[TSFH Fan]

Let's not go all RamStalker...

there should be a measure of sanity in our critiques.

the top tier was RIDICULOUS.

The top tier clause was negotiated by two sides represented by capable counsel. If it was truly "RIDICULOUS" there would be legal recourse to rewrite the lease. No such recourse was taken.

The lease, with the top tier clause, was approved by the NFL and is not an uncommonly used clause:

The Bengals aren't the only team with a state-of-the-art clause. The Charlotte Hornets, Kansas City Chiefs, St. Louis Rams, Atlanta Braves, and Minnesota Vikings also have state-of-the-art clauses in their leases; the Chargers had one until 2004, when they gave it up in the hopes that they would soon get a completely new stadium.

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/t ... g-you-over

[TSFH Fan]

I'm sure the Rams players really appreciate the lack of support from St. Louis.

Yeah, it's a little OT, but I wonder if the Rams players would prefer no support or the threats / death threats that some of them received a little less than a year ago.

[SoCalRam78]

Let's not go all RamStalker...

It's not the NFL's preferred model or split.. but you could *argue* that it's 60-40.. private/public.
Vinny says the NFL sees it as 70-30.. that's still a lot of money, imo.

It's below what Minnesota recently got, and it's a terrible proposal in principal because it was railroaded down the cities throat by Nixon and Peacock who bypassed any voting process that the citizens voted for and passed. Plus the Minnesota stadium is better. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Rams' 700 million dollar renovation proposal to the EJD to keep it top tier. That's the number of public money they should aim for in a new stadium, not significantly less.

I'm not arguing merits of different proposals and I'm not arguing lease history.

I'm pointing out that there should be a measure of sanity in our critiques.
Yeah... your numbers comparisons are right.. but your conclusions are so one sided, they leave no room to understand *how* someone might come to a different conclusion, a totally reasonable different conclusion at that.

We think the lease top tier clause should mean something... what if owners voting see it as a totally unreasonable clause and sympathize with Stl? You go to the letter of the contract in divorces and lawsuits.. in negotiations, you'll look for fair.
Even I.. who think Stan has a solid case to move and has the best proposal and that the Rams being the only team in LA makes, by far, the most sense.. can point out that the top tier was RIDICULOUS.

So.. let's look a the current environment and what's being proposed by the three markets involved... in that light, Stl is looking relevant.

Of course it's ridiculous. It's an absurd clause they agreed on to steal the Rams from So Cal back in 1994/95, and it's the only reason we're having this conversation. Too bad for them an arbitrator ruled completely in the Rams' favor when it came to a lease. Now the league should give St. Louis a pass? For what, so the Charaiders can abandon two historic markets and move to LA because their stadiums are old? Force Kroenke to double down in the worst of the 3 markets financially?

If that's the case, SD and Oakland shouldn't be allowed to move until their cities exhaust every single option as well. SD has the beginnings of a very decent plan, sure, needs a public vote in '16. The Chargers just want to move to protect their interests or whatever. Since we're protecting St. Louis from an absurd clause, we also have to protect San Diego and allow their most recent plan to either succeed or fail. Same with Oakland if they come up with one.

Sorry, have ZERO sympathy for St. Louis.

[RamsFanSince82]

Let's not go all RamStalker...

there should be a measure of sanity in our critiques.

the top tier was RIDICULOUS.

The top tier clause was negotiated by two sides represented by capable counsel. If it was truly "RIDICULOUS" there would be legal recourse to rewrite the lease. No such recourse was taken.

The lease, with the top tier clause, was approved by the NFL and is not an uncommonly used clause:

The Bengals aren't the only team with a state-of-the-art clause. The Charlotte Hornets, Kansas City Chiefs, St. Louis Rams, Atlanta Braves, and Minnesota Vikings also have state-of-the-art clauses in their leases; the Chargers had one until 2004, when they gave it up in the hopes that they would soon get a completely new stadium.

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/t ... g-you-over

Great post!

[TSFH Fan]

TSFH... did you even look at the headline for the article you linked to???????????

THE STUPID SPORTS STADIUM CLAUSE THAT'S SCREWING YOU OVER

A headline by a commentator calling a clause stupid does not change the fact that it was agreed to by two parties, represented by counsel, and approved by the NFL and certainly does not make it "RIDICULOUS", as you claim, in all caps. -- which in your world equates to objectivity, I guess. Whatever.

[Edit: And if one were to read deMause's stuff or see the Oliver video, one could conclude that all stadiums with public subsidies are stupid, objectively, subjectively, or whatever.]

[bubbaramfan]

Sure Dick, lets lure the Rams to St Louis with a "RIDCULOUS" clause is the lease, one we never intend to keep, and then blame it on the owner.

[Hacksaw]

C'mon

[BuiltRamTough]

If you make a bad deal you can't go back and say it's ridiculous and not fair. It's the rules fair or unfair. That's why the arbiter ruled in favor of the Rams.

This is America, once you sign the dotted line that's it.

[Elvis]

By NFL standards the top tier clause was not ridiculous. Other teams have similar clauses. And if you're going to make a 30 year commitment, you're going to want some assurances that you won't be stuck in a dump for a decade or two at the back end of the lease.

Still, most of us have seen the John Oliver piece on some of the crazy stuff the NFL gets cities to commit to. So i guess how ridiculous any of this is is a matter of perspective.

I think it's pretty crazy that the NFL considers game day tax revenue theirs. What next? Will they go the IRS and claim income tax paid by NFL players belongs to the NFL since the players wouldn't have that income if not for the league?

Anyway, i'd like to think there's a way to talk about this stuff without so many personal attacks...

[The Ripper]

I think it's pretty crazy that the NFL considers game day tax revenue theirs. What next? Will they go the IRS and claim income tax paid by NFL players belongs to the NFL since the players wouldn't have that income if not for the league?

No your confusing what the game day taxes are, they're special or additional taxes that imposed on revenues that go to the team. They only exist because of the NFL team. If the maximum a team can charge is $ 100 and then the local government decides to impose a ticket tax of 10% then that means the team can only makes $ 90. The same applies to parking and concessions. The NFL doesn't consider everyday taxes as belonging to the NFL but some cities during negotiations may give them to a team.