STL FANATIC

Members
  • Content Count

    15,125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

145 Utility Player

About STL FANATIC

  • Rank
    King of Consistency

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

25,050 profile views
  1. FWIW, that old "inaccurate" version above wasn't just a Wal-Mart logo or anything like that. At some point it was the team's official cap logo even though it wasn't their cap logo, and I know that doesn't make sense. But their official style guide used that mark for quite a few years. There are logos around Busch Stadium that are "permanent" (replaceable technically, but fairly permanent) that use that logo. Drives me nuts. They finally corrected their style sheets a few years back. And now of course they're changing to this new version.
  2. And sure enough, I heard back, this time from Bill DeWitt III. The Cardinals are indeed intentionally using this new version this year, and they will fully roll it out next season. Mystery solved.
  3. Hey all. Been a LONG, LONG time since I've been around. But I noticed this mysterious logo on Fox Sports Midwest a few months ago. Tweeted about it, but never really dug in. Then someone linked me to this thread, and that's when I saw that the team was also using it on social media. I reached out to Cardinals presidents (one on the business side, one more on the baseball side) Bill DeWitt III and John Mozeliak. DeWitt rarely response, but Mo almost always does. There's a stupid funny backstory to it, but long story short, Mo actually tends to reply. Or an employee posing as Mo humors me. Either way. Mo gave me a brief response: "Not sure why this but I will ask around." Of course, I probably contacted him at one of the times of the year this would be his lowest priority. Nonetheless, it appeared to me Fox Sports Midwest had corrected their logo shortly there after. Maybe related. Maybe coincidence. But the team kept using the mystery logo on social media. Then today, the Cardinals announced their Star Trek theme night. And sure enough, the STL logo on the side of the cap is not the official team STL, but this new mysterious logo. It'd be weird enough if an incorrect file was floating around and permeating all things. We have actually seen that in other things in sports before. Having worked in collegiate athletic departments before, I especially know how this goes. But this is weird because as you guys have discussed, it's not an old logo or even one of the old unofficial-official logos. It's entirely it's own thing. And it's not got any signs of being some sort of distorted amateur logo, it's a pretty well crafted mark. So it really is a mystery. I reached back out to Mo sending him the picture of the Star Trek cap. If I uncover anything else, I'll report back. Definitely a strange one here.
  4. ^ That SI article by Wahl touches on it, but here's some more local detail on some exciting St. Louis developments. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/local-business-leaders-form-major-league-soccer-exploration-group/article_ad12f69f-8606-558a-a624-68f6ddcdb8b6.html
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.)
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.