- This topic has 27 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
I heard from a local media person on a radio show that Shaw added the “top tier” clause as almost a last-second addendum and pretty much expected it to be rejected, and he was surprised when it was accepted.
Let’s face it, though: Kroenke and Goodell would have found some other path to L.A. even without this clause. They scorched St. Louis on the way out even with the clause.
Actually I read up the history on that clause. Shaw didn’t put it in there, the St. Louis side did. It was in lieu of something else Shaw actually wanted, which apparently was for the city to guarantee picking up regular maintenance on the site.
I heard from a local media person on a radio show that Shaw added the “top tier” clause as almost a last-second addendum and pretty much expected it to be rejected, and he was surprised when it was accepted.
Two different versions, each from a 2nd hand source.
Wonder which is right, or indeed if either of them is?
Not a big deal, just noticing an interesting difference. Fwiw.
.
Actually I read up the history on that clause. Shaw didn’t put it in there, the St. Louis side did. It was in lieu of something else Shaw actually wanted, which apparently was for the city to guarantee picking up regular maintenance on the site.
I heard from a local media person on a radio show that Shaw added the “top tier” clause as almost a last-second addendum and pretty much expected it to be rejected, and he was surprised when it was accepted.
Two different versions, each from a 2nd hand source.
Wonder which is right, or indeed if either of them is?
Not a big deal, just noticing an interesting difference. Fwiw.
.
Yeah, I don’t know how it went down. If somebody from the STL side dreamt that up, they certainly aren’t going to admit it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
