New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Ripper said:
I agree with the adjacent since they can build a walkway or an underground complex connecting the facilities similar to what they have in Toronto and Montreal. I think the main problem will be, did a law from 1988 allow a stadium to built in-perpetuity or just once.
Click to expand...
I think the issue is the language of the bonds. Are those bonds transferable because if they are then it's nothing they can do to stop it. The bonds are being used for the same purpose that the voters already agreed upon. No new taxes and instead of funding the ejd it will fund the new stadium and the ejd
 
Dxmissile said:
I think the issue is the language of the bonds. Are those bonds transferable because if they are then it's nothing they can do to stop it. The bonds are being used for the same purpose that the voters already agreed upon. No new taxes and instead of funding the ejd it will fund the new stadium and the ejd
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see how the courts come down on these two cases. I don't recall ever seeing the wording of the bond or the city ordinance that are in question. Anyone have that as well as maybe the ballot info as it was voted on?
 
RamFan503 said:
It will be interesting to see how the courts come down on these two cases. I don't recall ever seeing the wording of the bond or the city ordinance that are in question. Anyone have that as well as maybe the ballot info as it was voted on?
Click to expand...

No wonder Judge David L. Dowd called in sick.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: dieterbrock, The Ripper, BuiltRamTough and 1 other person
Dxmissile said:
I think the issue is the language of the bonds. Are those bonds transferable because if they are then it's nothing they can do to stop it. The bonds are being used for the same purpose that the voters already agreed upon. No new taxes and instead of funding the ejd it will fund the new stadium and the ejd
Click to expand...

What about the suggested beer and hotdog tax? How does that factor in?
 
blue4 said:
It's why I'm not as quick to dismiss the Raiders in St Louis as some because, like it or not for the people here, it does neatly solve a problem. As in not losing a market.
Click to expand...

And how exactly does that "neatly solve the problem"? If you mean the St. Louis fans still get another NFL team (the pitiful Raiders), but lose their second team in 30 years, that would be the furthest thing from "neat".
 
dhaab said:
And how exactly does that "neatly solve the problem"? If you mean the St. Louis fans still get another NFL team (the pitiful Raiders), but lose their second team in 30 years, that would be the furthest thing from "neat".
Click to expand...

No kidding. I'm in love with the Rams dammit. I don't wanna lose them and get the fucking Raiders.

But, if it comes down to the Raiders or nothing, I will reluctantly take the Raiders I guess, becuase 1. St. Louis is more than worthy of having an NFL team and 2. Peacock has busted his ass. It would really be a shame if there is nothing to show for his efforts.

But that doesn't mean it's not bull shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RamFan503
dhaab said:
And how exactly does that "neatly solve the problem"? If you mean the St. Louis fans still get another NFL team (the pitiful Raiders), but lose their second team in 30 years, that would be the furthest thing from "neat".
Click to expand...

You've misinterpreted my post. I'm talking from the NFLs perspective, not the fans. My point is that the NFL probably views long term market considerations over short term fan feelings. Two ways I see that the problem is solved "neatly" from the NFLs point of view.

One, Rams stay and Carson is built. Two teams in LA, 49ers serving and probably eventually improving the unhealthy Oakland market. St Louis remains an NFL market and not lost. SD remains a viable market within 113 miles. (Yes I know many California fans are outraged about the notion SD and LA are located on the same planet. I think the NFL will expect you to deal with it.)

Two, Inglewood gets built, SD moves in. Raiders move to STL. Two teams in LA, same stuff with SD and Oakland, and the NFL will expect us in STL to be appreciative of the fact we still have NFL football.

Those are the only two scenarios where the NFL doesn't lose a market in THE LONG TERM, not the short term. I expect them to try to get as close to this as possible. What as fans want is most likely going to be discussed as an afterthought.

As far as I'm concerned, of course the Rams leaving is unfair and it sucks. That's why I've been bitching about it since the kick off of the whole process.
 
D L said:
No kidding. I'm in love with the Rams dammit. I don't wanna lose them and get the freaking Raiders.

But, if it comes down to the Raiders or nothing, I will reluctantly take the Raiders I guess, becuase 1. St. Louis is more than worthy of having an NFL team and 2. Peacock has busted his ass. It would really be a shame if there is nothing to show for his efforts.

But that doesn't mean it's not bull crap.
Click to expand...

Again, that wasn't my point. But you're right raiders or nothing I'll take the Raiders.
 
Hey guys if the Rams have a great season and make it far in the Playoffs can they leave? How would St. Louis react if the team finally makes the Playoffs and have a great season and leave?
 
image.jpg
 
  • 5Like
Reactions: The Ripper, D L, iced and 2 others
Pretty sure this should just be in the mega thread.

As for the question, who knows? We've seen coaches get fired after going 14-2, but having issues in the playoffs.

We've seen teams moved in the middle of the night.

The NFL is almost its own reality show.
 
I can't see the Rams leaving if they go 13-3 and deep into the play-offs, it would be " Historically Bad form!" for them to leave!!
 
RAMbler said:
Not so 'Silent' Stan.....
Click to expand...

You got that from an article and new clip that he doesn't speak in? He's not even quoted in either just mentioned. He was in London yesterday watching the FA cup anyways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back