|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 8, 2015 11:05:51 GMT -8
The vote of the people is the only vote that matters. If there is no vote or the public votes in opposition to stadium funding (likely) the NFL owners will not leave Spanos high and dry so to speak. The only hope Charger fans who want the Bolts to stay in San Diego have is for the NFL to extend the relocation deadline (unlikely). This makes no sense. There are three owners trying to get to LA. At most, two will get the nod. That means at least one owner is going to get left "high and dry", probably two. However I do agree that they don't want this situation which is why the best solution is to delay relocation until 2017. The NFL may not want to wait however so they may decide to relocation one team now and one in the future after the stadium is built. This also helps their temporary venue problem since they only have one possible venue and even now the Coliseum still hasn't confirmed. Also, what do you expect the NFL to say? Of course they're going to say they aren't going to extend relocation. Doing otherwise would release all the pressure they've been able to build on all the cities. No way they're going to do that until necessary. The Colisium and Dodger Stadium will be the likely NFL temporary venues. St. Louis is going to build a stadium so the only teams that will be left high and dry are the Chargers and the Raiders. Amy Trask interview on 1090; good info... www.mighty1090.com/episode/amy-trask-i-dont-believe-that-the-league-will-put-2-teams-in-los-angeles/ |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 8, 2015 11:58:31 GMT -8
Likely is the key word there. The Coliseum, which is the NFL's best hope isn't even confirmed yet. Dodger stadium is a longshot right now. They have a lot of concerns with scheduling and preserving the quality of the field.
St. Louis seems determined to build a stadium but for what team? If you listen to the task force there speak, it's interesting that they specifically say they're building a stadium for an NFL team, not the Rams specifically because they know Kroenke isn't interested and there's no guarantee that he'll accept. The Raiders could actually be a more likely target.
This is all nice speculation but nothing is in stone yet. The NFL's extortion game continues to go on...
I put no faith in anything Amy Trask says. First of all, she's a Al Davis stooge and second, even though she's not with the Raiders anymore, I'm sure there's still a lot of connections there and she's not going to say anything detrimental towards the Raiders or the NFL. I've heard her many times on Sileo's show and she's a broken record. It's almost like listening to Eric Grubman. They speak for ten minutes and don't say anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2015 12:14:14 GMT -8
man, you are in for one big letdown.
|
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 8, 2015 12:23:42 GMT -8
The Rams will have a new stadium to play in at St. Louis.
They won't get the approval of the NFL owners to move to LA.
The Chargers will not get a new stadium built in San Diego.
Spanos has been a model NFL owner in the eyes of the league, is well respected among the other NFL owners & are partners with the Raiders.
The Chargers (along with the Raiders) will get the approval of the NFL owners to use the temporary venues in LA and relocate there in 2016.
|
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 8, 2015 12:28:40 GMT -8
The September 11th deadline is meaningless. There was never going to be a stadium vote in January anyway. The city is jumping through all these hoops put up by the NFL to buy more time. All that matters is the vote in January by the NFL owners and no one knows what's going to happen. It could get delayed another year. But if not, there is one owner who has a better location, better plan, more money, bigger existing fan base, etc. All that translates to better chance of success and profits and he's the obvious choice to get the nod. Well, there was a chance. About one in five if those in the know are to be believed. But you're correct, it was all about trying to keep the Chargers from getting NFL approval to move in 2016. A pox on both - strike that, ALL - their houses IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 8, 2015 12:32:11 GMT -8
This makes no sense. There are three owners trying to get to LA. At most, two will get the nod. That means at least one owner is going to get left "high and dry", probably two. However I do agree that they don't want this situation which is why the best solution is to delay relocation until 2017. The NFL may not want to wait however so they may decide to relocation one team now and one in the future after the stadium is built. This also helps their temporary venue problem since they only have one possible venue and even now the Coliseum still hasn't confirmed. Also, what do you expect the NFL to say? Of course they're going to say they aren't going to extend relocation. Doing otherwise would release all the pressure they've been able to build on all the cities. No way they're going to do that until necessary. The Colisium and Dodger Stadium will be the likely NFL temporary venues. St. Louis is going to build a stadium so the only teams that will be left high and dry are the Chargers and the Raiders. You're a good guy and I respect your interest and passion but you need to get off the idea that because the city of St. Louis is building a stadium that means the Rams are going to remain there. To Kroenke, that's merely A factor, not THE factor in whether he goes to Inglewood. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 8, 2015 13:07:50 GMT -8
The Colisium and Dodger Stadium will be the likely NFL temporary venues. St. Louis is going to build a stadium so the only teams that will be left high and dry are the Chargers and the Raiders. You're a good guy and I respect your interest and passion but you need to get off the idea that because the city of St. Louis is building a stadium that means the Rams are going to remain there. To Kroenke, that's merely A factor, not THE factor in whether he goes to Inglewood. The ONLY way for Kroenke to outstrip, and be the next, and bigger "Jerry Jones"---which, I presume is one of his goals--is to move to LA. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 8, 2015 13:19:35 GMT -8
The Colisium and Dodger Stadium will be the likely NFL temporary venues. St. Louis is going to build a stadium so the only teams that will be left high and dry are the Chargers and the Raiders. You're a good guy and I respect your interest and passion but you need to get off the idea that because the city of St. Louis is building a stadium that means the Rams are going to remain there. To Kroenke, that's merely A factor, not THE factor in whether he goes to Inglewood. There are many scenarios that could work out to be sure. However, I firmly believe the Rams will not get the approval of the NFL owners to relocate to LA (particularly as St. Louis readies to build a new river-front Stadium). Certainly Kroenke could move anyway. However, if there are only 1 or 2 temporary NFL-controlled venues to play in (the Coliseum & Dodger Stadium) the Rams will not be authorized by the NFL to play at those venues. Quite a conundrum. |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 8, 2015 13:27:17 GMT -8
You're a good guy and I respect your interest and passion but you need to get off the idea that because the city of St. Louis is building a stadium that means the Rams are going to remain there. To Kroenke, that's merely A factor, not THE factor in whether he goes to Inglewood. The ONLY way for Kroenke to outstrip, and be the next, and bigger "Jerry Jones"---which, I presume is one of his goals--is to move to LA. And again this week, I heard a pundit say word is that in addition to making money, that's Kroenke's intent. Although those of us here would be elated to own any NFL team in any city, Kroenke's been there and done that and to him, it's NOT enough. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 8, 2015 13:55:26 GMT -8
The ONLY way for Kroenke to outstrip, and be the next, and bigger "Jerry Jones"---which, I presume is one of his goals--is to move to LA. And again this week, I heard a pundit say word is that in addition to making money, that's Kroenke's intent. Although those of us here would be elated to own any NFL team in any city, Kroenke's been there and done that and to him, it's NOT enough. Well, there ya go. |
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 8, 2015 14:24:55 GMT -8
You're a good guy and I respect your interest and passion but you need to get off the idea that because the city of St. Louis is building a stadium that means the Rams are going to remain there. To Kroenke, that's merely A factor, not THE factor in whether he goes to Inglewood. There are many scenarios that could work out to be sure. However, I firmly believe the Rams will not get the approval of the NFL owners to relocate to LA (particularly as St. Louis readies to build a new river-front Stadium). Certainly Kroenke could move anyway. However, if there are only 1 or 2 temporary NFL-controlled venues to play in (the Coliseum & Dodger Stadium) the Rams will not be authorized by the NFL to play at those venues. Quite a conundrum. This is where the genius of the AEG controlled StubHub Center not submitting a bid or a private deal with Angel Stadium could be a fallback position for Kroenke and the Rams, if the NFL backs the Chargers to the Coliseum -- I just don't see any way for the NFL to deny Kroenke LA. He has too many resources and connections. To me the question is only of whether the Chargers will choose to be the #2 in Inglewood or the #1 in San Diego. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 8, 2015 14:26:37 GMT -8
Kroenke is worth more than just about any NFL owner. He makes Dean Spanos look like a regular Joe. People with that kind of money and power usually get what they want.
But we don't know what the NFL really wants and that's what really matters. The could very well want Kroenke and the Rams in LA. That's what most people think anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 8, 2015 14:28:43 GMT -8
There are many scenarios that could work out to be sure. However, I firmly believe the Rams will not get the approval of the NFL owners to relocate to LA (particularly as St. Louis readies to build a new river-front Stadium). Certainly Kroenke could move anyway. However, if there are only 1 or 2 temporary NFL-controlled venues to play in (the Coliseum & Dodger Stadium) the Rams will not be authorized by the NFL to play at those venues. Quite a conundrum. This is where the genius of the AEG controlled StubHub Center not submitting a bid or a private deal with Angel Stadium could be a fallback position for Kroenke and the Rams, if the NFL backs the Chargers to the Coliseum -- I just don't see any way for the NFL to deny Kroenke LA. He has too many resources and connections. To me the question is only of whether the Chargers will choose to be the #2 in Inglewood or the #1 in San Diego. If the NFL backs only Spanos, that means they're building a stadium in Carson on their own. Out of all the possible scenarios, it's very hard to believe that is what the NFL really wants. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 8, 2015 14:34:05 GMT -8
There are many scenarios that could work out to be sure. However, I firmly believe the Rams will not get the approval of the NFL owners to relocate to LA (particularly as St. Louis readies to build a new river-front Stadium). Certainly Kroenke could move anyway. However, if there are only 1 or 2 temporary NFL-controlled venues to play in (the Coliseum & Dodger Stadium) the Rams will not be authorized by the NFL to play at those venues. Quite a conundrum. This is where the genius of the AEG controlled StubHub Center not submitting a bid or a private deal with Angel Stadium could be a fallback position for Kroenke and the Rams, if the NFL backs the Chargers to the Coliseum -- I just don't see any way for the NFL to deny Kroenke LA. He has too many resources and connections. To me the question is only of whether the Chargers will choose to be the #2 in Inglewood or the #1 in San Diego. With Spanos, and Mark Pagliacci riding shotgun, it is nearly impossible for me to envision the two driving a clown car onto the field of Kroenke's new palace, to introduce the Chargers as the newest tenant. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 8, 2015 14:35:24 GMT -8
This is where the genius of the AEG controlled StubHub Center not submitting a bid or a private deal with Angel Stadium could be a fallback position for Kroenke and the Rams, if the NFL backs the Chargers to the Coliseum -- I just don't see any way for the NFL to deny Kroenke LA. He has too many resources and connections. To me the question is only of whether the Chargers will choose to be the #2 in Inglewood or the #1 in San Diego. If the NFL backs only Spanos, that means they're building a stadium in Carson on their own. Out of all the possible scenarios, it's very hard to believe that is what the NFL really wants. But where would either Spanos, or Carson, get the money? |
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 8, 2015 14:42:24 GMT -8
This is where the genius of the AEG controlled StubHub Center not submitting a bid or a private deal with Angel Stadium could be a fallback position for Kroenke and the Rams, if the NFL backs the Chargers to the Coliseum -- I just don't see any way for the NFL to deny Kroenke LA. He has too many resources and connections. To me the question is only of whether the Chargers will choose to be the #2 in Inglewood or the #1 in San Diego. If the NFL backs only Spanos, that means they're building a stadium in Carson on their own. Out of all the possible scenarios, it's very hard to believe that is what the NFL really wants. My point was that the NFL has to know they can't stop Stan from building or moving, so I doubt they will risk open warfare between the league and the Rams. Everything that happens from the August meeting onward is to negotiate an agreement that gets the NFL in LA without open conflict among the owners. To that end, no city from among St. Louis, San Diego or Oakland is above sacrifice on the altar of the almighty $$$$$. My guess is that agreement involves Inglewood and the timetable for the Rams & Chargers to move. |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 8, 2015 15:26:34 GMT -8
Kroenke is worth more than just about any NFL owner. He makes Dean Spanos look like a regular Joe. People with that kind of money and power usually get what they want. But we don't know what the NFL really wants and that's what really matters. The could very well want Kroenke and the Rams in LA. That's what most people think anyway. This. Kroenke has more money than any NFL owner not named Paul Allen and Allen has more $$$ than God. If a relative pauper like Al Davis could snub the rest of the owners and get away with it, you can bet your posterior Kroenke can too. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 8, 2015 18:17:21 GMT -8
If the NFL backs only Spanos, that means they're building a stadium in Carson on their own. Out of all the possible scenarios, it's very hard to believe that is what the NFL really wants. But where would either Spanos, or Carson, get the money? They can't. It's complete BS. The only NFL stadium to be completely privately financed is the Giants/Jets stadium and that's a completely different market with a completely different fan base. Fabiani says that they have a deal with Goldman Sachs to finance it but how much would they need to borrow? Easily over $1B and maybe closer to $2B. Such a gigantic risk to take to move into a market where you don't know what you're going to get, unlike the Giants and Jets, where they were staying in their home market and they know it's a very strong market and the demand will be there. The Chargers, Raiders and Rams combined don't have the fan base in LA that the Giants and Jets do in NY/NJ. There is absolutely no way one team could do it on their own, unless it's a guy like Kroenke who is dripping with money. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 8, 2015 18:30:27 GMT -8
Plus, I see the NFL peaking within the next few years. There is a growing anti-football sentiment, simmering amongst the academics, who've always looked askance at the "mouth-breathing" football devotees, longing for the more politically correct world of basketball and soccer. And soccer---like it or not--is on the rise. The anti-football crowd, will push more and more for restrictions and "reductions" in "violence", given a hook with the concussion concerns. It will grow more aggressive to stop Pop Warner altogether.
But then, we/I digress...
|
|
|
|
Post by fowl on Aug 8, 2015 21:39:18 GMT -8
Kroenke is worth more than just about any NFL owner. He makes Dean Spanos look like a regular Joe. People with that kind of money and power usually get what they want. But we don't know what the NFL really wants and that's what really matters. The could very well want Kroenke and the Rams in LA. That's what most people think anyway. This. Kroenke has more money than any NFL owner not named Paul Allen and Allen has more $$$ than God. If a relative pauper like Al Davis could snub the rest of the owners and get away with it, you can bet your posterior Kroenke can too. Almost every NFL team is owned by an ownership group. There is a GP who runs the deal and LP's who invest and ride along. There are LP's in ownership groups who are far more wealthy than Kroenke, by wide margins. You have to remember too, that some guys are liquid and some are illiquid. Kroenke isn't all that liquid. Keep in mind as well that the guys who own teams are clubby and know each other outside of the league - be it socially or in business. Those relationships play a huge roll in how votes are cast. From what I hear from a former colleague of mine who is the CEO of an NFL team, the Chargers and to a lesser extent the Raiders have been sweet talking him for a while now. Not much from the Rams. That's anecdotal, so take from it what you want. |
|
