2001mark Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I would think those owners willing to relocate would pay up front a few mil in return for the revenue potential of adding Los Angeles to their letterheads savvy?The Los Angeles Rams have to be worth more than the St. Louis Rams, & all's I did was type it. @2001mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanB06 Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 And now there's this:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/28/missouri-legislators-file-suit-against-potential-rams-stadium/ Sodboy13 said: As you watch more basketball, you will learn to appreciate the difference between "defense" and "couldn't find the rim with a pair of bloodhounds and a Garmin." meet the new page, not the same as the old page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 how can there not already be a relo fee? Like if some team was in position to move but the league didn't want them to, could they just say "OK, you're approved - as long as you can pay the $1trillion relo fee!"? Seems like it's something that should be set and re-evaluated on a set schedule (every 5 years maybe.)It doesn't surprise me that there isn't a set fee. Not all markets are equal.Relocating to Los Angeles will bring more value to a franchise than relocating to Portland. So the owners might feel justified in charging that prospective LA owner more, and that owner will be more likely to pay it. It's similar to how MLS can charge an expansion fee of $100M for New York City, then turn around and charge Orlando's owners $70M. The overall arc is rising, but because they can get more for NYC, they do.Not to mention that a lack of set fee allows them to adjust to changing conditions - franchise values are rising in ways hard to predict in your 5-year period, and the exorbitant fee set in 2011 might look positively quaint today. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 And now there's this:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/28/missouri-legislators-file-suit-against-potential-rams-stadium/So now we have two lawsuits over public money - one challenging St. Louis's requirement for a public vote before city money can be spent, and one seeking to block the governor's ability to unilaterally spend state funds. Add to that the withdrawal of county money, and that means all of the public contribution is now under adjudication. Be interested to see if they can get both suits settled before the NFL has to vote on Kroenke's application to move. If the judges rule that an election is needed for the city money, it won't be coming soon: yesterday was the deadline to get a funding measure on the August ballot. They could call a special election in November, but the NFL might have to make a decision well before that. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Was just going to come share all that. So instead I'll just chime in with some thoughts on that. Basically, neither lawsuit has much legal ground to stand on. The lawsuit by the legislators especially. This is led by a legislator from western Missouri upset about the idea of spending money on St. Louis (though he's joined by some from this general region), but legally the issuance of new bonds seems permissible. They failed to pass legislation that would have prevented it, and now they're sour. But the lawsuit holds very little water. The one thing it could do is delay things—depends how quickly the courts get to it. The lawsuit in the city coming from the other side of things is equally silly. The law is clear. State law says RSA certainly has the authority to issue bonds, but the city simply cannot spend money that will go towards a new stadium without a public vote. In other words, if the RSA wants the city to fund them the money to pay off their bonds, the city has to have a vote. So one lawsuit should be "won" by stadium backers and the other lawsuit should be "lost" by stadium backers. I'm fairly certain, unfortunately, that the lawsuit in the city will also be won by them and a vote will be circumvented. It won't be based on law, it will be based on relationships. Maybe a judge with integrity upholds the law, but I don't see it happening. The sad thing is, I'd bet that the city would pass the stadium funding if the task force laid out their case and let it go to a vote. Not a guarantee. But I'm betting if they could make a good case, it would pass. Instead they want to circumvent the law and democracy. It's upsetting. The first hearing on that lawsuit was supposed to be yesterday but that didn't happen because the judge wasn't feeling well. It wasn't expected to have a resolution at the first hearing, though you can never be sure. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Inglewood development continues apace. The Hollywood Park grandstand was imploded this morning, with some "Bring Back the LA Rams" folks watching (which was a nice touch): http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/hollywood-park-racetrack-implosion-stadium-305604121.html The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rxmc89 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Inglewood development continues apace. The Hollywood Park grandstand was imploded this morning, with some "Bring Back the LA Rams" folks watching (which was a nice touch):http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/hollywood-park-racetrack-implosion-stadium-305604121.htmlR.I.P. Hollywood Park. I'm surprised they imploded it. I'd think a building that old could just be torn down. It must have been built pretty strong. They should bury the pieces at the cemetery across the street. ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerslionspistonshabs Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 So, question.If the Warriors win the title, do you think they'll keep their full name 'Golden State Warriors', not that they'll have a legacy; or change to San Francisco which is what seems to be happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 So, question.If the Warriors win the title, do you think they'll keep their full name 'Golden State Warriors', not that they'll have a legacy; or change to San Francisco which is what seems to be happening?They'll change to San Francisco. Golden State already has one title under that name. Having 2 won't change the fact the SF name is worth more to the owners and resonates more with their target audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Exactly. They're pating a premium to move to a premium location (not that The Oracle is a bad spot, or anything), they're going to want to attach a premium city name to their product. It's one of the main reasons why the Niners still use the SF city name while playing closer to San Jose. On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmm Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 The Angels changed their name a couple of years after winning a World Series, and they didn't even move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo_prankster Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Lately I've seen a lot of fatalism from Charger fans about the Chargers leaving. I've even heard some say they would disown the team if they moved and kept the name. Sometimes I feel like the only Bolts fan that knows that LA was where they actually started when they were part of the AFL. The Fictional Story of Austus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Lately I've seen a lot of fatalism from Charger fans about the Chargers leaving. I've even heard some say they would disown the team if they moved and kept the name. Sometimes I feel like the only Bolts fan that knows that LA was where they actually started when they were part of the AFL.Most Bolts fans know they started in LA. But most Bolts fans also know that almost no one watched them in their lone pitiful season in LA, they were San Diego's first top level pro team, and that they've been in San Diego now for over 50 years. The Chargers have no ties to LA at this point beyond being where Raiders fans come to see their team play when they come down the 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 The NFL has scheduled another owners meeting in August for an update on the LA situation. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000495603/article/additional-owners-meeting-on-la-set-for-august-11 It doesn't appear that the NFL is attempting to use that meeting as a deadline necessarily, but the St. Louis group wants to have everything lined up by then anyways and believes they will. http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-nixon-says-st-louis-will-be-ready/article_d3713e35-59e1-5ff7-a281-bf500bf8c794.html There's every reason to be skeptical of that, of course. Nothing has changed that we're publicly aware of to suggest things will be resolved, though it's certainly possible. I'll believe it when I see it, but just passing on what they're saying. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2015/6/3/8725053/st-louis-rams-los-angeles-stadium-contract-change Meanwhile the Rams have rewritten many of their annually renewed vendor contracts to end in February 2016 rather than May. 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...
STL FANATIC Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 The first hearing of the lawsuit filed by the RSA against the city of St. Louis challenging the ordinance requiring a vote was today. No decision was made, but a timeline for the case was laid out. Circuit Court Judge Thomas Frawley declined to hear arguments on Friday in the Edward Jones Dome authority’s suit seeking to sidestep a public vote on new stadium funding. Frawley did, however, lay out a timeline for the case. He gave St. Louis city counselors a week to write and file arguments defending the city ordinance requiring a vote; He gave Dome attorneys another week after that to counter. He set the next hearing for 1 p.m. June 25, in division 22. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/in-court-resident-urges-st-louis-stadium-planners-to-win/article_2031288b-aba6-5819-8c58-2f3a5142c11e.html JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockstar Matt Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 This isn't anything extraordinary, but the NFL is going to begin talks with existing stadiums in Los Angeles about housing a NFL team temporarily while their stadium is being built.http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/06/11/los-angeles-rose-bowl-coliseum-2016-rams-raiders-chargers/71089810/ Cowboys - Lakers - LAFC - USMNT - LA Rams - LA Kings - NUFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 This isn't anything extraordinary, but the NFL is going to begin talks with existing stadiums in Los Angeles about housing a NFL team temporarily while their stadium is being built.http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/06/11/los-angeles-rose-bowl-coliseum-2016-rams-raiders-chargers/71089810/Not huge, but it is just one more step in the direction of a team coming to LA after this season. Just a question of who... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Sure seems that way. I would say the Rose Bowl is the obvious temporary home. At least for the first team to announce. After that, Dodger Stadium seems more likely than the Coliseum. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddthebucfan Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 The St. Louis people got Joe Buck to narrate their proposal video:https://youtu.be/206SdfFYspYThey might as well just buy the airline tickets to LA now. Shameless Self Promotion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.