New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Rmfnlt]

There are other teams that have first tier clauses in their leases so what would happen to them if the NFL allow St Louis an out for the lease. The other cities wouldn't honor their agreements because the league won't support the owners.

Hard to say... if those cities had a brand new stadium with financing in place, maybe they get out of this "top tier" clause... the whole "top tier" clause is silly anyway... ill defined, at best, and nearly unaccountable.

 

[The Ripper]

Now you're just taunting me. Get over it. The Rams have not been year to year on a lease for 10+ years.

Neither have the Chargers

 

[The Ripper]

Hard to say... if those cities had a brand new stadium with financing in place, maybe they get out of this "top tier" clause... the whole "top tier" clause is silly anyway... ill defined, at best, and nearly unaccountable.

Still comes down to who was responsible for the funding. In all of the cases it's the city.

 

[ChrisW]

Hard to say... if those cities had a brand new stadium with financing in place, maybe they get out of this "top tier" clause... the whole "top tier" clause is silly anyway... ill defined, at best, and nearly unaccountable.

The Rams opted out of the lease, the top tier clause is no longer an issue. This won't affect other cities, the same way turning down 50% public funding on a stadium would.

 

[OldSchool]

https://mobile.twitter.com/nwagoner/status/631161723869917184

Let the conspiracy theories start. Me I think they're discussing Peacocks big business venture in California.

 

[tahoe]

Arbitration was over 2 years ago

and they still have gotten a Stadium proposal much faster than San Diego who has had 13 years

 

[Rmfnlt]

Still comes down to who was responsible for the funding. In all of the cases it's the city.

Not all of it (put on the taxpayers backs)... in fact, STL is pretty darned easy on the taxpayers wallets. Maybe that's not what you meant.

I have a hard time believing that the only way NFL stadiums get built in the future is if the owner pays all the bills. How many people are that rich?

Seems there would always be a split.

 

[tahoe]

Re quoting from the page before this since you seemed to have missed it. The Browns leaving Cleveland has been mentioned many times as an example of what you say will never happen.

that was also 20 years ago in a different NFL where several teams moved from their cities. That was also a renovation plan not a brand new stadium.

 

[ChrisW]

https://mobile.twitter.com/nwagoner/status/631161723869917184

Let the conspiracy theories start. Me I think they're discussing Peacocks big business venture in California.

Lol, I saw the picture from before their pitch too. All smiles before they went in. Not so much after. I just hope hard questions were asked. Not just patting on the back.

 

[The Ripper]

The Rams opted out of the lease, the top tier clause is no longer an issue. This won't affect other cities, the same way turning down 50% public funding on a stadium would.

They didn't opt out of the lease the lease is still in force.

 

[The Ripper]

that was also 20 years ago in a different NFL where several teams moved from their cities. That was also a renovation plan not a brand new stadium.

New stadiums not renovations

 

[OldSchool]

that was also 20 years ago in a different NFL where several teams moved from their cities. That was also a renovation plan not a brand new stadium.

Lol you're a peach man, when was the last relocation? Oh twenty years ago? You don't say.

 

[ChrisW]

https://www.periscope.tv/w/aJoZsjMzMTE5MzB8NTg5MDIwNTZz36PXFy88mV5uElrjTMDODhHSe7TAzi-PJkzREAKqOA==

Carson Policy interview featuring Frank Cusamano.

Edit: JT gets some questions, too.

 

[ChrisW]

They didn't opt out of the lease the lease is still in force.

The lease is year to year. They opted out of the remaining years. Meaning they can move, or agree to other terms. The top-tier clause is of no value anymore.

 

[RamFan503]

I've been consistent the whole time, I believe.

Yet another example of how things get twisted, IMO.

Sam Wyche says something... it gets paraphrased here... no validation is provided... then it's assumed that, because he works for the NFL Network, that NFL Executives "scripted it" for him.

So, now it's legit, right?

Like I said.. believe what you wish... no bad intent there.

Quit acting like every time someone reports here what was said on the NFL channel or in print or... really about anywhere... they are holding it up as fact for you to act as truth slayer.

A great many reports have been put up on this thread. I think we all get that the reporters know as much as they have been told or can surmise. As you said, YOU can believe what you wish. I on the other hand, don't need to be reminded of that every time someone posts something from a media stiff.

So I'm asking you politely to either discuss the topics or don't hit the "Post Reply" button.

 

[bluecoconuts]

As far as how TV works, I do not know as I've never worked in TV. Have you? But, I guess there is a difference in how things are broadcasted depending on whether it is being portrayed as fact or just an opinion. I guess broadcasters have quite a bit of leeway when it comes to opinions... it's only when they step over the line that their jobs may be in jeopardy (wasn't there a recent ESPN talking head that lost his job because of an opinion?

Personally, I haven't really done much in TV. I have played an extra for some shows (a friend's dad owns a company that gives Military vets gigs as extras for show, it's nice for extra cash), and been a consultant before. My father however has been in the entertainment industry for over 30 years. He's worked for the big companies, Universal, Disney, Nickelodeon, Dreamworks, for both movies and TV. Assuming you're in your 20's he's been part of your childhood. Land Before Time, Lion King, etc. Needless to say he knows how TV works, and it can be frustrating (for example they cannot show fire next to kids, so they have to change them to be green and it's considered okay) and he tells me all about it.

They don't have much leeway, they get fines when they step over the line, and they lose their jobs, but that's the FCC. When they talk about stuff they're not supposed to talk about or do things they're not supposed the network heads get really pissed, it's how they lose sources or can't get interviews with other people, etc. It's all very controlled, there is nothing shown on TV that they don't want you to see. Nothing.

 

[MrMotes]

Seems there would always be a split.

Like in NY and Santa Clara?

In big markets it's profitable to privately fund a stadium. Not so much in smaller markets.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Like in NY and Santa Clara?

In big markets it's profitable to privately fund a stadium. Not so much in smaller markets.

Good theory... but that's all it is. Each and every stadium project, regardless of where it is, will be different.

 

[The Ripper]

The lease is year to year. They opted out of the remaining years. Meaning they can move, or agree to other terms. The top-tier clause is of no value anymore.

It doesn't just go away, it still will be a consideration when it comes to relocation. It was designed to benefit the Rams not the CVC.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Lol, I saw the picture from before their pitch too. All smiles before they went in. Not so much after. I just hope hard questions were asked. Not just patting on the back.

Probably unlikely any really hard questions were asked, probably just stuff about details of the stadium, what it does for them, etc. Carson is trying to throw a cherry on top with the land for NFL studios, Kroenke probably pointed out he already will have those buildings ready for them, etc.