***DISCLAIMER: ANY COMMENTS I MAKE BELOW IS MADE FOR MY OWN ENTERTAINMENT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS FACT. THEY ARE MY OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS FORMED BY PURE SPECULATION AND SELECTIVE RELIANCE ON REPORTS FROM "JOURNALISTS," SOME OF WHOM I RESPECT AND OTHERS OF WHOM I'VE NEVER HEARD OF BUT SAY STUFF THAT HELPS MY ARGUMENT.
So I made the following comment...
It was referring to the "promises" made by the civic leaders of St. Louis to lure the Rams to St. Louis. There seems to be universal agreement that the lease agreement was a bad deal for St. Louis. Not sure why my choice of word "outlandish" has everyone up in arms all of a sudden. Some of you may even recall an article I posted from March 20, 1995 where even Bob Costas said the follow. ''If anything made us look silly it was the delirium with which we agreed to a deal that was legalized extortion." I know this really should go without saying, but that deal turned out to be pretty crappy for LA as well. Has it really been 20 years? Wow....
Haha, I can only assume you made the foregoing post, implying no actual promise was made with respect to the top tier status. You might be right, but I don't understand your confidence. See explanation below.
Now I didn't particularly care for this response. I know there's a thin line everyone is expected to toe when making what can be perceived as provocative "homerist" posts, and I was called out on it. I made a pretty strong statement, but not worthy, imo, of getting me kicked out of this thread, let alone being banned from this site. I'm assuming that's what you meant, ChrisW. I understand self-policing is important, but I'd rather you leave those sorts of threats to the mods. Just tell me to stop being a jackass. That I can get on board with as I am known to be that sometimes by those closest to me.
Now, not to pick on you, but since you criticized my post, quid pro quo below...
So someone posted a while back that the decision to not follow through with the top tier clause is not a breach but an option written into the contract. I noticed a lot of people are now running with it like it's canon. Arbitration is usually a bad thing, not always, but usually. It's typically added as a clause in a contract to avoid costly litigation. As such, I tend to think this might be more than just a mere option taken by the CVC, but I really don't know because I've never actually had a look at the lease agreement. Dbrooks25 sounded super confident earlier. Maybe he's got a copy I can borrow.
Also, my view on owners is the same as it is for officials on the field. The less I hear from them, the better. Having said that, I don't see how the blame on the exhorbitant cost of making the dome first tier should be directed upon anybody other than the folks that negotiated that contract. Sure, SK is now the beneficiary of the contract that was negotiated before him and he didn't have to try to relocate the team to LA. But that's his prerogative as the owner. I commend the citizens of St. Louis for making a business decision to not use its resources to upgrade the stadium. I mean, I wouldn't and the voters in LA would probably feel the same way. But the CVC made its choice. They really should take full responsibility for it.
The comment that I made that blue4 called me out on was my stating that Inglewood would be the LA stadium. I didn't think I'd have to put "I think" or "I feel" in front of that statement for people to know it was an opinion. I'll make sure to put it in there from now on, but jiminy christmas, people really get upset about this. BTW, great job with the modding. Probably hard enough dealing with the usual suspects here without having to deal with the random out of nowhere guy like myself creating waves with snarky posts.
I made a post about saying Spanos and not the city of San Diego, is running out of time, in the same post about Inglewood becoming the LA stadium. Coincidentally, I heard Roggin talking the exact same thing the day after I wrote it. Great minds....
It HAS been reported that Kroenke has the votes to block Spanos. I heard it on Fred Roggin's radio show as well. He seems to be the most plugged in guy on this matter, at least in LA. I don't really know how dependable his source is, but really, it's not unreasonable to think he'd have the votes. We already know Jerry Jones has made comments that SK can move if he really wants to do so. What's to say Jones doesn't have his own bloc of owners who'll vote down Spanos to help out SK. Roggin's also reported that the reporters who've said that Spanos has the votes to block SK named Mark Fabiani is their source of this news. Food for thought....
So I made the following comment...
It was referring to the "promises" made by the civic leaders of St. Louis to lure the Rams to St. Louis. There seems to be universal agreement that the lease agreement was a bad deal for St. Louis. Not sure why my choice of word "outlandish" has everyone up in arms all of a sudden. Some of you may even recall an article I posted from March 20, 1995 where even Bob Costas said the follow. ''If anything made us look silly it was the delirium with which we agreed to a deal that was legalized extortion." I know this really should go without saying, but that deal turned out to be pretty crappy for LA as well. Has it really been 20 years? Wow....
Haha, I can only assume you made the foregoing post, implying no actual promise was made with respect to the top tier status. You might be right, but I don't understand your confidence. See explanation below.
Now I didn't particularly care for this response. I know there's a thin line everyone is expected to toe when making what can be perceived as provocative "homerist" posts, and I was called out on it. I made a pretty strong statement, but not worthy, imo, of getting me kicked out of this thread, let alone being banned from this site. I'm assuming that's what you meant, ChrisW. I understand self-policing is important, but I'd rather you leave those sorts of threats to the mods. Just tell me to stop being a jackass. That I can get on board with as I am known to be that sometimes by those closest to me.
Now, not to pick on you, but since you criticized my post, quid pro quo below...
So someone posted a while back that the decision to not follow through with the top tier clause is not a breach but an option written into the contract. I noticed a lot of people are now running with it like it's canon. Arbitration is usually a bad thing, not always, but usually. It's typically added as a clause in a contract to avoid costly litigation. As such, I tend to think this might be more than just a mere option taken by the CVC, but I really don't know because I've never actually had a look at the lease agreement. Dbrooks25 sounded super confident earlier. Maybe he's got a copy I can borrow.
Also, my view on owners is the same as it is for officials on the field. The less I hear from them, the better. Having said that, I don't see how the blame on the exhorbitant cost of making the dome first tier should be directed upon anybody other than the folks that negotiated that contract. Sure, SK is now the beneficiary of the contract that was negotiated before him and he didn't have to try to relocate the team to LA. But that's his prerogative as the owner. I commend the citizens of St. Louis for making a business decision to not use its resources to upgrade the stadium. I mean, I wouldn't and the voters in LA would probably feel the same way. But the CVC made its choice. They really should take full responsibility for it.
The comment that I made that blue4 called me out on was my stating that Inglewood would be the LA stadium. I didn't think I'd have to put "I think" or "I feel" in front of that statement for people to know it was an opinion. I'll make sure to put it in there from now on, but jiminy christmas, people really get upset about this. BTW, great job with the modding. Probably hard enough dealing with the usual suspects here without having to deal with the random out of nowhere guy like myself creating waves with snarky posts.
I made a post about saying Spanos and not the city of San Diego, is running out of time, in the same post about Inglewood becoming the LA stadium. Coincidentally, I heard Roggin talking the exact same thing the day after I wrote it. Great minds....
It HAS been reported that Kroenke has the votes to block Spanos. I heard it on Fred Roggin's radio show as well. He seems to be the most plugged in guy on this matter, at least in LA. I don't really know how dependable his source is, but really, it's not unreasonable to think he'd have the votes. We already know Jerry Jones has made comments that SK can move if he really wants to do so. What's to say Jones doesn't have his own bloc of owners who'll vote down Spanos to help out SK. Roggin's also reported that the reporters who've said that Spanos has the votes to block SK named Mark Fabiani is their source of this news. Food for thought....
