Looks to me like the cold shoulder thawed a while back before May. Why would they be involved with the design if they have no intentions of staying?
The NFL told him to play nice and work with them.
None of the which can be losses in the end for him - buying the land? Develop it as something else. Again, what he's spending now pales in comparison to what he's getting. Think about where he was before at arbitration. The CVC's total plan was $124 million in renovation, with half of it coming from them. That's only $62 million in public money... he spends $2 million on concepts, buys some land (which as a real estate developer is just another day), and now the city is ponying up $400 million. It's not hard to see how this game works.
I never said he can't flip it into something else, but he's investing time and money into LA that he's not doing in St Louis. Some he would have to do anyway, some not. The debate isn't if he can or can't turn the land into something else, it's how do we know he wants to go to LA? All of his actions indicate this, people who do talk to him say he does, he's spending more time money and effort on a move to LA than working to stay in St Louis. He can turn around and change that up, but at this point it certainly seems like he wants to go. If he wanted to stay in St Louis, I think you'd see him talking to them more than he is.
Yet Peacock hasn't met with Kroenke in a year and a half... Pretty telling.. Only furthers enhances the belief that Kroenke isn't truly working in good faith with St.Louis
Also while you point out they haven't said "they haven't negotiated in good faith", St.Louis is the only city who continually receives public and emphatic praising of its progress, and where they stand. While also continually being pointed out to be ahead of the other cities. I think that's very telling - if they didn't think the project wasn't viable, they wouldn't praise it. You're not hearing that about the Raiders or San Diego.
Technically they met a few months ago, but it doesn't matter if he and Kroenke have personally spoken or not. Demoff works on his behalf, the narrative that Kroenke has to personally sit down and talk to be considered negotiating is false and will get the city nowhere. Sending someone to speak on his behalf is what he does, he's nicknamed Silent Stan for a reason.
St Louis getting praise for their progress doesn't mean anything in terms of negotiating in good faith. The NFL knows the project is viable, it's pretty obvious that it is. The issue isn't about is the project viable, the issue is does it work for Stan? What happens if Stan doesn't take it? What happens to the market if the bonds expire and the issue hasn't been resolved? Those are the problems, not if the stadium is viable as an NFL stadium. That's only part of the equation. It needs to be viable as an NFL stadium, workable for the city and workable for the owner. 2/3 wont cut it, it's 100% or nothing.
An injunction would only be in place until the courts have made their decision, and this is a pretty common practice.
Kroenke would move before, and I just can't see how the courts could actually rule that a businessman can't do business where he wants, especially when there's already precedent of owners being able to move. This is a complex site, if the courts tried to do an injunction until they made their decision Kroenke would probably refuse and then sue the government for trying,
I think that's a bad assumption. It'd be naive to assume the NFL's lawyers haven't altered contracts and agreements to try to prevent such a battle, or at worst, try to give them more legs to stand on. (I mean hell look at their black out policy - FCC removed the rule but it didn't matter because the NFL still had it written into their TV contracts, hence the senators threatening anti-trust status before doing away with black out rule). But while he's battling in court, which could take years, Carson would be getting built (or even completed depending on how long)...But most importantly, Carson would be getting the backing..The superbowls, etc. While Kroenke wouldn't get anything.. Which if his sticking point on building a stadium was so he could attract Superbowls, it would seem counter productive wouldn't it?
The NFL said they made the bylaws stronger to prevent it, but looking at them I haven't seen it. However perhaps they did, they say they did so I wouldn't be shocked. That being said, it doesn't mean that Kroenke couldn't win if he went to court. Frankly that's all up in the air, I don't know that he would win, I do know that history seems to indicate he could win, but if he did, that's up in the air. Frankly I don't think it gets to that point anyway.
In terms of the blackout rules, we've been over this before, but there is nothing that indicates they ended that due to pressure from Congress to end anti-trust status. We all know that congress likes to thump their chest and rattle the sabres a bit, but in terms of actually doing anything? Not so much. If the NFL really did suspend blackout rules due to pressure from Congress we would have heard about it, Congress would have been standing there patting themselves on the back and talking about how great they were like they always do. As far as I know they didn't, so why would we assume that the NFL caved to their pressure?
I can't imagine a court case would take years, but even if it did, why would the NFL still build Carson? It would be incredibly risky and stupid, because if Inglewood (which you'd assume would be under construction as well) would be done first, and if the courts side with Kroenke, then what? The NFL is fucked, they now have two stadiums in LA, and they have to either try to make three teams work there, or turn away one of the Chargers or the Raiders, and figure out how to cover their half of the stadium, and hope that two teams in two separate stadiums will work out.
