who says he's hiding?
I find it more credible he can't get him on the phone to negotiate with lol
Well if he's trying not to tip his hand for negotiations, he's trying not to show what he's got to offer. I'd say if they're looking for loopholes to get things in place, we're past the point of trying to hide what you're going to offer to entice him. If they don't divulge that and simply say "We can discuss it when he's forced to be here." I'd guess the owners would be less willing to make him stay. It doesn't help them any. They have Demoff to negotiate with, so they're fine. If they refuse to negotiate with Demoff that's their issue, that's not on Kroenke.
Once again, I have said that they only person they have said is working in good faith is Spanos. K, are we clear on that? Now, no where, does in that one magical sentence did I say "The NFL has said Kroenke isn't working in good Faith." Now, are we clear on that yet?
After that, I gave my opinion how I think his actions will be perceived, particularly in the good faith part.
This is all hilariously forgetting that Peacock and Nixon had to go straight to the NFL to get any kind of inputs on their stadium. think about that. They had to go directly to the NFL to get someone to work with on their stadium - how in the hell are you going to argue "he's working in good faith" when the taskforce had to go to the NFL because Kroenke wouldn't answer the phone or attempt to make contact? Good luck with that.
Okay, well if you're not trying to say that the NFL believes that Kroenke hasn't negotiated in good faith, you're not conveying it very well, because it sounds like you're trying to say that. Maybe not directly, but it reads as if you're saying that's the only logical option. When you say that the NFL only says that Spanos has negotiated in good faith, and you say that the task force went to the NFL to get Demoff to negotiate then, and then ask "How do you argue that he's working in good faith?" it seems that you saying he's not working in good faith.
Sure doesn't seem that way
How do you figure? Inglewood isn't even talking all that much, Carson has been the ones running their mouths. Mayor Butts has said he wont trash talk another project, and simply said that if they're trying to say it's a race, it's not really one, because Inglewood is open by 2018, and Carson is still years out at that point.
I recall reading in multiple places that Kroenke isn't going to fight the stadium authority and will respect the other owners decision when it comes to relocating. I'm not go==
I recall people jumping to that conclusion, but the first thing I saw was "People close to him don't think he'll try to move without going to the league first" essentially saying that they felt he'd allow a vote to happen. Since then I've seen nothing, but I've seen that statement morph from "He's not going to just up and move the team without a vote" (Which was something people thought he was going to do in the beginning) to "He'll accept what they tell him regardless." and I don't remember seeing more than the initial statement.
I think its solves issues because it addresses their current issues with the stadium - If Kroenke had a issue with the stadium, I'm sure the taskforce would be willing to pick up the phone should he dial - they've indicated that many times.
However the problem is one owner is most likely going to be left astray, while Spanos and Kroenke will be fighting over who gets LA (And all indications are Spanos is winning that fight, and San Diego just made it easier for them today
If Kroenke doesn't want the Riverfront stadium, then it addresses nothing. He had issues getting the city to negotiate before, how can he expect them to do it now, especially if he's forced to be there? He has no leverage anymore. If he wants something else, how can he trust that the city will open up the checkbook? They're having enough issues as it is, what if he wants that PSL money? If he wants to scrap that stadium and start over with a dome (which gives him more options to revenue streams) then what happens? The city is going to suddenly come to the table and negotiate fairly when they didn't before the threat of LA suddenly became real?
who said anything about a study? You getting your posts confused?
I was talking about the Inglewood camp's statement "This is the best plan in Inglewood" - the moment that was mentioned, every writer starting throwing it in there, with lots of different writers dissecting it and laughing at it (Particularly the reasoning of team success, which the chargers win hands down)
I was talking about what stadium would make more money. An independent study look at the proposals, and made an estimate saying that Carson would be a net loss for the first few decades, and then make money, and they needed two teams to really work, while Inglewood worked with one team, and with one almost made as much as Carson with two. However Inglewood with two teams generated the most revenue. That's what I was talking about.
In terms of Inglewood saying they felt they were the best prosposal, of course they say that, Carson says it too. The reason why people tend to say that Inglewood is better (various writers) isn't because Inglewood says so, but because they look at both proposals, and see that Inglewood offers more, is part of a larger more LA Live, in a better location, among other things. You can't say that people who compare the two sites are picking Inglewood just because Inglewood says they're better, if they're making their own judgement and coming to their own conclusion, then that's their reasoning.
Fabiani has also said they have the votes to block Kroenke...
"Yea!! we're gonna get the votes to block your move, but we're also open to moving in with you!!!" - riggghttttt.....
You can't just make a blanket statement of how you're going to accept what people say. You have to examine different statements as they come.
Oh, so now you're believing things that Fabinani says? Lol
Same thing as above, you have to take each statement and read it. Fabiani had no reason to say that Inglewood is a possibility, it doesn't help him at all in terms of getting Carson done. It's the same as any other politician, you have to separate the crap they are just saying for support and because they're playing politics, and the real stuff. Sometimes it's harder to tell than others, in terms of Fabiani saying that, it was during a radio interview, and it was real fast. He didn't need to say it, it doesn't help him to say it.
