Brian in Boston Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 The other wrinkle with the Chargers is that Brown also signed the similar bill which applies to ALL big projects statewide which benefits the Chargers stadium push in SD...All that bill AB900 would do for any potential Chargers' stadium plan is expedite court rulings. That said, the bill does nothing to come up with the financing to pay for construction of a Chargers stadium in San Diego County. There's no indication that the Spanos family is willing to pick-up a majority of said construction costs. Further, city and county government don't have the financial wherwithal - or, willingness - to pay for the majority of a stadium's construction costs.Bottom line? Cold, hard cash is what would "benefit" the Chargers' stadium push most... and yesterday's bill signings do nothing to address that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Exactly. Environmental challenges are the least of the Chargers' stadium problems. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Realignment is not gonna prevent a team in one of the worst markets from relocating. That's ridiculous. If the Jags go to LA, they go NFC West, Rams go AFC South. There. That was easy. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 But why would a team in Los Angeles play in the AFC South? In case you didn't notice the online chatter during and after the Baltimore game, but the dome 1) wasn't exactly full and 2) people were saying they were done buying tickets for this crapfest.The Rams are going to tank their way to poor attendance and then have something to point to to "justify" their departure from St. Louis. This is happening as we speak. Just wait until Spagnuolo gets a contract extension after the season. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 They don't really need to justify it - St. Louis has a huge bill coming due that they can't pay. Realignment is not gonna prevent a team in one of the worst markets from relocating. That's ridiculous. If the Jags go to LA, they go NFC West, Rams go AFC South. There. That was easy.There's no need for realignment in your scenario. That only kicks in if the Rams stay put and the Chargers and Jags both want to move to LA. As much as I think the Jags should be the team to move, they'll gave a much harder time breaking their lease. The Chargers are year-to-year, the Rams are almost to their opt-out, and the Jags have eighteen years to go on their lease. Could the Jags break the lease? Sure. But not nearly as easily as the Rams and Chargers could be free to move. The Chargers are already packed, and the Rams just need to negotiate a buyout for the last year or two. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgesL Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 I guess that leaves the Jags out of the relocation carousel. That means it's the Vikings, Rams, Raiders and Chargers, maybe 49ers left. I really hate to see the Vikings leave Minnesota. And the rest of the teams, well, anything can happen. It would be nice if the Rams moved back to L.A., just like the good-ol' days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 I wouldn't say that the Jags are out of it, just that there are two teams way, way ahead of them.The 49ers are working on their own stadium deal. If anything, the Raiders will join them. Minnesota seems ready to cough up a new playpen for the Vikings. That really leaves the Rams, Chargers and to a lesser extent Jags. We'll see two of those three in LA. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 They don't really need to justify it - St. Louis has a huge bill coming due that they can't pay. Oh I know it, but there remains modest concern about creating the proper narrative for the Rams' departure. It's better perception-wise to say "look at the attendance, this is a crappy market" rather than "welcome to Frontiere 2.0". On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 They don't really need to justify it - St. Louis has a huge bill coming due that they can't pay. Realignment is not gonna prevent a team in one of the worst markets from relocating. That's ridiculous. If the Jags go to LA, they go NFC West, Rams go AFC South. There. That was easy.There's no need for realignment in your scenario. That only kicks in if the Rams stay put and the Chargers and Jags both want to move to LA. As much as I think the Jags should be the team to move, they'll gave a much harder time breaking their lease. The Chargers are year-to-year, the Rams are almost to their opt-out, and the Jags have eighteen years to go on their lease. Could the Jags break the lease? Sure. But not nearly as easily as the Rams and Chargers could be free to move. The Chargers are already packed, and the Rams just need to negotiate a buyout for the last year or two.Yes I said IF the Jags go and the Rams stay. IF that is the scenario, only two teams would switch, not a big deal as you said realignment is just too big of a hassle and why the Rams would go. Realignment has no effect on who goes. THAT was my point.Now I remembered why I stay out of this topic now. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashcarson15 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Because you don't wanna face the truth that the Rams are likely to not be located in Missouri in five years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Because you don't wanna face the truth that the Rams are likely to not be located in Missouri in five years?No because everyone become pretentious and think they know the future. And they act like any legitimate points anyone else make are dumb when really it's only because it disagrees with what they think. Will they move? Maybe so. But they're far from being the only candidates. And no one here, despite what they think, knows exactly what's gonna happen. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Nobody claims to know the future with certainty. But we can talk about likelihoods, and the likelihood is that the Rams will be back in LA by the time their opt-out hits. You're welcome to disagree. I think we all welcome the debate, but if you want to insult other posters, maybe it is better if you stay off these threads. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Look for St. Louis to fork over a large chunk of under developed land to Kroenke, the real estate mogul. Either a chunk in which he'll build a new stadium and develop the surrounding area, or near the current stadium where he'll renovate what's there and develop that land.I know you don't believe it. Don't care one bit. Look for it to happen. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 You could be right.But billionaires don't tend to spend their own money on things when someone else is contractually obligated to.St. Louis needs to build him a new stadium. Not just give him cheap land so he can build his own.I understand that the possibility of losing your team makes this an emotional issue. I really get that. But there's no reason to believe that this is an emotional issue for him. Maybe he truly is the anti-Irsay, the anti-O'Malley, the very rare owner who's willing to stick with a bad sitation in the face of very lucrative offers to relocate. Only time will tell. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 The old Chrysler plant in Fenton is a prime spot. It's on I-44, not far from 270 so easy access from I-70 and I-55. Plenty of space for a stadium and parking. May need another exit built, but the government's big on doing those highway jobs. My cousin's husband up in St. Peter's has worked in the field of highway and other construction (as safety director and other stuff like that), so I may check with him and see the plausibility/financial aspects of the site. But there's strong sentiment throughout the state (at least the part that cares about the Rams) that this would be the ideal location for an open-air stadium. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 I wouldn't say that the Jags are out of it, just that there are two teams way, way ahead of them.The 49ers are working on their own stadium deal. If anything, the Raiders will join them. Minnesota seems ready to cough up a new playpen for the Vikings. That really leaves the Rams, Chargers and to a lesser extent Jags. We'll see two of those three in LA.With their lease terms it won't be the Jags. Not unless they want to open their financials and buy off a judge (neither of which will happen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 I don't think it would be all that hard to demonstrate that they're losing money, especially with the salary floor. They just need to borrow some accountants from Paramount Pictures.They would, however, remain on the hook for something like $50M in rent to the city. Maybe they could negotiate that down to save the city legal fees, maybe not.That's why I said I put the Jags way, way behind the Rams and Chargers. Those two teams are free or about to be free. The Jags will need to spend their way out of Jacksonville, and spend big. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DustDevil61 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 I know the Chargers are year-to-year, but when can the Rams lease be bought out? If the Ed isn't in the upper half of the league's stadiums by next year, is that when the opt-out kicks in? AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 I think the optout is 2015, but they could arrange a buyout whenever they like, I'm sure. Maybe as soon as 2012 if they really want to leave badly enough. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 The opt-out is indeed after the 2014 season, but the deadlines start much sooner than that.The city has to present its preliminary plan for improving or replacing the dome by February 1 of next year. So negotiations for a buyout could realistically start happening any day. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.