- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 40,544
Had the CVC honored that deal it would've been the most one-sided stadium arrangement I ever heard of. The good people of St. Louis would be paying off that debt for generations.
No one's going to rage against them for not signing a nine figure check.
Which is 100% the point people are trying to make. The CVC and the political leaders of St Louis/Missouri at the time the deal was struck to move the Rams there was horrible. It was bad for the people in both city/state and it was bad for future generations in the city/state. The only person it was good for was Georgia. Georgia bent the people over and the people who created the lease had to have known it was bad but figured by the time this all went down they wouldn't be in their political positions anymore so they wouldn't have to deal with it or take the heat for it. Two Rams owners have screwed with the people because of their actions but only one person seems to be taking the heat for it.
You can avoid that taboo word default all you want but the simple fact of the matter is the CVC did not live up to their end of the lease which allowed the Rams to leave just as they did. You can complain that the $700 million arbitration that the Rams won was unreasonable or fair but the lease those city/cvc leaders signed put them under the obligation of either having to abide by the decision or opening up the Rams to move. It's been said already that Georgia would not have moved the team and signed the lease if not for the first tier clause. In reality the city of St Louis would have been better served if the Rams never moved there. In all of this there seems to be only one bad guy when there is plenty of blame to go around.