Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Steven Wyche & others on relocation
- This topic has 30 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by Zooey.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 23, 2015 at 5:12 pm #25156znModerator
The NFL owners meetings earlier this week in San Francisco revitalized the topic of the league’s future in Los Angeles as the two stadium projects vie for a spot in the country’s No. 2 media market. NFL Network analyst and St. Louis native Stave Wyshe joined Prime Time with Joe Roderick and Willie Springer on Thursday to discuss the latest developments.
I think everyone kind of is reading the tea leaves that the Inglewood project is absolutely the leader in the clubhouse. The big cookie crumb…that brings you there is the owners said LA would be considered to host a Super Bowl in 2020. For that to happen, the team has to relocate and be operable by 2018. That could not happen in Carson. They still have some environmental issues with the land…all projections are that facility would not be completed by then. Speaing to someone with great knowledge (of the Rams’ situation and Inglewood), the second that they get approved – if that happens – they could put a shovel in the ground (and start building the stadium). That land is flattened and ready to go. I think the feeling is…the Rams are going to be coming.
I hate it because I lived in St. Louis…they’ve got nothing substantial going there. I think the feeling coming out of this meeting is the Rams’ project is much further along. I think Stan Kroenke wants to be gone, I think he wants the Rams in Los Angeles. I think people inside the organization are pretty much packing their bags because they see what’s going on and they also think St. Louis…it could be too little, too late. The overwhelming feeling at the owners meetings…is that it’s time. I do think for everybody…it’s going to end up with some hurt feelings.
May 24, 2015 at 10:51 am #25187znModeratorRaiders in St. Louis? Don’t rule it out.
May 24, 2015 at 10:52 am #25188znModeratorfrom off the net
==
RamBill
Reporting from the NFL owners meetings, ESPN Rams reporter Nick Wagoner says Raiders owner Mark Davis’ insistence that his team will remain under his control and won’t be a candidate to move to St. Louis at some point remains a tenuous proposition. Things and circumstances can change. If the Rams left St.Louis, Davis might “revise” his position on moving there if it was his only option for a new stadium.
May 24, 2015 at 11:26 am #25192InvaderRamModeratorit does make a lot of sense.
just from an alignment point of view it creates a divisional rivalry between kansas city and st louis. and while the broncos raiders rivalry isn’t what it once was there is a bigger geographical tie between the 2 under that scenario.
i’m reading now that rumors of a forced davis sale are slightly exaggerated but might that also be a factor? maybe a group of investors offers to help davis out while still being able to have majority ownership.
but also a scenario in which the raiders and chargers move to carson my preference would be to see the rams move to the afc west. a st louis kansas city rivalry would be the bee’s knees.
May 24, 2015 at 7:48 pm #25211znModeratorNFL owners maintain strength by sticking together
John Clayton
Last week’s NFL owners meetings provided a reminder of the power of ownership in this sport.
New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft came to San Francisco steaming about the penalties imposed on his team for Deflategate. He considered suing the league. He had his lawyers create a website to challenge every item in the Wells report, which the NFL used as a basis for the punishment meted out to the Patriots and quarterback Tom Brady. But being around the owners changed Kraft’s tone.
He probably realized the owners he would be fighting in court were the ones who voted him into the league as an owner when he bought the Patriots 21 years ago. He probably spent a few minutes talking to Jerry Jones, whose Dallas Cowboys lost a total of $10 million of valuable cap room in 2012 and ’13 for somehow violating the salary cap in an uncapped year.
Kraft decided not to appeal the Patriots’ penalty of a $1 million fine and the loss of two draft picks.
The race for getting two NFL franchises into Los Angeles is starting to look like another example of how NFL owners operate. Most reporters came to San Francisco thinking Stan Kroenke held all the cards in building a stadium in Inglewood and then moving the Rams out of St. Louis.
One image adjusted that notion. On Monday night, reporters spotted Chargers owner Alex Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis having dinner with several owners who are on the relocation committee. High-level NFL execs were also at the table.
That informal meeting could set the stage for the Chargers and Raiders to move to a proposed stadium in Carson. As Kraft likely reminded himself, often the league sets itself above the individual desires of an owner or a franchise. If the Carson plan has strong support from NFL owners, it will happen.
It’s too early to handicap how the Los Angeles project will unfold. Spanos made it clear he wants to exhaust every effort for the city of San Diego to present a stadium proposal his family can accept. Unfortunately, the offer made by the city last week most likely falls short. While San Diego officials were making their pitch, Carson was closing on a land purchase for a two-team stadium.
There won’t be three teams in Los Angeles next year, because the NFL is going to give partial funding only for two teams in one stadium.
A Raiders/Chargers move to Carson gained plenty of momentum last week. Power-broking owners like the idea of helping Spanos and Davis if they can’t get stadium deals to stay where they are. While they aren’t totally against Kroenke, they recognize he is operating more on his own than with the league, although they also realize his work has put the league in a position to get pro football back in Los Angeles.
If the Carson deal makes the most sense financially, I can see owners approving a move to Los Angeles by the Chargers and Raiders and saying no to Kroenke. If that happens, though, the league would have to make things right for the Rams. First, it would have to make sure the St. Louis offer to keep the Rams is a great deal for Kroenke.
There may be some other things the owners could do to assist Kroenke. Kroenke owns sports franchises in Denver — the NBA’s Nuggets and the NHL’s Avalanche. If the Broncos ever wind up for sale — which could become a possibility with owner Pat Bowlen battling Alzheimer’s disease — the league could broker a deal that makes Kroenke the next Broncos owner.
On the football side, the league would need to fix the divisional alignments if the Raiders and Chargers move into one stadium. For network television purposes, the league can’t have to two AFC West teams in the same stadium. The Chargers or Raiders would have to move into the NFC West, and one NFC West team — the Rams or Arizona Cardinals — would have to switch to the AFC.
The next six months should be a study in how this fraternity of owners operates.
May 24, 2015 at 8:02 pm #25218znModeratorNFL owners maintain strength by sticking together
John Clayton
also … —>
@BrianMejiaNFL: John Clayton says the Rooney’s, jerry Richardson, and John Mara all favor the Carson site. He also says it look like they have the momentum.
May 24, 2015 at 9:03 pm #25224bnwBlockedKroenke already has a fantastic deal in St. Louis. It’s the envy of most owners. Which makes him even more of a putz with his threat of a move to LA.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
May 25, 2015 at 8:51 am #25241znModeratorNFL begins work on setting relocation fee
By Jim Thomas
In another indication of the growing momentum to have an NFL team in Los Angeles, the league has begun the process of establishing a relocation fee for the team — or teams — that might move to LA for the 2016 season.
“We’ve engaged an outside firm to help us look at various ways to analyze it,” NFL executive Eric Grubman said at least week’s owners meetings in San Francisco. “Which is not to say our finance staff is not capable of doing any of the analysis. But sometimes it’s good to have an independent mind take a look at it.”
The fee, Grubman said, could vary from market to market. The Rams in St. Louis, the Chargers in San Diego, and the Raiders in Oakland are all eyeing a possible move to LA after the 2015 season. When all is said and done, there could be a formula developed to set the fee. Or there simply could just be a flat fee determined.
“We’re not very far along in that,” Grubman said. “It’s sort of designing the analysis, and we’re debating the different ways that it could be looked at and the different time frames that could be looked at.”
The relocation fee is designed to compensate club owners for allowing another team to move into a new, lucrative market and basically gets split up among the other teams. It has been estimated that the relocation fee for a Rams move back to LA could be in excess of $500 million for team owner Stan Kroenke.
Grubman said any relocation fee probably wouldn’t be determined until very near the end of the entire relocation process.
“Anybody’s who’s getting into it or asking for a vote would be understanding of what it is,” Grubman said.
- This reply was modified 9 years, 5 months ago by zn.
May 25, 2015 at 8:59 am #25247wvParticipantJust curious — Did Georgia have to pay a
Relocation fee back in 95 ? What was it?edit: yes. http://articles.latimes.com/1995-04-13/news/mn-54268_1_rams-owner
TJ Simers – LA Times
April 1995IRVING, Tex. — The Los Angeles Rams are history, officially gone from Anaheim to St. Louis after winning the National Football League’s blessing Wednesday with a $46-million payment.
In addition to a $29-million relocation fee, the Rams agreed to pay $17 million from the proceeds of personal seat licenses, which are one-time fees for rights to buy season tickets.
Twenty-three of the 30 league owners must approve a franchise move, and they voted 22 to 6 in favor Wednesday, with the Los Angeles Raiders abstaining. Rams owner Georgia Frontiere, who had been asked to remain outside during the special meeting, was then called on to cast the deciding vote.
“I thought about it for a few minutes,” she joked.
“My grandmother had a saying: ‘Go little where wanted, go not at all where little wanted.’ And that’s about the way it’s been (in Anaheim). I think they will be better off too,” Frontiere said.
w
v- This reply was modified 9 years, 5 months ago by wv.
May 25, 2015 at 9:04 am #25249znModeratorfrom PRO FOOTBALL; Rams Given Green Light for St. Louis Move
April 13, 1995
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/13/sports/pro-football-rams-given-green-light-for-st-louis-move.html
The Rams must pay a franchise relocation fee of $29 million. Tagliabue said that money would probably go to N.F.L. Charities.
May 25, 2015 at 11:27 am #25250ZooeyModeratorIt has been estimated that the relocation fee for a Rams move back to LA could be in excess of $500 million for team owner Stan Kroenke.
So…JT is using the passive voice here because he doesn’t know WHO made the $500 million estimate.
That number is insane. That is more than half the value of the Rams, Raiders, and probably Chargers. And there is no way that the Raiders or Chargers could afford anything like that number. Kroenke has that kind of money, but that doesn’t make the number sensible.
I don’t know how they can fairly ask more of the Rams than of the other two teams, and clearly that number shuts out Davis and Spanos from the market. Hell, they don’t even have enough money yet to go halvsies on a stadium, never mind a relocation fee of any size at all. I just don’t see how Spanos and Davis come out on top, in spite of what JT wrote.
When it comes to decision time, Kroenke’s project is more glamorous, it’s ready to go right now, and he’s got the money. If money is the language of the NFL, Kroenke is the one who speaks that language best.
May 25, 2015 at 1:02 pm #25254bnwBlocked$500 million isn’t high enough for Kroenke. He’s benefitted large in the move from LA to St. Louis and now forces a move back to LA simply to make more money through the immediate appreciation of the team in LA? The relocation fee should be the difference in the valuation between the team in St. Louis and the team in LA since it is value gained via the NFL granting the move. Kroenke shouldn’t be allowed to walk away with that money which wasn’t earned.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
May 25, 2015 at 1:10 pm #25256sdramParticipantIt has been estimated that the relocation fee for a Rams move back to LA could be in excess of $500 million for team owner Stan Kroenke.
So…JT is using the passive voice here because he doesn’t know WHO made the $500 million estimate.
That number is insane. That is more than half the value of the Rams, Raiders, and probably Chargers. And there is no way that the Raiders or Chargers could afford anything like that number. Kroenke has that kind of money, but that doesn’t make the number sensible.
I don’t know how they can fairly ask more of the Rams than of the other two teams, and clearly that number shuts out Davis and Spanos from the market. Hell, they don’t even have enough money yet to go halvsies on a stadium, never mind a relocation fee of any size at all. I just don’t see how Spanos and Davis come out on top, in spite of what JT wrote.
When it comes to decision time, Kroenke’s project is more glamorous, it’s ready to go right now, and he’s got the money. If money is the language of the NFL, Kroenke is the one who speaks that language best.
I have no idea what the fee will be. 500 M might be on right the money. But, doing the rule thumb 7 year doubling rule for future worth compared to the 29 million from 20 years ago would put it approximately 100 million and then double it for the bigger market value -glamour factor would make it about 200 million. I’m sure that anyway you slice it, it won’t be cheap. I’d guess Stan’s money will likely buy votes – as per usual.
May 25, 2015 at 4:46 pm #25263sdramParticipantI have no idea what the fee will be. 500 M might be on right the money. But, doing the rule thumb 7 year doubling rule for future worth compared to the 29 million from 20 years ago would put it approximately 100 million and then double it for the bigger market value -glamour factor would make it about 200 million. I’m sure that anyway you slice it, it won’t be cheap. I’d guess Stan’s money will likely buy votes – as per usual.
I’m getting ‘more’ mentally lazy in my old age. Actually, the doubling rule of thumb thing would have it at 30 X 2 = 60 X 2 = 120 X 2 = 240 so 240 Million is approximate answer and then add to it whatever the LA market glamour factor. If one doesn’t think it’s worth much, let the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim owner know that too.
- This reply was modified 9 years, 5 months ago by sdram.
May 25, 2015 at 6:31 pm #25265wvParticipantI’m getting ‘more’ mentally lazy in my old age. Actually, the doubling rule of thumb thing would have it at 30 X 2 = 60 X 2 = 120 X 2 = 240 so 240 Million is approximate answer and then add to it whatever the LA market glamour factor. If one doesn’t think it’s worth much, let the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim owner know that too.
I’m not even sure I understand the principle
behind the “relocation fee.” Why, exactly
does one owner have to pay the other owners money
in order to move a team? Whats the logic there?
I mean if the League makes a bit ‘more’ money
with a team in LA — then shouldnt ‘they’
pay Kroenke to move to LA ?w
vMay 25, 2015 at 6:40 pm #25266ZooeyModeratorI’m not even sure I understand the principle
behind the “relocation fee.” Why, exactly
does one owner have to pay the other owners money
in order to move a team? Whats the logic there?
I mean if the League makes a bit ‘more’ money
with a team in LA — then shouldnt ‘they’
pay Kroenke to move to LA ?w
vFrom JT:
The relocation fee is designed to compensate club owners for allowing another team to move into a new, lucrative market and basically gets split up among the other teams
“Compensation.” So…extortion, basically.
I haven’t thought much about this before, but now that it has been brought up, I’m stumped. How do Spanos and Davis pay this?
May 25, 2015 at 7:00 pm #25268znModeratorI’m getting ‘more’ mentally lazy in my old age. Actually, the doubling rule of thumb thing would have it at 30 X 2 = 60 X 2 = 120 X 2 = 240 so 240 Million is approximate answer and then add to it whatever the LA market glamour factor. If one doesn’t think it’s worth much, let the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim owner know that too.
I’m not even sure I understand the principle
behind the “relocation fee.” Why, exactly
does one owner have to pay the other owners money
in order to move a team? Whats the logic there?w
vI don’t have a direct answer to that, but it’s from not knowing all the info, not because there might not be one. There might be a good answer. I will say this. NFL teams aren’t “owned” in the traditional sense…they are franchises, and and owners are bound by league regs and rules, which they agree to. In fact the league can fail to approve a sale to a particular prospective owner.
May 25, 2015 at 9:13 pm #25269bnwBlockedI’m getting ‘more’ mentally lazy in my old age. Actually, the doubling rule of thumb thing would have it at 30 X 2 = 60 X 2 = 120 X 2 = 240 so 240 Million is approximate answer and then add to it whatever the LA market glamour factor. If one doesn’t think it’s worth much, let the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim owner know that too.
I’m not even sure I understand the principle
behind the “relocation fee.” Why, exactly
does one owner have to pay the other owners money
in order to move a team? Whats the logic there?w
vI don’t have a direct answer to that, but it’s from not knowing all the info, not because there might not be one. There might be a good answer. I will say this. NFL teams aren’t “owned” in the traditional sense…they are franchises, and and owners are bound by league regs and rules, which they agree to. In fact the league can fail to approve a sale to a particular prospective owner.
I explained the reason why in my post. Instant appreciation of the franchise with a move to LA. The NFL wants to convey an image of franchise stability in markets. Those owners that want to buck that have to pay a relocation fee if the move is approved by a vote of the owners. In the case of LA the new valuation of the team will be a windfall for Kroenke before any work is done on a stadium. He didn’t earn that. The NFL earned that. Plus Kroenke has made out like a bandit in St. Louis. He can’t claim he isn’t making money. He wants to make more in LA. Bucking franchise stability should come at a great cost especially since St. Louis is getting screwed again.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
May 25, 2015 at 9:15 pm #25270InvaderRamModeratorI’m not even sure I understand the principle
behind the “relocation fee.” Why, exactly
does one owner have to pay the other owners money
in order to move a team? Whats the logic there?
I mean if the League makes a bit ‘more’ money
with a team in LA — then shouldnt ‘they’
pay Kroenke to move to LA ?w
vFrom JT:
The relocation fee is designed to compensate club owners for allowing another team to move into a new, lucrative market and basically gets split up among the other teams
“Compensation.” So…extortion, basically.
I haven’t thought much about this before, but now that it has been brought up, I’m stumped. How do Spanos and Davis pay this?
goldman sachs somehow finances it. don’t ask me how. there’s a rumor floating around that spanos with the help of goldman sachs would be able to do the move himself. but then why include oakland in the first place? sounds fishy.
May 25, 2015 at 9:28 pm #25271InvaderRamModeratora lot of it would apparently be done through psls. that relocation fee could be financed partly through that. some doubt it can actually be done. especially a team entering a new market although it could be argued that being in san diego they have a regional presence.
http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-stadium-goldman-20150524-story.html
- This reply was modified 9 years, 5 months ago by InvaderRam.
May 25, 2015 at 9:45 pm #25273znModeratorIn the case of LA the new valuation of the team will be a windfall for Kroenke before any work is done on a stadium. He didn’t earn that. The NFL earned that.
That’s the part I noticed the most in what you wrote.
Here’s more on that:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/05/l-a-transfer-fees-could-be-up-to-500-million/
The league’s relocation policy expressly states that a relocating team “will ordinarily be expected to pay a transfer fee to the League,” aimed at compensating other teams for the loss of the opportunity to move to the new market themselves and/or accounting for the enhanced value of the franchise arising from the move.
May 25, 2015 at 9:45 pm #25274znModeratorIn the case of LA the new valuation of the team will be a windfall for Kroenke before any work is done on a stadium. He didn’t earn that. The NFL earned that.
That’s the part I noticed the most in what you wrote.
Here’s more on that:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/05/l-a-transfer-fees-could-be-up-to-500-million/
The league’s relocation policy expressly states that a relocating team “will ordinarily be expected to pay a transfer fee to the League,” aimed at compensating other teams for the loss of the opportunity to move to the new market themselves and/or accounting for the enhanced value of the franchise arising from the move.
May 26, 2015 at 8:37 am #25281znModeratorMorning Ram-blings: Carson gaining steam?
By Nick Wagonerhttp://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/18712/morning-ram-blings-carson-gaining-steam
EARTH CITY, Mo. — At last week’s springs owners meetings in San Francisco, there was plenty of discussion about which project had the advantage in the NFL’s race to return to Los Angeles.
In this week’s mailbag, ESPN senior NFL writer John Clayton leads the weekly piece with some whispers that perhaps the Carson project backed by the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders has caught up to or even passed Stan Kroenke’s Inglewood stadium.
Clayton writes that the Chargers/Raiders project in Carson “gained plenty of momentum” during the owners meetings and he wasn’t the only one to leave with that impression. Over at CBSSports.com, Jason La Canfora posited that the Carson project is in the lead but Inglewood will battle until the very end.
Of course, there are plenty of others who believe the Inglewood stadium is out in front and might not be caught. NFL.com’s Albert Breer offered one such take and he’s not alone in that feeling.
The reality is that nobody really knows how this is going to play out and there are plenty of twists and turns that still await. I still tend to believe that Kroenke’s deep pockets and better proposal will win out but if St. Louis continues to progress toward a stadium on the north riverfront and Carson proves viable, it stands to reason the league could side with Carson.
Just like with everything else involved in this discussion, the wait and see approach remains the way to go.
May 26, 2015 at 10:39 am #25292bnwBlockedDoes Wagoner still work for the Rams?
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
May 26, 2015 at 6:26 pm #25311ZooeyModeratorgoldman sachs somehow finances it. don’t ask me how. there’s a rumor floating around that spanos with the help of goldman sachs would be able to do the move himself. but then why include oakland in the first place? sounds fishy.
What I gather from those articles is that the Goldman Sachs route has considerably more muscle than the hurriedly-unveiled nebulous project the Chargers originally announced. They have got some real money on board now (though it does not appear to be finalized yet), and the stadium renderings are a step up from the ugly cruise ship they originally unveiled. So they are gaining momentum it would appear. A better stadium, and proven financing once it gets all worked out.
As for why the Raiders, I can only speculate.
The one market survey I read had the Rams, then the Chargers, and in a distant third the Raiders, as the most desirable team in Los Angeles. So the Chargers would presumably be better off with the Raiders as a co-tenant in LA. The Rams would be team 1A, the Chargers team 1B. If it is Chargers and Raiders, the Chargers are likely to emerge as team 1A.
You know – Lakers, Dodgers, Kings.
As opposed to the other tenants – Clippers, Angels, Ducks. Those teams are profitable and doing well, but they aren’t the Lakers, Dodgers, and Kings.
Spanos wants badly to be in LA. He would be better off with the Raiders than the Rams. If Kroenke rolls in and builds Inglewoodland, he’s the man.
It could also be that Spanos – originally lacking financing – needed a partner, and the Raiders were the natural fit for a couple of reasons. Could have been a desperation move. Nevertheless, if there are going to be two teams there, the Carson project is better for him for the reasons I mentioned above.
May 26, 2015 at 6:38 pm #25312ZooeyModeratorJust a P.S.
In Bernie’s piece about the marketing survey in St. Louis, he mentioned a survey – not only of fans – but of corporations.
You can bet the NFL is doing that in LA, too.
Which stadium/team do you like better? How much will you pay for a suite? How much will you pay to have the stadium named after you? How much will you pay, pay, pay for this, this, this?
And they are going to add up all the dollars from Inglewoodland, and all the dollars from Carson, and if there is a clear winner, then there is a clear winner. And that you can take to the bank.
May 26, 2015 at 6:47 pm #25313znModeratorDoes Wagoner still work for the Rams?
No, he works for espn now.
May 26, 2015 at 6:52 pm #25315bnwBlockedDoes Wagoner still work for the Rams?
No, he works for espn now.
Thanks. I thought the article was an odd one for someone employed by the Rams.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
May 28, 2015 at 1:08 pm #25436znModeratorAndrew Brandt joined Kevin Wheeler to talk about deflategate and why Kraft stood down from his appeal, what’s next for Tom Brady, and then they got into a lengthy discussion about LA. They discussed the backroom politics and how it will affect Kroenke, the NFL’s motive to get to LA, how this situation will be handled going forward.
May 29, 2015 at 8:56 pm #25493InvaderRamModeratorJust a P.S.
In Bernie’s piece about the marketing survey in St. Louis, he mentioned a survey – not only of fans – but of corporations.
You can bet the NFL is doing that in LA, too.
Which stadium/team do you like better? How much will you pay for a suite? How much will you pay to have the stadium named after you? How much will you pay, pay, pay for this, this, this?
And they are going to add up all the dollars from Inglewoodland, and all the dollars from Carson, and if there is a clear winner, then there is a clear winner. And that you can take to the bank.
laram commented on this. they did do a survey in los angeles, and i think the rams and chargers came out on top. i’m not sure who was the more favorable of the two but the raiders definitely came last.
i’m not sure which site was more favorable although i don’t know that carson was actually in play at the time. maybe it was. but i can’t see how carson would be a more favorable site among sponsors. supposedly carson is the more favorable site within the nfl. but if the corporate dollars speak out in favor of inglewood, i’d imagine they’d change their minds very quickly.
my guess is inglewood would be more favorable among corporate sponsors. geographically it’s just closer to los angeles proper than carson. you have venice, santa monica, west los angeles, beverly hills, brentwood close by. leimert park, baldwin hills, and inglewood itself are undergoing massive gentrification. it’s also going to be closer to the concert venues they have planned in that area. it’s going to be a bigger attraction among young people with money to spend. carson isn’t.
so who does the league choose? i would think inglewood, but i’m not so sure anymore.
and can the chargers take on this stadium project by themselves? i really don’t think the raiders will be of any help. if spanos is going to do it, he’s going to have to do it with the help of goldman sachs. and even then there’s some question as to whether their plan will work. a lot of it is dependent on the sale of psls.
- This reply was modified 9 years, 5 months ago by InvaderRam.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.