New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

Your both right it's credible because that it's something that Peacock is working on. It's not credible on the national level since it probably hasn't been presented to the NFL or Kroenke because negotiations like that are done in private and not mentioned at a breakfast event

At this point everything and anything is possible.

 

[iced]

I don't think the national media needs to pick something up to make it true.

Well that's certainly not the perception you give when you say "Well the national media hasn't picked up on it so it must not have legs"

that's all i've been pointing out

 

[RAMSinLA]

The wait...this is the hardest part when your team is rumored to be making a move. I went through it when the Rams moved to Anaheim and then again when they left for St Louis.
I feel for you St Louis fans and know exactly what you're all going through.
I'm just thankful we didn't have the internet back then because it may have made it worse if we did. The LA Times was way behind the curve on the move to St Louis and so even though I knew it was coming it was still a shock when the trucks pulled away.

 

[RAMSinLA]

 

[bluecoconuts]

Well that's certainly not the perception you give when you say "Well the national media hasn't picked up on it so it must not have legs"

that's all i've been pointing out

I expanded on it that reasoning though, however I'm still waiting on you to explain what causes you to dismiss rumors differently. I'd say if you're allowed to harp on me for that one, I should be to harp on you for dismissing the rumors you have. We can have our opinions, and I know there's things on this topic you and I don't see eye to eye on, but if you feel the need to call me out for apparent biases as a method to discredit my opinions, then you should explain what process you go through that sets you apart. If it is simply "because that's my opinion" then I'd say this subtopic has long sense run it's course and was a bit pointless.

 

[tonyl711]

NFL has stated repeatedly they're not looking to relocate, and I have a hard time believing this person has any idea what the hell they're talking about when they can't even spell Kroenke correctly.

and Kroenke has stated repeatedly that he will follow NFL guidelines, but you refuse to believe that too, why is it that you only believe things that are pro LA?

 

[tonyl711]

Now he is saying what Peacock was saying. This is either a very bold assumption or perhaps there is something going on behind the scenes we aren't privy to.

i have the feeling there is alot of things going on that we arent privy too, the end results of all this could be something noone was thinking.

 

[tonyl711]

I agree - drama sells clicks.

But you can't easily dismiss something because it doesn't have legs coming from St.Louis when they hardly report anything as it is

can't have it both ways

That'd be like saying Jason Cole isn't believable when he gave that interview to spanos when he talked about fighting and having 9 votes to block a move - but now its credible when he talks about the NFL trying to urge Kroenke to work with Spanos.

seems anything pro LA is credible, but anything pro St Louis is wishfull thinking and rumor.

 

[tonyl711]

No, it's credible when multiple credible sources repeat it.

but not when Stan says it? he has stated that he will follow NFL bylaws, but that you find unbelievable, why would you believe what media says over what the actual owner says? Do you not think Stan knows more about how he will do things than a writer?

 

[tonyl711]

Because I'm waiting for credible sources? So with all those stories about LA being a done deal as well, you must agree with those? Fred Roggin has harped on that story for weeks, do you believe him? And if not, why?

who is deciding who is credible or not? and how can they be sure of that credibility? credibility my ass, your getting a bunch of opinions from the media, nothing more nothing less.

 

[bluecoconuts]

and Kroenke has stated repeatedly that he will follow NFL guidelines, but you refuse to believe that too, why is it that you only believe things that are pro LA?

but not when Stan says it? he has stated that he will follow NFL bylaws, but that you find unbelievable, why would you believe what media says over what the actual owner says? Do you not think Stan knows more about how he will do things than a writer?

Actually Kroenke hasn't said anything of the sort, but if you want to get technical, I would say if the NFL were to tell Stan he cannot go and they will fight him in court, then Stan probably would accept that decision.

In the end I don't think they will tell him no, and if they do he may threaten a lawsuit. I'm doubtful he will actually go through with it though.

Originally I felt that if the stadium starts construction and the NFL told him no, then he'd probably fight them because that's a lot of money and he'd be past the point of no return. Since they're likely to move up the relocation date, it's unlikely he starts building before they give their blessing to one of the sites, therefore I think he'd probably exercise his backup plan if they say no.

In other words, I don't expect Stan to just up and move. That opinion was based off the idea that Stan wouldn't build a 2 billion dollar stadium just to be told he can't go there. Since that is no longer likely to be the case, things adjust. New information means molded opinions.

who is deciding who is credible or not? and how can they be sure of that credibility? credibility my ass, your getting a bunch of opinions from the media, nothing more nothing less.

Don't get so upset bro, aren't we all going off what the media says? In terms of credibility, that's typically established when multiple sources are vetting the rumor. Right now from my research it seems this rumor can be traced back to Bernie. Although now that Peacock has mentioned it, he may have been the one to feed it to him originally. Either way, when guys who are independent of this (not LA or St Louis) start discussing the rumor, I'd say it's been vetted enough to my personal satisfaction.

 

[tonyl711]

Actually Kroenke hasn't said anything of the sort, but if you want to get technical, I would say if the NFL were to tell Stan he cannot go and they will fight him in court, then Stan probably would accept that decision.

In the end I don't think they will tell him no, and if they do he may threaten a lawsuit. I'm doubtful he will actually go through with it though.

Originally I felt that if the stadium starts construction and the NFL told him no, then he'd probably fight them because that's a lot of money and he'd be past the point of no return. Since they're likely to move up the relocation date, it's unlikely he starts building before they give their blessing to one of the sites, therefore I think he'd probably exercise his backup plan if they say no.

In other words, I don't expect Stan to just up and move. That opinion was based off the idea that Stan wouldn't build a 2 billion dollar stadium just to be told he can't go there. Since that is no longer likely to be the case, things adjust. New information means molded opinions.



Don't get so upset bro, aren't we all going off what the media says? In terms of credibility, that's typically established when multiple sources are vetting the rumor. Right now from my research it seems this rumor can be traced back to Bernie. Although now that Peacock has mentioned it, he may have been the one to feed it to him originally. Either way, when guys who are independent of this (not LA or St Louis) start discussing the rumor, I'd say it's been vetted enough to my personal satisfaction.

yes he did say he wont go rogue.
and im not upset, i just think its crazy too act like any reporter actually knows what will come of all this, they are guessing, just like we are. read your favorite writers articles on this over the past year and i would be willing to bet he has changed his opinion many times. believe me owner is telling any reporter whats really going on behind closed doors on this.

 

[bluecoconuts]

yes he did say he wont go rogue.
and im not upset, i just think its crazy too act like any reporter actually knows what will come of all this, they are guessing, just like we are. read your favorite writers articles on this over the past year and i would be willing to bet he has changed his opinion many times. believe me owner is telling any reporter whats really going on behind closed doors on this.

I don't really have a "favorite" writer on this subject, but I know that opinions have changed heavily.

Do you have that Kroenke quote, because I'm pretty certain he hasn't said anything thus far.

 

[The Ripper]

but not when Stan says it? he has stated that he will follow NFL bylaws, but that you find unbelievable, why would you believe what media says over what the actual owner says? Do you not think Stan knows more about how he will do things than a writer?

Many positive things are happening in St Louis. Switching 100 million to tax credits is one but switching owners is the rumor that over shadowed the real news. The only bylaw is a vote of the owners and the owner has not said one way or the other what he is doing

 

[iced]

I expanded on it that reasoning though, however I'm still waiting on you to explain what causes you to dismiss rumors differently. I'd say if you're allowed to harp on me for that one, I should be to harp on you for dismissing the rumors you have. We can have our opinions, and I know there's things on this topic you and I don't see eye to eye on, but if you feel the need to call me out for apparent biases as a method to discredit my opinions, then you should explain what process you go through that sets you apart. If it is simply "because that's my opinion" then I'd say this subtopic has long sense run it's course and was a bit pointless.

The only rumors I have dismissed are ones that insinuate the Raiders in STL - everything I've heard is predicated on the owners: changing bylaws, waiving relocation fee's, and the assumed help for the most unpopular owner by all the other owners. But the biggest piece for me is that They can't afford it - this isn't anything new either. For years we've all heard the Davis family not having deep enough pockets to build a stadium - why is it suddenly possible now?

I look at owner's behavior in the past when thinking of stuff like this - outside of Raiders moving back to oakland (Which is a unique situation on its own), they haven't waived a relocation fee, nor do i believe they would for a team moving out of state + giving him the g4 loan..it also sets a precedent for future owners "Well you did it for them, you should do it for us"

 

[bluecoconuts]

The only rumors I have dismissed are ones that insinuate the Raiders in STL - everything I've heard is predicated on the owners: changing bylaws, waiving relocation fee's, and the assumed help for the most unpopular owner by all the other owners. But the biggest piece for me is that They can't afford it - this isn't anything new either. For years we've all heard the Davis family not having deep enough pockets to build a stadium - why is it suddenly possible now?

I look at owner's behavior in the past when thinking of stuff like this - outside of Raiders moving back to oakland (Which is a unique situation on its own), they haven't waived a relocation fee, nor do i believe they would for a team moving out of state + giving him the g4 loan..it also sets a precedent for future owners "Well you did it for them, you should do it for us"

Why is it suddenly possible he can afford Carson? And no, it's not Goldman Sachs paying for it or helping with funding, they can do that for them anywhere. If he can afford Carson I don't see how he can't afford the 500ish million for St Louis. If he's willing to do so, I don't know though.

The NFL has never to my knowledge forced, or guided, two owners from their teams, to then allow one of those owners to buy another team, especially not to then push one team into relocating while keeping another team from doing so. I believe that would also set precedent for future owners AND cities. "So as long as we offer a stadium deal, they can't leave." and "So as long as my city offers up a deal, even if I don't like it, I have to play ball or risk you guys forcing me out?"

 

[The Ripper]

The only rumors I have dismissed are ones that insinuate the Raiders in STL - everything I've heard is predicated on the owners: changing bylaws, waiving relocation fee's, and the assumed help for the most unpopular owner by all the other owners. But the biggest piece for me is that They can't afford it - this isn't anything new either. For years we've all heard the Davis family not having deep enough pockets to build a stadium - why is it suddenly possible now?

I look at owner's behavior in the past when thinking of stuff like this - outside of Raiders moving back to oakland (Which is a unique situation on its own), they haven't waived a relocation fee, nor do i believe they would for a team moving out of state + giving him the g4 loan..it also sets a precedent for future owners "Well you did it for them, you should do it for us"

Very good points. Waiving fees and changing bylaws is extremely easy. The owners just have to vote. The financial situation is what makes any scenario involving the Raiders difficult to believe. It's not just about the cash on hand, it's more about the value of the team. Al Davis protected Mark from the estate tax problem to an extent but a move to LA or even St Louis in a new stadium might be an issue. The Raiders could end up in St Louis but Davis wouldn't be the managing partner.

Relocation fees is only required for LA. Everywhere else the term is "may" be subjected to a relocation fee. If a relocation to St Louis solves a league problem then no fee. I could see the part of the relocation fee from the Rams to go directly to payoff debt of the dome.

Things with the NFL seem clear but reality is a different thing. What is the common belief up the Colts move or what happened with Seahawks? What they have done in the past is not always the whole story.

 

[The Ripper]

Why is it suddenly possible he can afford Carson? And no, it's not Goldman Sachs paying for it or helping with funding, they can do that for them anywhere. If he can afford Carson I don't see how he can't afford the 500ish million for St Louis. If he's willing to do so, I don't know though.

The revenue is different may be a reason. Goldman was brought in by the Chargers for the project for both teams but they don't work with the Raiders anywhere else.

The NFL has never to my knowledge forced, or guided, two owners from their teams, to then allow one of those owners to buy another team, especially not to then push one team into relocating while keeping another team from doing so. I believe that would also set precedent for future owners AND cities. "So as long as we offer a stadium deal, they can't leave." and "So as long as my city offers up a deal, even if I don't like it, I have to play ball or risk you guys forcing me out?"

Not relocation related but the NFL was involved in the Rams/Colts swap.

 

[bluecoconuts]

The revenue is different may be a reason. Goldman was brought in by the Chargers for the project for both teams but they don't work with the Raiders anywhere else.

Goldman have worked with Chargers for years before the project, but given they've helped other stadiums in the past, I don't see why they'd turn down the Raiders if they wanted help.

Not relocation related but the NFL was involved in the Rams/Colts swap.

Did they encourage it or simply help it? I'd also say a franchise swap is different from forcing out an owner. That's one of the key issues to me, forcing out Mark Davis.

If it's simply about cost, obviously Peacock cannot afford the Rams, and unless there's like 30 or 40 owners is unlikely to be the majority owner, so why would he be the one put in charge? Why would Kroenke sell to a large collection and not someone else?

 

[beej]

If it's simply about cost, obviously Peacock cannot afford the Rams, and unless there's like 30 or 40 owners is unlikely to be the majority owner, so why would he be the one put in charge?

How much is peacock worth?