NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[STL FANATIC]

i just want to read "today, I am a Raider".

This isn't a thing that actually happened, by the way. That event has gotten skewed and merged with something else in the blur that is CCSLC history.

[The_Admiral]

"No one said any of the things they said." -Yogi Berra, presumably

[BBTV]

i just want to read "today, I am a Raider".

This isn't a thing that actually happened, by the way. That event has gotten skewed and merged with something else in the blur that is CCSLC history.

I mean I guess if you mean the "today" part, but...

We're St. Louisans, we're Cardinals, and now we've lost one of them. And I'm mourning.

You are not a Cardinal. You're a Cardinal fan.

No sir.

I am a Cardinal.

But I won't partake in this discussion here anymore.

[STL FANATIC]

Exactly. That's what happened.

But the "Today, I'm a..." or the "Today, we're all..." meme was something else. Somewhere along the line they joined forces around here.

FWIW, I'd still have that discussion with people, I'd just do it in a much, much different way with much less certainty my view was right. I think it's a grey area with a feel however you want to feel answer. But alas, that was 7 years ago and I was significantly less mature in handling things.

[DustDevil61]

Personally, I would hate for Raider culture to rub off on the Redbirds. Imagine if they started to do things like drive drunk or go out of their way to injure opponents who "disrespect" them!

Oh yea, I don't mean letting the BFIB completely go to hell. I think there's some good, well-meaning Cardinals fans that don't rub "Best fans in Baseball!!" in other teams' fans faces (just as there are in about any fanbase--Raiders included) while exalting themselves above other fanbases, but I wouldn't mind seeing St. Louis have the Raiders to rub some of that smugness away.

[The_Admiral]

I wouldn't mind St. Louis not trying to overextend itself as a major-league sports city and instead allocating taxpayer money toward things that make a bigger difference in the everyday lives of its citizens in a city that needs a more comprehensive boost than staging several football games. What an awful run-on sentence, though!

[BBTV]

Exactly. That's what happened.

But the "Today, I'm a..." or the "Today, we're all..." meme was something else. Somewhere along the line they joined forces around here.

FWIW, I'd still have that discussion with people, I'd just do it in a much, much different way with much less certainty my view was right. I think it's a grey area with a feel however you want to feel answer. But alas, that was 7 years ago and I was significantly less mature in handling things.

Nearing my 11th year here, so I've seen a lot (certainly not everything.) That was one of my favorite memes. I'd probably give the nod to "I'm in phone", because you can drop it without it even being obvoius that you're doing and it's become a thing in RL. Variations of "stick work will injury you" were good too. I kinda want to start a thread to rank the CCSLC memes over the years. There were several based on washington (pro) baseball that were pretty fun too.

[The_Admiral]

"I am not a professional logo designer. I'm just saying that I'm pro-logo, like pro-choice" is probably the single funniest thing anyone's ever said here. How do you feel about logos? I'm in favor of them!

[FiddySicks]

Man, I actually kinda miss that guy. He was all sorts of crazy, but it was such an entertaining crazy!

[colortv]

So it's safe to assume that Farmers Field was given that extension because they were talking to the Raiders? I mean theres a slim chance Kroenke was and had the Hollywood Park land to hedge his bet but the former seems more likely.

[CubsFanBudMan]

The recent "Letter-modified Pro-logo" thread title caught me every time it was bumped to the front.

I always wanted to go in and add the Oriole with one eyelash.

On topic: Farmers Field or City of Industry might still have life if Kroenke goes rogue and gets banned from hosting Super Bowls. Big if.

[colortv]

The recent "Letter-modified Pro-logo" thread title caught me every time it was bumped to the front.

I always wanted to go in and add the Oriole with one eyelash.

On topic: Farmers Field or City of Industry might still have life if Kroenke goes rogue and gets banned from hosting Super Bowls. Big if.

See my above post?

[dfwabel]

The recent "Letter-modified Pro-logo" thread title caught me every time it was bumped to the front.

I always wanted to go in and add the Oriole with one eyelash.

On topic: Farmers Field or City of Industry might still have life if Kroenke goes rogue and gets banned from hosting Super Bowls. Big if.

Industry/Grand Crossings/Ed Roski's plan still is contingent on Roski getting a share of the team at market price in exchange for his 600 acres plus the team would still have to finance the stadium themselves.

[STL FANATIC]

I don't think Kroenke was EVER going to put the Rams in Farmers Field. So yes, they'd have to be in talks with the Raiders or Chargers.

[FiddySicks]

The recent "Letter-modified Pro-logo" thread title caught me every time it was bumped to the front.

I always wanted to go in and add the Oriole with one eyelash.

On topic: Farmers Field or City of Industry might still have life if Kroenke goes rogue and gets banned from hosting Super Bowls. Big if.

I don't buy for one second that the NFL would actually ban Kroenke form hosting Super Bowls even if he did go rogue. No way the NFL would ever pass up that sweet sweet Super Bowl money in the second largest media market in the country just because one of their owners beat them to the punch on the inevitable. Roger Goodell is mighty stupid, but he's not completely braindead (yet).

And even if it's written into the rules or some charter or something that it's absolutely unavoidable, I don't expect the NFL to actually follow it considering some of the two stepping on the idea of integrity that's gone on in the past year.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Here's the thing: A lot of stories leaked that the NFL wasn't into Farmers Field, City of Industry has been out of the conversation even longer, and the former "sliver" of 60 acres wasn't big enough in Inglewood. And Chavez Ravine won't go away despite having no plans there.

It was even suggested within the past few months that the NFL could control whatever Kroenke builds if the site was expanded to accommodate the superstadium and parking the NFL wants for regular Super Bowl rotation... and two teams. (Perhaps that didn't sit well with Stan.)

Now, in light of recent developments, it's possible that if Kroenke is doing all this without the NFL's consent and continues down this path, that the league gets behind a different project to house the second team and the Super Bowls and stick Kroenke's Rams in second-team status. The NFL has the money and power to do it, but would they just to spite a rogue owner?

If they get with the Dodgers, Guggenheim and McCourt and pull off their dream palace in Chavez, I say yes. Otherwise, doubtful.

Side note: This winter hat is really itchy. Aw crap, it's tinfoil.

[TheOldRoman]

The recent "Letter-modified Pro-logo" thread title caught me every time it was bumped to the front.

I always wanted to go in and add the Oriole with one eyelash.

On topic: Farmers Field or City of Industry might still have life if Kroenke goes rogue and gets banned from hosting Super Bowls. Big if.

I don't buy for one second that the NFL would actually ban Kroenke form hosting Super Bowls even if he did go rogue. No way the NFL would ever pass up that sweet sweet Super Bowl money in the second largest media market in the country just because one of their owners beat them to the punch on the inevitable. Roger Goodell is mighty stupid, but he's not completely braindead (yet).

And even if it's written into the rules or some charter or something that it's absolutely unavoidable, I don't expect the NFL to actually follow it considering some of the two stepping on the idea of integrity that's gone on in the past year.

Are they really leaving money on the table by not having the game in LA? Honestly, is there any evidence that they'd make more money selling 80,000 tickets in LA vs. 80-90,000 in Dallas? I can't imagine the NFL would have any more (or less) parties or other functions in LA. I think they make about the same money no matter where the game is.

It's more of a prestige thing, and of course people generally want to travel to warm climates. The NFL also wants to impress the media so the game (and the two weeks beforehand) get glowing coverage. The media is bunch of prissy soiled dicks. They travel at their employers' expense and watch the games for free. Still the national media threw a tantrum about Jacksonville being too chilly and not having enough hotels. The media went nuts over it being in a cold, post-apocalyptic wasteland of Detroit. Even a few years back they were whining and the NFL was embarrassed because it was really cold and snowy in Dallas. Dallas probably won't get another SB for a decade because of the weather problems they had. The NFL was pissed that Jerry Jones allowed it to be cold, although in all honesty, he probably has a weather machine.

The NFL has used the Super Bowl issue as a bargaining chip for the last decade in stadium negotiations. It was known that if cities put up the money, they would get at least one Super Bowl (likely only one). Detroit got one, and they'll never go back. Minnesota will get exactly one. Everybody seemed to enjoy Indy, so they might get another one in a decade. It took Houston 12 years to get a second one. I don't think they're going to give up the right to dangle Super Bowls when Kronke is thwarting their efforts to completely control the stadium deal in LA and which teams go there, not to mention that they likely want to get one of Raider/Rams/Chargers a new deal elsewhere before they let the threat of LA relocation die. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, as mentioned above, the NFL decides to assist in the building of a second LA stadium which they would control. Put it at LA Live, have ESPN broadcast from there on a daily basis, hold every other Super Bowl there, and control most of the revenue. I don't think they're going to give Kronke everything he wants after he sticks it to them. The Rams might get a Super Bowl after he sells the team, but that would probably be it.

[STL FANATIC]

RUMOR ALERT!

If you read the context (I'm giving some but not all of it), Miklasz isn't reporting this, just passing it on in an "anything could happen and rumors will be flying" sort of way. And since that's the context we're in right now, I figured I'd share it here.

I heard a wild one earlier this week. Kroenke is so determined to set up shop in LA, he has an alternative plan in mind if the NFL blocks a move there. Kroenke would sell the Rams and buy 49 percent of the Raiders as part of anchoring the team to his planned 80,000-seat venue in LA. And then Kroenke would purchase the remaining 51 percent from Raiders owner Mark Davis at a later date.

If you think this sounds too crazy to contemplate, just remember: That’s EXACTLY how the Rams made their way from Los Angeles to St. Louis in 1995.

Kroenke bought 49 percent of the Rams from team owner Georgia Frontiere. The deal came with the right of first refusal for Kroenke to buy the remaining 51 percent when Georgia or her family sold the team.

The move from LA to STL wouldn’t have played out unless Kroenke stepped up to buy the 49 percent as the first step in his eventual franchise takeover. It was a condition for a move. The strategy worked for Kroenke once. It could work for him again.

The rumor mill will be churning out all sorts of wacky speculation, and that’s another aspect of living through a bizarre, lame-duck 2015 season.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-what-are-rams-fans-supposed-to-do-now/article_d31bfb5a-6405-5b4a-90fc-4edd7dd9d060.html

One note: Miklasz incorrectly states that Kroenke bought 49% of the Rams in 1995 subject that they move to St. Louis and with the right of first refusal for the majority share. The actual number was 40%.

[DustDevil61]

RUMOR ALERT!

If you read the context (I'm giving some but not all of it), Miklasz isn't reporting this, just passing it on in an "anything could happen and rumors will be flying" sort of way. And since that's the context we're in right now, I figured I'd share it here.

I heard a wild one earlier this week. Kroenke is so determined to set up shop in LA, he has an alternative plan in mind if the NFL blocks a move there. Kroenke would sell the Rams and buy 49 percent of the Raiders as part of anchoring the team to his planned 80,000-seat venue in LA. And then Kroenke would purchase the remaining 51 percent from Raiders owner Mark Davis at a later date.

If you think this sounds too crazy to contemplate, just remember: That’s EXACTLY how the Rams made their way from Los Angeles to St. Louis in 1995.

Kroenke bought 49 percent of the Rams from team owner Georgia Frontiere. The deal came with the right of first refusal for Kroenke to buy the remaining 51 percent when Georgia or her family sold the team.

The move from LA to STL wouldn’t have played out unless Kroenke stepped up to buy the 49 percent as the first step in his eventual franchise takeover. It was a condition for a move. The strategy worked for Kroenke once. It could work for him again.

The rumor mill will be churning out all sorts of wacky speculation, and that’s another aspect of living through a bizarre, lame-duck 2015 season.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-what-are-rams-fans-supposed-to-do-now/article_d31bfb5a-6405-5b4a-90fc-4edd7dd9d060.html

One note: Miklasz incorrectly states that Kroenke bought 49% of the Rams in 1995 subject that they move to St. Louis and with the right of first refusal for the majority share. The actual number was 40%.

You heard it here first, even though you may have glossed over it before:

With some comments being made about the Inglewood stadium being made even without the Rams moving in, maybe there's a scenario where Kroenke does in fact sell the Rams to own this site, letting the Raiders and/or Chargers pay rent to him, if not outright buying a stake in the Raiders. Nowhere near as probable or imminent as the Rams moving in at this point, but you can never predict what the NFL has in mind with Los Angeles.

[dfwabel]

FWIW, the USOC should vote today on a US candidate to host the 2024 Summer Games. Boston, DC, LA, and the Bay Area are the four finalists.

Very late in the process, the SF bid changed locations for the main stadium. It went from Brisbane to at the Coliseum complex.

Photo credit: SF Chronicle