Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

Rams can't leave until beginning of 2015 or following the completion of the 2014 season. That works against them. And go ahead and let the bashing starts. Anytime one of us thinks the Rams are staying, no matter what logical points we bring up, we're homers and your personal desires to see the Rams back in LA trump anything else. We've heard it all before. I don't personally care anymore.

The Jag had one good draw last year for a team that has not been bad in recent years. The Chargers, I think, are a lock because of the proximity an TE fact they currently own the SoCal market. If your current city isn't building one, why not move up the coast a bit to TE epicenter of the region? Vikes have massive stadium issues and can be out after this year. Though unless stadium talks just take a nosedive, I think they'll give Minny a little more time. Although by then, there mat not be another prime market open to go to. So the Vikings leverage basically has an expiration date in the next few years. If thriving have a deal and LA's full, then they're basically at the mercy of Minnesota.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe the LA radio(?) guy on Mike and Mike's NFL Radio Program this morning, the Chargers are particularly likely...no stadium deal in SD (and not even close) and an in-place fan base...makes sense. They never talked about two teams going, but you'd have to think it's between the Rams and the Vikes (though I suppose they could move Jax and switch someone to the NFC).

The Vikings have only one more year on the lease at the dome. The legislature just closed a particularly ugly session (ending one of the longest-if not the longest-state shutdowns in US history) and there are no plans. It is conceivable that the Vikes could announce their move before there is even another opportunity for a vote here. However, since Farmers won't open for another few years, Ziggy may take another shot or two at staying. It probably depends on how scared he is of losing the race to the Rams.

My gut (and that's all I have to go on) is that the league wants to maintain the NFC North. The Vikings have been here for 50 years and have some history (most of it competitive and disappointing). However, my sense (again, mainly my gut) here is that the taxpayers feel that it's time to let the Vikings go.

I'd say it's probably going to be the Chargers. Then maybe a 40-50% chance of the Vikes, a 40 - 50% chance of the Rams, with the rest that it's a different team or no second team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rams can't leave until beginning of 2015 or following the completion of the 2014 season. That works against them. And go ahead and let the bashing starts. Anytime one of us thinks the Rams are staying, no matter what logical points we bring up, we're homers and your personal desires to see the Rams back in LA trump anything else. We've heard it all before. I don't personally care anymore.

Whatever, man. It's not about you. This isn't personal. Let's talk about the facts on the ground.

The facts are that there are only two NFC teams likely to move, and at the moment the Vikings at least have a little momentum towards a new stadium.

Your "2014" date appears to be incorrect, according to reports. That's what I thought too, but apparently not. St. Louis has until February 1 to come up with a plan to replace the dome, and then the team has another month to accept or reject the deal. Then the city has to show the money. If they don't come to an agreement, the lease converts to year-to-year.

If the Rams want out, they can just hold St. Louis to the contract, and they'll be out of the lease within a year or so. Which means they might miss construction, but they could be in the new stadium by the time it's ready to host an event.

I have nothing personal against St. Louis. Don't blame me, blame the voters who thought they'd stick it to St. Louis/KC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rams can't leave until beginning of 2015 or following the completion of the 2014 season. That works against them. And go ahead and let the bashing starts. Anytime one of us thinks the Rams are staying, no matter what logical points we bring up, we're homers and your personal desires to see the Rams back in LA trump anything else. We've heard it all before. I don't personally care anymore.

Whatever, man. It's not about you. This isn't personal. Let's talk about the facts on the ground.

The facts are that there are only two NFC teams likely to move, and at the moment the Vikings at least have a little momentum towards a new stadium.

Your "2014" date appears to be incorrect, according to reports. That's what I thought too, but apparently not. St. Louis has until February 1 to come up with a plan to replace the dome, and then the team has another month to accept or reject the deal. Then the city has to show the money. If they don't come to an agreement, the lease converts to year-to-year.

If the Rams want out, they can just hold St. Louis to the contract, and they'll be out of the lease within a year or so. Which means they might miss construction, but they could be in the new stadium by the time it's ready to host an event.

I have nothing personal against St. Louis. Don't blame me, blame the voters who thought they'd stick it to St. Louis/KC.

The lease states until 2015. The year-to-year thing is only if no changes are approved and it goes to arbitration, then it COULD be year-to-year if there is an impasse and basically would have to break the lease. But the actual lease states 2015. I don't think Kroenke is going to let it get that heated that quickly. He'll probably allow some extra time and won't leave before the end of it. However, if there's no plans before 2015, then yeah, all bets are off and it's whatever the hell he wants to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that St. Louis has to present its plan to the team in six months. Arbitration could start as soon as four months after that.

Which means that the Rams, if they so desire, could be on a year-to-year lease as early as the 2012 season.

You really think he's going to give them only one chance at coming up with a plan? He's a local owner. He'll give them some more time. It also mentioned out time is on the city's side as another team or two could easily beat them there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arbitration is giving them another chance at coming up with a plan. That's the whole point. But in exchange for a little extra time, the Rams get a quicker opt-out from their lease.

But do I think that Kroenke will just surrender his advantage, just because he's a "local owner"? Not on your life. He's an extremely aggressive and shrewd businessman, who's not likely to fold while holding a straight flush.

And the only team that could seriously "beat them" to LA is the Vikings. Any other scenario requires an extensive realignment conversation, one which Mr. Occam would frown upon. ;)

The question is: do you really think that St. Louis will be able to come up with even half a billion by next spring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arbitration is giving them another chance at coming up with a plan. That's the whole point.

But do I think that he'll surrender, just because he's a "local owner"? Not on your life. He's an extremely aggressive and shrewd businessman, who's not likely to fold while holding a straight flush.

And the only team that could seriously "beat them" to LA is the Vikings. Any other scenario requires an extensive realignment conversation, one which Mr. Occam would frown upon. ;)

Realignment? That's the big thing? If it means getting the Jags, for example, out of a failing market, the NFL is not gonna have an issue switching them to the NFC and moving a few other teams around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make up your mind - Jacksonville is in a much better position than St. Louis if leases mean as much as you say. :P

I'm just saying that you're opening up a much wider conversation to avoid the cold fact that the only real shot St. Louis has at keeping the Rams rests on a billionaire suddenly learning to like spending his own money. Not terribly likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make up your mind - if leases mean as much as you say, than Jacksonville is in a much better position than St. Louis. :P

I'm just saying that you're opening up a much wider conversation to avoid the cold fact that the only real shot St. Louis has at keeping the Rams rests on a billionaire suddenly learning to like spending his own money.

Not terribly likely.

And yours rests on that other owners have done it and we don't want to realign 2 teams. Seriously, Jags to LA and NFC West and the Rams to the AFC South. Badda bing badda boom, yer done. It all comes down to you not liking that someone disagrees with you, which this subject seems to be the only case as you really are one of the more understanding members who may disagree with a lot but you respect that they have their opinions. Here, even after providing logical points, you call our beliefs on the subject laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, now. I'm not saying that.

You keep trying to make this about you and me. Please don't - the world does not revolve around me, no matter how hard I try. :P I have nothing against you, I have never personalized this, and I have repeatedly said that this isn't about anything other than the facts on the ground. Facts I would (honestly) love to hear your opinion on.

Do you really think that St. Louis will be able to come up with even half a billion by next spring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make up your mind - if leases mean as much as you say, than Jacksonville is in a much better position than St. Louis. :P

I'm just saying that you're opening up a much wider conversation to avoid the cold fact that the only real shot St. Louis has at keeping the Rams rests on a billionaire suddenly learning to like spending his own money.

Not terribly likely.

And yours rests on that other owners have done it and we don't want to realign 2 teams. Seriously, Jags to LA and NFC West and the Rams to the AFC South. Badda bing badda boom, yer done. It all comes down to you not liking that someone disagrees with you, which this subject seems to be the only case as you really are one of the more understanding members who may disagree with a lot but you respect that they have their opinions. Here, even after providing logical points, you call our beliefs on the subject laughable.

And Jacksonville's lease runs longer than the Rams', so by your logic, the Jags are a less serious candidate than your Rams. Who could be out of St. Louis easily within 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, now. I didn't say that.

You keep trying to make this about you and me. Please don't - the world does not revolve around me, no matter how hard I try. :P I have nothing against you, I have never personalized this, and I have repeatedly said that this isn't about anything other than the facts on the ground. Facts I would (honestly) love to hear your opinion on.

Do you really think that St. Louis will be able to come up with even half a billion by next spring?

No, but that doesn't mean they're gone. Where have you heard he won't spend any of his money? Of course he's gonna TRY to not use it, but were have you read it that he has said that's not an option? He hasn't. The only thing that's been said by either side his him saying his intentions are to keep the team here. Now I'm not stupid, I know that's not a guarantee. But as mentioned in the article you linked, neither side is saying anything publicly so EVERYTHING is really speculation, your opinion and mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course everything is speculative. Welcome to the Internets. ;)

But my speculation is based on the details of the city's contract, the state of our nation's economy and the sad realities of Missouri's political situation. Yours seems to rest almost exclusively on "he's a local guy so he won't move the team."

St. Louis needs to show that it has at least a half-billion dollars by next spring, or the Rams can move to a year-to-year lease next season. Do you think that it's likely they'll have the money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course everything is speculative. Welcome to the Internets. ;)

But my speculation is based on the details of the city's contract, the state of our nation's economy and the sad realities of Missouri's political situation. Yours seems to rest almost exclusively on "he's a local guy so he won't move the team."

St. Louis needs to show that it has at least a half-billion dollars by next spring, or the Rams can move to a year-to-year lease next season. Do you think that it's likely they'll have the money?

The changes set the Feb. 1, 2012, deadline for the CVC to give the Rams a preliminary proposal, including a financing plan, for improvements that the CVC "reasonably believes" would give the Dome "top-tier" status.

The Rams have until March 1 to agree to the CVC's proposal. If the team rejects the plan, it must make a counteroffer by May 1.

If the CVC agrees to the counteroffer, it has until June 1 to show in detail how it will pay for the improvements. If the CVC rejects the Rams' plan, the two sides would meet in arbitration.

If they reach an impasse, the lease could be declared void and the Rams would rent the Dome on a season-to-season basis.

It's on both sides. If one side rejects the other's proposal, THEY have to come up with a counteroffer. If at that point, it keeps going back and forth and back and forth, THEN it would go to arbitration, in which there's a CHANCE that it could be voided and go year-to-year. It's not on the city to come up with half a billion dollars, and the Rams can just reject it and be out. If they reject it without a counteroffer by May 1, then I believe they're in until 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course everything is speculative. Welcome to the Internets. ;)

But my speculation is based on the details of the city's contract, the state of our nation's economy and the sad realities of Missouri's political situation. Yours seems to rest almost exclusively on "he's a local guy so he won't move the team."

St. Louis needs to show that it has at least a half-billion dollars by next spring, or the Rams can move to a year-to-year lease next season. Do you think that it's likely they'll have the money?

The changes set the Feb. 1, 2012, deadline for the CVC to give the Rams a preliminary proposal, including a financing plan, for improvements that the CVC "reasonably believes" would give the Dome "top-tier" status.

The Rams have until March 1 to agree to the CVC's proposal. If the team rejects the plan, it must make a counteroffer by May 1.

If the CVC agrees to the counteroffer, it has until June 1 to show in detail how it will pay for the improvements. If the CVC rejects the Rams' plan, the two sides would meet in arbitration.

If they reach an impasse, the lease could be declared void and the Rams would rent the Dome on a season-to-season basis.

It's on both sides. If one side rejects the other's proposal, THEY have to come up with a counteroffer. If at that point, it keeps going back and forth and back and forth, THEN it would go to arbitration, in which there's a CHANCE that it could be voided and go year-to-year. It's not on the city to come up with half a billion dollars, and the Rams can just reject it and be out. If they reject it without a counteroffer by May 1, then I believe they're in until 2015.

A plan in which the Rams' counteroffer could be "build us a $750-million dollar super-stadium" which the city would most definitely reject, they go to arbitration, and the two sides are very far apart and nothing comes of it. The lease converts to a year-by-year lease, and bam. The Rams are gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the quote again. It ha to be a "reasonable" plan. They can't just say give us Lucy Pinder when all is needed is Miranda Kerr. You guys are jumping to conclusions more than anybody. I don't think arbitration would side with the Rams if they asked for an extraordinary amount simply so the city would reject it and they'd be out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

St. Louis can't even afford a picture of Miranda Kerr. ;)

Heck, I'm lowballing it. The cost for a new stadium will be closer to a billion dollars than the 500 million I've been talking about. But that's the lousy contract they signed. They have to provide a "top-tier" facility, able to give the Rams all those amenities that new palaces provide.

If the Rams ask only for the specific letter of the contract, then they'll be in arbitration by the summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.