The L.A. Seahawks

  • 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.
-X-

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,623
Name
The Dude
I'm a little embarassed, because I don't remember hearing about any of this. Or maybe I did and just didn't give a shit. I had to verify it after I heard Sando talk about it a little at 101ESPN today.

Per wikipedia: In January 1996, Seahawks owner Ken Behring announced that he was moving the franchise to Los Angeles, where the team would play at Anaheim Stadium. Behring claimed safety concerns (specifically the building's structural integrity in the event of an earthquake) as his reason for breaking the team's lease with King County. However, seismologists found Behring's claims to be unproven. Also, the Los Angeles area is even more earthquake-prone than Seattle. Although Behring moved the team's operations to Anaheim, his plans for a full move were scuttled when lawyers discovered that the Seahawks were locked into the Kingdome through 2005. Having seen his effort to permanently relocate the franchise thwarted, Behring decided to sell. A potential buyer was found in Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, who reached an agreement to buy the club but only if a new stadium would be built. After funding a special state-wide election for stadium financing, a new stadium for the Seahawks was passed and Allen purchased the team.
 
I never heard about that either.

But as a California fan, that title made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
 
That is what I don't understand about St. Louis. Teams have their demands for up to date stadiums met regularly. Is the economy there so bad that they scuttled their plan to keep the dome upgraded? Did they never have a plan and thought the Rams would be happy in an outdated facility due to the cheap rent?, or do they simply not care if the Rams leave, because they lose out on booking the dome for major events that would pay more than the Rams pay?
 
Elmgrovegnome said:
That is what I don't understand about St. Louis. Teams have their demands for up to date stadiums met regularly. Is the economy there so bad that they scuttled their plan to keep the dome upgraded? Did they never have a plan and thought the Rams would be happy in an outdated facility due to the cheap rent?, or do they simply not care if the Rams leave, because they lose out on booking the dome for major events that would pay more than the Rams pay?
Click to expand...
I honestly think that when the dealings were being made, the St. Louis dealmakers approved the "top tier" clause because they simply wanted to get the Rams in, not really caring at that point about what happened 10 or 20 years from then.

If I were a St. Louisan, the scariest part of this for me would be even if this gets ironed out, you're going to go through it AGAIN in 2025, unless the lease is changed (or a new stadium has a different lease or no lease at all.)
 
I remember it. And it was a pipedream of the owner. The NFL was ready to step in and scotch it if some other loophole didn't come up.
 
Stl. wanted a team and Georgia wanted that money! City don't have the money the county does so expect a new stadium in the county. Can't update the dome to the level the Rams want. It'll be year to year while a new stadium is built in the county!
 
I'm still hoping they sell me the stadium it's be the best name in the league "The Odin Dome"

Elmgrovegnome said:
That is what I don't understand about St. Louis. Teams have their demands for up to date stadiums met regularly. Is the economy there so bad that they scuttled their plan to keep the dome upgraded? Did they never have a plan and thought the Rams would be happy in an outdated facility due to the cheap rent?, or do they simply not care if the Rams leave, because they lose out on booking the dome for major events that would pay more than the Rams pay?
Click to expand...

What might help you to understand all this is if you don't think in terms of monoliths.

First keeping it upgraded, I don't think that's feasible given the new stadiums they needed to keep up with.

Second most of the people who struck that old deal are either dead ( Georgia ) retired (Shaw) I'd expect the other side is similar, so FWIW people tend to make deals that solve their problems and let the future take care of itself .

Third St Louis balked at financing the new Bush Stadium and the surrounding development until the Cardinals owners were willing to sink their money in it too, so it's nothing against the Rams per se it's more IMO that, the city is land locked by the county and is caught in the vice of reality that their citizens are demographically at best tax revenue neutral (IOW a larger % are on gov't assistance than the general population) and IF they tax the businesses too heavily to pay for things .........they move to the county.

So as was previously alluded to unless the state helps the city here (and LOOK how old Arrowhead is) the county has the best chance of assisting the Rams in building a new stadium , but Stan doesn't NEED to be stuck with a lease AND participating in the cost of building a new one. So this is a process and it is unfolding as it will if smart people are being smart. SO said in fewer words.

rhinobean said:
Stl. wanted a team and Georgia wanted that money! City don't have the money the county does so expect a new stadium in the county. Can't update the dome to the level the Rams want. It'll be year to year while a new stadium is built in the county!
Click to expand...

 
  • Like
Reactions: Zaphod
I remember that, and I remember the Colts making the same noise too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back