New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

Not sure how far a lawsuit against the NFL would go - NFL could just force him to sell for being in violation of the cross ownership rule.He's had 4+ years and they've given him an extension as it is. Lawyer up against them? Look at it from the NFL's perspective - Why spend millions of dollars in litigation if you can avoid it?

The NFL might be able to make it so ugly for a team owner to want to stay in the league that he agrees to sell. I'm not too sure they could actually make him sell.

I think we could all agree that the question on a lawsuit would be chances of winning both in court and in the public eye. If the NFL feels confident as many want to take Rooney's words to indicate, then they will stand their ground. But my guess is that even if they see a decent chance of losing, they wouldn't risk the chance of losing several billion dollars of NFL owner money. If you went around the league, I'm guessing you would find several owners at risk of losing their franchise if they had to fork over a hundred million or more.

I have to guess that the NFL is advising the Governor and his task force to not dick around and come up with a real workable deal to keep the Rams in St Louis. I still think all sides favor that outcome.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Dude. I’m talking to you, Mark Davis.

Carson?

Seriously?

You’re not going to Carson. You’re going nowhere. Who are you kidding?

You’re the Raiders. You’re acting as if you’re desirable, as if you’re a real franchise. Dude. I can’t even find you on the radio dial. You’re a losing team that has few sponsors, generates little money and relies on revenue sharing. And you want us to believe that Carson and three or four others cities really want you?

It’s more like zero cities, give or take.

No community will go head over heels for you until you become a contender and a moneymaker. What you are now is a burden with no socio-economic benefit. Oakland and Alameda County still owe more than $100 million in a municipal debt because they financed Mount Davis for you in 1995.

Your latest proposal to build a joint stadium with the Chargers in Carson, 15 miles south of Los Angeles, is a joke, right? The people of Carson and Greater Los Angeles are not doing backflips for you to come back to town. Your record last season was 3-13. L.A. didn’t care much about the Raiders the first time around, and you were good back then.

Remember? You tried this before. You moved to L.A. in 1982, made the playoffs four seasons in a row and won the Super Bowl in January of 1984. You were a real franchise, one of the most important franchises in the NFL.

Check your attendance in L.A. during the years you were good. Check out 1983, the season you won the Super Bowl. In eight regular season home games you sold more than 65,000 tickets only once, and you sold fewer than 50,000 tickets four times.

Even a winning football team can’t consistently fill up a stadium in L.A. — you proved that 30 years ago. Heaven forbid you bring a losing team to that town.

Think like someone who lives in L.A. How would you spend your Sunday? You could buy tickets to the Raiders’ game, schlep through traffic on the 405 all the way to Carson, pay for parking, park your car, schlep into the stadium, buy a hotdog and a beer, schlep to your seat and watch a bad team lose.

Or, you could have brunch and drink Bellinis at the Getty Museum. In case you don’t know, a Bellini is Prosecco and peach juice. Or you could go sailing in the blue Pacific, or you could go golfing at the Riviera Country Club in Pacific Palisades, or you could go to Disneyland, Universal Studios, Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, Venice Beach, the Santa Monica Pier, Catalina or Mexico. Or you could stay at home, invite your friends over, barbeque and watch seven football games at once on your big screen TV.

There are a zillion things to do in L.A. that kill going to a Raiders game. Bellinis at the Getty trump Budweisers in Carson any day.

Sorry, dude.

The only time you would sell out your new stadium in Carson is when you would play popular teams like the Cowboys or the Bears or the Giants or, excuse me, the Niners. Transplants will pay to watch the team they grew up rooting for. Other people will pay to watch famous athletes from opposing teams. That’s how the Clippers used to sell tickets when they stunk. People would go to Clippers games to watch Michael Jordan or LeBron James dismantle the home team.

And we still haven’t accounted for the Chargers. You’d have to compete with them to sell season tickets and seat licenses. How many people would choose to spend $80,000 on seat licenses for the Raiders instead of the Chargers?

The Chargers are a playoff team that already has fans in L.A, Orange County, the Inland Empire and San Diego — all over Southern California. Dude, you don’t stand a chance.

And we still haven’t accounted for the Rams. What if they move to L.A.? They already own land in Inglewood and they’re a decent team and they have a longer history in L.A. than you do. If they move to Inglewood, you’d have to compete with two franchises for season tickets and seat licenses. You’d be the worst of three NFL teams in the market. You’d have it worse than you do now. You’d trade one nightmare for another.

Carson?

No.

The intersection of Coliseum Way and Hegenberger Road. That is your future. How are you going to make it work? Get serious.

Dude.

 

[blue4]

Why does everyone just assume Stan automatically wins any lawsuit put forth? Because Al Davis in the annuls of history once won one? Wasn't the court decision far from set in stone as far as precedent is determined? The NFL has dropped some pretty good hints they prefer a California solution. So why would they drop relocation fees for Stan? Don't these owners have to sign something when they purchase a franchise, not a independent business, but a franchise saying they agree to abide by certain rules of the parent organization? Why are those type of agreements binding for everyone else in the world, but not the NFL? I realize that Stan can sue and possibly win, but everyone is acting as if Spanos, Davis, and the NFL will run crying away as soon as Kroenke's Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe walk into the building. Seem far from a given to me. And what if Stan goes to court and loses? How much leverage does he have then? Not much.

 

[RamFan503]

If anyone wants to wager some ROD bucks I'll offer up this.

I'll bet the fee is at or north of 500 million.

I'll be your huckleberry. $100 million space bucks?

 

[RamFan503]

Why does everyone just assume Stan automatically wins any lawsuit put forth? Because Al Davis in the annuls of history once won one? Wasn't the court decision far from set in stone as far as precedent is determined? The NFL has dropped some pretty good hints they prefer a California solution. So why would they drop relocation fees for Stan? Don't these owners have to sign something when they purchase a franchise, not a independent business, but a franchise saying they agree to abide by certain rules of the parent organization? Why are those type of agreements binding for everyone else in the world, but not the NFL? I realize that Stan can sue and possibly win, but everyone is acting as if Spanos, Davis, and the NFL will run crying away as soon as Kroenke's Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe walk into the building. Seem far from a given to me. And what if Stan goes to court and loses? How much leverage does he have then? Not much.

I personally don't assume anything like that. But if it comes to that, we will see if the NFL stands their ground or backs down. If they stand their ground, I'd guess Rooney is right. If they back down, I think we know how solid the bylaws have become.

 

[iced]

The NFL might be able to make it so ugly for a team owner to want to stay in the league that he agrees to sell. I'm not too sure they could actually make him sell.

They can - look at what they're doing with the Bowlen family....And wouldn't be surprised to see the Benson family soon under fire

 

[bluecoconuts]

Expansion fee's in '95 for the Rams to move was $47 - with inflation, that number today if it were exactly the same would be $72 million and some change.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

That's probably a good floor for the number - I would expect it to be a little higher now a days...for arguments sake lets call it $100 million....Pretty much any team that needs to come up with an extra $300-$350 million (Fee + loss of G4 loan)

Whether or not stan can actually go to court and expect to win is another thing - Rooney seems to believe they can legally block a team from moving if voted no...

Not sure how far a lawsuit against the NFL would go - NFL could just force him to sell for being in violation of the cross ownership rule.He's had 4+ years and they've given him an extension as it is. Lawyer up against them? Look at it from the NFL's perspective - Why spend millions of dollars in litigation if you can avoid it?

That's money that Kroenke can easily come up with, the Raiders and Chargers? Not so much. Again, they BOTH need the G4 loan to make the Carson project come within a few hundred million dollars (according to the LA times anyway), adding in an extra few hundred million dollars? That might take them out of it.

Jerry Jones, who hasn't been shy about going "against" the NFL, doesn't seem to think they do. Given the history of these cases, I tend to lean more towards Jones than Rooney... That's actually a little weird for me, because typically I think Jerry Jones is a fuck stick, but I think he was likely being more truthful, and Rooney was in more damage control mode... It doesn't look good for the league to lose these cases.

I wouldn't really factor in the cross ownership stuff, because recent reports is that he'll have all that cleared up within the next few months, certainly before he goes for any relocation voting. I can't imagine the NFL being able to kick out an owner either. I agree in terms of why spending millions of dollars for lawsuits when being able to avoid it, which is why I get the feeling if Kroenke continues to push forward, and the stadium is being built when he goes to relocate the owners will probably just give him yes votes. If they say no, and he pulls a Frontiere and threatens the lawsuit. NFL gives him the votes he needs, they avoid court, and he throws extra cash on top of the relocation fees, and that's that.

 

[blue4]

I personally don't assume anything like that. But if it comes to that, we will see if the NFL stands their ground or backs down. If they stand their ground, I'd guess Rooney is right. If they back down, I think we know how solid the bylaws have become.

I don't see how anyone can assume anything as far as legal challenges go. I'm talking about various articles, internet posts both on this website and others, that do make that assumption. There seem to be a lot of "If the NFL votes against him he can just go rogue and sue." But they treat that as the end of the process rather than the beginning. Just because he files suit doesn't mean anything. You don't see that assumption often? Seems everywhere at times to me.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Why does everyone just assume Stan automatically wins any lawsuit put forth? Because Al Davis in the annuls of history once won one? Wasn't the court decision far from set in stone as far as precedent is determined? The NFL has dropped some pretty good hints they prefer a California solution. So why would they drop relocation fees for Stan? Don't these owners have to sign something when they purchase a franchise, not a independent business, but a franchise saying they agree to abide by certain rules of the parent organization? Why are those type of agreements binding for everyone else in the world, but not the NFL? I realize that Stan can sue and possibly win, but everyone is acting as if Spanos, Davis, and the NFL will run crying away as soon as Kroenke's Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe walk into the building. Seem far from a given to me. And what if Stan goes to court and loses? How much leverage does he have then? Not much.

I don't think they'll drop relocation fees for him, I'll be honest I think they ask for at least 100 million.

I think part of the issue with the lawsuit route, is because there's history that would indicate that the NFL can't really do much, even with the "tightening" of the rules, which I still don't see (after reading them) how it really changes anything that gives them more power for any lawsuit.

I think it's more about the NFL wanting to avoid lawsuits and thus taking the settlement. Like 503 said, does the NFL want to risk losing, especially after they lost before, and risk forking over a lot of money, or avoid it and instead be the recipients of some extra money? I think all sides will need to look at things, and they may indeed decide to go that route, but my feeling is that they'll just look to avoid it.

 

[blue4]

I don't think they'll drop relocation fees for him, I'll be honest I think they ask for at least 100 million.

I think part of the issue with the lawsuit route, is because there's history that would indicate that the NFL can't really do much, even with the "tightening" of the rules, which I still don't see (after reading them) how it really changes anything that gives them more power for any lawsuit.

I think it's more about the NFL wanting to avoid lawsuits and thus taking the settlement. Like 503 said, does the NFL want to risk losing, especially after they lost before, and risk forking over a lot of money, or avoid it and instead be the recipients of some extra money? I think all sides will need to look at things, and they may indeed decide to go that route, but my feeling is that they'll just look to avoid it.

They may look to avoid it, I think all sides will look to avoid it. My questions are, why the perception of easy victory for Stan, what do the owners agree to when they purchase a franchise, and why is that agreement not legally binding?

 

[DR RAM]

Dude. I’m talking to you, Mark Davis.

Carson?

Seriously?

You’re not going to Carson. You’re going nowhere. Who are you kidding?

You’re the Raiders. You’re acting as if you’re desirable, as if you’re a real franchise. Dude. I can’t even find you on the radio dial. You’re a losing team that has few sponsors, generates little money and relies on revenue sharing. And you want us to believe that Carson and three or four others cities really want you?

It’s more like zero cities, give or take.

No community will go head over heels for you until you become a contender and a moneymaker. What you are now is a burden with no socio-economic benefit. Oakland and Alameda County still owe more than $100 million in a municipal debt because they financed Mount Davis for you in 1995.

Your latest proposal to build a joint stadium with the Chargers in Carson, 15 miles south of Los Angeles, is a joke, right? The people of Carson and Greater Los Angeles are not doing backflips for you to come back to town. Your record last season was 3-13. L.A. didn’t care much about the Raiders the first time around, and you were good back then.

Remember? You tried this before. You moved to L.A. in 1982, made the playoffs four seasons in a row and won the Super Bowl in January of 1984. You were a real franchise, one of the most important franchises in the NFL.

Check your attendance in L.A. during the years you were good. Check out 1983, the season you won the Super Bowl. In eight regular season home games you sold more than 65,000 tickets only once, and you sold fewer than 50,000 tickets four times.

Even a winning football team can’t consistently fill up a stadium in L.A. — you proved that 30 years ago. Heaven forbid you bring a losing team to that town.

Think like someone who lives in L.A. How would you spend your Sunday? You could buy tickets to the Raiders’ game, schlep through traffic on the 405 all the way to Carson, pay for parking, park your car, schlep into the stadium, buy a hotdog and a beer, schlep to your seat and watch a bad team lose.

Or, you could have brunch and drink Bellinis at the Getty Museum. In case you don’t know, a Bellini is Prosecco and peach juice. Or you could go sailing in the blue Pacific, or you could go golfing at the Riviera Country Club in Pacific Palisades, or you could go to Disneyland, Universal Studios, Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, Venice Beach, the Santa Monica Pier, Catalina or Mexico. Or you could stay at home, invite your friends over, barbeque and watch seven football games at once on your big screen TV.

There are a zillion things to do in L.A. that kill going to a Raiders game. Bellinis at the Getty trump Budweisers in Carson any day.

Sorry, dude.

The only time you would sell out your new stadium in Carson is when you would play popular teams like the Cowboys or the Bears or the Giants or, excuse me, the Niners. Transplants will pay to watch the team they grew up rooting for. Other people will pay to watch famous athletes from opposing teams. That’s how the Clippers used to sell tickets when they stunk. People would go to Clippers games to watch Michael Jordan or LeBron James dismantle the home team.

And we still haven’t accounted for the Chargers. You’d have to compete with them to sell season tickets and seat licenses. How many people would choose to spend $80,000 on seat licenses for the Raiders instead of the Chargers?

The Chargers are a playoff team that already has fans in L.A, Orange County, the Inland Empire and San Diego — all over Southern California. Dude, you don’t stand a chance.

And we still haven’t accounted for the Rams. What if they move to L.A.? They already own land in Inglewood and they’re a decent team and they have a longer history in L.A. than you do. If they move to Inglewood, you’d have to compete with two franchises for season tickets and seat licenses. You’d be the worst of three NFL teams in the market. You’d have it worse than you do now. You’d trade one nightmare for another.

Carson?

No.

The intersection of Coliseum Way and Hegenberger Road. That is your future. How are you going to make it work? Get serious.

Dude.

Carson could succeed, because of where it is, IMO, between Orange County, and L.A.

 

[iced]

That's money that Kroenke can easily come up with, the Raiders stand Chargers? Not so much. Again, they BOTH need the G4 loan to make the Carson project come within a few hundred million dollars (according to the LA times anyway), adding in an extra few hundred million dollars? That might take them out of it.

Jerry Jones, who hasn't been shy about going "against" the NFL, doesn't seem to think they do. Given the history of these cases, I tend to lean more towards Jones than Rooney... That's actually a little weird for me, because typically I think Jerry Jones is a freak stick, but I think he was likely being more truthful, and Rooney was in more damage control mode... It doesn't look good for the league to lose these cases.

Jerry Jones doesn't have as much as a track record either as Rooney...

I mean come on this is Mr.Jones who thought the cap dumping was "nothing wrong" either -

I wouldn't really factor in the cross ownership stuff, because recent reports is that he'll have all that cleared up within the next few months, certainly before he goes for any relocation voting. I can't imagine the NFL being able to kick out an owner either. I agree in terms of why spending millions of dollars for lawsuits when being able to avoid it, which is why I get the feeling if Kroenke continues to push forward, and the stadium is being built when he goes to relocate the owners will probably just give him yes votes. If they say no, and he pulls a Frontiere and threatens the lawsuit. NFL gives him the votes he needs, they avoid court, and he throws extra cash on top of the relocation fees, and that's that.

the whole point about cross ownership is the NFL's leverage...which I don't think Kroenke has any - I've made several of my reasons why. I really don't think its as cut and dry as you make it sound like a legal perspective (this is one of those situations where i wish my old man could/would read their laws on this...he is a business lawyer and professor)

edit: just talked to him, he does have familiarity with it. trying to see if i can get him to join the board and give his professional legal opinion on it (doubt it'd be tonight) rather than me trying to remember and paraphrase what he says lol

 

[beej]

Dude. I’m talking to you, Mark Davis.

Carson?

Seriously?

You’re not going to Carson. You’re going nowhere. Who are you kidding?

You’re the Raiders. You’re acting as if you’re desirable, as if you’re a real franchise. Dude. I can’t even find you on the radio dial. You’re a losing team that has few sponsors, generates little money and relies on revenue sharing. And you want us to believe that Carson and three or four others cities really want you?

It’s more like zero cities, give or take.

No community will go head over heels for you until you become a contender and a moneymaker. What you are now is a burden with no socio-economic benefit. Oakland and Alameda County still owe more than $100 million in a municipal debt because they financed Mount Davis for you in 1995.

Your latest proposal to build a joint stadium with the Chargers in Carson, 15 miles south of Los Angeles, is a joke, right? The people of Carson and Greater Los Angeles are not doing backflips for you to come back to town. Your record last season was 3-13. L.A. didn’t care much about the Raiders the first time around, and you were good back then.

Remember? You tried this before. You moved to L.A. in 1982, made the playoffs four seasons in a row and won the Super Bowl in January of 1984. You were a real franchise, one of the most important franchises in the NFL.

Check your attendance in L.A. during the years you were good. Check out 1983, the season you won the Super Bowl. In eight regular season home games you sold more than 65,000 tickets only once, and you sold fewer than 50,000 tickets four times.

Even a winning football team can’t consistently fill up a stadium in L.A. — you proved that 30 years ago. Heaven forbid you bring a losing team to that town.

Think like someone who lives in L.A. How would you spend your Sunday? You could buy tickets to the Raiders’ game, schlep through traffic on the 405 all the way to Carson, pay for parking, park your car, schlep into the stadium, buy a hotdog and a beer, schlep to your seat and watch a bad team lose.

Or, you could have brunch and drink Bellinis at the Getty Museum. In case you don’t know, a Bellini is Prosecco and peach juice. Or you could go sailing in the blue Pacific, or you could go golfing at the Riviera Country Club in Pacific Palisades, or you could go to Disneyland, Universal Studios, Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, Venice Beach, the Santa Monica Pier, Catalina or Mexico. Or you could stay at home, invite your friends over, barbeque and watch seven football games at once on your big screen TV.

There are a zillion things to do in L.A. that kill going to a Raiders game. Bellinis at the Getty trump Budweisers in Carson any day.

Sorry, dude.

The only time you would sell out your new stadium in Carson is when you would play popular teams like the Cowboys or the Bears or the Giants or, excuse me, the Niners. Transplants will pay to watch the team they grew up rooting for. Other people will pay to watch famous athletes from opposing teams. That’s how the Clippers used to sell tickets when they stunk. People would go to Clippers games to watch Michael Jordan or LeBron James dismantle the home team.

And we still haven’t accounted for the Chargers. You’d have to compete with them to sell season tickets and seat licenses. How many people would choose to spend $80,000 on seat licenses for the Raiders instead of the Chargers?

The Chargers are a playoff team that already has fans in L.A, Orange County, the Inland Empire and San Diego — all over Southern California. Dude, you don’t stand a chance.

And we still haven’t accounted for the Rams. What if they move to L.A.? They already own land in Inglewood and they’re a decent team and they have a longer history in L.A. than you do. If they move to Inglewood, you’d have to compete with two franchises for season tickets and seat licenses. You’d be the worst of three NFL teams in the market. You’d have it worse than you do now. You’d trade one nightmare for another.

Carson?

No.

The intersection of Coliseum Way and Hegenberger Road. That is your future. How are you going to make it work? Get serious.

Dude.

funny post. but it adds credence to the people who say LA would not have supported the rams through so many horrible years where there were little more than a disfunctional laughing stock.

I'm just saying, you're not helping your cause.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

If the NFL truly wants a team(s) in LA then it will happen next year. Which team(s) will come? Who knows. It's very simple. If a team gets a stadium in their home market then the rest becomes easy. For example if SD gets a stadium then it's a green light for STL or OAK to move to LA. If OAK gets a stadium then STL and SD could go to LA. If STL gets a stadium then it's up to the league to bypass the bylaws and let Stan move to LA or make him stay in STL assuming they get a stadium. If SD and OAK both can't get a stadium then I think it's a tough sell for Stan to move to LA. That's when it could get real messy. To me everything comes down to the stadium issue in SD and OAK.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Doesn't matter. It is a different NFL market.

I am not saying the Rams move but the idea that a relocation fee would be up in the plus $500 million range has no basis. And if the NFL were to tell the Raiduhs and Chargers their fee would be much lower than Stan's or any other team? I'm going to guess that would be just asking for a lawsuit.

It would never get that far. The lack of votes alone is enough to shut down the silent one. Besides, it's all leverage anyway. It's not like he wants to put a third of every dollar he's ever made into a stadium that he foots the bill on everything. He got to STL with a great stadium deal that the team paid pennies in form of a anual fee. Now he wants to break the bank for a city he made great effort to get away from? I guess he's he's using LA in same manner every other team has used LA in the last two decades. Even OAK and SD, of whom have actually linked their teams to LA, say LA is their plan B. LA is Stan's plan B for the Rams unless Inglewood's mayor was being serious when he said "This is field of dreams stuff, build it and they will come. It really doesn't matter (what team wants to come here.)"

Nobody from the Rams have linked the team to LA, pure speculation. In fact the opposite has been said but you gotta go back a ways.

It's clear that the Rams stay with the Riverfront stadium going through. They have a year until the 2016 owners meeting. At the rate they are moving, I expect that to be more than enough time to get the nuts and bolts sorted and a plan put together. There have been urmers of the NFL willing to "Sweeten the Pot" to passify Stan, too.

The Rams have a lot more being offered from STL than LA offered at the time of their relocation 20 years ago. That's the difference in these two situations, too. Nobody got robbed, STL just wants the Rams more than LA did. I am sorry for the heart broken LA fans that are still hurt by the fact that they moved to STL. I also apologize for my blunt realities that may be hurtful to some but we need somebody to hand out the smelling salts. There's a lot being put out there and much of it will never happen.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Takes 3 hours between LA and SD. 5-6 to Oakland.

Thank you, so my point was half right. Granted!

But OAK is proposing a privately funded stadium that would seat 55,000 fans. That's would not even be enough for most Rams fans that go to the games now In STL. That's not good enough, they actually need to move.

 

[mr.stlouis]

If anyone wants to wager some ROD bucks I'll offer up this.

I'll bet the fee is at or north of 500 million.

I side with you and would not take that bet.

 

[drasconis]

They can - look at what they're doing with the Bowlen family....And wouldn't be surprised to see the Benson family soon under fire

Another example would be McCombs up in Minny.

 

[bluecoconuts]

They may look to avoid it, I think all sides will look to avoid it. My questions are, why the perception of easy victory for Stan, what do the owners agree to when they purchase a franchise, and why is that agreement not legally binding?

I have no clue what they agree to, but I know on more than one occasion owners have essentially said "screw your rules" and the NFL has let it go. There have been other times that they have stood strong as well though. However in terms in relocation there isn't a strong track record. You have the Raiders going to LA and then back to Oakland, Rams leaving LA, the entire Colts/Baltimore thing, Cleveland, Houston, etc.. Therefore it would indicate that Kroenke has a better chance of being able to move than the NFL being able to force him to stay. That doesn't necessarily mean that he'll definitely be able to move, but it does give a little indication on his chances of winning.

the whole point about cross ownership is the NFL's leverage...which I don't think Kroenke has any - I've made several of my reasons why. I really don't think its as cut and dry as you make it sound like a legal perspective (this is one of those situations where i wish my old man could/would read their laws on this...he is a business lawyer and professor)

How much leverage would it give them though? What are they going to say? "Well we let him have time to fix his issues with cross ownership, and he fixed it, but now he owes us a favor and should be forced to listen to us!" If Kroenke has it fixed, then it's a non-issue, I don't see how it would have any relevance at all in any relocation stuff. If the cross ownership issues are fixed then they're fixed. They're not currently fixed, but Stan isn't currently (officially) relocating.

Thank you, so my point was half right. Granted!

But OAK is proposing a privately funded stadium that would seat 55,000 fans. That's would not even be enough for most Rams fans that go to the games now In STL. That's not good enough, they actually need to move.

I don't disagree with that, the Stadium is too small. The length of the trip between San Diego and LA isn't what matters though, they're different markets. I understand that in more rural areas such as the mid-west, it doesn't make as much sense, but in densely populated urban areas, the distance isn't what matters. Look at the East cost, most of those cities are within 2-4 hours of each other, some are 20-30 minutes away, but they're very different markets. San Diego is it's own metropolitan area, Los Angeles is very different, at least in their eyes. From my understanding a lot of people in San Diego see rooting for an LA team is unthinkable. Similar to New York refusing to root for a New Jersey team. Their teams play in New Jersey, but if they were called New Jersey, New Yorkers would riot. Madison Square Garden is less than 14 miles away from the Prudential Center (where the New Jersey Devils play), but do you think that matters? No, it's the New Jersey Devils, therefore people from New York hate them.

It would never get that far. The lack of votes alone is enough to shut down the silent one. Besides, it's all leverage anyway. It's not like he wants to put a third of every dollar he's ever made into a stadium that he foots the bill on everything. He got to STL with a great stadium deal that the team paid pennies in form of a anual fee. Now he wants to break the bank for a city he made great effort to get away from? I guess he's he's using LA in same manner every other team has used LA in the last two decades. Even OAK and SD, of whom have actually linked their teams to LA, say LA is their plan B. LA is Stan's plan B for the Rams unless Inglewood's mayor was being serious when he said "This is field of dreams stuff, build it and they will come. It really doesn't matter (what team wants to come here.)"

Nobody from the Rams have linked the team to LA, pure speculation. In fact the opposite has been said but you gotta go back a ways.

It's clear that the Rams stay with the Riverfront stadium going through. They have a year until the 2016 owners meeting. At the rate they are moving, I expect that to be more than enough time to get the nuts and bolts sorted and a plan put together. There have been urmers of the NFL willing to "Sweeten the Pot" to passify Stan, too.

The Rams have a lot more being offered from STL than LA offered at the time of their relocation 20 years ago. That's the difference in these two situations, too. Nobody got robbed, STL just wants the Rams more than LA did. I am sorry for the heart broken LA fans that are still hurt by the fact that they moved to STL. I also apologize for my blunt realities that may be hurtful to some but we need somebody to hand out the smelling salts. There's a lot being put out there and much of it will never happen.

This I do disagree with on several points. I don't think it's all for leverage, if it is then why isn't Kroenke presenting a counter offer or saying anything? This is a lot of work for leverage, only to go ahead and do nothing. St Louis pushing forward on the riverfront stadium as it, indicates (to me) that Kroenke hasn't told them much behind closed doors either, so then what's the point. It doesn't appear to be working if it's for leverage. I also don't think that Kroenke simply gives up if they vote no, if he has the stadium being built. Until the stadium is actually being erected there's different options, but all indications seem to be that they're going through with it. Once that starts, then what? Mayor Butts refusing to name teams is just politics of not tipping your hand too early. Similar to the Rams not officially saying anything about LA either, you don't tip your hand until you're ready. I wouldn't say that St Louis wants the Rams more than LA did either, I would say that vastly oversimplifies different issues that happened there. I didn't live in the states at the time (nor did I follow American football) but from my understanding it's always been a complicated issue. The "desire" of LA wasn't an issue though it seems, but I'm not familiar with what Georgia's demands were exactly. The riverfront stadium also can't go through without Kroenke's backing.

 

[tonyl711]

Dude. I’m talking to you, Mark Davis.

Carson?

Seriously?

You’re not going to Carson. You’re going nowhere. Who are you kidding?

You’re the Raiders. You’re acting as if you’re desirable, as if you’re a real franchise. Dude. I can’t even find you on the radio dial. You’re a losing team that has few sponsors, generates little money and relies on revenue sharing. And you want us to believe that Carson and three or four others cities really want you?

It’s more like zero cities, give or take.

No community will go head over heels for you until you become a contender and a moneymaker. What you are now is a burden with no socio-economic benefit. Oakland and Alameda County still owe more than $100 million in a municipal debt because they financed Mount Davis for you in 1995.

Your latest proposal to build a joint stadium with the Chargers in Carson, 15 miles south of Los Angeles, is a joke, right? The people of Carson and Greater Los Angeles are not doing backflips for you to come back to town. Your record last season was 3-13. L.A. didn’t care much about the Raiders the first time around, and you were good back then.

Remember? You tried this before. You moved to L.A. in 1982, made the playoffs four seasons in a row and won the Super Bowl in January of 1984. You were a real franchise, one of the most important franchises in the NFL.

Check your attendance in L.A. during the years you were good. Check out 1983, the season you won the Super Bowl. In eight regular season home games you sold more than 65,000 tickets only once, and you sold fewer than 50,000 tickets four times.

Even a winning football team can’t consistently fill up a stadium in L.A. — you proved that 30 years ago. Heaven forbid you bring a losing team to that town.

Think like someone who lives in L.A. How would you spend your Sunday? You could buy tickets to the Raiders’ game, schlep through traffic on the 405 all the way to Carson, pay for parking, park your car, schlep into the stadium, buy a hotdog and a beer, schlep to your seat and watch a bad team lose.

Or, you could have brunch and drink Bellinis at the Getty Museum. In case you don’t know, a Bellini is Prosecco and peach juice. Or you could go sailing in the blue Pacific, or you could go golfing at the Riviera Country Club in Pacific Palisades, or you could go to Disneyland, Universal Studios, Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, Venice Beach, the Santa Monica Pier, Catalina or Mexico. Or you could stay at home, invite your friends over, barbeque and watch seven football games at once on your big screen TV.

There are a zillion things to do in L.A. that kill going to a Raiders game. Bellinis at the Getty trump Budweisers in Carson any day.

Sorry, dude.

The only time you would sell out your new stadium in Carson is when you would play popular teams like the Cowboys or the Bears or the Giants or, excuse me, the Niners. Transplants will pay to watch the team they grew up rooting for. Other people will pay to watch famous athletes from opposing teams. That’s how the Clippers used to sell tickets when they stunk. People would go to Clippers games to watch Michael Jordan or LeBron James dismantle the home team.

And we still haven’t accounted for the Chargers. You’d have to compete with them to sell season tickets and seat licenses. How many people would choose to spend $80,000 on seat licenses for the Raiders instead of the Chargers?

The Chargers are a playoff team that already has fans in L.A, Orange County, the Inland Empire and San Diego — all over Southern California. Dude, you don’t stand a chance.

And we still haven’t accounted for the Rams. What if they move to L.A.? They already own land in Inglewood and they’re a decent team and they have a longer history in L.A. than you do. If they move to Inglewood, you’d have to compete with two franchises for season tickets and seat licenses. You’d be the worst of three NFL teams in the market. You’d have it worse than you do now. You’d trade one nightmare for another.

Carson?

No.

The intersection of Coliseum Way and Hegenberger Road. That is your future. How are you going to make it work? Get serious.

Dude.

and the Rams have been setting the NFL on fire the last 10 years? by your way of reasoning the Rams wouldn't draw fans either.