New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.
bluecoconuts said:
Yeah I get that feeling too. That's why I get the sense that the NFL is hoping that Davis will signal willingness to relocate to St Louis, which means they can justify to themselves having the Rams leave, knowing that they (the NFL) wont be abandoning the market, since another team will replace it. That gets LA done, St Louis remains an NFL city, and Spanos has the option to either work more in San Diego, or join Kroenke in LA. Of course that requires Kroenke and Spanos working together, which they don't seem happy to do at this point, and Davis relocating out of California, which it's hard to say how he feels there.

We'll find out more information later on, but if I was forced to place a bet, that's the outcome I'd go with given everything that's happened thus far.
Click to expand...

This is the one theory I hear but I don't exactly buy.

Missing from it... is the loyalty and years of attachment to a particular team. The fans are invested.

I mean, would you trade your kid for another kid? At the end of the day, you still have a kid. That's an extreme example, I know, but point being.

More likely IMO, if St. Louis builds and Stan wants to leave, there is a ownership swap and the Rams stay put. (Personally... I still don't think Stan wants to leave despite what appears, but that's a different point)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goose
Goose said:
I agree and I was a bit taken a back when readying this statement because that is not at all that we have been told to this point. This statement would play very much in Stan's favor is arbitration is considered "good faith effort". Then he says that the Charges need to continue the good faith effort which may work against Stan because he has not continued to work in good faith. At least that is the perception.
Click to expand...
Hack/saw said:
Where did this come from? I think everything is being taken a bit to literally when it comes to these league guys.
Click to expand...
It's weird because I believe it actually makes the "exhaust all efforts" statement in the bylaws - or something similar. Hate to say it but that may be the biggest tip of the hat in a non-answer out of all of these proceedings. You have to think that the owners have said something to that effect and he is echoing that. Dunno. But it does sound like he is giving them wiggle room.
 
CGI_Ram said:
I mean, would you trade your kid for another kid?
Click to expand...
Not mine but I own a restaurant so I see some kids that would make me want to do a trade in if I had them. Of course, I generally figure it is the parents that should have been spayed or neutered instead of the kid being the issue.

CGI_Ram said:
More likely IMO, if St. Louis builds and Stan wants to leave, there is a ownership swap and the Rams stay put.
Click to expand...
This really wouldn't make sense to me. Are you talking about a name swap? Because swapping Stan's management team, players, etc. for what Davis has "built" I'm assuming would be a non-starter for Stan. I also think that at this point (and yes - I'm totally biased) the Raiduhs brand holds little in currency except for selling more jerseys to thugs. I guess we'll see but Stan and Davis swapping teams? IMO - no way in hell it happens.

I don't really see the Raiduhs moving to St Louis either but there could be some other juggling (Jags and Bills come to mind) and I can't really rule out the possibility of Davis leaving CA being that he was in negotiations with San Antonio.
 
RamFan503 said:
Not mine but I own a restaurant so I see some kids that would make me want to do a trade in if I had them. Of course, I generally figure it is the parents that should have been spayed or neutered instead of the kid being the issue.


This really wouldn't make sense to me. Are you talking about a name swap? Because swapping Stan's management team, players, etc. for what Davis has "built" I'm assuming would be a non-starter for Stan. I also think that at this point (and yes - I'm totally biased) the Raiduhs brand holds little in currency except for selling more jerseys to thugs. I guess we'll see but Stan and Davis swapping teams? IMO - no way in hell it happens.

I don't really see the Raiduhs moving to St Louis either but there could be some other juggling (Jags and Bills come to mind) and I can't really rule out the possibility of Davis leaving CA being that he was in negotiations with San Antonio.
Click to expand...

I don't see that swap happening either. Just see it as more palatable for the good of the NFL than having teams switching markets.
 
RamFan503 said:
It's weird because I believe it actually makes the "exhaust all efforts" statement in the bylaws - or something similar. Hate to say it but that may be the biggest tip of the hat in a non-answer out of all of these proceedings. You have to think that the owners have said something to that effect and he is echoing that. Dunno. But it does sound like he is giving them wiggle room.
Click to expand...

If somebody moves to L.A., their previous city is gonna feel screwed. That's unavoidable, and almost certainly where we're headed. Pretty sure that's what Grubman is saying.

The funnier thing to me is how hard the NFL is trying to look like they're somehow in control of the situation when clearly they're not. Kroenke is building a stadium in Inglewood. The Chargers and Raiders have announced plans to move to Carson. I think Grubman's real job is to make the NFL leadership, somehow, not look like Keystone Cops...
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: Hack/saw, RamFan503 and BuiltRamTough
It makes no sense to me to move the Rams to LA and the Raiders to STL.

It makes more sense for the owners to swap teams than it does for teams to swap cities - and even that doesn't make much sense.

Bernie's theory about Stan taking over the Broncos makes the most sense to me - but that still requires someone to step up and buy the Rams.

But what do I know about billionaire poker?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CGI_Ram
Goose said:
I agree and I was a bit taken a back when readying this statement because that is not at all that we have been told to this point. This statement would play very much in Stan's favor if arbitration is considered "good faith effort". Then he says that the Charges need to continue the good faith effort which may work against Stan because he has not continued to work in good faith. At least that is the perception.
Click to expand...

I don't see how arbitration would be considered good faith negotiating for a new stadium. Getting thru the negotiations with the old facility (a facility deemed unacceptable solely on terms of the old lease, not because it's actually unable to host games, or is falling apart) would be step 1. Step 2 would be talking about a new stadium. Step 3 then is looking outside the city. Stan totally skipped the second step. There's no way Inglewood just happened overnight. He won arbitration and immediately made plans to move, and may have intended to move back in 2010. No, this is just another way to move the goalposts to allow a move.
 
12intheBox said:
Bernie's theory about Stan taking over the Broncos makes the most sense to me - but that still requires someone to step up and buy the Rams.
Click to expand...

True. It sounds like the cross ownership issue is still an open point for the NFL.
 
12intheBox said:
It makes no sense to me to move the Rams to LA and the Raiders to STL.

It makes more sense for the owners to swap teams than it does for teams to swap cities - and even that doesn't make much sense.

Bernie's theory about Stan taking over the Broncos makes the most sense to me - but that still requires someone to step up and buy the Rams.

But what do I know about billionaire poker?
Click to expand...

And for the Broncos to be for sale. Could happen due to taxes or something.

BTW, love your avi. Dude got stuck, snot bubbles and all.
 
I can't see Stan getting th Broncos. For one, I think he wants LA. Two I don't see the Broncos ownership situation resolving in time anyway.
 
Goose said:
I agree and I was a bit taken a back when readying this statement because that is not t all that we have been told to this point. This statement would play very much in Stan's favor if arbitration is considered "good faith effort". Then he says that the Charges need to continue the good faith effort which may work against Stan because he has not continued to work in good faith. At least that is the perception.
Click to expand...

Perception in St Louis maybe, but I would say he has to most others. Demoff has been there, both in stadium negotiations and in guaging fan support. More than Davis or Spanos as far as I can tell. I think the idea that because he hasn't personally sat down therefore he hasn't worked in good faith is a bit misguided. Demoff has been very engaged and available, I think that very much works for him.

Either way, his statements certainly sound like the NFL is moving the goal posts, and giving themselves even more wiggle room.

CGI_Ram said:
This is the one theory I hear but I don't exactly buy.

Missing from it... is the loyalty and years of attachment to a particular team. The fans are invested.

I mean, would you trade your kid for another kid? At the end of the day, you still have a kid. That's an extreme example, I know, but point being.

More likely IMO, if St. Louis builds and Stan wants to leave, there is a ownership swap and the Rams stay put. (Personally... I still don't think Stan wants to leave despite what appears, but that's a different point)
Click to expand...

Honestly I don't know if the NFL cares that much about fan loyalty, so much as brand loyalty. They don't care about losing St Louis Rams fans, they care about losing St Louis NFL fans. So while if they can help it they wouldn't do a relocation, but if they feel that Inglewood is best for them, they let the Rams move, knowing there's already a solid fanbase in LA, as well as plenty of dormant NFL fans, and if they move another team to St Louis, they figure that while there would be so push back, the most part fans will likely either follow the Rams, or adopt the new team.

As an added bonus, the Raiders get a bit of a rebranding, and they have a market who needs to suddenly invest in new merchandize. Of course that means more money. If a million fans put in just an average of 100 dollars each, that is some serious coin. I'd guess there would be more than a million and more than 100 dollars each as well.

I don't really see a team swap by Kroenke and Davis, if its personnel included then Kroenke loses ground, if its in name only, then why wouldn't he want the team with a longer and deeper history in LA than the other? I don't really see that being the case.
 
ChrisW said:
Who is @Forzap and what is the significance of this tweet?

I also don't get PK's expertise in this.
Click to expand...

He's just some guy, he asked Peter King "Team in LA 2016?" And King answered he thinks it'll be the Rams by themselves.

King obviously has some connections, likely moreso than the average beat writer, but I'm assuming this was just his guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back