new stadiums and leverage. SK actually wants to move. He wants to be owner in the number 2 market with the gem stadium. Moreover, this site is 12-18 months from being shovel ready, and so wont be open until 2020 at the earliest. I'm sure having the Raiders and Chargers play in college stadium for 4 seasons is ideal for the NFL. Not. The Rams would play in one for two years. And LA doesn't want the Raiders back.
3. The progress of the St. Louis stadium is being overrated by the local writers at the PD, namely Bernie. They think their part of the deal is a slam dunk, but nobody has signed of on anything, no proposal has been made to politicians and they will meet backlash.
4. SD offer is being underrated by the same writers because it's easy to bash on California for public funding, but a framework is there. The offer will probably need to be more, but it's a good start.
5. SK's plan is for a two team stadium, and ultimately Oakland and SD will have some form of leverage to move as second tenants.
Here's my analysis.
1. The Rams are moving. SK has been cultivating this since 2010 and his first shot was buying the Dodgers and doing it at Chavez Ravine. Once that fell through, he was all in on Inglewood. Bias aside, this dwarfs the other proposals in terms of site, stadium and surrounding area. No one can argue otherwise, it's also the most expensive. The Rams want nothing to do with the St. Louis plan and would have moved if Goodell didn't kibosh 2015. The NFL wants a beautiful site in LA, and I doubt the NFL will choose against a facility of that magnitude.
2. Carson is fabricated reactionary BS solely as a result of number 1 above. Neither the Raiders or Chargers actually want to move they just want to have new stadiums and leverage. SK actually wants to move. He wants to be owner in the number 2 market with the gem stadium. Moreover, this site is 12-18 months from being shovel ready, and so wont be open until 2020 at the earliest. I'm sure having the Raiders and Chargers play in college stadium for 4 seasons is ideal for the NFL. Not. The Rams would play in one for two years. And LA doesn't want the Raiders back.
3. The progress of the St. Louis stadium is being overrated by the local writers at the PD, namely Bernie. They think their part of the deal is a slam dunk, but nobody has signed of on anything, no proposal has been made to politicians and they will meet backlash.
4. SD offer is being underrated by the same writers because it's easy to bash on California for public funding, but a framework is there. The offer will probably need to be more, but it's a good start.
5. SK's plan is for a two team stadium, and ultimately Oakland and SD will have some form of leverage to move as second tenants.