by Elvis 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 41520 Joined: Mar 28 2015 Los Angeles Administrator Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #1 TOPIC AUTHOR http://www.ksdk.com/story/sports/2016/0 ... /78598864/Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis?Howard Balzer, Special for KSDK SportsTo say the least, the last year for St. Louis pro football plans has been an emotional roller coaster. It all culminated this past week when the Rams' relocation proposal was revealed, and was followed four days later when a report from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was made to the league's 32 owners in advance of the league meetings set for Tuesday and Wednesday this week in Houston.In the St. Louis section of the report, it read as if it was lifted from the Rams' application, which left no room for analysis on which side the league sits. The problem, though, is that both missives contain enough inaccuracies that they just might be candidates for the New York Times best-seller list for fiction.The most laughable part of the Rams' application came when the team patted itself on the back for owner Stan Kroenke investing so much in the team after he took control in 2010 that the average record of 4-12 in the previous five years improved to a robust average of 6-10 in Kroenke's six years as controlling owner.Of course, never mind that more than a year was spent by the owner ensuring that the team would be able to go year-to-year on its lease starting in 2015. It was only shortly after the arbitrator's decision in January, 2013, that Kroenke began, in August of that year, developing plans for his Inglewood, Calif., project. Of course, no one in St. Louis knew of those plans, and there was never a word of communication from the organization to try and work out a stadium solution. The goal was to be able to go year-to-year on their dome lease, and that was accomplished.It's clear then, that for 17 months until his Inglewood plan was unveiled a year ago on Jan. 5, the owner of the Rams was hard at work on his plans to move as opposed to truly seeking success on the field or trying to figure out a way to stay as he vowed to do in an April, 2010, story in the Post-Dispatch.Now, bear with me as we present Goodell's words about St. Louis, in which he says the riverfront stadium proposal is "inadequate," while also concluding that the Rams, San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders are eligible to relocate. Is this really about legal cover? We'll get to that momentarily.From Goodell's report to the owners"The State, City and RSA believe that they have all necessary authority in connection with the public funding. Nonetheless, nearly three-fourths of the Missouri General Assembly members have publicly expressed their opposition, arguing that such public funding should be approved by the legislature or by public vote, and, as noted above, that issue is in litigation. The prospect of opposition by a substantial majority of the Missouri General Assembly, as well as the pending litigation, could result in appropriation risk and uncertainty that cannot be entirely dismissed."The public funding obligations would be contingent on, among other things, $300 million of NFL League-level funding, $250 million from the Rams, and a minimum of $160.4 million of net proceeds from PSLs. This proposal would require the League to provide $100 million more than the maximum amount for which any club is eligible under the League’s G-4 program."Notwithstanding the fact that the amount of public funding proposed by the City and State is substantial, the Rams have expressed concerns that the market potential would not yield an economic return sufficient to justify the very substantial private investment (for both construction as well as 30 years of maintenance and improvements) that the Task Force’s proposal would require. The Rams have estimated that the club’s overall financial position would deteriorate under the proposal, even utilizing the revenue projections of the public authorities. In addition, the proposal would provide substantially less public support for the Rams than the support to which the club was entitled, according to the independent arbitration panel, under the existing stadium lease; public officials estimated that the cost to complete the renovations endorsed by the arbitration panel would have been about $700 million."The factors discussed above -- including the size of the private investment required in this market (including additional amounts from the League) and the risk attributable to political opposition—raise significant concerns about the certainty and long-term viability of the Task Force’s stadium proposal to retain the Rams."Let's start from the top:*While there are many that believe the state and city funding should be decided by a vote, in the case of the state, Gov. Jay Nixon insists he has the power to extend bonds to cover the cost of the new stadium. State legislators had opportunity last spring to challenge that, but they weren't able to muster enough support. After the legislative session ended in May, some disgruntled legislators began filing lawsuits. Again, Nixon says they can't stop the funding.However, where Goodell goes astray is by claiming that "nearly three-fourths of the Missouri General Assembly members have publicly expressed their opposition." Actually, some members have claimed that three-fourths are opposed. However, three-fourths have not done so publicly.*Moving on, Goodell states that the Task Force plan "would require the League to provide $100 million more than the maximum amount for which any club is eligible under the League’s G-4 program."In a letter to the Task Force the day before the Dec. 18 vote by the Board of Aldermen, Goodell merely noted that an extra $100 million would be unprecedented and would have to be approved by the owners. Goodell's initial timing was questionable at best, coming the day before the vote. The best result for the league office in pushing for the Inglewood plan would have been for the city to have not approved funding. That would have killed the stadium, and greased the skids for Kroenke's departure. Goodell also took Task Force leader Dave Peacock to task for not acting in good faith regarding the extra $100 million. Yes, somehow, the league office believes Kroenke has acted in good faith.That strategy by Goodell followed a little more than a week after the league office requested that league executive Eric Grubman appear on Bernie Miklasz's radio show on 101 ESPN. That interview occurred one day before the Board of Aldermen's Ways and means Committee would decide whether to send the stadium bill to the full board. Miklasz knew something was up when Grubman thanked him for inviting him on. The setup was in full force, as Grubman then detailed how the stadium plan was far short of being compelling to the Rams.What's also notable is how that extra $100 million found its way into the Task Force proposal. On Dec. 16, Houston Texans owner Bob McNair said this to the Houston Chronicle: "St. Louis, they have come up with a proposal that is getting pretty close, in my opinion, to being an attractive proposal. And if they do come up with an attractive proposal, then in my view, my personal opinion, I don’t think the Rams will receive the approval to relocate."It's important to know that McNair is not only on the six-man LA Opportunities Committee, but is also chairman of the Finance Committee. Shortly before debate began within the Board of Aldermen on Dec. 15, it was McNair and other owners that suggested and encouraged the $100 million be included, with the knowledge that it had to be approved by the league's owners, but not Goodell. After all, Goodell has as many votes in this process as any of us. Zero.It's funny how numerous owners support the stadium plan, but, of course, the Rams and league office tear it apart.*The final Goodell comments merely parrot the Rams' jaded belief that "the market potential would not yield an economic return sufficient to justify the very substantial private investment (for both construction as well as 30 years of maintenance and improvements) that the Task Force’s proposal would require. The Rams have estimated that the club’s overall financial position would deteriorate under the proposal ... "Actually, that "substantial private investment" is more than $100 million less than what the Vikings are investing in their new stadium. Also, the Vikings are paying about the same amount per year ($3.5 million) than the Rams have been asked to pay for maintenance and improvements. In addition, while the Rams' rent payment would be $1.5 million instead of $250,000, and would increase three percent per year, the Vikings' rent starts out at $8.5 million and also goes up three percent each year. Without accounting for the increase each year, the Vikings will pay at least $210 million more in rent than the Rams over the 30 years.Additionally, the Rams would receive all football-related revenue in the stadium including a naming rights deal that will pay them about $4 million more each year than they currently receive. Plus, they also receive all revenue from non-football events in the stadium and they control the stadium and can schedule as they want.Critics have questioned why Kroenke would invest $250 million in a stadium he doesn't own. In reality, he would be paying about 23 percent of the cost for the venue while receiving virtually all of the revenue.*Now, to the most disingenuous and brazen comment by Goodell: "The proposal would provide substantially less public support for the Rams than the support to which the club was entitled, according to the independent arbitration panel, under the existing stadium lease; public officials estimated that the cost to complete the renovations endorsed by the arbitration panel would have been about $700 million."Methinks Goodell has said too much, and this could backfire. That arbiyration panel ruled on dome renovations according to the lease. It has nothing to do with a new stadium. Furthermore, the stadium plans from the very beginning estimated the need for up to $400 million in public money. Everyone knew it, including the league. For one year, the league office has encouraged the Task Force and said, "keep doing what you're doing." He and Grubman on numerous occasions praised the progress being made.Yet, now, suddenly, the public support should be the plan the Rams submitted in the dome arbitration for renovations? Had the Rams submitted an $800 million plan, would Goodell now be staying the public support had to be $800 million? That is nothing short of outrageous.It's pure bait and switch. Why didn't the league office say from the beginning that $700 million would be necessary? Why did they continue to encourage the Task Force? The answer seems simple: They, and Kroenke, never expected the plan to succeed, figuring it would fail on its own. But it didn't, and now they resort to other ways to sink it.Also noteworthy, is that the $400 million in public money is the fifth most in the history of the country's sports stadiums. A $700 million investment would be significantly more than the most ever.That the league office supports the Rams' contention that winning the arbitration gives them the right to relocate is troubling. Yes, the lease was a bad one. But it probably would have come home to roost in 10 years if it didn't now.No community would invest $700 million for another 10 years on a lease without an extension of the lease. Kroenke would have been free to leave in 2025 anyway without even more potential investment.As noted earlier, all of Goodell's bluster might be tied to legal cover from any challenge from our leaders.Still, one thing is unmistakedly clear: Most of the time, owners actually work with the community to solve the issues at hand. Of course, we know that never happened here. Had there been an engaged owner in the process that was committed to reaching a solution, many of the problems along the way could have and likely would have been worked out.It is often said that Stan Kroenke is simply doing what a good businessman does. However, isn’t sports different than most businesses? A city name or area is the name of the business. There is no competition in the same business.There is a quote hanging in the Pro Football Hall of Fame from former Steelers owner Art Rooney that says, "I don't like losing games and I don't like losing money, but I'll tell you from the bottom of my heart. Whatever I lost in money, I was lucky to be able to lose it. I'd pay to lose it to keep in this game. I love it that much."We know that Kroenke certainly has experience with the teams he owns losing games.The sentiment from Rooney might be somewhat old school, but it speaks to the passion of the game rather than of being a collector of teams and land.Finally, along those lines, we'll close with a quote from former San Francisco 49ers executive Carmen Policy, who was talking about former 49ers owner Ed DeBartolo Jr., who is the contributor's committee finalist thos year in voting for the Fall of Fame Class of 2016.Said Policy, comparing what veteran players can do for young players and how it can relate to owners, "The older players the image that they project, the factor they bring to the younger players, to the new people coming into the league. They become like mentors, they teach them the dignity of the game. I think having Eddie as a candidate as a contributor can serve as a great example for some of the owners coming into the league which says to them, don't make it all about business. Make it about the game, make it about being a sportsman even moreso than a businessman. Make it about passion and make it about winning and make it about taking care of your players and your organization. Because that's basically what characterizes Eddie as a special owner."This week in Houston we will all likely get another lesson in what the NFL is truly about. RFU Season Ticket Holder by Stranger 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 3213 Joined: Aug 12 2015 Norcal Superstar Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #2 Just..... can't ..... read.... StL..... media..... any...... more. New HC. New L.A. Stadium. Future is Bright. by majik 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 1269 Joined: Aug 31 2015 New Jersey Pro Bowl Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #3 Howard:Would a "bait and switch" be promising to maintain a top tier stadium (in a legal document), then walking out on an arbitrator's decision (binding arbitration as agreed to in said legal document), and the offering half of the money that arbitrator said you should receive to replace the non-top tier stadium?So children (St. Louis), can you you say hypocrisy? Sure I knew that you could by Hacksaw 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 24523 Joined: Apr 15 2015 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #4 majik wrote:Howard:Would a "bait and switch" be promising to maintain a top tier stadium (in a legal document), then walking out on an arbitrator's decision ,,,,,,So children (St. Louis), can you you say hypocrisy? Sure I knew that you couldClassic !! GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS by OldSchool 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 1750 Joined: Jun 09 2015 LA Coliseum Pro Bowl Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #5 majik wrote:Howard:Would a "bait and switch" be promising to maintain a top tier stadium (in a legal document), then walking out on an arbitrator's decision (binding arbitration as agreed to in said legal document), and the offering half of the money that arbitrator said you should receive to replace the non-top tier stadium?So children (St. Louis), can you you say hypocrisy? Sure I knew that you couldWinner winner chicken dinner! by den-the-coach 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 870 Joined: May 22 2015 Fifty-four Forty or Fight Veteran Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #6 Hey Howard: by bluecoconuts 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 273 Joined: Aug 29 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #7 Rams said they didn't want anything to do with it and not to bother. It was an uphill battle from the start, I don't see any bait and switch. by The Ripper 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 494 Joined: May 13 2015 Naples, FL Starter Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #8 He's mathematically challenged. Kroenke is paying more than Wilf even with the cost overruns. The stadium is also top tier with greater revenue projections which justifies the additional rent. by Ramfan46 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 123 Joined: Jul 11 2015 LA Coliseum Practice Squad Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #9 Wouldn't Top Tier automatically mean Super Bowl capable these days? I just remember seeing the Riverfront Concept and being completely underwhelmed after seeing the 2 renderings of the City of Champions Project. As soon as I saw Kroenke wanted a multi purpose complex capable of hosting Super Bowls, Final Fours, Bowl Games, Combine, Drafts, NFL Events, Conventions, Concerts, Supercross, Monster Trucks and so on I knew STL was in big trouble. They offered him a below average outdoor only stadium with not one single special feature about the place. Also said he needed to be open to sharing with an MLS team that doesn't exist. Ohh and you are locked in until 2050 and it will cost you 8-900Mil after overruns. What a smoking deal!! by LoyalRam 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 248 Joined: Jul 21 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #10 brevity is you friend howie....you and bernie m. must be literary twins Reply 1 / 1 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 10 posts Jul 13 2025 FOLLOW US @RAMSFANSUNITED Who liked this post
by Stranger 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 3213 Joined: Aug 12 2015 Norcal Superstar Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #2 Just..... can't ..... read.... StL..... media..... any...... more. New HC. New L.A. Stadium. Future is Bright. by majik 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 1269 Joined: Aug 31 2015 New Jersey Pro Bowl Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #3 Howard:Would a "bait and switch" be promising to maintain a top tier stadium (in a legal document), then walking out on an arbitrator's decision (binding arbitration as agreed to in said legal document), and the offering half of the money that arbitrator said you should receive to replace the non-top tier stadium?So children (St. Louis), can you you say hypocrisy? Sure I knew that you could by Hacksaw 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 24523 Joined: Apr 15 2015 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #4 majik wrote:Howard:Would a "bait and switch" be promising to maintain a top tier stadium (in a legal document), then walking out on an arbitrator's decision ,,,,,,So children (St. Louis), can you you say hypocrisy? Sure I knew that you couldClassic !! GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS by OldSchool 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 1750 Joined: Jun 09 2015 LA Coliseum Pro Bowl Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #5 majik wrote:Howard:Would a "bait and switch" be promising to maintain a top tier stadium (in a legal document), then walking out on an arbitrator's decision (binding arbitration as agreed to in said legal document), and the offering half of the money that arbitrator said you should receive to replace the non-top tier stadium?So children (St. Louis), can you you say hypocrisy? Sure I knew that you couldWinner winner chicken dinner! by den-the-coach 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 870 Joined: May 22 2015 Fifty-four Forty or Fight Veteran Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #6 Hey Howard: by bluecoconuts 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 273 Joined: Aug 29 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #7 Rams said they didn't want anything to do with it and not to bother. It was an uphill battle from the start, I don't see any bait and switch. by The Ripper 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 494 Joined: May 13 2015 Naples, FL Starter Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #8 He's mathematically challenged. Kroenke is paying more than Wilf even with the cost overruns. The stadium is also top tier with greater revenue projections which justifies the additional rent. by Ramfan46 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 123 Joined: Jul 11 2015 LA Coliseum Practice Squad Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #9 Wouldn't Top Tier automatically mean Super Bowl capable these days? I just remember seeing the Riverfront Concept and being completely underwhelmed after seeing the 2 renderings of the City of Champions Project. As soon as I saw Kroenke wanted a multi purpose complex capable of hosting Super Bowls, Final Fours, Bowl Games, Combine, Drafts, NFL Events, Conventions, Concerts, Supercross, Monster Trucks and so on I knew STL was in big trouble. They offered him a below average outdoor only stadium with not one single special feature about the place. Also said he needed to be open to sharing with an MLS team that doesn't exist. Ohh and you are locked in until 2050 and it will cost you 8-900Mil after overruns. What a smoking deal!! by LoyalRam 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 248 Joined: Jul 21 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #10 brevity is you friend howie....you and bernie m. must be literary twins Reply 1 / 1 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 10 posts Jul 13 2025 FOLLOW US @RAMSFANSUNITED Who liked this post
by majik 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 1269 Joined: Aug 31 2015 New Jersey Pro Bowl Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #3 Howard:Would a "bait and switch" be promising to maintain a top tier stadium (in a legal document), then walking out on an arbitrator's decision (binding arbitration as agreed to in said legal document), and the offering half of the money that arbitrator said you should receive to replace the non-top tier stadium?So children (St. Louis), can you you say hypocrisy? Sure I knew that you could by Hacksaw 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 24523 Joined: Apr 15 2015 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #4 majik wrote:Howard:Would a "bait and switch" be promising to maintain a top tier stadium (in a legal document), then walking out on an arbitrator's decision ,,,,,,So children (St. Louis), can you you say hypocrisy? Sure I knew that you couldClassic !! GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS by OldSchool 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 1750 Joined: Jun 09 2015 LA Coliseum Pro Bowl Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #5 majik wrote:Howard:Would a "bait and switch" be promising to maintain a top tier stadium (in a legal document), then walking out on an arbitrator's decision (binding arbitration as agreed to in said legal document), and the offering half of the money that arbitrator said you should receive to replace the non-top tier stadium?So children (St. Louis), can you you say hypocrisy? Sure I knew that you couldWinner winner chicken dinner! by den-the-coach 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 870 Joined: May 22 2015 Fifty-four Forty or Fight Veteran Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #6 Hey Howard: by bluecoconuts 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 273 Joined: Aug 29 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #7 Rams said they didn't want anything to do with it and not to bother. It was an uphill battle from the start, I don't see any bait and switch. by The Ripper 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 494 Joined: May 13 2015 Naples, FL Starter Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #8 He's mathematically challenged. Kroenke is paying more than Wilf even with the cost overruns. The stadium is also top tier with greater revenue projections which justifies the additional rent. by Ramfan46 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 123 Joined: Jul 11 2015 LA Coliseum Practice Squad Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #9 Wouldn't Top Tier automatically mean Super Bowl capable these days? I just remember seeing the Riverfront Concept and being completely underwhelmed after seeing the 2 renderings of the City of Champions Project. As soon as I saw Kroenke wanted a multi purpose complex capable of hosting Super Bowls, Final Fours, Bowl Games, Combine, Drafts, NFL Events, Conventions, Concerts, Supercross, Monster Trucks and so on I knew STL was in big trouble. They offered him a below average outdoor only stadium with not one single special feature about the place. Also said he needed to be open to sharing with an MLS team that doesn't exist. Ohh and you are locked in until 2050 and it will cost you 8-900Mil after overruns. What a smoking deal!! by LoyalRam 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 248 Joined: Jul 21 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #10 brevity is you friend howie....you and bernie m. must be literary twins Reply 1 / 1 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 10 posts Jul 13 2025 FOLLOW US @RAMSFANSUNITED Who liked this post
by Hacksaw 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 24523 Joined: Apr 15 2015 AT THE BEACH Moderator Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #4 majik wrote:Howard:Would a "bait and switch" be promising to maintain a top tier stadium (in a legal document), then walking out on an arbitrator's decision ,,,,,,So children (St. Louis), can you you say hypocrisy? Sure I knew that you couldClassic !! GO RAMS !!! GO DODGERS !!! GO LAKERS !!!THE GREATEST SHOW ON TURF,, WAS by OldSchool 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 1750 Joined: Jun 09 2015 LA Coliseum Pro Bowl Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #5 majik wrote:Howard:Would a "bait and switch" be promising to maintain a top tier stadium (in a legal document), then walking out on an arbitrator's decision (binding arbitration as agreed to in said legal document), and the offering half of the money that arbitrator said you should receive to replace the non-top tier stadium?So children (St. Louis), can you you say hypocrisy? Sure I knew that you couldWinner winner chicken dinner! by den-the-coach 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 870 Joined: May 22 2015 Fifty-four Forty or Fight Veteran Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #6 Hey Howard: by bluecoconuts 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 273 Joined: Aug 29 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #7 Rams said they didn't want anything to do with it and not to bother. It was an uphill battle from the start, I don't see any bait and switch. by The Ripper 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 494 Joined: May 13 2015 Naples, FL Starter Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #8 He's mathematically challenged. Kroenke is paying more than Wilf even with the cost overruns. The stadium is also top tier with greater revenue projections which justifies the additional rent. by Ramfan46 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 123 Joined: Jul 11 2015 LA Coliseum Practice Squad Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #9 Wouldn't Top Tier automatically mean Super Bowl capable these days? I just remember seeing the Riverfront Concept and being completely underwhelmed after seeing the 2 renderings of the City of Champions Project. As soon as I saw Kroenke wanted a multi purpose complex capable of hosting Super Bowls, Final Fours, Bowl Games, Combine, Drafts, NFL Events, Conventions, Concerts, Supercross, Monster Trucks and so on I knew STL was in big trouble. They offered him a below average outdoor only stadium with not one single special feature about the place. Also said he needed to be open to sharing with an MLS team that doesn't exist. Ohh and you are locked in until 2050 and it will cost you 8-900Mil after overruns. What a smoking deal!! by LoyalRam 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 248 Joined: Jul 21 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #10 brevity is you friend howie....you and bernie m. must be literary twins Reply 1 / 1 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 10 posts Jul 13 2025 FOLLOW US @RAMSFANSUNITED Who liked this post
by OldSchool 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 1750 Joined: Jun 09 2015 LA Coliseum Pro Bowl Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #5 majik wrote:Howard:Would a "bait and switch" be promising to maintain a top tier stadium (in a legal document), then walking out on an arbitrator's decision (binding arbitration as agreed to in said legal document), and the offering half of the money that arbitrator said you should receive to replace the non-top tier stadium?So children (St. Louis), can you you say hypocrisy? Sure I knew that you couldWinner winner chicken dinner! by den-the-coach 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 870 Joined: May 22 2015 Fifty-four Forty or Fight Veteran Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #6 Hey Howard: by bluecoconuts 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 273 Joined: Aug 29 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #7 Rams said they didn't want anything to do with it and not to bother. It was an uphill battle from the start, I don't see any bait and switch. by The Ripper 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 494 Joined: May 13 2015 Naples, FL Starter Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #8 He's mathematically challenged. Kroenke is paying more than Wilf even with the cost overruns. The stadium is also top tier with greater revenue projections which justifies the additional rent. by Ramfan46 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 123 Joined: Jul 11 2015 LA Coliseum Practice Squad Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #9 Wouldn't Top Tier automatically mean Super Bowl capable these days? I just remember seeing the Riverfront Concept and being completely underwhelmed after seeing the 2 renderings of the City of Champions Project. As soon as I saw Kroenke wanted a multi purpose complex capable of hosting Super Bowls, Final Fours, Bowl Games, Combine, Drafts, NFL Events, Conventions, Concerts, Supercross, Monster Trucks and so on I knew STL was in big trouble. They offered him a below average outdoor only stadium with not one single special feature about the place. Also said he needed to be open to sharing with an MLS team that doesn't exist. Ohh and you are locked in until 2050 and it will cost you 8-900Mil after overruns. What a smoking deal!! by LoyalRam 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 248 Joined: Jul 21 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #10 brevity is you friend howie....you and bernie m. must be literary twins Reply 1 / 1 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 10 posts Jul 13 2025
by den-the-coach 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 870 Joined: May 22 2015 Fifty-four Forty or Fight Veteran Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #6 Hey Howard: by bluecoconuts 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 273 Joined: Aug 29 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #7 Rams said they didn't want anything to do with it and not to bother. It was an uphill battle from the start, I don't see any bait and switch. by The Ripper 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 494 Joined: May 13 2015 Naples, FL Starter Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #8 He's mathematically challenged. Kroenke is paying more than Wilf even with the cost overruns. The stadium is also top tier with greater revenue projections which justifies the additional rent. by Ramfan46 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 123 Joined: Jul 11 2015 LA Coliseum Practice Squad Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #9 Wouldn't Top Tier automatically mean Super Bowl capable these days? I just remember seeing the Riverfront Concept and being completely underwhelmed after seeing the 2 renderings of the City of Champions Project. As soon as I saw Kroenke wanted a multi purpose complex capable of hosting Super Bowls, Final Fours, Bowl Games, Combine, Drafts, NFL Events, Conventions, Concerts, Supercross, Monster Trucks and so on I knew STL was in big trouble. They offered him a below average outdoor only stadium with not one single special feature about the place. Also said he needed to be open to sharing with an MLS team that doesn't exist. Ohh and you are locked in until 2050 and it will cost you 8-900Mil after overruns. What a smoking deal!! by LoyalRam 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 248 Joined: Jul 21 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #10 brevity is you friend howie....you and bernie m. must be literary twins Reply 1 / 1 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 10 posts Jul 13 2025
by bluecoconuts 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 273 Joined: Aug 29 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #7 Rams said they didn't want anything to do with it and not to bother. It was an uphill battle from the start, I don't see any bait and switch. by The Ripper 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 494 Joined: May 13 2015 Naples, FL Starter Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #8 He's mathematically challenged. Kroenke is paying more than Wilf even with the cost overruns. The stadium is also top tier with greater revenue projections which justifies the additional rent. by Ramfan46 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 123 Joined: Jul 11 2015 LA Coliseum Practice Squad Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #9 Wouldn't Top Tier automatically mean Super Bowl capable these days? I just remember seeing the Riverfront Concept and being completely underwhelmed after seeing the 2 renderings of the City of Champions Project. As soon as I saw Kroenke wanted a multi purpose complex capable of hosting Super Bowls, Final Fours, Bowl Games, Combine, Drafts, NFL Events, Conventions, Concerts, Supercross, Monster Trucks and so on I knew STL was in big trouble. They offered him a below average outdoor only stadium with not one single special feature about the place. Also said he needed to be open to sharing with an MLS team that doesn't exist. Ohh and you are locked in until 2050 and it will cost you 8-900Mil after overruns. What a smoking deal!! by LoyalRam 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 248 Joined: Jul 21 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #10 brevity is you friend howie....you and bernie m. must be literary twins Reply 1 / 1 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 10 posts Jul 13 2025
by The Ripper 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 494 Joined: May 13 2015 Naples, FL Starter Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #8 He's mathematically challenged. Kroenke is paying more than Wilf even with the cost overruns. The stadium is also top tier with greater revenue projections which justifies the additional rent. by Ramfan46 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 123 Joined: Jul 11 2015 LA Coliseum Practice Squad Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #9 Wouldn't Top Tier automatically mean Super Bowl capable these days? I just remember seeing the Riverfront Concept and being completely underwhelmed after seeing the 2 renderings of the City of Champions Project. As soon as I saw Kroenke wanted a multi purpose complex capable of hosting Super Bowls, Final Fours, Bowl Games, Combine, Drafts, NFL Events, Conventions, Concerts, Supercross, Monster Trucks and so on I knew STL was in big trouble. They offered him a below average outdoor only stadium with not one single special feature about the place. Also said he needed to be open to sharing with an MLS team that doesn't exist. Ohh and you are locked in until 2050 and it will cost you 8-900Mil after overruns. What a smoking deal!! by LoyalRam 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 248 Joined: Jul 21 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #10 brevity is you friend howie....you and bernie m. must be literary twins Reply 1 / 1 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 10 posts Jul 13 2025
by Ramfan46 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 123 Joined: Jul 11 2015 LA Coliseum Practice Squad Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #9 Wouldn't Top Tier automatically mean Super Bowl capable these days? I just remember seeing the Riverfront Concept and being completely underwhelmed after seeing the 2 renderings of the City of Champions Project. As soon as I saw Kroenke wanted a multi purpose complex capable of hosting Super Bowls, Final Fours, Bowl Games, Combine, Drafts, NFL Events, Conventions, Concerts, Supercross, Monster Trucks and so on I knew STL was in big trouble. They offered him a below average outdoor only stadium with not one single special feature about the place. Also said he needed to be open to sharing with an MLS team that doesn't exist. Ohh and you are locked in until 2050 and it will cost you 8-900Mil after overruns. What a smoking deal!! by LoyalRam 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 248 Joined: Jul 21 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #10 brevity is you friend howie....you and bernie m. must be literary twins Reply 1 / 1 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business 10 posts Jul 13 2025
by LoyalRam 9 years 6 months ago Total posts: 248 Joined: Jul 21 2015 LA Coliseum Rookie Re: Is NFL guilty of bait and switch with St. Louis? POST #10 brevity is you friend howie....you and bernie m. must be literary twins Reply 1 / 1 Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Sort by: AscendingDescending Jump to: Forum Rams/NFL Other Sports Rams Fans United Q&A's Board Business