Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 13, 2015 at 10:16 pm in reply to: relocation thread #3, starting with Chargers stirring up a fight #16457
InvaderRam
Moderatori don’t know. i have no idea.
January 13, 2015 at 9:50 pm in reply to: relocation thread #3, starting with Chargers stirring up a fight #16453InvaderRam
Moderatori don’t think we have any idea what kind of revenues he can get from building this. thing.
i still think it’s an issue. i think the potential for revenue compared to st. louis is a lot higher than we can imagine. it’s not just nfl games.
it’s concerts. it’s other sporting events. corporate sponsorships. i know st. louis said it’s got plenty of corporate partners in st. louis, but it’ll be nothing like what’s available in los angeles.
i don’t think it’s JUST about the value of the franchise.
January 13, 2015 at 9:21 pm in reply to: relocation thread #3, starting with Chargers stirring up a fight #16451InvaderRam
Moderatorno. if he gets the psl’s he’s expecting. it might essentially pay for the move. AND the value of the team increases. AND he gets increased revenue.
so he does get his money back. with the psl’s, it’s possible he doesn’t have to pay any of that relocation fee or building of the stadium out of his own pocket.
January 13, 2015 at 8:38 pm in reply to: relocation thread #3, starting with Chargers stirring up a fight #16447InvaderRam
Moderatorwell there ya go.
that’s how he would make his money back.
st. louis is in a real bind here. the only way i see the rams staying at this point is if the broncos do go on sale this year, and kroenke is inclined to sell the rams quick.
also.
With a new TV contract that started this year and runs through 2021, the league won’t see much immediate financial impact from a move of any team to Los Angeles.
is that what owners are waiting for? would a team in los angeles mean more tv dollars in the next contract? well. all the more reason the league wants a team or two there.
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by
InvaderRam.
January 13, 2015 at 6:13 pm in reply to: relocation thread #3, starting with Chargers stirring up a fight #16435InvaderRam
Moderatorwell. that would take care of some of kroenke’s problems. just need a buyer for the rams. i don’t know if that increases the chances of the rams staying in st. louis or not. but that certainly changes how things could unfold.
broncos are valued at 1.4 billion dollars.
January 13, 2015 at 8:48 am in reply to: relocation thread #3, starting with Chargers stirring up a fight #16418InvaderRam
Moderatorvery interesting. wow.
InvaderRam
Moderatori would say he is a top 5 quarterback. i think he could play in any system and be successful.
January 12, 2015 at 9:13 pm in reply to: relocation thread #3, starting with Chargers stirring up a fight #16398InvaderRam
Moderatorwell. the difference i see between the vikings situation and the rams situation is that the vikings didn’t have a great option in play at los angeles. at least not as good as the deal offered by minnesota. i believe the only way a move to los angeles was possible was selling part of the team to the people building the stadium. and that was a worse option than keeping complete ownership of the vikings in minnesota.
the difference as i see it is the rams have a better option in los angeles. or at least kroenke does. that’s something no other team had before.
the only way i see the rams staying in st. louis is if kroenke sells the team. the rams stay put. and kroenke turns around and buys the raiders and then moves them to oakland. i think that was mentioned in the bernie article. i see that as being likely.
the only problem with that is what does the new ownership do with the front office? do they stay the course or do they start bringing in their own ideas? maybe that would be a good thing… it isn’t like kroenke’s rams have been lighting up the league.
January 12, 2015 at 4:52 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16371InvaderRam
Moderatori disagree. revenue is at least part of the motive. i don’t think it’s the sole motive or maybe even the main motive but it’s a significant factor.
January 12, 2015 at 3:34 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16368InvaderRam
Moderatori still think the cash flow will be way more than anything he could get in st louis.
so he’ll spend a couple billion while the value of the team increases by a couple billion. at least. although really my guess is that’s a very conservative estimate. it probably increases considerably more than that.
and on top of that the cash flow will be even greater than at st louis considering the non football retail space.
and on top of that he could collect additional cash through leasing the stadium out to a second team.
InvaderRam
Moderatori see shaq thompson and landon collins up there.
i wonder if landon collins can play free safety.
January 11, 2015 at 1:26 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16268InvaderRam
Moderatorplus if he rents the stadium out to a second team. is that money shared?
January 11, 2015 at 1:22 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16267InvaderRam
Moderatorwell forget about the gate money. what about the rest of the property, and the money he stands to gain from that? restaurants, shops, concerts, other sporting events besides the nfl.
i don’t know. i think there’s way more potential for him. not the nfl but for him. than in st. louis. a lot of tech companies sprouting up around that area and that means money money money…
January 11, 2015 at 10:26 am in reply to: Rams granted permission to speak with Greg Roman and Kyle Shanahan #16253InvaderRam
Moderatori wish they’d make a decision already. all this uncertainty is getting to me.
from reading some pre-draft articles people seem to think mason would be a great fit in a zone blocking scheme.
but i’m not sure fisher used a zone blocking scheme at tennessee. i read that chris johnson ran in a power blocking scheme at tennessee.
InvaderRam
Moderatorwhat a farce.
January 10, 2015 at 8:50 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16189InvaderRam
Moderatorsomeday. they will make a documentary about this. i wonder if we’ll learn anything from it.
January 10, 2015 at 5:59 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16183InvaderRam
Moderatorseriously though. soccer is immensely popular in st. louis. it’d be nice if they finally got that mls team they’ve been pining for. mls has been talking expansion. and i think they’d do real well in st. louis.
January 10, 2015 at 5:56 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16181InvaderRam
Moderatorwe all realize that this is just a silly game and tell the owners and players to go screw themselves?
January 10, 2015 at 5:40 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16172InvaderRam
Moderatori was just reading about the jaguars lease agreement with jacksonville.
there are ways they can get out of their lease agreement which lasts until 2030.
maybe khan gets st. louis to pay 100 million dollars to get out of their lease after the rams build their stadium.
January 10, 2015 at 4:30 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16153InvaderRam
ModeratorIt depends on whether the league believes in its own rules, and how much, and whether or not they are willing to live with the obvious “SK is an exception” thing. In other words, whether or not they will countenance obvious hypocrisy in the name of expedience for something they like.
yeah. i think they’ll learn to live with it.
January 10, 2015 at 4:13 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16151InvaderRam
ModeratorThey may end up changing some of these rules, btw.
i wouldn’t be surprised if they did that.
January 10, 2015 at 3:43 pm in reply to: Rams granted permission to speak with Greg Roman and Kyle Shanahan #16144InvaderRam
Moderatori’m still on the boras bandwagon. keep continuity. and if it’s really true. that he’s regarded as a bright offensive mind. then go for it. instead of playing the oc musical chairs game.
January 10, 2015 at 2:40 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16126InvaderRam
Moderatorstan does want a soccer team in los angeles. that would be another option for that stadium. mls just doesn’t seem big enough though.
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by
InvaderRam.
January 10, 2015 at 2:38 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16125InvaderRam
Moderatorwell. we’re going to disagree.
i really believe the nfl will look the other way if it isn’t approved. in fact. kroenke would probably rather they not approve it.
January 10, 2015 at 2:20 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16116InvaderRam
Moderatorbut also, zn. there were rules in place before that supposedly prevented teams from moving and they still moved. so am i now to believe that these new rules will actually prohibit them from moving? again maybe they will. but not for a move to los angeles. yes. a move to san antonio. to orlando. but not los angeles. i firmly believe that.
January 10, 2015 at 2:17 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16114InvaderRam
Moderatornormally i’d agree with you. and if this was a move to any other city. i’d believe it. but this is a move to los angeles. if it’s purely for vanity. if it’s just to squeeze a couple more million dollars a year out of us. if it’s to have superbowls. pro bowls. the draft. the combine. whatever.
i believe the nfl wants more of a presence in los angeles. yeah. it’s just a guess. but it makes sense to me. does it suck in a lot of ways. of course it does.
but yes. i would bet that the nfl would be willing to ignore its own rules just to do this.
if this was a move to san antonio. sure they’d enforce the rules hard. in this case, they won’t. and law enforcement will bend the rules if it favors them. i don’t think that’s impossible to imagine.
January 10, 2015 at 1:56 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16106InvaderRam
ModeratorWhy would owners vote against it?
It’s 1. losing a team in St. Louis, which they don’t prize as an outcome, and 2. whether or not they meant it when they put up barriers to lone owner moves of the Cleveland to Baltimore, Baltimore to IND type.
If #2 no longer means anything to them, then, so be it. But then why are those rules THERE.
Cause they are not going to have an easy time arguing that those rules are there for a reason except when it comes to Stan Kroenke. Even a socio-pathic billionaire team owner is going to notice the problems with that argument.
but in the end what happened after those teams moved? a slap on the wrist?
to me. it really doesn’t matter to them. maybe it’s just to show fans they care about loyalty. they’ll act upset but in the end nothing will come of it because nothing has ever come of it.
or maybe they’ll vote stan out of the league like they did donald sterling in the nba.
that’d be funny.
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by
InvaderRam.
January 10, 2015 at 1:51 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16105InvaderRam
Moderator<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>zn wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>InvaderRam wrote:</div>
you don’t get numerous proposals of stadium projects because they weren’t serious about it.But you also didn’t get stadiums.
So how serious were they.
If you are an NFL Owner, who votes,
what is the Downside to letting Stan take the team
away from St.Louis and bring it back to Los Angeles ?I’m trying to understand the possible downsides,
from the point of view of various Owners.Whats the downside? Why would owners vote against it?
I wonder if there is a group of owners that dont
care one way or the other.w
vthey could lose leverage when negotiating with their own cities.
jerry jones. kraft. i bet they don’t care. not sure about others. new york owners? the bears? washington? i guess wouldn’t care.
January 10, 2015 at 1:46 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16103InvaderRam
Moderatorthe only thing i can’t figure out is what happens with the cross ownership rules.
who knows? with stan building a privately owned stadium in los angeles. complete with nfl network offices and studios. superbowls. and who knows what else. maybe they’ll overlook the cross ownership rules.
January 10, 2015 at 1:42 pm in reply to: new relocation thread! starting with JT: Kroenke faces rough road out of town #16099InvaderRam
Moderator<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>InvaderRam wrote:</div>
you don’t get numerous proposals of stadium projects because they weren’t serious about it.But you also didn’t get stadiums.
So how serious were they.
i think that in the case of aeg i believe they wanted part ownership. i don’t think any owner was willing to give that up or they struck a deal with their home city making it more financially beneficial to them to stay. ok. i don’t know if this is actually true so blast away if i’m wrong but that was my impression.
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts