You mean more than once since they put it in the initial lease agreement? And there are many cities that have put them in since so again no you're incorrect.
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
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
You mean more than once since they put it in the initial lease agreement? And there are many cities that have put them in since so again no you're incorrect.
It does sound damning if it is indeed the letter the NFL will give to Falconer. But how in the hell does an AM radio show get hold of something that one would think is very private? Is the NFL really that sloppy? Or is this a ruse? I guess time will tell.
so let me get this straight. you were going after spanos because he wanted to use public money while sideskirting to LA.
And when stan tries to use a horrible clause to get $700m worth of public money for renovations, denied, then plans on using his money $1+ billion or so, in a different city, and he is not worthy of criticism?
Its a terrible clause, its what the NFL uses against cities to keep dumping in money for billionaires. Its welfare for billionaires in the most frank way to put it. Great Clause Imo!
Things like that are a huge part of the problem in the NFL. If you want to applaud it, go ahead, but dont get mad at me for bashing it.
And when stan tries to use a horrible clause to get $700m worth of public money for renovations, denied, then plans on using his money $1+ billion or so, in a different city, and he is not worthy of criticism?
Its a terrible clause, its what the NFL uses against cities to keep dumping in money for billionaires. Its welfare for billionaires in the most frank way to put it. Great Clause Imo!
Things like that are a huge part of the problem in the NFL. If you want to applaud it, go ahead, but dont get mad at me for bashing it.
Yeah, I heard that too....I just don't know how you force a businessman to split his business with someone that can't afford it? Besides, it's HIS business, where much more than a stadium, is involved..I could see Kroenke paying off (through relocation fees) both Oakland and San Diego, than being forced to split his business with a lesser partner..jmho.
I have heard the "letter" sounded just like Charger Front man's Fabiani's words, and it wasn't on NFL letterhead..AND I believe that I heard the NFL denies tghe letter....Sounds to me like Fabiani trying to direct public opinion
bluecoconuts
Legend
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, are you saying that people are criticizing Spanos for saying that he needs public money to stay in San Diego, while working on a plan in LA? As far as I can tell, that's not the case. The criticism for Spanos is typically how he bashes the city of San Diego, or rather has Fabiani do it for him.
Ignoring how you worded that aside, the clause was agreed to by St Louis, all Stan did was present something that would get the EJD up to top tier as was required by the lease. The city made their own proposal that didn't get them into the top tier, Kroenke's did. He didn't say that the city had to pay for the entire 700 million, as we already told you twice today. The clause might be horrible, but Stan didn't force the city into the clause, he was only a minority owner at the time (he might not have actually been a minority owner when the city agreed to the Top Tier clause in fact).. Trying to blame him for that is 100% false. In terms of Kroenke being worthy of criticism, nobody is saying that either. The big difference between Kroenke and Spanos is that Kroenke can afford LA by himself (Spanos cannot) and Kroenke isn't telling the city of St Louis that he wants to stay there and are happy with any site, only to turn around and bash the city and tell them they will only accept one site. Nobody is excused from criticism.
Yeah well be mad at St Louis for agreeing to the terrible clause in the first place. They were stupid to agree to it, and it was a big part of why the Rams left LA in the first place, and now it could potentially bite them in the ass.
Yeah, and what's your point? This is bad for the NFL how? If cities don't plan on following through with the clause, then they shouldn't agree to it.
So you're saying that it's ok to put a top tier clause in a contract, but it's not supposed to be exercised? How's that work?
LosAngelesRams
Hall of Fame
Ok couple things first off(yeah I ended up going past a couple thigns) I wasn't going after Spanos or Davis. I was challenging the perception that both of them have this perception of being liked because they work with their cities. Neither has done anything but turn away proposal after proposal from their home markets because they have them spending too much money and not getting a total free ride.
Secondly I found it funny that those same two owners having refused proposals because it has them spending money are suddenly going to pay for their joint stadium out of their own pockets and the perception of them hasn't changed. So Spanos and Davis are liked because they supposedly try to work with their cities when they in fact do not because they're cheap. Now we're supposed to believe that these two are going to foot the bill for a joint stadium. And not only that but they're not losing any face with other owners for this turnabout. They're willing to shun their home markets and spend money elsewhere and we're led to believe they're still universally loved.
Third get your head around the simple fact that Stan never asked the CVC to pay all $700 million of his EJD renovation proposal. It didn't happen. Quit trying to make it happen by regurgitating the same lie over and over. The CVC's proposal had details on how they and the Rams would split paying for the proposal. The Rams proposal asked the CVC to do the same thing and come up with a breakdown of how the two would pay for their proposal. Get it? Your claim that the Rams demanded the CVC pay for everything is false, short sighted, incorrect, naive, (should I go on with adjectives or you get the picture?) etc etc etc.
Forth nobody is claiming it wasn't a terrible clause but guess what. Your sweet and innocent victims in your mind, the CVC and St Louis politicians, put the clause in the contract with the Rams in order to steal them from Los Angeles. Kroenke wasn't even majority owner. In fact until that deal was signed he wasn't even minority owner. He didn't become minority owner until the team moved to St Louis and they wouldn't move to St Louis until the CVC and Georgia signed the deal. Get it or do I need to expand further?
Fifth, I am 100% with the idea that owners should pay for their own stadiums. I don't want public funding and I don't want public ownership of event centers. Mainly because owners don't need the free money. But secondly because local governments screw things up!!!
Sixth go back and read my comments or maybe others will chime in here acknowledging that I've said from the beginning(and we've had multiple page debates over this topic so it shouldn't be hard to find or acknowledge) that you can hate on Kroenke all you want for threatening to move your team but that doesn't make him a bad owner for the Rams that just makes him a bad person to the people of St Louis. He hasn't asked St Louis for any money for a new stadium. He asked them to come up with a financing plan for upgrades to a stadium that they own and had an agreement to keep in the top tier. He's not milking anybody for money and never has.
Lastly readdressing the top tier clause it is stupid but the city and cvc knew they had to put it in to get the gold digger Georgia to move the team. I don't like them anymore than anybody else especially when you consider I don't want cities owning stadiums. Your question is hypothetical so it's pointless to make a guess. I'll simply leave you with this article. Which if you bothered to look into things before posting on forums with zero knowledge of the issue you could have found for yourself. These top tier clauses are out there, they're bad and they aren't likely to go away as long as stadiums are publicly funded.
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/the-stupid-sports-stadium-clause-thats-screwing-you-over
Its great for the NFL, terrible for the country. Not going to get into semantics about the actual renovations or clause. But its a terrible clause for cities in this country.
The only thing it does is contribute to the wealth divide and gives the NFL pretty new stadiums to play in every few years.
The Ripper
Starter
Scheduled maintenance and renovation was mandatory, the form was the choice of Fans Inc/St Louis/CVC. Georgia and Shaw had other options, St Louis did not and if they didn't get what they wanted they could have taken a deal in Anaheim or Baltimore.
This would only hold true if MLS fans would never buy NFL tickets and vice verse. Otherwise, fans have a finite amount to spend on entertainment. Some may add in MLS tickets to their spending but it's a pretty safe assumption that many would pick one or the other or spend some of what they would have been spending on the NFL and spend it on a soccer game. I have to think the NFL is looking at available monies - both corporate and at the fan level when doing their market assessment. I honestly can't see how an MLS team benefits that assessment.
Maybe you could provide us a link where he asks the CVC to pay for the whole thing. In fact, the $700 million figure wasn't even a solid figure. The CVC didn't get any bids on any of the work, they just stuck a $700 million price tag on it. The Rams won arbitration and then put it to the CVC to come up with how to fund their proposal. That he expected the CVC to foot the entire bill, is an assumption not based in any fact that I can find. Feel free to show your work.
And I haven't seen where anyone here claims that Stan is somehow blameless or "not worthy of criticism" in all of this. Quit putting words in peoples mouths and tone down the attitude.
I gave you some suggestions before and thus far you don't appear to be wanting to use any of them. Your tactics are wearing thin on me.
MLS tickets are really cheap. There are some places where you can get season tickets for like $250.
And do you think that is all that is spent on going to a game? Certainly not even close to an NFL game but even still, there are entertainment dollars taken from the pool. I have never seen how MLS is any kind of benefit to the NFL or the Rams. Easier to justify a stadium? Sure. A benefit to our team or its owner? Don't see it.
And I'm really not trying to make any kind of an issue out of it. Inglewood is supposedly being set up for soccer as well. I just don't see how having it in St Louis would be a good thing as far as the NFL is concerned. Quite the contrary if you ask me.
Personally, I think the MLS only helps Peacock and the politicians sell the stadium to the public - not to Stan.
Falcouner has said he never got the letter, still a lot of intrigue around it though...
The Ripper
Starter
No intrigue look at the source, he's been fired from just about every radio station he has worked for.
Breach, as a standalone word may imply illegality, but a "breach of contract" usually has no such implication, as far as my limited brain can recall. Perhaps you have in your mind that breach is a bad thing, but it usually represents a business decision by one of the parties not to abide by the contract, which until I've heard otherwise, I believe the CVC has committed. I'd still like clarification as to whether the year to year was actually an option or a remedy for an event of default, since I've yet to see the actual contract.
- Status