urbanSTL

And here's why that might not matter...

The NFL can do what it wants. We see that repeatedly. So while G4 funds are only available in that scenario, the NFL can still spend their money on what they want.

I keep seeing some speculation given to the NFL contributing funds to Stan's stadium in LA. And that confuses me for the reason you stated. However, one article implied that if he moves with NFL consent they might be available, but if he goes rogue, there's no chance. I still don't know where they'd come from because my understanding of the G4 funds is the same as yours. Maybe they'd contribute anyways.

HOWEVER, if they believe St. Louis didn't get a fair shake, AND there are no public funds on the table or on the horizon for another team that needs a home, they might well contribute funds anyways, just to get a team back in St. Louis and to get a public-private partnership done for one of their teams.

Additionally, a team could move to St. Louis with a wink-wink agreement with the city and state. Play a season in the dome, then ask to re-visit the stadium. At that point, St. Louis would be their home market, and they'd be eligible for G4 funds.

I don't think it's LIKELY that St. Louis gets another team if the Rams move. But it's far from impossible.

I'm admittedly very uninformed about this issue and pro sports economics in general, but why exactly is it being said today with such certainty as if it's law that if the Rams leave, then that is the end of the NFL in St. Louis? I read what was said about the stipulations of NFL G4 funding to support building a new stadium and that makes sense, but one question I have is whether a new stadium would definitely be necessary to bring in a new or relocated NFL team in 5-10 years.

I understand that having a new stadium is necessary to Stan Kroenke and the Rams, but eventually the NFL will be expanding to more markets in the next 5 to 10 years. If the league and a new owner believed they could be profitable in a revamped Dome in a top 20 US metro area, would it not be possible to just use the existing Dome with some upgrades? I remember the CVC put together a more modest proposal to upgrade the dome to make it more aesthetically pleasing and with more luxury boxes. Would an upgraded Dome and a top 20 metro be enough to lure an expansion team in the future?

Maybe the idea of the NFL and a potential expansion owner taking the Dome seriously as a profitable football stadium in 10 years would be absolutely ridiculous. That probably goes without saying. Just wanted to express some frustration with the routine of billionaires holding cities hostage for publicly financed stadiums.

TV money is the same for the Rams here or Rams in LA. The TV is negotiated by the NFL and split 32 ways. Unlike MLB or NBA where teams can have their own regional TVs worth billions.

General attendance I believe also goes into a sharing pool of sorts. But suits is where the NFL owner makes its money, I think suits are kept by the owner and not shared.

dbInSouthCity wrote:There won't be a team here ever again if the Rams leave

I don't think this would be a bad thing.

I don't think there's any way to repair the Kroenke situation at this point. It's best if the Rams just go away and start fresh with an expansion team that everyone can get behind.

It's amazing that a billionaire can screw the taxpayer and leave them a stadium that still isn't paid for and then he goes and drops his own money on a new stadium amidst some of the most expensive real estate in the world. It's criminal really.

Also, it's not sustainable to drop a billion on stadiums that are only viable for 25 years. When did this happen?

The NFL needs to solve this LA thing once and for all and be done with it.

1. I'd bet money that the NFL is pissed about this. He announced it during playoff time taking away from the games, and the Superbowl is in Arizona this year. I'm sure a good portion of NFL is going to be in Arizona having to take questions about LA.

2. He's building a stadium with his own money. I'd also bet the owners are losing it over this too, most stadiums are built with tax payer money. This would make it hard for other teams to get money for stadiums or stadium upgrades. All a city would have to say is "The Rams owner built one without tax payer money."

3. Things are not adding up right, the NFL said no team in LA in 2015 after the season. Then Monday, Kroenke announces the 80,000 seat stadium. Kroenke has to be frustrated, that is the only thing that could explain that move....

Kroenke is trying to get the hell out of dodge as fast as possible....but he may end putting his team in a lame duck season.......

I had to come here to post this because every other Rams forum is pro LA now even the one on STLtoday...crazy.

Gatta love those KCians - check out this commentary...

That Yael idiot is well-known in STL for ripping our City and always citing ridiculous data like population. I think he has referred to KC as Missourah's biggest city many times, as if metro area should not matter. He has it out for us. He takes every chance possible to rip STL. Guess he makes some in KC feel good about themselves. Who knows. He generates clicks from angry STL'ers, so it works every time.

^Yael is a troll with a title. I like KC but I would caution them against kicking us while we are down. They have their own issues which could come to a head at anytime.

We've rode the roller coaster to the bottom. 2015 is the year to start ascending again.

Yael is a hack looking for clicks and shouldn't be taken seriously ... most people in KC don't.

dredger wrote:Don't know enough about NFL bylaws let alone NFL's antitrust exemption but for the sake of entertainment on this forum. Could MO State Attorney General brings suit against NFL that Stan K is not legitimate owner of Rams since he hasn't divested his Denver sports holdings? Heck, just the idea of State Attorney challenging NFL's antitrust exemption would make things pretty interesting.

I don't think I see how MO would have standing to sue. It certainly didn't work to prevent any prior cases of franchises being ripped from loyal fans. I think Stan could sue, or the NFL could sue Stan, but I don't think the bylaws have any implications for non-owners.

Here's an idea. The NFL has turned into a flag-throwing, brain-injuring, play-stopping freak show. Could someone could invent a new football game that keeps the true athletes, the finesse, the planning phase, the running, throwing, catching, and screening, but eliminates the brain-liquifying tackles, the arbitrary and inconsistently-called rules, and constant injuries?

Maybe Peacock and AB could threaten to invent a better football league. I'm not sure if we're talking about 7-man, or amped-up flag football, or arena-league on a large field, but we need a better game. The game is great because it uses hands, feet, and brains -- it has a strategy and short planning phase ahead of each play. It should reward true cleverness and athleticism, not weight. So maybe the new game would just tweak current rules to allow no players over 250 lbs. (unhealthy), and allow play screening, but not tackling except for the person holding the ball -- apply punter and qb protections to all the players not holding the ball. Then get rid of stupid rules, like making 70K people wait because some offensive lineman flinched, or X number of folks required on the line of scrimmage, in-eligible receivers, or "tripping" while everyone on the field is falling down. Open up the game to more play strategies and eliminate obscure procedure rules other than staying behind the line of scrimmage before the snap, and scoring. Just keep the rules that prevent injuries.

This move seems very much a scorched earth policy and will likely create enemies with the league and ownership. He already has made enemies flaunting various ownership rules and there is a good chance any move attempt will be blocked by the owners.

Am I alone in thinking of the movie "Major League" right now in relation to the Rams situation?

gary... you bring up some legit points about the modern NFL but out of all the wacky ideas so far in this thread I think yours takes the cake. Come on, nothing's gonna touch the NFL and anyone who thinks otherwise would be silly to sink money in an attempt to challenge the behemoth. Basically I think as threats/leverage go it's pretty laughable. And plus, some of the aspects of the game you don't like (brain-liquifying hits, huge linemen over 300 lbs) are a big reason why other people watch it... especially the brain-liquifying hits.

Yeah. Football is a disgusting sport at this point. Either the NFL can make dramatic changes to fix it or not. It may survive, or it may not. But I don't see any rival league being able to knock it off the pedestal unfortunately.

The fact that the mayor and his staff are teeing off on Stan doesn't bode well for this whole Rams staying thing

gary kreie wrote:Here's an idea. The NFL has turned into a flag-throwing, brain-injuring, play-stopping freak show. Could someone could invent a new football game that keeps the true athletes, the finesse, the planning phase, the running, throwing, catching, and screening, but eliminates the brain-liquifying tackles, the arbitrary and inconsistently-called rules, and constant injuries?

Maybe Peacock and AB could threaten to invent a better football league. I'm not sure if we're talking about 7-man, or amped-up flag football, or arena-league on a large field, but we need a better game. The game is great because it uses hands, feet, and brains -- it has a strategy and short planning phase ahead of each play. It should reward true cleverness and athleticism, not weight. So maybe the new game would just tweak current rules to allow no players over 250 lbs. (unhealthy), and allow play screening, but not tackling except for the person holding the ball -- apply punter and qb protections to all the players not holding the ball. Then get rid of stupid rules, like making 70K people wait because some offensive lineman flinched, or X number of folks required on the line of scrimmage, in-eligible receivers, or "tripping" while everyone on the field is falling down. Open up the game to more play strategies and eliminate obscure procedure rules other than staying behind the line of scrimmage before the snap, and scoring. Just keep the rules that prevent injuries.

The game you describe is basically, though not exactly, Rugby. Which is a great sport and frankly ought to be played more here in America.

Can someone share a link to what Slay & staff are saying? I haven't seen anything since Monday from them.

That said, I'm pretty confident I won't be bothered with what they say. Stan hasn't engaged them once. We're all ticked at him. We're all teeing off on him. So, I think I'd be just fine with the Mayor doing it.

^ I've been trying to keep up with all the reporting, but must have missed the Mayor's comments (maybe because he usually doesn't say much of anything substantive)... What is he saying?

americancitizen wrote:^ I've been trying to keep up with all the reporting, but must have missed the Mayor's comments (maybe because he usually doesn't say much of anything substantive)... What is he saying?

I know that his initial comments were a couple of awkward and robotic tweets saying that NFL football has value for the city and they're committed to trying to keep it and trust in Peacock & Blitz.

Rainford did an interview where he basically said they want to keep the Rams, but they're not going to get into a bidding war with LA because that's unreasonable and irresponsible. They'll submit a fair plan, but they can't give everything a way.

dweebe wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote:The fact that the mayor and his staff are teeing off on Stan doesn't bode well for this whole Rams staying thing

We're not going to win Stan back: but the mayor needs to STFU.

Why?

What I was thinking is that the people involved locally is trying to go to the NFL directly since it seems like there is a lack of good-faith effort from Stan on this one. Since he has upset a number of other owners and league officials by this and other actions so the plan could be to get the NFL to block any move since that seems very possible. Only issue then is if that happens, how could he remain an owner of a team that isn't allowed to leave here since the well has been poisoned?

Also is it just me or does it seem as well local officials are starting to talk to other teams in backchannels on moving here? I've seen reports of that in relation to Raiders and Charges along with possibly other teams. I have seen people bring up the idea that Kroneke could be allowed to move to the team on the condition another team moves here or guaranteed an expansion team in a few years. (similar to what happened in Cleveland) Another possibility is swap owners with another team with Stan taking another team to move to LA with that team's owner becoming the Rams owner. (an owner swap has occurred before involving the Rams)