• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

108 Utility Player


  • Rank
    King of Consistency

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

24,981 profile views
  1. ^ That SI article by Wahl touches on it, but here's some more local detail on some exciting St. Louis developments.
  2. The answer is they're all garbage human beings, pretty much. But on a sliding scale. Jerry isn't a garbage human being just for his role in this situation however. I don't think I need to document his history here. For that matter, Kroenke isn't just a garbage human being for this situation either. He's a garbage human being for pretty much all the same reasons he's a successful businessman. Basically his entire fortune has been made by screwing people over in the name of money and ego.
  3. It's infuriating. And pretty clear this was decided long ago. It was just a matter of figuring out how to get enough owners to vote against their guidelines. And with money involved, that was of course no trouble at all. Jerry Jones and Stan Kroenke are amazing businessmen, but they're absolute garbage human beings.
  4. Pretty frustrating to hear Roger Goodell continuing to discuss the Rams move as them "returning home" and various such things. I get that talk from fans. Even from the Rams trying to drum up excitement. But it's pretty infuriating from league officials still trying to maintain that they treated St. Louis fairly in the process. I don't know if embracing teams to returning to a previous long-term home market (I won't even get into the silly game of where they started) is a road the NFL wants to really go down. But as with everything else, such hypocrisy will go largely unnoticed and certainly unpunished with these guys.
  5. I'm curious how you would back that up. About the only way to do so is putting a huge amount of stock in a 3-5 year stretch from over a decade ago.
  6. I think everyone vastly overrates the Rams getting to LA first as being meaningful. LA is going to support a winner. If the Rams predictably flop, and the Chargers happen to get their stuff together, there will be an opening in that market. It's as simple as that.
  7. Equity in the context of ownership of something doesn't require equivalency. In other words, If Spanos (or Davis) can only afford to pony up say $500 million towards the roughly $2 billion stadium, I imagine you could see a scenario in which they're 25% owners of it. The NFL would probably require some equal treatment in terms of decision making, regardless, but the financial picture could very well be skewed where Kroenke gets 75% of the revenues (in my simple example). The league probably is requiring Kroenke to offer an equal partnership, but that doesn't mean it's the only partnership on the table. In fact, I'm sure Kroenke would prefer a partnership in which he takes on Spanos or Davis as a minority partner if that's all they can muster.
  8. Thanks, I couldn't remember. And yes, it was always expected to be to the team, not the market, I believe. That's largely semantics, I'd think, but nonetheless, you're right.
  9. Can anyone find the wording of what Goodell said the deal was for the extra $100 million? Basically, what I can't recall is whether he said they'd give $100 million to BOTH San Diego and Oakland, or whether he said it in a manner that assumed one of them would move. Meaning did he say they'd give $100 million to the market that didn't lose their team to LA? Still unclear to me how the Raiders stay in Oakland if the city of Oakland stays strong and doesn't offer to subsidize them much. Gotta think that if Spanos is in San Diego on January 16, 2017, Mark Davis will jump at any deal Kroenke has on the table in LA. And the Raiders—perhaps unlike the Chargers—probably wouldn't suffer from the Rams being their first. The Raiders will have LA fans regardless. (Also, by then the Rams franchise will have been exposed for the disappointment that it is. But the honeymoon will get another kick start when the new stadium opens. True disappointment won't set in for LA Rams fans until about 2020.)
  10. We can speculate as much as we like on that. I don't have a clue what the arrangement would be. But at one point Kroenke was offering a partnership in the stadium, and presumably he agreed to a certain level of something when the NFL struck this bargain.
  11. Perhaps. But let's wait and see. It may yet be a scenario where Spanos—should he leave San Diego after 2016—becomes a partner in the stadium. Kroenke will win this deal. Because he always wins his deals. But that doesn't mean any deal struck will screw Spanos over. Although, on second thought, it probably will. Because Kroenke screws over everyone he makes a deal with.
  12. Do we have specifics of the deal? Also, according to Forbes, the Jets are the 6th most valuable team in the NFL at $2.6 billion. The Giants are just two spots and $0.2 billion ahead of them on the list. I think Spanos would be satisfied with such an arrangement.
  13. It sure will be something if the NFL ends up seeing all three teams move. When's the last time any league showed this much instability over the span of a year or two? The NHL in the mid-90s?
  14. As someone mentioned in the thread earlier, we should throw out any thing we know about PSL's as a standard thing these days because the St. Louis PSLs were one of the first set of PSLs ever sold. There wasn't a standard way of doing it back then, and it's very possible it was done differently and in a way that may have been less legally shored up than the way new PSLs are handled. Also, I think the Dome probably will make more money without the Rams than with them. That probably won't happen in 2016, but I think it could begin happening in the years beyond that. Reed is just (poorly) skewing one line of reasoning to fit his motives in that letter. Again, if Reed was going to do this, he should have requested reimbursement to the RSA on the stadium planning funding, not help paying off the remaining Dome debt. Both are unlikely, but one makes some reasonable sense to ask for. He asked for the other. We'll find out how frivolous the lawsuits are in the coming weeks and months. (Reed's, of course, was just a letter, not a lawsuit.)
  15. So, I actually think the idea isn't bad. Reach out to the NFL and request they have a heart. Cheap political points if nothing else. No risk in doing so. But Lewis Reed pushes it too much here. First off, while the "best sports city in America" isn't an unreasonable opinion, it's simply an opinion that doesn't belong in this request. (Side note: Reed doesn't specifically do this, a lot of people in STL keep citing this article as the reason St. Louis is the best sports city, completely oblivious to the fact that it is strictly based on team performance and has nothing to do with the fans.) Additionally, Reed asks for help with the remaining debt on the stadium rather than help with the $16+ million they spent trying to woo the NFL into staying. I think that's misguided. The debt on the stadium was a bad deal the public made all their own and has to live with. I think the money spent on trying to keep the Rams was also a bad decision and is certainly legally all our own to deal with, but I think there's moral justification for requesting help from the entity that goaded the public into pursuing it and can afford to pay it back without even noticing. But Reed doesn't even request that. So yeah, I thought his request was more embarrassing than helpful.