XXXIVwin
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2015
- Messages
- 4,948
Fascinating article. The whole relocation issue was complicated as hell. So many moving parts.A lot of unknown sources in this ESPN article...
Sources: Kroenke irks NFL owners with fees pivot
Rams owner Stan Kroenke has angered NFL owners with the possibility of him trying to back away from a promise to cover tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses related to his team's 2016 departure from St. Louis, sources told ESPN.www.espn.com.au
Agree that fans in LA got screwed over when the Rams left, and also that fans in St. Louis got screwed over when the Rams moved back.
Regarding the Rams breaking their Lease, IIRC the Rams had a decent case for that because the Lease signed in 1994 was a "sweetheart deal." The Lease required the Rams to be playing in a "top tier" stadium, or else the Rams had the right to eventually convert to a year-to-year Lease and (eventually) break it.
And as far as the "relocation guidelines" go, that one has to be murky as all hell. Clearly, the majority of owners felt that from a pure $ standpoint, LA had more revenue generating potential than St. Louis. That's undeniable. The question is, to what extent did the owners' "relocation guidelines" dictate that they "owed" the city of St. Louis a chance to produce a viable solution?
Bottom line, I wouldn't bet against Stan in any of this. The dude is smart and ruthless. IMHO, if he's saying "screw you" to the other owners about paying their legal bills, it means he already anticipated they'd be pissed off, but he felt his legal position was strong enough that he didn't care.
Billionaire Cat Fight!!!
Last edited: