New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

Roggin mentioned it on the radio saying Raiders were 1 and Rams were 1A.

So you really think Roggin has the market surveys and no one else has released that info including Farmer for the LA Times? I haven't seen where anyone put Raiduhs at #1 and from my experience, unless they took the survey in Watts or Compton, there is no way that is accurate.

 

[blue4]

My only point is how other NFL owners view the Rams and what Stan has done since he took over. I don't care at all how anyone outside of that views the Rams. Will it be any kind of deciding factor? Meh. Who knows? But I am quite certain they are paying attention to what other owners are doing - and this likely goes double for Stan with the stadium issue looming.


You can bet your bottom dollar that owners are having regular meetings with those they have tasked with tracking virtually everything about the other 31 teams. Are they doing it themselves? Heck no. But unless they are unlike their peers in virtually every other industry, they are damn getting it done. One thing these billionaires are good at is delegating to those best at doing a particular job and then using that expertise to make money. In most cases they have very little hands on dealings except for ultimate decision making once provided the best information available.

I've never intended to predict how anyone other than another owner views us. I don't care how anyone outside of that views us either.

What Stan has done since taking over is fail to live up to cross ownership guidelines, try to relocate a team without meeting bylaws, and preside over a team that has lost a game more then the year before each year. I don't know why people would just assume other owners are impressed with that, or why people assume that their employees would give them positive info on the state of the Rams. Even if one were to believe that NFL owners get briefings on all the other teams, what proven info can they possibly have? The facts are that we have questions marks at every offensive position besides RB and TE and the OC is an NFL rookie. Some may like our draft, some may like our youth, but to buy that we can succeed better than the Chargers at this point is really stretching it. Let's face it with homer glasses put away for a moment, Stan's record since becoming involved with the Rams isn't stellar. 4 good years out of 20, and two cities left in disarray.

We'll have to agree to disagree about how much owners follow other teams. I'm quite sure that they follow the other teams in their division and the top few teams in the conference, but I highly doubt Stan Kroenke has ever been briefed on the state of the NY Jets or that Bob McNair has ever been briefed on the state of the Cardinals draft. There's really no point to that. But anyway that's enough on that topic. I've got to get some sleep if I'm going to make it through work tonight.

 

[bluecoconuts]

So you really think Roggin has the market surveys and no one else has released that info including Farmer for the LA Times? I haven't seen where anyone put Raiduhs at #1 and from my experience, unless they took the survey in Watts or Compton, there is no way that is accurate.

Yeah, I dunno.. When I (*ahem*, I mean my father of course) took the study, is was geared to a certain crowd, those who have a lot of money for expensive things.... From my understanding most of those guys either grew up in other cities, or were former Rams fans... Of course that could be wrong, but if I had to guess, the type of fans the NFL cares about, meaning the type of fans who will buy boxes, spend tons of money, and play nice, were not Raiders fans.

 

[The Ripper]

I've seen posts from you covering different assumptions of revenue that haven't been released, like ticket revenues, naming rights, PSL's, etc. PSL's or naming rights have been included in on the NFL side, but not both. $600 from the NFL - $250 from kroenke, $200 in G4, other $150 in PSL's or rights, not both. PSL's have said to be in the 100-150 range

I think the post was from me. Naming rights and PSL's are both owners revenue streams. There's absolutely no debate, Grubman said it in SD.

Kroenke hasn't been trying to get a stadium deal for nearly as long as those guys who among other owners believe they have been working in good faith - including Grubman, who has even said it.

The quote was all owners have been working for a number of years and the quote came from Goodell. The good faith is for the team not just Kroenke but the organization and it can traced it back to 2005 with the team allowing 2 extensions for the first top tier review.

They need to have a realistic deal - one that the owners would all agree "that's not a viable deal". The NFL favors the home market. The only issue St.Louis has with their deal is financing; SD has more

SD has the land which St Louis doesn't and no revenue splits which are required for a stadium proposal to be approved. The NFL gives lip service to the home markets but they favor the owner.

No I just don't believe Spanos or Davis are going to sign a lease under his terms or work with them when they a better one in their eyes in Carson. The NFL can't force them to move into Kroenke's stadium either, nor accept his terms..And the NFL doesn't want that kind of relationship either. Just because Kroenke's stadium can house two teams, doesn't mean the NFL is going to force either one of the teams to take that deal when Carson is a better one..and yes, 2 teams make more than money than one.

Carson may be viable but they still have a lot of hurdles besides the environmental. It's about money and the debt levels. Goldman can say they can finance the deal but it's not that simple plus Oakland has a viable stadium in their home market. Goldman will cover the shortfalls but the question is how much will the NFL will allow.

Not everyone can own some people have to rent.

It's clearly obvious there is a willingness for Spanos/Davis to work together - the land they purchased for Carson is together, and I also remember reading somewhere that land is 50/50 owned

They only own 11 acres of clean land and across the street from the stadium that's it.

 

[8to12]

Who isn't after a winning record? Sorry, but this response doesn't make much sense to me. We are all loyal Rams fans. The fact that fans have still bought tickets to Rams games in this city despite this team being historically awful the past decade says a lot.

@dbrooks, I respect your fandom, however my problem is with that statement by Moostache about remaining fans while the team is losing. Especially in regards to saying that "LA fans should be happy". It is presumptious and inconsiderate for the poster to say the STL fans carried the cross when many people from Calif, including myself, witnessed many of the same games he did in the EJD. Most of the Ram fans in California have watched the Rams lose ( live and on TV) way more games than he has ever experienced.

If you (STL fans) love the Rams and want them to stay in St Louis, great!, I respect that. However, when the argument comes in about how the Rams have had losing seasons there, you lose my interest and I can't relate anymore. Fans from California would be glad to take the Rams back in an instant regardless of their W/L record.

 

[The Ripper]

So you really think Roggin has the market surveys and no one else has released that info including Farmer for the LA Times? I haven't seen where anyone put Raiduhs at #1 and from my experience, unless they took the survey in Watts or Compton, there is no way that is accurate.

That part is out but it doesn't help anyone because the one that matters is the corporate support. I actually do think that has been floated to the media but it really doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't have believed it because I have seen other numbers from when the teams left and it was close but the Rams were the top team.

 

[tonyl711]

Nothing personal, but I couldn't care less. If a winning record is what you are after than go find a winning team to cheer for. I am a Ram fan from outside of LA that has been traveling to St Louis one or two times a season for the past 17 years. It is an honor to see my team play in person....I do it for the magic of seeing the team on the field and for the excitement of the game. The end result is not my purpose for traveling to see my team play.
Let me ask you, when you but tickets to a Ram game, do you ask if the tickets are refundable if the Rams lose?

think maybe you took his words out of context? or are you saying you dont care if the Rams win or lose as long as its the Rams? honestly you are the only person ive heard say they dont care if the Rams win or lose.

 

[The Ripper]

There's a difference between a plan being viable and an owner being interested. Say Kroenke kept trying to move should the financing come through - that'd be walking away from a viable plan - design approved, land secured, financing secured. A viable stadium plan. An owner's interest or lack there of does not make a plan viable - Kroenke would still be walking away with a viable stadium in that situation...Well, he can turn his back to it - I doubt the NFL is going to let him go with that stadium or $400 million in public money on the table.

Why not? If the revenues aren't there plus allowing a city to circumvent the lease is a bigger issue than turning down money. What would happen in Cincinnati or Houston with their leases since they have top tier requirements. We all agree it was a bad deal but other cities have the same clause so solving the St Louis issue may create more issues down the road in other markets. The NFL is looking at the future and what precedents are set by the current situation.

 

[LazyWinker]

I could be wrong, but I get the sense that the decision to stay in St. Louis or move to Los Angeles has already been made. I'm drawing this assumption from the news of the Rams working on long term deals with several players currently. I can't speak for any of these guys, but I sure as heck wouldn't be open to signing a long term contract without knowing where home is going to be next year or the year after that. Football players may think differently though and I may be way off.

 

[iced]

I think the post was from me. Naming rights and PSL's are both owners revenue streams. There's absolutely no debate, Grubman said it in SD.

Nope it was from him - he was asserting he knew how the fundings would break down and which percentages would go where. Those details and other changes have not been released since Peacock reduced the Bonds from $450 to $400 million

The quote was all owners have been working for a number of years and the quote came from Goodell. The good faith is for the team not just Kroenke but the organization and it can traced it back to 2005 with the team allowing 2 extensions for the first top tier review.

No, the quote came from Grubman. and he said verbatim that the Chargers have acted in good faith

SD has the land which St Louis doesn't and no revenue splits which are required for a stadium proposal to be approved. The NFL gives lip service to the home markets but they favor the owner.

SD also has to sell the land - that means actually coming up with a buyer that wants to buy their land at their estimated cost of $225 million and then waiting for that process to also play itself out.

Until they have a buyer lined up, their financing is just as unsecure as the Rams while they await the courts.

Carson may be viable but they still have a lot of hurdles besides the environmental. It's about money and the debt levels. Goldman can say they can finance the deal but it's not that simple plus Oakland has a viable stadium in their home market. Goldman will cover the shortfalls but the question is how much will the NFL will allow.

Goldman is not only willing to cover the short falls but also pay for any renovations at temporary stadiums, as well as cover all the initial losses. This isn't an issue at all, especially since 2 Teams will make more money than one...Especially when its time to renegotiate those tv contracts in 2020, while reaping the revenue of the local tv revenue til then.

Oakland does NOT have a viable stadium in their home market. Their mayor has constantly said they are not going to spend public money on a stadium and hasn't backed off from this. The gap is atleast $400 million

http://www.bizjournals.com/sananton...stadium-deadline-looms-as-raiders-ponder.html

But Kephart, who could present his plan any day now, according to the San Jose Mercury News, faces a major challenge: Closing a stadium funding gap that could be as high as $400 million or more.
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf has made it clear she does not support spending public funds to close that gap, telling the San Francisco Chronicle, “We don’t have $400 million lying around.”

Not everyone can own some people have to rent.

Yep but the NFL isn't going to force an owner to take a bad deal with better one on the table (the Terms for Carson are going to be more friendly than Inglewood)

They only own 11 acres of clean land and across the street from the stadium that's it.

The Carson stadium authority has all 168 acres of land - the Raiders and Chargers have secured the land for their site.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/sports/2...s-complete-move-to-secure-carson-stadium-land

One day after San Diego officials unveiled a financial plan aimed at keeping the Chargers in town, the team and the Oakland Raiders today completed a complex land transaction for 157 acres in Carson, where they are proposing joint stadium.


The key part of the complex land swap transfers the 157-acre parcel near the San Diego (405) Freeway and Del Amo Boulevard to a “joint powers authority” controlled by the city of Carson. Under the stadium proposal, the authority will own and control the land, then lease it to a separate stadium authority.

 

[iced]

You're talking about financing for the stadium? I'm talking about revenue splits after the stadium is done. Some of that, like ownership and PSL's, which are big money items, are already accounted for. That leaves naming rights money, and then a few other things. Stan doesn't have the freedom to set his own events, or collect revenue from that though, as far as I know. Since he likes to own and operate his stadiums, you'd imagine that would be a sticking point, that he's asked to front over 50% of the bill, and doesn't get that.

Again - assumptions. They haven't even negotiated nor touched on revenue streams. Again, details that Peacock has said he won't release. Once again a lot of these are assumptions.

They could change the model up and make it work, they could take the plan that San Diego has laid out, and tweak it. It's not impossible to make it work there. Of course they'll say they can't do it, because it gives them more leverage, but I'm not buying that.

Lol whether or not Goldman Sachs would be inclined to do so is irrelevant - they've said it they can't do it because of the size and the revenue. I'll trust their word on the matter considering they do investments and have done over 30 stadium deals with the NFL. The only reason they can finance Carson the way they can is because of the size of the market. In a smaller market like SD, they won't take the chance if they don't believe the city can pull it off.

They haven't said that Kroenke hasn't worked in good faith, and the situation in St Louis isn't anything new. That's from Goodell himself. While they've had a bad situation longer, that doesn't mean that St Louis doesn't still have a problem as well. It just means there are three problems.

Lol the only person they have said that has worked in good faith is Spanos. I'm pretty sure you can make the argument for Davis too since Oakland is vehemently against using public money.

Kroenke? Haven't said a word about it. Only just lots of praise for the stadium and related progress.

I'm sure I'll be able to find it. It wasn't a landlord tenant issue, it was just not a 50/50 split. In theory Kroenke could do that in Inglewood, but I'm not sure how willing he is to do that.

I doubt he'd be willing to do that. And I'm saying the NFL wants to avoid a landlord/tenant type of situation again.

Yeah, so if they choose Carson over Inglewood they stick Kroenke between a rock and a hard place. I don't think they NFL wants to do that, especially to their second richest owner. Like him or not, they all know that money talks.

Or if they choose Inglewood they're leaving Spanos and/or Davis between a rock and a hard place. The NFL is gonna do whats best for all 3 owners - you don't see any kind of stadium plan popping up in Oakland let alone viable; and SD still can't come up with a viable plan as it is. By the time it comes to choose a plan, if the Rams financing comes through - they'll be the only one has that crossed all their I's and dotted their T's.

Honestly I think Davis will do just about anything because he is in such a poor spot. I also think that if it was the only way, Spanos would be willing to work. As long as Kroenke wasn't an arsehole about it. They discussed working together before, even if it went sour and Kroenke got impatient, that means they can work together again. It's not out of the question for that to happen.

Lol that's not exactly how it went down, but whatever. I think it's incredible reach to assume Spanos is going to work with Davis - it's not likely at all. Hell Oakland has a better chance of coming up with a viable stadium plan than that does happening. Spanos and Kroenke agreed to buy the hollywood site together, Stan went and did it on his own, now he's forcing Spanos's hand with Carson or trying to fight him for LA, and you think Spanos is gonna ignore his better deal in Carson and sign a deal on Kroenke's Terms? Lol k.

If one team went to LA, and the Chargers made it work in San Diego, and the Raiders in Oakland, I think the NFL would happily take that option. If they pick Inglewood, and Spanos refuses to work with him, then they can help the Raiders get there, if they both refuse, which is doubtful, then that's their fault really. If Kroenke helps funnel money to them to fix their home issues, then everyone wins in the eyes of the NFL.

Or the NFL could just take the higher money route with Carson and every team gets a new stadium. With inglewood, one team is being left without a new stadium.. But I digress - I don't believe the NFL is going to let the Rams leave if the Riverfront comes through, especially if its the only plan that has the financing and land secured come august/october/ whatever time they decide who's leaving.

I don't believe for a second the NFL is going to placate the one owner who doesn't abide by cross ownership rules, ignores the relocation rules, walks away from viable stadium plan in the NFL's eyes, shunning the 2 other owners in the process who have been working in good faith and trying to get deals done for years, only to reward the one owner who refuses to follow the rules.

 

[RamFan503]

What Stan has done since taking over is fail to live up to cross ownership guidelines, try to relocate a team without meeting bylaws, and preside over a team that has lost a game more then the year before each year. I don't know why people would just assume other owners are impressed with that, or why people assume that their employees would give them positive info on the state of the Rams. Even if one were to believe that NFL owners get briefings on all the other teams, what proven info can they possibly have? The facts are that we have questions marks at every offensive position besides RB and TE and the OC is an NFL rookie. Some may like our draft, some may like our youth, but to buy that we can succeed better than the Chargers at this point is really stretching it. Let's face it with homer glasses put away for a moment, Stan's record since becoming involved with the Rams isn't stellar. 4 good years out of 20, and two cities left in disarray.

Yeah - the NFL has a history of moving the cross ownership goal posts every time an owner crosses the rule. They've done it something like four or five times already. I don't think even they like the rule - especially with soccer not even included in it. No one within the NFL has said he hasn't been meeting the bylaws. The fans of St Louis certainly would like to make that case and it may be true. But I can agree to a point with these possible issues.

I do however find it amazing that anyone can honestly look at what was in place before Stan took control and buy what you're selling. From the front office, to the money spent on the coaching staff, to the community efforts, to the level of talent on the field, this organization as a whole is night and day better than before Stan bought the controlling interest. At the same time, the NFC West went from the NFL's worst division to the best division. If you think other owners haven't seen that, they would have had to have their head stuck in the sand. It is almost uncontested among anyone covering the NFL. Why would I assume those entrusted to provide owners with info on the state of other NFL teams a positive report on the state of the Rams? Because to fail to do so would likely cost them their jobs for being ignorant. Just my opinion of course.

Anyway - if you want to respond, I'll give you the last on this subject as far as I'm concerned. I think we both might at least agree that it may not really matter either way. Someone brought it up as a reason owners would hold the Chargers in higher regard as far as the LA market goes. I'm not sure a case can be made for that.

Cheers blue.

 

[iced]

Again, what really makes the SD plan a bad one?
And I haven't seen where SD is paying the Chargers to play there. Is this actually true? I thought they were paying a pretty similar rent to what is in the proposal. The issue raised was that rent is usually used for maintenance - not financing construction. However, SD put in their proposal that maintenance was handled with other funds.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/must-reads/fact-check-city-pays-chargers-play-qualcomm-stadium/

Over the last 7 years, they've paid the chargers $3.3 million to play there.

As far as the difference in plans between SD And St.Louis:

first, Grubman has already laid out what a "viable stadium" is - Land secured, Financing secured, and obviously stadium design approval.

Neither one of those has those - yet. St.Louis has most of the land (mostly through option agreements) or will it have it wrapped up come August as well as the financing. Those are their remaining 2 hurdles, which again they expect to have cleared up then.

SD - there's a lot of flaws in their plan, but the biggest ones are the vote and time needed to complete it. They have more hurdles to get across by august/october/nfl's accelerated time line..the biggest one I think is going to be the vote and the selling of the land. That's finding 1) a buyer, 2) a buyer at that particular price , 3)the time needed to process that transaction.

saying we think we can sell the land at $225 million without a buyer is just a guess - and the NFL wants everything done, ready to go the moment they say "Go." They're not gonna wait for them to come up with the money after the fact; financing needs to be secured first before its considered viable.

 

[RamFan503]

That part is out but it doesn't help anyone because the one that matters is the corporate support. I actually do think that has been floated to the media but it really doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't have believed it because I have seen other numbers from when the teams left and it was close but the Rams were the top team.

I don't doubt that Roggin said it but I haven't seen it anywhere. The only thing I've seen is the LA Times poll that had the Rams far and away as the favorites in their poll. If the NFL's study showed what you are saying, I haven't seen anyone report that finding. That's all. No biggie though.

 

[The Ripper]

Nope it was from him - he was asserting he knew how the fundings would break down and which percentages would go where. Those details and other changes have not been released since Peacock reduced the Bonds from $450 to $400 million

Bonds are at 229 million. That's from Nixon

Goldman is not only willing to cover the short falls but also pay for any renovations at temporary stadiums, as well as cover all the initial losses. This isn't an issue at all, especially since 2 Teams will make more money than one...Especially when its time to renegotiate those tv contracts in 2020, while reaping the revenue of the local tv revenue til then.

First the tv contracts are adjusted for the markets so the effects take place immediately. Goldman is a lender and that's it. Covering costs increases debt levels so they can say what they will cover but the NFL will determine how much they can borrow.

Oakland does NOT have a viable stadium in their home market. Their mayor has constantly said they are not going to spend public money on a stadium and hasn't backed off from this. The gap is atleast $400 million

Yes, there's a gap but he will sell apart of the team for the the required amount if needed. The real problem is the NFL only wants one stadium in each market and there's already one in the Raiders home market so their relocation application can be rejected on that basis alone.

Yep but the NFL isn't going to force an owner to take a bad deal with better one on the table (the Terms for Carson are going to be more friendly than Inglewood)

They will if the team can't afford it and if the debt in Carson isn't acceptable.

The Carson stadium authority has all 168 acres of land - the Raiders and Chargers have secured the land for their site.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/sports/2...s-complete-move-to-secure-carson-stadium-land

They bought only 11 acres and they paid 20 million for it. The rest the rights were bought for $ 2 so if the land was worth something they would have actually bought it outright..

 

[RamFan503]

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/must-reads/fact-check-city-pays-chargers-play-qualcomm-stadium/

Over the last 7 years, they've paid the chargers $3.3 million to play there.

As far as the difference in plans between SD And St.Louis:

first, Grubman has already laid out what a "viable stadium" is - Land secured, Financing secured, and obviously stadium design approval.

Neither one of those has those - yet. St.Louis has most of the land (mostly through option agreements) or will it have it wrapped up come August as well as the financing. Those are their remaining 2 hurdles, which again they expect to have cleared up then.

SD - there's a lot of flaws in their plan, but the biggest ones are the vote and time needed to complete it. They have more hurdles to get across by august/october/nfl's accelerated time line..the biggest one I think is going to be the vote and the selling of the land. That's finding 1) a buyer, 2) a buyer at that particular price , 3)the time needed to process that transaction.

saying we think we can sell the land at $225 million without a buyer is just a guess - and the NFL wants everything done, ready to go the moment they say "Go." They're not gonna wait for them to come up with the money after the fact; financing needs to be secured first before its considered viable.

Fair enough. So now how does what St Louis is offering Stan compare favorably to what Spanos is getting from SD? It appears by what the article is saying that possibly the most lucrative deal an NFL owner has is the deal Spanos has in SD. Is his wanting to get an even better deal from the city acting in good faith more so than what Stan and the organization as a whole has been dealing with? Is the city of STL offering anything close to that deal? Maybe they will. But does that play into the equation? Probably.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Again - assumptions. They haven't even negotiated nor touched on revenue streams. Again, details that Peacock has said he won't release. Once again a lot of these are assumptions.

That's what I'm asking, what is there left to negotiate on other than naming rights and some ticket sales? If PSL's are off the table, and ownership is off the table, what is left? I'm genuinely curious, what exactly is left to negotiate on the stadium that would convince Kroenke to take the deal if he's cold on it now.

Lol whether or not Goldman Sachs would be inclined to do so is irrelevant - they've said it they can't do it because of the size and the revenue. I'll trust their word on the matter considering they do investments and have done over 30 stadium deals with the NFL. The only reason they can finance Carson the way they can is because of the size of the market. In a smaller market like SD, they won't take the chance if they don't believe the city can pull it off.

San Diego isn't exactly some tiny market, and since there are other sources of funding, they would only need to fund a little bit. I'm not saying they can use the exact same model as Carson, but I'm dubious they couldn't do anything in San Diego. Either Goldman Sachs is an expert in doing this, having done it many times for many different stadiums in many different cities, as said by you, or they're not. I'm going to say that a company this big could do it if they wanted to. I just don't think they want to at this time.

Lol the only person they have said that has worked in good faith is Spanos. I'm pretty sure you can make the argument for Davis too since Oakland is vehemently against using public money.

Kroenke? Haven't said a word about it. Only just lots of praise for the stadium and related progress.

Just because they haven't come out and said he has worked in good faith, doesn't mean they're saying he hasn't. Maybe they haven't been asked that question yet, as far as I know nobody has asked them if he has, and they haven't said he hasn't either. You're denying the antecedent there, it doesn't work.

I doubt he'd be willing to do that. And I'm saying the NFL wants to avoid a landlord/tenant type of situation again.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much they care. They certainly didn't care when they were looking to bunk the Raiders in with the 49ers and be their tenant. If Kroenke saw that as his way into LA, he may do it, I really have no idea what his limits are. It's a high stake game of billions of dollars though, I have to imagine he's keeping options open. He was apparently willing to split with Spanos before.

Lol that's not exactly how it went down, but whatever. I think it's incredible reach to assume Spanos is going to work with Davis - it's not likely at all. Hell Oakland has a better chance of coming up with a viable stadium plan than that does happening. Spanos and Kroenke agreed to buy the hollywood site together, Stan went and did it on his own, now he's forcing Spanos's hand with Carson or trying to fight him for LA, and you think Spanos is gonna ignore his better deal in Carson and sign a deal on Kroenke's Terms? Lol k.

If the NFL says they're going with Inglewood instead of Carson I think he would. If they tell Kroenke they're going with Carson, he could just push ahead anyway, knowing he has the money and will be done building long before Carson. I don't think he will, but he has that option, Spanos doesn't. There isn't much word of how it went down, but it sounded like Kroenke got sick of waiting around and went for it anyway without Spanos. They seemed pretty friendly together in San Deigo last year, for such an apparently strained relationship.

Or the NFL could just take the higher money route with Carson and every team gets a new stadium. With inglewood, one team is being left without a new stadium.. But I digress - I don't believe the NFL is going to let the Rams leave if the Riverfront comes through, especially if its the only plan that has the financing and land secured come august/october/ whatever time they decide who's leaving.

Again, that it essentially saying that Stan has to buy into the Riverfront stadium, and you can't do it. You can't say that "They just take Carson and then everyone gets a new stadium, but Stan isn't forced to take the Riverfront stadium if he doesn't want it!" If they are denying him because of that stadium, they're essentially telling him he has to buy in, and if he doesn't then they don't have three fixed stadium issues. If the one owner who seems to actually want to stay in their current market, Davis, stays in there in a new stadium, that sounds like the only way to ensure all three guys are happy unless something changes quickly.

I don't believe for a second the NFL is going to placate the one owner who doesn't abide by cross ownership rules, ignores the relocation rules, walks away from viable stadium plan in the NFL's eyes, shunning the 2 other owners in the process who have been working in good faith and trying to get deals done for years, only to reward the one owner who refuses to follow the rules.

Well money talks, if Stan fixes the cross ownership issues, and he's been playing ball with the stadium, which is has been, and offers the best solution why not reward him? Especially if he's the only one trying to help out all three guys.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't doubt that Roggin said it but I haven't seen it anywhere. The only thing I've seen is the LA Times poll that had the Rams far and away as the favorites in their poll. If the NFL's study showed what you are saying, I haven't seen anyone report that finding. That's all. No biggie though.

I'm curious why we aren't hearing anything about these market studies, weren't they supposed to be to the individual task forces long ago? Are they that bad?

 

[8to12]

think maybe you took his words out of context? or are you saying you dont care if the Rams win or lose as long as its the Rams? honestly you are the only person ive heard say they dont care if the Rams win or lose.

Tony, I can see how you think that I don't care if they win or not. I probably could've chosen my words more carefully. What I am trying to say is that if I travel to St Louis to see the Rams play, the end result (winning or losing) is not the purpose for making the trip. If it ends up being a competitive game and the Rams win, then it's icing on the cake. But, if they lose, there is no buyers remorse. In comparison, it seems sometimes there is buyers remorse for fans of STL for the end result of the Rams win/loss record over the last 10 years. Winning is better than losing, but it doesn't define why I am a fan.

 

[Corbin]

Jerry Jones: “The Rams, with the initial focus groups and the initial look-sees, the Rams are a very popular team in Southern California, and so one of the reasons why it was attractive to us to work against them was they have that good flavor. It is certainly not a reach at all to say that fans remember the Los Angeles Rams, and that is not a reach. So that makes them a good partner to practice within the Los Angeles area.”

Jerry Jones: Rams’ ties to LA make them attractive practice partner
The Rams, who will practice against the Cowboys in August, could return to Los Angeles as early as next year.
star-telegram.com