New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

Exactly why the NFL doesn't want owners to be able to walk away from public money

So the NFL is going to say it's okay for a city to ignore their lease, which is part of their side of the agreement, but not okay for one of their teams, one of their own, to leave that city because of it? Why would they do that, it puts them in a bad situation? If the Riverfront stadium doesn't put them into the top tier, which it seems doubtful right now, that's essentially the NFL setting the precedent that a city can go ahead and break their agreement, offer something less, and then force the team into taking it. Seems very foolish for the NFL.

 

[ChrisW]

So the NFL is going to say it's okay for a city to ignore their lease, which is part of their side of the agreement, but not okay for one of their teams, one of their own, to leave that city because of it? Why would they do that, it puts them in a bad situation? If the Riverfront stadium doesn't put them into the top tier, which it seems doubtful right now, that's essentially the NFL setting the precedent that a city can go ahead and break their agreement, offer something less, and then force the team into taking it. Seems very foolish for the NFL.

Who's ignoring the lease?

And why wouldn't a brand new billion dollar stadium not put them into the top tier? Go ahead and compare it to stadiums around the league, I'll wait for your answer.

 

[bluecoconuts]

That is actually something I was wondering. Who in their right mind is going to offer Moe roughly 100% above current value in hopes that it might give them a ROI. Doesn't really add up. But heck - that's a good deal if he can pull it off. Does that investor also want to buy some swamp... er... uh... railroad land in Florida?

The only thing I could think is some tech company who'd look to eventually push him out... But even then, I doubt it gets done. Honestly Davis probably can't afford to be an NFL owner, but he wont give it up.

 

[iced]

I'm just saying, I'm not sure what they have to convince him, and it doesn't look like they have much.

Or those are details that are up for negotiation - and no reason to tip your hand so early...just ask Kroenke about that

It's not a well known fact, because Demoff is working with the task force, and they seem to be working in good faith. Peacock may have whined to the NFL about not working with Kroenke, but it sounds like they said "Send someone" and he sent Demoff, and it seems that made the NFL happy, because it hasn't come up. Only from St Louis media types who say that isn't good enough. That's also not denying the antecedent, denying the antecedent is If A then B, not A, therefore not B.

I'm not buying it but to each their own

In other words think of it as:

If someone speaks English, they are human.
Someone doesn't speak English, therefore they are not human. Doesn't work.

If they NFL says someone is working in good faith, then they are working in good faith.
They haven't said Kroenke is working in good faith, therefore he is not working in good faith.

Same logical fallacy, it doesn't work.

You're twisting my words here. The only one that has said to be in good faith in Spanos - that doesn't mean kroenke hasn't (I've never said that, please read my posts if you're going to reply). What I have said is that there's a lot more out there to support the notion and perception that he hasn't than he has - from all the whispers we've heard at owners meetings to peacock, etc.

You may believe Kroenke is acting in good faith - but by the letter of the guidelines, I don't. And I doubt the NFL does either.

According to who? As far as I know other than Policy, there hasn't been anything on that, and frankly I don't trust Policy, he has an agenda to push.

oh, the irony.... everyone of these guys has an agenda to push - from kroenke's camp saying its the best plan to carson to spanos, etc.

No, the only thing anyone has said is they believe Kroenke will allow the NFL to vote on relocation, they didn't say he would listen to the vote or anything, they just said they felt he'd let them vote.

No, "he'd respect the leagues decision"

So then it doesn't solve all three issues. I'm not saying he can do whatever he wants, but I'm saying that denying Inglewood doesn't automatically solve all three stadium issues.

And then Inglewood leaves the other two owners in the cold. And I never said "they solved all three stadium issues" (since you seem to believe kroenke doesnt want the riverfront) - however, i said its the only one that gets all 3 teams in a new stadium.

Yeah, he's supposed to have it fixed by this year.

And last year, hence the year extension...

And Inglewood offering the best solution doesn't just come from Inglewood, it comes from most of the media who has looked at both plans. Independent economists who looked at what each site would be expected to generate, people who see that the Inglewood project offers more because it's part of a larger complex and in a better more central location. The only thing that Carson has going for it is that they don't need to negotiate the second team already, otherwise I don't see anything that makes it better.

No, that's come from Kroenke's camp and been regurgitated a lot by the Pro-LA writers.

Two teams in Carson is easily more beneficial to the league than just the Rams - and like i said, i don't believe either one of those owners are interesting in moving in Kroenke on his terms when they have a better option in Carson...And yea, better believe all the owners are considering that. Especially with Spanos lobbying and claiming he has all the votes to block Kroenke. That doesn't sound like someone who's ready to move in now does it?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Who's ignoring the lease?

And why wouldn't a brand new billion dollar stadium not put them into the top tier? Go ahead and compare it to stadiums around the league, I'll wait for your answer.

St Louis broke their end of the agreement in terms of the top tier clause, that's why we're in this miss. There are other cities who have this same clause (which I didn't actually know).. So if they let St Louis break that part of the lease and then offer up something that doesn't qualify into the top tier, then it's setting a bad precedent for the other cities.

In terms off what makes a stadium "top tier" I'm not really sure how the NFL qualifies it. My guess is size, ability to host the superbowl, and things like that.

So the top tier was what, the top 8?

Dallas, Indy, SF, Houston, Arizona are probably all above it, some easily, they're new or relatively new stadiums that the NFL can put multiple Super Bowls in no problem. Minnesota's plan tops the Riverfront, and whichever LA stadium would also likely top it. Because of the low number of seats and press boxes (requirements for top tier) it probably pushes it behind NY and a few others.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Or those are details that are up for negotiation - and no reason to tip your hand so early...just ask Kroenke about that

PSLs and ownership? I don't see how they are. I don't see the point in trying to hide what you have to offer you're trying to convince a guy to stay.

You're twisting my words here. The only one that has said to be in good faith in Spanos - that doesn't mean kroenke hasn't (I've never said that, please read my posts if you're going to reply). What I have said is that there's a lot more out there to support the notion and perception that he hasn't than he has - from all the whispers we've heard at owners meetings to peacock, etc.

You may believe Kroenke is acting in good faith - but by the letter of the guidelines, I don't. And I doubt the NFL does either.

So you're saying that there's evidence to support that he's not working in good faith but not that he's not working in good faith? I don't see it, you said that you saw nothing to suggest hes working in good faith or that the league felt he was, which is saying he's not working in good faith. You pointed out that Spanos was the only one who was mentioned to be to this point as evidence that the NFL doesn't think Kroenke is working in good faith. If you're not suggesting that Kroenke isn't working in good faith and the NFL doesn't think he is either, you got a funny way of wording it.

oh, the irony.... everyone of these guys has an agenda to push - from kroenke's camp saying its the best plan to carson to spanos, etc.

Of course they all have an agenda, which is why I would take Kroenke saying that they want one team in LA with a grain of salt as well. There hasn't been anything to suggest what Policy, who has a history of being full of shit, is true. It could be, but I'm waiting for more from some more neutral parties.

No, "he'd respect the leagues decision"

As far as I know, that wasn't it, if you have something else please share though.

And then Inglewood leaves the other two owners in the cold. And I never said "they solved all three stadium issues" (since you seem to believe kroenke doesnt want the riverfront) - however, i said its the only one that gets all 3 teams in a new stadium.

Getting all three teams into new stadium means you solve all three issues. And I'm saying that selecting Carson doesn't not do that, because if Stan doesn't want the Riverfront stadium, then the Rams still have a stadium issue. Besides, Inglewood solves all three stadium issues as well, two teams go there, and they funnel money to assist the third team. Its the same thing as Carson two teams go, and the third is left to figure it out. The only difference is Kroenke is willing to help out the other guys if needed while they wouldnt help him (not that he needs it).

No, that's come from Kroenke's camp and been regurgitated a lot by the Pro-LA writers.

The study did not come from Kroenkes camp, and why would pro LA people be negative towards Carson if its good, or better? That makes no sense.

Two teams in Carson is easily more beneficial to the league than just the Rams - and like i said, i don't believe either one of those owners are interesting in moving in Kroenke on his terms when they have a better option in Carson...And yea, better believe all the owners are considering that. Especially with Spanos lobbying and claiming he has all the votes to block Kroenke. That doesn't sound like someone who's ready to move in now does it?

They're still playing the game. FYI, Fabiani already says that Inglewood is a possibility, almost every writer, who is more connected and more informed that we are, say that Chargers in Inglewood is a possibility. Yet you say its not. Why? Why do you say its not when the Chargers themselves have said it is. You cant really get much more connected than that.

Carson with two teams barely makes more than Inglewood with one team. Inglewood with two teams amokes Carson. Inglewood is being built for two teams.

At this point I don't believe the Rams have ever said that moving to Inglewood was a possibility. Of course because they're working in the project we all connected those dots. However if they didn't that would mean that the one team who have said they could possibly move to Inglewood would be the Chargers.

If they do or don't, we'll find out, but you saying there any nothing to suggest they would is false. Given that Fabinani himself already said it was a possibility.

 

[WillasDad]

Inglewood is going to be the LA stadium. People who think that the NFL owners voting to prevent SK from taking the Rams to LA is somehow going to stop SK from actually leaving aren't being realistic. He's spent a lot of money, probably a lot more than either teams involved with the Carson project, by far. SK vowing not to go rogue is likely because really, all that matters to him is that it isn't really costing him any money to play along at this point. Once cooperating with the NFL actually starts to cost him cold hard cash, to quote Maximus, he'll likely "unlease hell." Anyway, so far things are looking very good.

Funding, he's solid. He needed to get the 60 acre plot of land. He got it. He needed to somehow get control of the ACTUALLY adjacent land, by working out some deal with the land developers that owned the property. He did it. He needed to straighten out any political opposition he could have faced with the Inglewood mayor and city council. Unanimous vote in his favor. The union opposition that was being reported, squared away. Structures still on the land, imploded. The permits, well, he's still waiting on that.

In the meantime, those who have a vested interest in ensuring the success/apparent success of Carson do all the talking. All the NFL votes approving a relocation for the Chargers and Raiders isn't happening until the end of the year. No problem for SK to wait during that time while Spanos and Davis try to get their stadium funding from their respective cities. I mean considering the alternative, no amount of talking on the part of Fabiani or Policy is going to make the Carson toxic clean up go any faster. SK and Inglewood will be first to market.

Frankly, Spanos is the one that's really in trouble. He/Fabiani speaks as if SD is running out of time, but really the one running out of time is him. Any negotiating leverage he has now is going to evaporate the moment shovel hits dirt in Inglewood, which is scheduled for December this year, if we're to believe the mayor of Inglewood. The Carson project would die at that very moment as it would lose the backing of the NFL and Goldman Sachs, which probably wouldn't see the benefit of financing a stadium that doesn't even get shovel ready until after a nicer looking stadium that will be first to market is open for business not more than 10 miles away. That leaves Spanos with the choice of either work with SK on Inglewood or build a stadium in SD.

I know some have mentioned that the NFL is going to force SK to give partial equity in the stadium to Spanos but I think it's likelier that Spanos will have to pry it from SK's cold dead hands before SK gives up any equity share. But let's just say he does. The stadium alone is supposed to cost about $2 billion. I'm guessing SK will not sell any share in equity at the same rate that SK's cost because frankly, SK's taken all the risk and spent lots of money preparing it already. Spanos would probably have to leverage that equity just to get a loan to pay the premium price it would take to purchase that equity share from SK. G4 money ($250 million) won't cut it. Frankly, he couldn't afford it. Will Spanos become a tenant paying rent in Inglewood? Not likely. Funny enough, SK probably only allow Spanos to leverage his equity for a loan so long as the loan was coming from SK himself.

In the meantime, SD's position is looking real good each month that passes. Lucky for Spanos, based off the tweets I've read in the past day or so, the SD mayor sounds like he doesn't understand his own advantageous position at the moment and will continue to attempt to negotiate in good faith. If it were me, I'd continue to negotiate until around the end of October. After that, I'd say eff it and just let Spanos sweat it out and see his leverage disappear before his very eyes. Of course, Spanos is not a dummy like I am and he and the city of SD will likely have worked something out by then or sometime soon thereafter.

 

[Corbin]

Damnit @iced and @bluecoconuts !!! Stop writing long ass responses because it's to much to read before bed time!!!

 

[The Ripper]

And yet they seem to have no problem with the Falcons racking it up - even with this article being old and the construction costs have risen since then, their debt was at $850 million

http://thefieldsofgreen.com/2014/12...ease-signifies-nfl-financial-strength-future/

So not really sure I'm seeing the point here. Falcons stadium in that article was $1.1 billion - it's currently at $1.5 billion. And the team I believe is covering those over run costs. Wondering if that puts them at $1.25 billion in debt, or just anywhere around a billion.

However according to their figures for Carson, recouping money is not supposed to be an issue for them, particularly investors at $100 million a year (santa clara by comparison is at $75 million through interests and fee's.. Of course they expect those numbers to be higher in Carson.

The owners have the money. The Spanos's and Davis don't.

No, they can create a fund - they did it for the niners with a stadium authority

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...help-49ers-pay-for-new-stadium-in-santa-clara

They also did it for the Falcons

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...-million-loan-for-new-atlanta-falcons-stadium



I was pointing it out as a source of revenue to the team.. of course moving to LA brings in other revenues - and that $200 million is only a portion of what they make, albeit the biggest.

Yes, that was G-4 money not a separate loan from the NFL. The G 4 like G 3 is an agreed exception to the revenue sharing with the players.

 

[blue4]

Inglewood is going to be the LA stadium. People who think that the NFL owners voting to prevent SK from taking the Rams to LA is somehow going to stop SK from actually leaving aren't being realistic. He's spent a lot of money, probably a lot more than either teams involved with the Carson project, by far. SK vowing not to go rogue is likely because really, all that matters to him is that it isn't really costing him any money to play along at this point. Once cooperating with the NFL actually starts to cost him cold hard cash, to quote Maximus, he'll likely "unlease hell." Anyway, so far things are looking very good.

Funding, he's solid. He needed to get the 60 acre plot of land. He got it. He needed to somehow get control of the ACTUALLY adjacent land, by working out some deal with the land developers that owned the property. He did it. He needed to straighten out any political opposition he could have faced with the Inglewood mayor and city council. Unanimous vote in his favor. The union opposition that was being reported, squared away. Structures still on the land, imploded. The permits, well, he's still waiting on that.

In the meantime, those who have a vested interest in ensuring the success/apparent success of Carson do all the talking. All the NFL votes approving a relocation for the Chargers and Raiders isn't happening until the end of the year. No problem for SK to wait during that time while Spanos and Davis try to get their stadium funding from their respective cities. I mean considering the alternative, no amount of talking on the part of Fabiani or Policy is going to make the Carson toxic clean up go any faster. SK and Inglewood will be first to market.

Frankly, Spanos is the one that's really in trouble. He/Fabiani speaks as if SD is running out of time, but really the one running out of time is him. Any negotiating leverage he has now is going to evaporate the moment shovel hits dirt in Inglewood, which is scheduled for December this year, if we're to believe the mayor of Inglewood. The Carson project would die at that very moment as it would lose the backing of the NFL and Goldman Sachs, which probably wouldn't see the benefit of financing a stadium that doesn't even get shovel ready until after a nicer looking stadium that will be first to market is open for business not more than 10 miles away. That leaves Spanos with the choice of either work with SK on Inglewood or build a stadium in SD.

I know some have mentioned that the NFL is going to force SK to give partial equity in the stadium to Spanos but I think it's likelier that Spanos will have to pry it from SK's cold dead hands before SK gives up any equity share. But let's just say he does. The stadium alone is supposed to cost about $2 billion. I'm guessing SK will not sell any share in equity at the same rate that SK's cost because frankly, SK's taken all the risk and spent lots of money preparing it already. Spanos would probably have to leverage that equity just to get a loan to pay the premium price it would take to purchase that equity share from SK. G4 money ($250 million) won't cut it. Frankly, he couldn't afford it. Will Spanos become a tenant paying rent in Inglewood? Not likely. Funny enough, SK probably only allow Spanos to leverage his equity for a loan so long as the loan was coming from SK himself.

In the meantime, SD's position is looking real good each month that passes. Lucky for Spanos, based off the tweets I've read in the past day or so, the SD mayor sounds like he doesn't understand his own advantageous position at the moment and will continue to attempt to negotiate in good faith. If it were me, I'd continue to negotiate until around the end of October. After that, I'd say eff it and just let Spanos sweat it out and see his leverage disappear before his very eyes. Of course, Spanos is not a dummy like I am and he and the city of SD will likely have worked something out by then or sometime soon thereafter.

Speculation with no more basis in actual facts then anyone else.

 

[D L]

St Louis broke their end of the agreement in terms of the top tier clause, that's why we're in this miss. There are other cities who have this same clause (which I didn't actually know).. So if they let St Louis break that part of the lease and then offer up something that doesn't qualify into the top tier, then it's setting a bad precedent for the other cities.

In terms off what makes a stadium "top tier" I'm not really sure how the NFL qualifies it. My guess is size, ability to host the superbowl, and things like that.

So the top tier was what, the top 8?

Dallas, Indy, SF, Houston, Arizona are probably all above it, some easily, they're new or relatively new stadiums that the NFL can put multiple Super Bowls in no problem. Minnesota's plan tops the Riverfront, and whichever LA stadium would also likely top it. Because of the low number of seats and press boxes (requirements for top tier) it probably pushes it behind NY and a few others.

For someone that supposedly wants the Rams to stay in STL, you sure do give a lot of reasons as to why St. Louis shouldn't have the team.

I'm starting to believe what you think is what you truly want.

 

[The Ripper]

Who's ignoring the lease?

And why wouldn't a brand new billion dollar stadium not put them into the top tier? Go ahead and compare it to stadiums around the league, I'll wait for your answer.

The Stadium itself is only $ 600 to $ 650 million.

 

[Rmfnlt]

My whole point here was that people are assuming too much about how others outside our organization view us. That people seem to just assume that other businessman approve of the way that Stan does business. I'm not making any claims at all. Simply trying to point out that some things people seem to take for granted aren't a given. I get the feeling that others think I'm making some sort of argument to convince them that Stan's not viewed well. I'm not. My entire argument can be summed up with one sentence. "You might be assuming too much."


As for the whole "average" thing. I don't think that it's understood that I'm not down on our team. I'm just giving what I think would be the view from the outside. I'm sure that fans of Arizona have very different thoughts then I do about the state of their team. People see trends. 7-8-1, 7-9, 6-10 is a downward trend. Merely saying that we have been average because we feel we have good talent doesn't really fly does it? The Browns have had some talent along their futile way, would you buy it if a Browns fan said that they should be viewed as average or compared equally to the Chargers? I'm just trying to see it from the outside looking in. I don't believe that owners can run their own billion dollar day jobs and know the relocation ins and outs plus the inner workings of all 32 NFL teams. There's just not that many hours in the day. So, I don't think that any argument the Rams may make about being the safest choice for LA based on that will work. I think they will do what they do every day and look at trends. That's even if the Rams are making that argument. That in itself is was an assumption by someone in the media.

I still agree with this.

How we see our favorite team and how others do is probaby very different. It's called homerism.

Yes, every owner probably has procedures in place to ensure they are aware of the competition. But I suspect that only goes on at a high level (like competing markets, revenues, whatever aspects they, as businessmen, might be able to use to enhance their own markets/revenues).

They pay GMs, HCs and scouts money to monitor competiting rosters and potential talent levels. I seriously doubt that, if you walked up to the owner of the Baltimore Ravens, he's have one clue about the potential talent level of the St. Louis Rams.

That's his GM and coaches jobs.

So, I continue to believe the owners are at such high levels that they do look at records and probably feedback from their own organization. I know this sounds terrible, but - until the Rams actually make some noise - I don't think they are thought of as anything other than below average.

Of course, I think this is OUR year... but I don't think the other teams see it that way. Look at most reports on our team.... most are still skeptical...

 

[WillasDad]

Speculation with no more basis in actual facts then anyone else.

My apologies if my post upset anybody but it's really no more speculative than those who say that SK is is still using LA for leverage, that he would abide by the NFL owners votes if they vote against him relocating, or that he would even be interested in dropping the cash to play in the new Riverfront stadium. Lots of speculation going on here, which to my knowledge hasn't actually been discouraged.....or has it?

 

[blue4]

My apologies if my post upset anybody but it's really no more speculative than those who say that SK is is still using LA for leverage, that he would abide by the NFL owners votes if they vote against him relocating, or that he would even be interested in dropping the cash to play in the new Riverfront stadium. Lots of speculation going on here, which to my knowledge hasn't actually been discouraged.....or has it?

What's been discouraged is the use of absolutes. Such as saying the stadium in Inglewood WILL be the stadium in LA. Fact is you don't know that anymore than anyone else. Every argument that has happened in the 400+ pages here has started that way. Every time RamFan503 has to threaten to pull the car over it's been the cause.

And no, your speculation is no less valid than anyone else's, and I don't think anyone's upset.

 

[WillasDad]

What's been discouraged is the use of absolutes. Such as saying the stadium in Inglewood WILL be the stadium in LA. Fact is you don't know that anymore than anyone else. Every argument that has happened in the 400+ pages here has started that way. Every time RamFan503 has to threaten to pull the car over it's been the cause.

And no, your speculation is no less valid than anyone else's, and I don't think anyone's upset.

Okay, well, thank you for that. Any takers on the substance of my post?

 

[RamzFanz]

My apologies if my post upset anybody but it's really no more speculative than those who say that SK is is still using LA for leverage, that he would abide by the NFL owners votes if they vote against him relocating, or that he would even be interested in dropping the cash to play in the new Riverfront stadium. Lots of speculation going on here, which to my knowledge hasn't actually been discouraged.....or has it?

Demoff has clearly said the relocation decision is up to the 32 owners. I've quoted him.

 

[blue4]

Okay, well, thank you for that. Any takers on the substance of my post?

I agree that Stan is pretty solid, but his offer to help SD and Oakland get new stadiums is a sign that his strength isn't absolute. That's somewhat of a sign to me that he recognizes the threat from Carson has increased. It also can be interpreted as not negotiating in good faith with St Louis. Certainly by me, but I don't think it's a stretch for an old school owner like Rooney to ask that question.

I think you are wrong about the strength of Spanos's position and about SD getting a deal by October.

Given the reputed dislike between Spanos and Kroenke it's unlikely to me that there would be an owner/tenant relationship that works. I don't think any loan from Kroenke is happening.

The shovels may be ready to go in December, but nobody even knows if that's a serious threat or a bluff. If Carson wins out or the owners deny him relocation, he won't start building until those legal issues are resolved. And factoring in loss of tv revenue plus legal costs plus the money he needs to build it doesn't seem to leave much of a ROI to go rogue.

 

[ChrisW]

St Louis broke their end of the agreement in terms of the top tier clause, that's why we're in this miss. There are other cities who have this same clause (which I didn't actually know).. So if they let St Louis break that part of the lease and then offer up something that doesn't qualify into the top tier, then it's setting a bad precedent for the other cities.

In terms off what makes a stadium "top tier" I'm not really sure how the NFL qualifies it. My guess is size, ability to host the superbowl, and things like that.

So the top tier was what, the top 8?

Dallas, Indy, SF, Houston, Arizona are probably all above it, some easily, they're new or relatively new stadiums that the NFL can put multiple Super Bowls in no problem. Minnesota's plan tops the Riverfront, and whichever LA stadium would also likely top it. Because of the low number of seats and press boxes (requirements for top tier) it probably pushes it behind NY and a few others.

In terms of contracts you need to be careful using the word "broke". That's not what happened. A clause was triggered that allowed the Rams out early. No agreement was broken. If there was broken agreements there would be lawsuits.

Arizona and Houston are pushing the limits on the top tier. The NFL lists top tier stadiums as far as game day experiences go, and yes Super Bowls probably do figure into it somewhere. The Stadium has been designed so far with the fan experience in mind. The green spaces, to the HUGE entrance that looks directly onto the field attribute to this. Also, keep in mind, we don't know what it can expand to, so it may be able to expand to the lower end of the Super Bowl seating limits.

 

[rams2050]

I cannot believe that there are so many posts and so many darned pages that are dealing in nothing more than pure speculation and grasping at straws. Admit it: none of us know anything, including all of the so-called 'reporters.' We can post, "blah, blah, blah, my nephew twice removed on my sister-in-law's side of the family is friends with the Kroenke's maid and SHE says. . . . blah, blah, blah" and yet what do we REALLY know?

Even all of the legalese that has been posted may be true, indeed, in a specific set of circumstances after having been ruled upon by a specific judge or court of appeals and yet will it hold true when applied to the current situation? WHO KNOWS? Laws are applied differently ALL THE TIME!! Something that appears to be LAW today will not be LAW tomorrow. Just look at marriage, for one example. . .

In other words, none of us has a living clue who will be doing what to whom to get what he wants and whether that will be adjudged to be legal once the fur has stopped flying.

I was all excited about this thread when it started; now, not so much.

Now, I think these thousands of posts are, all in all, a good idea per se, because it has allowed everyone to vent and vent and vent, speculate and speculate, and I believe it has helped posters to wear off the sharp edges of their hope and/or dismay. And that, I think, will help every one of us to deal with the result, whatever that may be, when it finally is announced.

Which means, none of us should be on actual suicide watch once everything has been decided.

As for me, I'll still poke my head in occasionally -- mainly to read any news articles (which are also just grasping at straws, no matter WHO the reporter may be) -- and stay out of the discussions. Simply reading them and considering their relative merits, I think, is a fool's game that takes waaaay too much time out of my life.

But that's just me; I know my thoughts on the matter won't dissuade a single one of you from continuing to fret and argue and posit various results and, in all of that, I wish you well and hope everyone continues to have a good time and be entertained.

I do have to commend everyone on keeping the discussions as civil as they are; good job -- and just more proof as to why ROD is the best Rams' site on the web.