OK - Ready for this? I've been out since Thursday. I have put together another mega post. Read it if you want but keep one thing in mind. Knock off the tit for tat and forming arguments against each other rather than issues or subjects contained in a post. In one such case, I deleted several posts filled with finger pointing and was left with only this that had any merit and worthiness of posting:
That being said, on to the responses.
Haven't seen where the NFL has actually said this. I will believe it if you can provide a link. Otherwise I will just assume it is your assumption based on how you interpret the information you've read.
I never has heard that other teams have the top tier language either. Can't find it in a search either.
I haven't seen the bolded before. Do you have a source?
As to the lease.... What the CVC did is not breach but it very much IMO not living up to the conditions set forth by both parties. If you read through the findings of the arbitration panel, it seems pretty clear that they consider the top tier status as terms of the lease and that the wording was very laboriously arrived at in order to guarantee the level of the stadium.
You can argue that even if the CVC didn't live up to their lease, it doesn't mean the market should lose the team. But what then prevents a city from guaranteeing future grandiose additions to a stadium if the team moves there or agrees to a long term lease and then saying, "So sorry. We can't do it. Too bad you're stuck here anyway because the local market actually owns you." I just don't buy that logic. Nor do I see where a stipulation that allows you to opt out of a lease, is not failing to fulfill that lease. Still, the fans don't deserve that but the CVC is actually the ones giving them the shaft IMO.
Stan being a free agent would logically mean that it is up to the city to come up with a plan to keep him that meets or exceeds the deal he had. I could easily be wrong but I don't see the NFL trying to tell him he has to take that deal unless it determines that the Riverfront stadium is indeed in keeping with the deal in the former lease. I think it would also be extremely difficult to defend if it did happen to go to court.
Can you show where you found this? I'm just curious how it is worded in their leases.
This is what I'm thinking. I just can't see a defense of that thought pattern. The real criteria IMO will be whether the Riverfront stadium proposal, including revenue streams and financing, meets muster with the owners - of which Stan is one.
A little snarky.
Again - where have you seen that the NFL is "on board" with it? With what I have seen, the NFL is essentially "on board" with everything going on yet not "on board" with any specific proposal or plan and has said nothing as to what projects it sees that will meet approval. I'm not saying they won't. Just that they haven't as of yet.
Fun read and thinking outside of the box. Whether I think it has any chance doesn't really matter. It was a solid post.
I have to guess there is some validity to this. I can't see the NFL taking kindly to the CVC bagging on their end of the lease.
Actually - the player and the team could agree to arbitration. It may or may not be in the contracts but they could both agree - which the Rams and the CVC indeed did in 2007 as part of the extension of time allowed for top tier status.
Still I think that any deal in St Louis is going to have to include a revenue split that all sides see as being in line with what Stan was getting before. What that ends up being is anybody's guess but I can't see the city being able to play hard ball and have the NFL go along.
The $700 million was a non-bid estimate by the CVC. There was never a time when a discussion was to be held to discuss how that alleged $700 million would be financed. Therefore, no one really knows if the CVC was expected to foot the entire bill. No one really knows that the $700 million figure was accurate either. The CVC could have easily put that number on the project to "prove" how outlandish it was.
And there are a lot of things in the ATL deal that make it apples to oranges. I'm just not sure it applies here. But if you want to discuss the details of that deal as well as the Santa Clara deal, we can in a different post.
What we know is that the arbitrators ruled that Stan's proposal would keep the stadium in the top tier status and that they even said there was really no choice to be made in favor of the CVC's proposal.
No. We're not clear on that because they haven't said that. The media has insinuated it. The NFL has never said it. Prove me wrong if you'd like. But the NFL has never singled out Spanos as the only one working in good faith unless they were asked if he, in particular, was acting in good faith. They have responded in kind in regards to the other owners as well. It does no service to state that the NFL has only said that Spanos is working in good faith except to insinuate that someone else has not. Otherwise, what's the point?
The arbitrator potentially could have come up with an alternative. They admitted the lack of networking and overall expertise to put forth such a proposal. I suppose in a way you're right but they refused to do so because they felt it inappropriate. They didn't refuse to offer an alternative because they felt Stan's was the end all be all.
You can compare what you want but generally speaking - at least in my opinion - that kind of site clean-up and modification is a little over and above normal site prep. I don't think it should be put toward stadium construction. But then what the heck. There are no apple to apple comparisons on ANY of these projects.
Even with the Dome - tear down has to be considered in the alleged $700 million. Not much difference between that and site prep.
You don't put wording in a lease and not consider it an agreement to be fulfilled. You just don't. An opt out is a remedy - not a general provision you would normally use if everyone is upholding their end of the agreement.
Not sure if it would have been cheaper or not in the long run but I do agree that the CVC did not put it out to bid and put a $700 million price tag on it as a reason to refuse it. No where has it been suggested that they sought clarification as to who would pay for what.
No but this is not a simple ending of a lease. It is early termination due to the CVC failing to hold up their end. I'm not even sure how that part is debatable. I realize there is an opt out clause. But that is generally used when both sides have already reached an impasse - which they did in 2005 and agreed to defer with several stipulations - which the CVC opted to not hold up. It was anything but the end of a lease term.
I would only caution that by saying this, you are lumping the posters in with those that can't see what seems clear to you. I for one don't view the owners as hapless buffoons. It doesn't really play into my arguments and I don't actually see it behind many others'.
And I'm assuming you can find something substantiated that reflects your view?
To be straight - the CVC determined that Stan's plan would cost $700 million. The arbitration panel never put a figure on it or ruled on the price in any way.
I don't think anyone really knows if the Riverfront digs will be a better or worse deal for Stan because there is a lot of minutia to be finalized. It will be interesting to see if we ever really find out if the St Louis plan is somehow rejected.
Yeah - this is pretty much all I have seen.
Not sure. The one thing I think Peacock has going for him is public perception that Stan = evil owner and Peacock/Blitz/Nixon = knight in shining armor. I would not expect Peacock to release this info until such time that he has run it by the NFL. They can't afford having it picked apart at this time and realistically, time may only be in favor of the St Louis project at this specific point in time. Past the August meeting, if the plan sdoesn't pass muster with the NFL, that could all change, Dunno.
'Scuse me? How does what Stan puts into a stadium he doesn't own and doesn't control up his team's value?
No one really knows but I've seen it both ways and all have been assumptions.
If the CVC did that to the dome, they would have obviously been working not only in good faith but put together a project that would likely still be top tier. I would think at that point, no one is leaving. Also, if the CVC didn't just flat out refuse to do anything about it, they could have likely worked out an extension as a condition of the renovation. A lot of things could have prevented a move in 10 years but doing nothing, almost insured it was going to be a contentious fight to keep the Rams.
That has
what to do with anything?
We established a long time ago that the owner is actually obligated to pay $50 million of the $200 million out of his pocket. That at minimum then covers $150 million of the cost. But do we know he would have done it? No. Do we know he wouldn't have? No. Do we know he wouldn't have put in the other millions the city is asking for in the new digs? No. We don't know any of the amounts the CVC would have ACTUALLY had to pay to uphold their end of the deal.
Warn no one. I saw where you apologized for the unfortunate wording. I would only suggest that no one outside of a moderator use that kind of wording here.
Then every other stipulation in the lease is the same. The top tier status was an agreed upon provision in the lease. You don't put that kind of stuff in a lease without intending to fulfill it. If you don't, you failed to live up to the agreement and the opt out can be exercised. I'm fine with not calling it breach but everyone knew what was expected with that wording. Can you really deny that?
We don't actually know the Rams are trying to break the bylaws right now. If they move against the vote of the other owners that would be the case. Aside from that, it is all opinion as to who has done what in good faith or otherwise in all these negotiations.
Just because the media has stopped talking about it really means next to nothing. The dome agreement will likely have it's place in the decisions. To what extent? Dunno. But I find it hard to believe they would simply ignore it.
That place has a very sordid history and among that is illegal dumping of waste chemicals back many years ago. It also is not your standard landfill for household garbage. It is right in the middle of tank field central.
The problem appears to be the unknown chemicals that are still in the ground. True? Dunno. But it does seem to be a distinct possibility. Only building it will likely truly reveal the truth.
That's my understanding as well.
As I said, don't assign motives. Final warning.
Come on man - knock this crap off. You feel this way, stop engaging the poster and walk away.
They are both conjecture. I've heard it both ways as well. Do I buy that they actually know how it will go when a vote goes down? Doubtful. The only person that has spoken and I think might have some inside knowledge on this is Fabiani as Spanos' mouth piece. And I trust what he says about as far as I could throw him. And generally, after every time I hear him speak, I'd like to see how far that is.
Yeah - they kinda did. The Rams could opt out if they didn't. But it is pretty clear in the 2007 negotiations and also the arbitration panel's decision that the CVC did exactly that. NO ONE signs onto a lease with the expectation that conditions are meaningless - which is what is being suggested here.
I actually have heard it - I just don't put much stock into the sources for either side.
You can choose to accept what he says or not. You can ask him to provide proof. But lighten up in how you do it. And don't act like he has to.
Not much of a difference. If Kroenke's side has measured the resistance to Spanos moving, he has the no votes to block it. Still - I have heard it. From a reputable source? Dunno. I find most of these jokers saying they have inside knowledge are full of crap.
Ease up man. I heard and read it as well. Don't know where but you can choose to believe it or not much like many don't believe much of anything that spews from Fabiani's mouth.
If I deleted every post that might contain misinformation or baseless speculation, this thread would be MUCH smaller.
Rarely hurts to add it in there. IMO is pretty easy to type. And yes - people get very upset over this topic and I can't blame them.
Interviews are really hard to find with search criteria. Still, even though I think everyone can choose to not believe something if the person refuses or can't provide proof, I would like it if people included back-up to their assertions. Not going to be feasible in all cases but it's always helpful - especially when asserting something new.
Always helpful
I think many of us do. It would be nice not to have to - eh?
You really have to visit Carson and that area in particular then go to the Mission Valley site. Let's see.... 11 acres adjacent to a toxic waste dump (I refuse to call it just a landfill) surrounded by freeways, oil tanks and heavy industrial vs ANY acreage in SD. Unless your plan is to put a refinery or other heavy industrial use on the Carson property, it has virtually no use. My guess is that it is valued at what it is just because there are options for the owner. So the idea that the SD property is worth that much more? Completely makes sense to me.
But MAN! I'm sorry but a stadium in Carson is just a disgusting thought to me personally.
Not sure anything is a lock until the NFL deems it so.
Yes you could. And I would ask you to provide proof. No matter what your excuse for not being able to provide it. I would be at minimum skeptical until you did and simply move on to the next subject or thought.
I have. Believe it or not. I really don't care. Nothing personal. You are free to believe it or not. I am not required to spend time making sure you do.
I think we could just have this as a shortcut and post it about 5 times per page.
OK - I'm done for now.
