STL FANATIC Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I was thinking more like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and this news report from Al Jazeera. https://www.facebook.com/AliVelshiOnTarget/videos/947094058701851/?pnref=story The problem with letting Kroenke do what he wanted when it was clear what he wanted is that it would change EVERYTHING for the NFL. Not only would they lose some precedent when attempting to screw over cities for tax dollars (that'd be a good thing, of course), but they'd also lose a lot of the intangible feelings that make sports a successful business. Once they stop pretending to be loyal to their fans, the jig is pretty much up. Once it truly becomes just a bunch of "business decisions" they can never sell their product the same way again. Their product only works with the fairly illogical loyalty that fans show it. If they stop showing the fans any non-business based loyalty, the system will break. They've long been the league most willing to push those boundaries, but I think that would just about break them. (I'm not saying doing this to St. Louis would destroy the relationship all fans have with the league. In and of itself that will only impact one market of many in the US. I'm saying that letting Kroenke do that would open up the precedent for any owners to do these things when and how they want without any league pushback. And eventually that would destroy the relationship.) I do think the NFL has screwed the pooch in how they've handled this, though, by putting 4 cities in limbo. I'm not exactly sure just letting Kroenke have his way would have been any more appropriate, though. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 When the Raiders left LA, didn't they have a deal lined up in Hollywood Park, except the authorities wanted them to share the stadium with another team, and Davis refused?So maybe this St. Louis situation wouldn't be setting a precedent, especially when there are still questions about the financing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I thought it was Irwindale where the Raiders wanted to move but couldn't or didn't. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 Hollywood Park, Irwindale, Carson... there's not a small California town the Raiders haven't considered moving to at one point or another. Irwindale was dumb enough to give Al Davis $10 million once thinking he'd move the Raiders there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 Yeah and he never gave that $10 million back when the deal fell through, either.That sounds like a pretty good gig. Who do I have to contact to get my free $10 million? 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...
The_Admiral Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000613870/article/los-angeles-relocation-fee-to-be-550-million-per-team The deadline for the St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders to apply for relocation is Monday. NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported Sunday on NFL Network's GameDay Morning that all three teams will file before tomorrow's deadline. It isn't a surprise that the three teams that have been jockeying for position to move to Los Angeles will apply. More interesting is the relocation fee an owner must pay for the right to move a franchise, which Rapoport reported is $550 million per team that relocates to L.A. Only teams that are approved to move would be required to pay that hefty fee. There are currently two separate groups vying for the move to Los Angeles: Rams owner Stan Kroenke plans to build a stadium in Inglewood. The Raiders and Chargers jointly have plans to move to Carson. Whichever team or teams get left out of the L.A. mix, the league is expected to help secure a new home, per Rapoport. Some other tidbits on potential relocation from RapSheet: 1. Heading into the January 12 meeting on relocation, no side right now is set to get the 24 votes needed to approve a move. There will need to be a compromise. 2. The Rams will not accept St. Louis' stadium plan.Give it up, St. Louis. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 There's this from Jason LaCanfora, though. With the NFL pushing forward with plans to vote on a Los Angeles relocation soon, there will be preliminary meetings of key owners in New York next week. Sources said the powerful Los Angeles relocation commitee, which is spearheading this issue, along with the league's stadium committee and finance committee, are set to meet Wednesday and Thursday in New York. That is ahead of the mandatory ownership meeting that remains scheduled for Jan. 12-13 in Houston, where a vote on a move to L.A. is still expected. Currently, sources said neither the Chargers/Raiders project in Carson (Calif.), nor the Rams project in Inglewood (Calif.) has the votes needed (24 are required). However, as long reported, the Carson project is much, much closer, with probably around 18-20 votes. Rams owner Stan Kroenke has had enough votes to block, but that could change between now and an actual vote, with pressure mounting to get this situation resolved and a majority favoring the other project. Some owners would prefer just the Chargers go first, with perhaps another franchise later joining. And many would support getting the Rams and Chargers together (though it seems highly remote that could occur between now and mid-January). No one knows exactly how this will go down, and it's always possible there is no vote and the matter is tabled until 2017, but for now sources said both of these ownership meetings are on schedule and it's quite possible a resolution is at hand. Bolded part is my emphasis. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 As long as Kroenke has those 9 votes to block, it doesn't matter how close Carson is. They will need to compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 As long as Kroenke has those 9 votes to block, it doesn't matter how close Carson is. They will need to compromise. Oh absolutely. But compromise could mean a number of things. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2604649-insider-buzz-billionaire-interested-in-part-of-raiders-helps-chance-of-la-move?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=web-des-art-top-157 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Sorry not going to click on some link with no explanation of what I"m about to read. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It says that a Mystery Billionaire wants to buy part of the Raiders. Congratulations, Raiders, you are now an NHL team. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It says that a Mystery Billionaire wants to buy part of the Raiders. Congratulations, Raiders, you are now an NHL team.The Balkan?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It says that a Mystery Billionaire wants to buy part of the Raiders. Congratulations, Raiders, you are now an NHL team.The Balkan??????This Balkan? "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It says that a Mystery Billionaire wants to buy part of the Raiders. Congratulations, Raiders, you are now an NHL team.The Balkan?????? With the Raiders' luck, it would literally be some kleptocratic Slovene. "It is like of that which we every day say: the infant is to triumph simple!" ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FDW Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It says that a Mystery Billionaire wants to buy part of the Raiders. Congratulations, Raiders, you are now an NHL team.Larry Ellison has been connected to The Raiders for several months now, as has Magic Johnson, as has Donald Trump, as has Eddie DeBartolo, as has Bob Iger, as has damn near everyone that has too much money and something to compensate for. It's starting to look like some bad harem anime at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It says that a Mystery Billionaire wants to buy part of the Raiders. Congratulations, Raiders, you are now an NHL team.Larry Ellison has been connected to The Raiders for several months now, as has Magic Johnson, as has Donald Trump, as has Eddie DeBartolo, as has Bob Iger, as has damn near everyone that has too much money and something to compensate for. It's starting to look like some bad harem anime at this point.Donald Trump. President of the united States, owner of the Oakland Raiders. We've officially entered alternate timeline 1985. 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...
DustDevil61 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 BREAKING: Looks like the Chargers have struck first. But so far, I don't see any joint filing including the Raiders.And just when I was going to post a Day One of Relocation Filing with a twiddling thumbs gif... AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I read the story that that source references. Their headline claims the Chargers filed, their story claims the Chargers are "expected" to file. So far, I don't think any of the three have filed. Of course, they all three will. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 BREAKING: Looks like the Chargers have struck first. But so far, I don't see any joint filing including the Raiders.And you won't; it doesn't work that way. Each franchise applies separately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.