Another thing I've heard from someone way on up high in sports marketing is the Rams moving to London and playing at The Emirates, since Kroenke owns both the Rams and Arsenal.
Could happen!
Could happen!
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
expect Rams to be back in LA next year.
- Thread starter LA RAM FAN
- Start date
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,542
even fred roggin who is the ONLY media source i trust in this LA relocation thing since he is the only one that doesnt hold back facts, has said that kroneke if he did not go to LA,could MAYBE POSSIBLY go to London so while its a long shot but possible,extremely highly unlikely.same odds of that happening are about the same as the Raiders going back to LA.extreme longshot since like i said,the politicians in LA dont want the Raiders back and many of the owners dont want a Davis owned Raiders franchise in LA.Another thing I've heard from someone way on up high in sports marketing is the Rams moving to London and playing at The Emirates, since Kroenke owns both the Rams and Arsenal.
Could happen!
Plus Davis unlike his father doesnt have the capital for a long winded battle in court or the influence his father did.He is not well liked by NFL owners and a bumbling idiot so the owners dont want someone like that in LA especailly since he does not have deep pockets.that is why we are hearing spanos and kroneke in LA since they are smart businessmen.
so while not impossible,its as likely as the raiders going back to LA which would be a desperate hail mary pass by the Raiders.same with the Rams going to London.extremely highly unlikely.
thanks for contributing something constructive to the thread and not trolling for a change.
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,543
this is where st louis dropped the ball and why kroneke can legally move them to LA next year.
St Louis only had 20 years to start working on the EJD. And bring it up to top tier status. What happened is it sneaks up in them. They wrote the damn contract. Most GOOD business men don't wait til it's too late to address a situation that might bite them in the ass. Why didn't St Louis show some good faith and start doing some upgrades a few years ago.
Here is also why carson is a joke and not happening.
The writing is on the wall. It is apparent that St. Louis stadium plans has so many flaws and is in fact not fully funded. This inglewood site would truly be in a league of its own a mega complex with all the amenities the NFL would want with a stadium site in LA and with a owner with deep pockets. The Rams has 50 years of history in LA. That joke of a stadium site Carson is nothing but fantasy. It would literally take 18 months before they can start construction because of it being a toxic dump. Spanos and Davis aka Dumb and Dumber would each have to pay a 500 million dollar relocation fee which combined is a billion. Then add the cost of the stadium which would be another 1.7 billion. So together we are talking about 2.7 billon dollars not including cost overruns which will certainly happen. If the finance this whole project it will leave them no money to make too many mouths to feed. They both are broke and can't afford this. To top it all off where would they play for the next 3 or 4 years while the stadium gets built ? Only show in town is the coliseum and they already have an agreement with the Rams. No one wants the Raiders back in LA and certainly NOONE wants the Chargers in LA. The both will fail and it will turn into a fiasco for the NFL. The best most logical choice is to bring the Rams home.
this LA RAM fan nailed it.
Here is why the Rams will be in LA next year if the league trys to stop him this is what happens.
You've got 2 owners on the LA relocation committee that don't want the Rams to leave STL. (Panthers & Texans). They have actually advised Spanos on strategy. This is a direct "conflict of interests" & after Jan. 12~13 they will be sued along with the NFL by Mr. Kroenke. The NFL has been sued before & here's another one. They don't need anymore black clouds hanging over them... they've had enough. Let it go before things get really out-of-hand.
that is called collusion and a violation of anti trust laws.Kroneke can sue the league and the NFL will lose their asses in court.the NFL has never been able to stop a team from leaving a city they dont want to be in.
I see no reason for Kroenke to go rogue. Richardson and Mcnair have given Kroenke this wonderful hammer with which to sue the league if he is denied relocation. And if I understand the rules correctly, any damages are trebled. So if Kroenke sues, claiming his damages are the difference between his team's potential value + how much he's already spent, minus the team's current value, he's at least above 1 billion in damages (maybe up to 2 billion). Trebled, that 3b-6b. If I was Kroenke, I wouldn't rush moving because could actually make more money by waiting and suing the league, and any settlement will likely include him being allowed to relocate the Rams to LA anyway.
Unfortunately for St. Louis, this does nothing to keep the Rams there.
St Louis only had 20 years to start working on the EJD. And bring it up to top tier status. What happened is it sneaks up in them. They wrote the damn contract. Most GOOD business men don't wait til it's too late to address a situation that might bite them in the ass. Why didn't St Louis show some good faith and start doing some upgrades a few years ago.
Here is also why carson is a joke and not happening.
The writing is on the wall. It is apparent that St. Louis stadium plans has so many flaws and is in fact not fully funded. This inglewood site would truly be in a league of its own a mega complex with all the amenities the NFL would want with a stadium site in LA and with a owner with deep pockets. The Rams has 50 years of history in LA. That joke of a stadium site Carson is nothing but fantasy. It would literally take 18 months before they can start construction because of it being a toxic dump. Spanos and Davis aka Dumb and Dumber would each have to pay a 500 million dollar relocation fee which combined is a billion. Then add the cost of the stadium which would be another 1.7 billion. So together we are talking about 2.7 billon dollars not including cost overruns which will certainly happen. If the finance this whole project it will leave them no money to make too many mouths to feed. They both are broke and can't afford this. To top it all off where would they play for the next 3 or 4 years while the stadium gets built ? Only show in town is the coliseum and they already have an agreement with the Rams. No one wants the Raiders back in LA and certainly NOONE wants the Chargers in LA. The both will fail and it will turn into a fiasco for the NFL. The best most logical choice is to bring the Rams home.
this LA RAM fan nailed it.
Here is why the Rams will be in LA next year if the league trys to stop him this is what happens.
You've got 2 owners on the LA relocation committee that don't want the Rams to leave STL. (Panthers & Texans). They have actually advised Spanos on strategy. This is a direct "conflict of interests" & after Jan. 12~13 they will be sued along with the NFL by Mr. Kroenke. The NFL has been sued before & here's another one. They don't need anymore black clouds hanging over them... they've had enough. Let it go before things get really out-of-hand.
that is called collusion and a violation of anti trust laws.Kroneke can sue the league and the NFL will lose their asses in court.the NFL has never been able to stop a team from leaving a city they dont want to be in.
I see no reason for Kroenke to go rogue. Richardson and Mcnair have given Kroenke this wonderful hammer with which to sue the league if he is denied relocation. And if I understand the rules correctly, any damages are trebled. So if Kroenke sues, claiming his damages are the difference between his team's potential value + how much he's already spent, minus the team's current value, he's at least above 1 billion in damages (maybe up to 2 billion). Trebled, that 3b-6b. If I was Kroenke, I wouldn't rush moving because could actually make more money by waiting and suing the league, and any settlement will likely include him being allowed to relocate the Rams to LA anyway.
Unfortunately for St. Louis, this does nothing to keep the Rams there.
Last edited:
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,544
Another thing I've heard from someone way on up high in sports marketing is the Rams moving to London and playing at The Emirates, since Kroenke owns both the Rams and Arsenal.
Could happen!
actually Toro here is WHY the Rams will be in LA and not toronto or London like we are hearing now. See now that it is no longer a secret anymore that the Rams are leaving st louis now like it was almost two years ago when i made this thread,the media is trying is still trying to keep a lid on it and trying to get everyone to think that there is competition between the Rams,Raiders and chargers for LA when in reality,there is none whatsoever.
If the NFL does not give Kroneke the votes needed to move to LA it makes no difference at all.he can legally move them and win an anti trust lawsuit in a court of law,that is the last thing the NFL wants right now is an anti trust lawsuit,they have lost enough of their credibility as it is with deflategate thanks to goodell having his ass up Krafts ass all these years.
Deflategate would look like a walk in the ball park compared to a lawsuit against the NFL to block kroneke.Kroneke wants LA badly and the owners know they need an owner with deep pockets for it to work in LA so while their heart is with Dean,they are going to tell him he is either going to have to go in with kronke as a partner or go back and try and get something done in san diego. the media never mentions the fact that USC has told the NFL they will allow one team to play there next year and that they have an agreement with the Rams for them to use it because they want to keep people on edge thinking there its up in the air who will be in LA next year when its NOT up in the air at all in reality.
If they came out and were honest that its a done deal the Rams will be in LA next year,nobody would be guessing anymore and they would not read their news storys and that is what they want for them to keep reading because they dont want to lose viewership.
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,545
Its confirmed again from ANOTHER media source that what I was saying two years ago is indeed factual that many of the owners in the NFL are opposed to having a Davis owned Raiders franchise in LA.
I tried to tell people around here but it just went through one ear and out the other.
Buzz: 'Extreme' Opposition Among Owners to Raiders Moving to LA
Only way the raiders COULD move is if Davis sold the franchise and that is something he has said he will not do under any circumstances.
I tried to tell people around here but it just went through one ear and out the other.
Buzz: 'Extreme' Opposition Among Owners to Raiders Moving to LA
Only way the raiders COULD move is if Davis sold the franchise and that is something he has said he will not do under any circumstances.
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,546
this is why i dont see the chargers leaving for LA.
FOX Sports San Diego on Twitter
I said it from the beginning. Chargers aren't going anywhere. It's part of a big marketing ploy.
. I'm 99.9% sure that Carson is a joke and will not happen. So I'm on the fence if the Chargers stay or go to Inglewood with the Rams. .
In the past the Chargers had little help from the city. The city was in a VERY bad financial status. The very last thing on the minds of the city was putting money towards a stadium. And even if they wanted to, they could not sell bonds because nobody would buy them because the city was close to defaulting on the bonds.
Now the city has recovered and is doing well. They also have ALL NEW politicians now. They want to invest in the city and make it grow. That includes helping the Chargers and a stadium. The problem is they are now way late in the game.
The city of SD did pay for bonds to do minor renovations on the current stadium about 5 years ago. The bonds end in 2020. If the Charges leave before that, they have to pay the bonds. Depending on when they leave I think it is around $75 million. It would be stupid to leave before that time. Yes he has the money to pay it, but that is a complete waste of $75 million.
So my prediction. Rams move to LA next year and play in the Coliseum until Inglewood is finished. Chargers stay in SD for at least another year, more like 2 years and try and work out a deal in SD. If he does not like the deal, he moves in with the Rams. And moves in when Inglewood is done.
Oh and forgot to mention a couple other facts as well.Remember the Spanos children oppose the move to LA.they want to stay in SD. You think Deano who is working on turning ownership over to his children would move to LA knowing they want to stay? I dont think so. Plus Deano has to be aware of the fact that the reason the Chargers left LA in the first place was because they could not compete with the Rams in attendance.Even though the Chargers went 8-4 and made the playoffs that year they only averaged crowds of just 11,ooo or so. The Rams on the other hand while having a losing season of 4-8 that year averaged crowds around 53,000 or and had a few as high as 77,000 so even if the charger win it wont matter.They never even embraced the Raiders out there when they won the superbowl and they sure wont embrace the chargers that for sure.
FOX Sports San Diego on Twitter
I said it from the beginning. Chargers aren't going anywhere. It's part of a big marketing ploy.
. I'm 99.9% sure that Carson is a joke and will not happen. So I'm on the fence if the Chargers stay or go to Inglewood with the Rams. .
In the past the Chargers had little help from the city. The city was in a VERY bad financial status. The very last thing on the minds of the city was putting money towards a stadium. And even if they wanted to, they could not sell bonds because nobody would buy them because the city was close to defaulting on the bonds.
Now the city has recovered and is doing well. They also have ALL NEW politicians now. They want to invest in the city and make it grow. That includes helping the Chargers and a stadium. The problem is they are now way late in the game.
The city of SD did pay for bonds to do minor renovations on the current stadium about 5 years ago. The bonds end in 2020. If the Charges leave before that, they have to pay the bonds. Depending on when they leave I think it is around $75 million. It would be stupid to leave before that time. Yes he has the money to pay it, but that is a complete waste of $75 million.
So my prediction. Rams move to LA next year and play in the Coliseum until Inglewood is finished. Chargers stay in SD for at least another year, more like 2 years and try and work out a deal in SD. If he does not like the deal, he moves in with the Rams. And moves in when Inglewood is done.
Oh and forgot to mention a couple other facts as well.Remember the Spanos children oppose the move to LA.they want to stay in SD. You think Deano who is working on turning ownership over to his children would move to LA knowing they want to stay? I dont think so. Plus Deano has to be aware of the fact that the reason the Chargers left LA in the first place was because they could not compete with the Rams in attendance.Even though the Chargers went 8-4 and made the playoffs that year they only averaged crowds of just 11,ooo or so. The Rams on the other hand while having a losing season of 4-8 that year averaged crowds around 53,000 or and had a few as high as 77,000 so even if the charger win it wont matter.They never even embraced the Raiders out there when they won the superbowl and they sure wont embrace the chargers that for sure.
Last edited:
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,547
Cause the owners know there is no money in it for the RAIDERS TO SHARE a stadium in LA. Oakland with a new stadium and keeping their team will make the most profit for the RAIDERS AND NFL.
Bring back the only team that belongs in LA and won't have their new stadium built on a toxic waste dump. The Rams.
No, selling the Raiders is a stupid and bad idea. You have to understand that all of this is about money. Which team will bring enough money to L.A. to build a stadium that the NFL can get a lot of money from in revenue, ticket sell, merchandise, and concession. Fans don't really matter, but the money does. And, how much money they can give them, via corporate sponsor, utilizing public funds or whatever. The benefit for the team is that they will get this new stadium and all the money going into it. The benefit for the rest of the NFL teams is that they get pieces of all of this money too. Because, of the unfairness, the NFL is said to likely give the team that is not approved a decent kickback to help them settle their stadium situation. It may not be as big or glamorous. It may not host a Superbowl, but it will be a stadium no less.
Bring back the only team that belongs in LA and won't have their new stadium built on a toxic waste dump. The Rams.
selling the Raiders is a stupid and bad idea. You have to understand that all of this is about money. Which team will bring enough money to L.A. to build a stadium that the NFL can get a lot of money from in revenue, ticket sell, merchandise, and concession. Fans don't really matter, but the money does. And, how much money they can give them, via corporate sponsor, utilizing public funds or whatever. The benefit for the team is that they will get this new stadium and all the money going into it. The benefit for the rest of the NFL teams is that they get pieces of all of this money too. Because, of the unfairness, the NFL is said to likely give the team that is not approved a decent kickback to help them settle their stadium situation. It may not be as big or glamorous. It may not host a Superbowl, but it will be a stadium no less.
NFL could help develop Oakland Raiders stadium
Bring back the only team that belongs in LA and won't have their new stadium built on a toxic waste dump. The Rams.
No, selling the Raiders is a stupid and bad idea. You have to understand that all of this is about money. Which team will bring enough money to L.A. to build a stadium that the NFL can get a lot of money from in revenue, ticket sell, merchandise, and concession. Fans don't really matter, but the money does. And, how much money they can give them, via corporate sponsor, utilizing public funds or whatever. The benefit for the team is that they will get this new stadium and all the money going into it. The benefit for the rest of the NFL teams is that they get pieces of all of this money too. Because, of the unfairness, the NFL is said to likely give the team that is not approved a decent kickback to help them settle their stadium situation. It may not be as big or glamorous. It may not host a Superbowl, but it will be a stadium no less.
Bring back the only team that belongs in LA and won't have their new stadium built on a toxic waste dump. The Rams.
selling the Raiders is a stupid and bad idea. You have to understand that all of this is about money. Which team will bring enough money to L.A. to build a stadium that the NFL can get a lot of money from in revenue, ticket sell, merchandise, and concession. Fans don't really matter, but the money does. And, how much money they can give them, via corporate sponsor, utilizing public funds or whatever. The benefit for the team is that they will get this new stadium and all the money going into it. The benefit for the rest of the NFL teams is that they get pieces of all of this money too. Because, of the unfairness, the NFL is said to likely give the team that is not approved a decent kickback to help them settle their stadium situation. It may not be as big or glamorous. It may not host a Superbowl, but it will be a stadium no less.
NFL could help develop Oakland Raiders stadium
Last edited:
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,548
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...ate-bonds-wont-be-sold-until-nfl-commits.html
This stadium will never be built. We all knew the Rams would likely not ever play in it, that they were building it with hopes that the Rams would play in it, but if not then to lure another team, but with this announcement it appears that is off the table. So it's the Rams or it won't be built. And we all know that Kroenke isn't going to put up $450 million for a stadium he won't have any equity in, and have to pay rent on top of that. We all know that if he gets blocked out of LA and decides not to go rogue then he will play year to year in the Dome until he finds another city to move to. So....this I believe is the end game for the Riverfront Stadium plan
This is all political mumbo jumbo , we all know the Rams are leaving to LA ,maybe taking the Chargers with , and there will be no riverfront stadium built in St. Louis ,the only thing that will get done is the politicians that are posturing and making all these promises will get PAID for their valiant efforts . Period .
Joseph SimmonsSo I guess that's over with, then. Kroenke won't sign on to that deal, and no other team is champing at the bit to move to STL, so the stadium is effectively dead. Sure, some NFL team might try using STL as leverage to get a new stadium, but it isn't much leverage if the city will only build the stadium if a team is signed on for sure.
In short, STL is dead as an NFL city.
This stadium will never be built. We all knew the Rams would likely not ever play in it, that they were building it with hopes that the Rams would play in it, but if not then to lure another team, but with this announcement it appears that is off the table. So it's the Rams or it won't be built. And we all know that Kroenke isn't going to put up $450 million for a stadium he won't have any equity in, and have to pay rent on top of that. We all know that if he gets blocked out of LA and decides not to go rogue then he will play year to year in the Dome until he finds another city to move to. So....this I believe is the end game for the Riverfront Stadium plan
This is all political mumbo jumbo , we all know the Rams are leaving to LA ,maybe taking the Chargers with , and there will be no riverfront stadium built in St. Louis ,the only thing that will get done is the politicians that are posturing and making all these promises will get PAID for their valiant efforts . Period .
Joseph SimmonsSo I guess that's over with, then. Kroenke won't sign on to that deal, and no other team is champing at the bit to move to STL, so the stadium is effectively dead. Sure, some NFL team might try using STL as leverage to get a new stadium, but it isn't much leverage if the city will only build the stadium if a team is signed on for sure.
In short, STL is dead as an NFL city.
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,549
LA RAMS 2016
stan kroneke is the only guy that has a project and is ready to go.does not need any approval,financing is set in inglewood,has a team to move there because he owns the Rams,he wants to go.@Kdubblive: "Kroenke has the money to make this happen, and why force him to go back to St. Louis when he doesn't want to go back, because quite honestly, he doesn't want to stay in St. Louis."
https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/espnla710?source=feed_text&story_id=1143568895654944
The owners need to realize the best solution is letting the Rams move in 2016, build the Palace and tell SD/Oak they have two years now to work a deal with the teams while it's being built. We know Davis would rather stay in Oakland.
Here's the thing. If they block the Rams and give San Diego and Oakland Carson, the stadium in Carson won't be ready until 2020 earliest. So that means fans in SD and Oakland don't go to games for 4 years. I don't think the NFL wants two empty stadiumsfor 4 years. There's only one place to play in LA while any new stadium is built and it only has room for one team. I can almost guarantee if the Chargers are playing at the Coliseum it will be emptier than Qualcomm.
There's only room for one team in the Coliseum per USC and no matter whether the Chargers move at the same time or join later, they will always be the 2nd class team in LA, so fair marketing isn't an issue. And that's whether they share with the Rams or Raiders.
Given that the Raiders have repeatedly stated that they would prefer to stay in Oakland, and that a Chargers/Raiders pairing would mean breaking up decades long rivalries, the best solution seems to be for the NFL to stop focusing on bullying Mr Kroenke (a move likely to backfire). It would make VASTLY more sense to tell Spanos to put on his big boy pants, and work something out with Mr. Kroenke. It's what the NFL should've done with Davis when there was an opportunity to join the 49ers in Levi's Stadium. The Inglewood location and design is what the NFL wants for LA. Carson is just another stand alone stadium that will be too far removed from LA to be accepted. Davis is also a liability. The NFL owners know this. The Oakland/Bay Area market is also a much better NFL market than STL. The population of the Bay Area (7.5mil) is greater than the entire state of MO (6.5mil). It just makes more sense to work with Mr. Kroenke.
Kronk is the ONLY ONE who can afford to do this
Even when he offered to go half's spanos or Davis can't even afford that
So what does that say
Stop playing with my emotions NFL and just say OK Stan LA is yours
1·1 hr
Jake Wilkinswhy should we (Rams) share with another team because they don't have the money? if you ask me it would be a disaster if 2 teams moved to LA and split the fan base...
1·2 hrs
Steven KirkThats right!#byestlouisalllifesmatterRye Kirk
25 mins
Jeff KosidowskiStan has the money, he will fight in court if needed. The other two have no money to do anything let alone fight a long court battle.
Jason Cole, one thing you forgot. Do you really think these NFL owners really want to be dragged into federal court and lose another Al Davis case? Do these owners really look forward to having to testify in federal court about the collusion by at least one of the Los Angeles opportunities committee members-- Jerry Richardson, with Dean Spanos and the Carson project? And if Richardson also offered (possibly with Bob McNair, another L.A. committee member) the $100 million in G4 money to the StL project that Roger Goodell threw cold water on, wouldn't that throw the NFL into deeper doodoo than the already deep stuff that the league could be in if it blocks ESK from moving his Rams. I'd love to see how these owners are going to react when ESK says, "I'm moving to L.A. with or without your votes. If you try to stop me, see you in court." And guess what, ESK will win just like Al Davis did in 1983. One more thing, Jason, remember that ESK was minority owner of the Rams when Georgia Frontiere threatened antitrust action against the league if it didn't allow her to move the Rams to StL. The league relented after first rejecting her.
16 hrs·Edited
stan kroneke is the only guy that has a project and is ready to go.does not need any approval,financing is set in inglewood,has a team to move there because he owns the Rams,he wants to go.@Kdubblive: "Kroenke has the money to make this happen, and why force him to go back to St. Louis when he doesn't want to go back, because quite honestly, he doesn't want to stay in St. Louis."
https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/espnla710?source=feed_text&story_id=1143568895654944
The owners need to realize the best solution is letting the Rams move in 2016, build the Palace and tell SD/Oak they have two years now to work a deal with the teams while it's being built. We know Davis would rather stay in Oakland.
Here's the thing. If they block the Rams and give San Diego and Oakland Carson, the stadium in Carson won't be ready until 2020 earliest. So that means fans in SD and Oakland don't go to games for 4 years. I don't think the NFL wants two empty stadiumsfor 4 years. There's only one place to play in LA while any new stadium is built and it only has room for one team. I can almost guarantee if the Chargers are playing at the Coliseum it will be emptier than Qualcomm.
There's only room for one team in the Coliseum per USC and no matter whether the Chargers move at the same time or join later, they will always be the 2nd class team in LA, so fair marketing isn't an issue. And that's whether they share with the Rams or Raiders.
Given that the Raiders have repeatedly stated that they would prefer to stay in Oakland, and that a Chargers/Raiders pairing would mean breaking up decades long rivalries, the best solution seems to be for the NFL to stop focusing on bullying Mr Kroenke (a move likely to backfire). It would make VASTLY more sense to tell Spanos to put on his big boy pants, and work something out with Mr. Kroenke. It's what the NFL should've done with Davis when there was an opportunity to join the 49ers in Levi's Stadium. The Inglewood location and design is what the NFL wants for LA. Carson is just another stand alone stadium that will be too far removed from LA to be accepted. Davis is also a liability. The NFL owners know this. The Oakland/Bay Area market is also a much better NFL market than STL. The population of the Bay Area (7.5mil) is greater than the entire state of MO (6.5mil). It just makes more sense to work with Mr. Kroenke.
Kronk is the ONLY ONE who can afford to do this
Even when he offered to go half's spanos or Davis can't even afford that
So what does that say
Stop playing with my emotions NFL and just say OK Stan LA is yours
1·1 hr
Jake Wilkinswhy should we (Rams) share with another team because they don't have the money? if you ask me it would be a disaster if 2 teams moved to LA and split the fan base...
1·2 hrs
Steven KirkThats right!#byestlouisalllifesmatterRye Kirk
25 mins
Jeff KosidowskiStan has the money, he will fight in court if needed. The other two have no money to do anything let alone fight a long court battle.
Jason Cole, one thing you forgot. Do you really think these NFL owners really want to be dragged into federal court and lose another Al Davis case? Do these owners really look forward to having to testify in federal court about the collusion by at least one of the Los Angeles opportunities committee members-- Jerry Richardson, with Dean Spanos and the Carson project? And if Richardson also offered (possibly with Bob McNair, another L.A. committee member) the $100 million in G4 money to the StL project that Roger Goodell threw cold water on, wouldn't that throw the NFL into deeper doodoo than the already deep stuff that the league could be in if it blocks ESK from moving his Rams. I'd love to see how these owners are going to react when ESK says, "I'm moving to L.A. with or without your votes. If you try to stop me, see you in court." And guess what, ESK will win just like Al Davis did in 1983. One more thing, Jason, remember that ESK was minority owner of the Rams when Georgia Frontiere threatened antitrust action against the league if it didn't allow her to move the Rams to StL. The league relented after first rejecting her.
16 hrs·Edited
Last edited:
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,550
Missouri Population Grows by Fewer than 20,000 in 2015
StL was increasingly a major US City into the 1870's while LA's trajectory was ascendant into the 1930's. LA matched StL in the mid 1920's and has has grown ever since while StL has declined along with other "rust belt" cities.https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Largest_cities_in_the_United...
https://www.facebook.com/losangeles...10204029425250577&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}
StL was increasingly a major US City into the 1870's while LA's trajectory was ascendant into the 1930's. LA matched StL in the mid 1920's and has has grown ever since while StL has declined along with other "rust belt" cities.https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Largest_cities_in_the_United...
https://www.facebook.com/losangeles...10204029425250577&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,551
Nickle & Dime Nixon still living in a fantasy world.....
Gov. Jay Nixon 'bullish' about future of NFL football in St. Louis
Gov. Jay Nixon 'bullish' about future of NFL football in St. Louis
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,553
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,554
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,555
St louie fans watch this!!! THESE are the Assholes that screwed you, not twice, but THREE times!! YOUR elected officials are the DIPSHITS that took your teams from you!! Cards, Stallions, and now the RAMS!!!! SK knew the wicked witch fucked up by bringing the RAMS to your town, and knew once she took her dirt nap, he would have a green light to be SOLE owner and move the RAMS back where they belong....LOS ANGELES!!!! It's time to MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!! LOS ANGELES RAMS 2016!!!!! And damn bernie, shut up and mix in a fuckin' salad Fat Ass!!
Frank Cusumano Breaks Down St. Louis' NFL Future in In-Depth Report > insideSTL.com - St. Louis Sports, Music, Entertainment and Nightlife > STL Rams
Frank Cusumano Breaks Down St. Louis' NFL Future in In-Depth Report > insideSTL.com - St. Louis Sports, Music, Entertainment and Nightlife > STL Rams
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,556
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,557
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,559
On behalf of BBTLAR, I want to thank Marshall Faulk in his support of the Oakland Raiders staying in Oakland.
And we know if OAK stays put, that kills Carson. Helloooooooo Inglewood!
F. Joseph Ambriz Jr. | Facebook
We know the NFL wants to stay in Oakland... that's a great market. However, I've listened to this guy before and he's somewhat idealistic (read not very realistic). This time, he seemed to get it right. There is resistance to the Raiders going to Los Angeles for multiple reasons, and he indicated one is that the team is woefully mismanaged. Add that to fear that it'll stoke the fan violence it did in the past, and the pariah status of the Raiders because of the actions of Al Davis, and it really makes you wonder if the league would actually approve a Raiders move back to LA.
And we know if OAK stays put, that kills Carson. Helloooooooo Inglewood!
F. Joseph Ambriz Jr. | Facebook
We know the NFL wants to stay in Oakland... that's a great market. However, I've listened to this guy before and he's somewhat idealistic (read not very realistic). This time, he seemed to get it right. There is resistance to the Raiders going to Los Angeles for multiple reasons, and he indicated one is that the team is woefully mismanaged. Add that to fear that it'll stoke the fan violence it did in the past, and the pariah status of the Raiders because of the actions of Al Davis, and it really makes you wonder if the league would actually approve a Raiders move back to LA.
Last edited:
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,949
- 17,327
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #2,560
It is beginning to sound like the league prefers the Raiders stay in Oakland and the owner Davis has said many times he wants to stay in Oakland. There is also word that the league is actually helping with perhaps acquiring a new stadium for the Raiders in Oakland. So, with that being said how does Bob Iger fit in?
The man is worth 100 million dollars reportedly. That is more money then any of us will see in our lifetimes. Still is that enough money to buy into an NFL team? What percentage of an NFL team? What is the return on Igers investment going to be if the Raiders stay in Oakland?
The other thing is that Iger only becomes activated if the Chargers and Raiders are awarded Carson together and it is said by many that the Chargers cannot come to Los Angeles alone. The Carson plan does not work with the Chargers by themselves.
So, it seems to me Spanos is forced to deal with Kroenke. If it is just Kroenke and Spanos then one of 3 things can happen. Stan and Dean could negotiated both being in Inglewood or perhaps, just perhaps Stan agrees to help Dean with Building Carson as well and Dean can design his Carson stadium with the kind of parking and amenities he wants. No reason why two stadiums cannot be built.
When you look at it, Dean may not get anything if he doesn't come at least halfway and agree with Stan. Does he really want to risk that?
The man is worth 100 million dollars reportedly. That is more money then any of us will see in our lifetimes. Still is that enough money to buy into an NFL team? What percentage of an NFL team? What is the return on Igers investment going to be if the Raiders stay in Oakland?
The other thing is that Iger only becomes activated if the Chargers and Raiders are awarded Carson together and it is said by many that the Chargers cannot come to Los Angeles alone. The Carson plan does not work with the Chargers by themselves.
So, it seems to me Spanos is forced to deal with Kroenke. If it is just Kroenke and Spanos then one of 3 things can happen. Stan and Dean could negotiated both being in Inglewood or perhaps, just perhaps Stan agrees to help Dean with Building Carson as well and Dean can design his Carson stadium with the kind of parking and amenities he wants. No reason why two stadiums cannot be built.
When you look at it, Dean may not get anything if he doesn't come at least halfway and agree with Stan. Does he really want to risk that?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 236
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 1K
- Locked
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Poll
- Replies
- 125
- Views
- 669
- Poll
- Replies
- 93
- Views
- 369
- Replies
- 61
- Views
- 341
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8114
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 472
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-