Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
TackleDummyParticipant3. Republicans (and their patrons in big business) no longer believe Trump will give them cover to do what they want to do. They’re becoming afraid Trump is genuinely nuts, and he’ll pull the party down with him.
They are just now figuring this out! Really?
TackleDummyParticipantActually, there are not any OL in camp at this time. The Rams are not in camp 🙂
June 27, 2015 at 8:52 am in reply to: If Fisher does not top 9-7 this year, does SK fire him? #26812TackleDummyParticipantWhat do YOU think SK does if Fisher does not top 9-7 this year? And do you agree with what you think SK does? What would YOU do?
One possibility is that SK sells the Rams to St. Louis interests by the end of the 2015 season. There are a couple of reasons I think this is possible, maybe even likely, due to a couple of reasons I have already posted. If that is the case the new owner would be making such decisions. And the new owner might want to hire his own people no matter what the record or he might like the current front office group (Demoff, Snead, and Fisher) and want to maintain continuity.
TackleDummyParticipantThe contracts of rookie players are set by the CBA with little variation. All draftees have a four year contract. For 1st round players all four years are guaranteed. (Also each 1st round draft choice is subject to a fifth year option.) Each player will get a signing bonus, determined by their draft position. For those drafted in rounds 2 and 3 the signing bonus is large enough to make cutting them the first year impracticable due to the CAP hit.
TackleDummyParticipantBetter example – Paul Allen owns the Seahawks and the Trail Blazers, both in the northwest US.
The Portland Trail Blazers are not in an NFL city. So the cross-ownership rule does not apply to Paul Allen. On the other hand, Kroenke’s Denver teams are in an NFL city. As the owner of the St Louis Rams he cannot own another team that is in another NFL city so he is breaking the rules. Kroenke could own the St. Louis Cardinals without breaking the rules. His ownership of the Premier League’s Arsenal is not a violation. It can also be noted that by moving the Rams to LA Kroenke would not be avoiding this problem. On both the Nuggets and the Avalanche official websites Stan Kroenke is listed as the owner.
I am not aware of any NFL controlling partner (other than Kroenke) who has ownership of another sports team in a different NFL city. Are there any?
TackleDummyParticipantGood stuff TD.
Thanks.
I was thinking about this cross-ownership stuff. We do know that when Kroenke got controlling interest in the Rams he agreed to give up ownership of his Denver teams. I do not know what penalties are if he does not. However, it could be that he will be required to sell the Rams. There may already be a deal in place for that sale pending finalization of the Riverfront Stadium project. And then Kroenke could invest in the Raiders in such a way as to leave Mark Davis with controlling interest, solve Davis’s potential problem with inheritance taxes when his mother passes and leverage the Raiders into his Inglewood stadium. Note: As minority owner, Kroenke would have no problem with the cross-ownership rules. He was a minority partner with the Rams for years.
All this is complete speculation on my part. And it is worth every penny you paid for it.
June 16, 2015 at 3:26 am in reply to: If Pead and Givins were Rookies, would they make this team? #26356TackleDummyParticipantIf Pead and Givens had been rookies this year it is unlikely that the Rams would have drafted either one of them, especially Pead.
TackleDummyParticipantIs it retiring when you do not have a job and cannot get a job?
TackleDummyParticipantFirst let me say that I honestly don’t care where they end up but I can’t believe Kroenke would sell the Rams to buy the Raiders. That would make zero sense.More likely the Rams go to LA and the Raiders to St.Louis.
After the presentations to the last owner’s relocation committee Mark Davis was very firm in two things about the Raiders. First, he would be the controlling owner of the Raiders for sometime to come. And second, the Raiders would not be moving to St. Louis. I could be wrong, but I thought the timing of his statements was interesting. Something may have happened during the committee meetings to allow for him to make the statements in the firm way he did.
I like your prediction. But is it wishful thinking or based upon something in the press I have not seen? Your 6 & 7 are news to me.
My prediction is based on the seven points I stated, all of which have been reported on this and other forums. Points 6 & 7 were statements made by Peacock after some meetings. They were not given much press but I found them interesting. I also find interesting the report yesterday by Randy Karraker that Kroenke is still not in compliance with the NFL rules on cross-ownership and that he has been given until the end of this month to comply.
TackleDummyParticipantTackleDummyParticipantRobinson
Reynolds (or Saffold)
Jones or Barnes
Saffold (or Reynolds
Havensteinpretty much as I see it. Brown could start at guard. In fact I am expecting him to move to starter before the season is out. And you never know but what one of the lower draft picks or the UDFA might jump up and surprise. It is still a long way before the 13th of September.
May 3, 2015 at 12:54 am in reply to: Day 3 press conference, Fisher & Snead (vid & transcript) #23804TackleDummyParticipantI thought it was funny the way Fisher closed the press conference. I never saw someone leave as quickly as he did. Bye — then out quicker than a lightening bolt! He was in a hurry for the 8th round of the draft!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TackleDummyParticipantDo the Rams HAVE to take a qb in round ? The answers is an obvious no. They don’t HAVE to do any particular thing. What I think they will do in each round is pick a player that they have perceived as having value at that slot. And they may favor a qb at some point. But if a quarterback does not fall to them at a place of value they will not take one.
TackleDummyParticipantMy own gut reaction is that Collins really is not a suspect. It would be handled differently if he were. But he might have some knowledge as to who might do this. He might also need to establish if he is the father of her child, who was delivered after her death. I do hope he can establish where he was when she was killed. It seems to be a case where he needs to prove himself innocent instead of the other way around.
April 14, 2015 at 12:21 am in reply to: The Lawrence Philips mini-series (not literally, just a metaphor) #22677TackleDummyParticipantI wonder how many ex-rams are in prison?
Enough for an All-Prison team?
Probly not a good idea. Just Forget i said that.
Are there others from the Rams?
Another player who comes close to Phillips is Hernandez.
TackleDummyParticipantRobinson, Saffold, rookie, rookie, rookie. And Robinson is still learning his position. That would be worse than last year. Won’t happen.
BTW: I expect Robinson to have a really good year this year.
TackleDummyParticipantSo if they exercise the option on Brockers that’s around 7 M give or take.
As it stands right now, extended deals for starting 4/3 DTs in their 2nd contract are anywhere from 10-20 M. It’s hard to do a precise avg. for this because it’s hard to tell if the Suh contract will be contributing to a general avg. or be treated as a once in a while big exception.
Kyle Wms’s new deal is around 7.6 M or so, but then it’s not a 2nd contract (he was drafted in 2006).
The fifth year option salary for Brockers will be based on the top 3rd through 25th DL salaries from 2014. If, last year, Suh was one of the top two then his salary will not be figured into that average. Nor will any contracts for the 2015 season.
Because there was an increase in salaries from 2013 to 2014 due to the large increase in the cap, I would guess that the fifth year option for Brockers will be close to $7.7M or even more. That would represent a 10% rise.
TackleDummyParticipantWhile this article was about Brockers, the Rams also have another player, Mark Barron, whom the Rams can pick up the fifth year option. He was drafted #7 the same year Brockers was drafted. He will be due the average of the top 10 safeties if under his fifth year option.
My opinion: The Rams should also pick up Barron’s option. It is guaranteed only in case of injury and would insure that the Rams would control his contract through 2016. That would be a plus if he has as good of season in 2015 as Fisher seems to think he will have.
TackleDummyParticipantThat is all. Just wanted to throw out a thread with a hashtag.
You all do realize that it takes two to sign a contract.
TackleDummyParticipantI love open-air stadiums btw. I will be thrilled if
St.Louis builds one and then
blows up the Jones-Dome.One thing, St. Louis will not blow up the Jones-Dome. The estimates are that the Dome will make more without the Rams than they currently make with the Rams. The Dome is a very valuable property for conventions, etc.
TackleDummyParticipantWhat was LA attendance before the Rams moved? Shitty teams don’t draw well anywhere. When the team had a decent product on the field they filled the dome.
Interesting numbers to think about when anyone from LA throws out the “St. Louis fans don’t support football!” insult.
Los Angeles Rams
Year Record Avg Att
1984 (10-6) 54,455 (playoffs)
1985 (11-5) 56,242 (playoffs)
1986 (10-6) 59,285 (playoffs)
1987 (6-9) 47,356
1988 (10-6) 54,469 (playoffs)
1989 (11-5) 58,846 (playoffs)
1990 (5-11) 59,920
1991 (3-13) 51,586
1992 (6-10) 47,811
1993 (5-11) 45,401
1994 (4-12) 43,312
10 Yr Avg 52,608St. Louis Rams
Year Record Avg Att
2004 (8-8) 66,035
2005 (6-10) 65,585
2006 (8-8) 65,326
2007 (3-13) 64,294
2008 (2-14) 59,980
2009 (1-15) 55,237
2010 (7-9) 52,922
2011 (2-14) 56,394
2012 (7-8-1) 56,703
2013 (7-9) 56,957
2014 (6-10) 57,018
10 Yr Avg 59,677That’s 7.36 wins per year for LA vs. 5.18 wins per year for STL. Attendance per win: 114,309 in LA, 184,266 in STL.
Not bad for a region with 2.8 million people!
Note: This is a post from the HERD board by courtland1.
TackleDummyParticipantBoth networks already have a part of the LA TV pie. TV won’t realign divisions or conferences as it never has in the past side it would be giving up too much control to an outside entity. In this case a dependent entity.
Yes, right now both Fox and CBS have equal access to LA. But that would not be true if two teams from the same conference were in LA. Fox broadcasts away games for the NFC and CBS broadcasts the away games for the AFC. If two AFC teams move to LA, CBS would get to broadcast the away games for both LA teams and most of the home games for both. That would give CBS a big advantage for the LA market. By moving one of the LA teams to the NFC it would give the two networks an equal share of the LA market.
TackleDummyParticipantthe raiders are worth 797 million. the rams are worth 750 million. i could see that happening. the rams staying in st. louis and kroenke moving the raiders to los angeles. he might actually prefer that as i think the raiders have a bigger following in los angeles. although that would majorly bum out los angeles rams fans.
http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/
FWIW, the Raiders are worth $970M and the Rams are worth $930M. This is according to Forbes.TackleDummyParticipantwhy would the league and the city of STL want to spend public money to build a stadium in STL where NFL attendance has been in bottom 3 in total NFL attendance in each of the last 6 seasons?
why would the league stop an owner (Kroenke) that has his own land in LA to move from a market that has been bottom feeder in attendance and last in team value?
Don’t know why (I am not going to play that game).
But what will happen is
a) St. Louis will build the Riverfront stadium.
b) There will be $400M to $500M of public bonds used to pay for a portion of the stadium. Remember, these are bonds. They will be paid off from revenue earned by the stadium. No tax dollars will be used.
c) The league will uphold its bylaws and the Rams will play in that stadium for at least 25 years.TackleDummyParticipantWhy realignment at all?
If there are two teams in LA, and that is what it seems the NFL wants, then the FOX and CBS will each want a part of the TV pie. Thus, one team will need to be in the NFC and the other the AFC. Remember, it is TV that pays for the NFL. What they want is what will happen.
TackleDummyParticipantWell, I don’t think financing is their biggest hurdle. Maybe it will end up that way, but if I was them, I would worry about
1. the other team getting an offer elsewhere
2. the environmental clean-up of the site
3. resistance to re-alignment amongst ownersI agree that financing will not be a problem. And I have pointed out a couple of times how it can be done.
It is possible one of the teams could get a better offer. But I doubt it. However, both Oakland and San Diego have some time left. The Rams will build their stadium in St. Louis and the Rams will not move. The most likely alternative, IMO, is that Kroenke will sell the Rams to a St. Louis group and then he will buy the Raiders. That would put the Raiders in Inglewood. And I don’t think that would be likely.
The clean-up in Carson has been completed. It cost $50M. There will be some work done to release gases safely, but that will not be too costly since it is a stadium rather than a residential area.
Re-alignment will not be a problem, IMO. It will be a part of the three-team stadium/realignment solution. The Rams will go to the AFC West and one of the California team, likely Oakland, will go to the NFC West. The rest of the NFL will not care.
TackleDummyParticipantThe point is that to discount Carson because of lack of money is not logical. The interested parties have time to put money together.
The Carson project is more likely to fall apart because a better alternative arises, imo. For one or both teams.
I agree with that. As long as both teams stay a part of the Carson project it will not fail. But selling a part of a team would not really be an option for the Chargers and especially not the Raiders. I think that it is likely that both the Chargers and the Raiders will have to borrow to meet their $250M contributions to build the stadium. (Note, it will not be the owners who will be doing the borrowing, but rather the teams.) But the league contribution, plus the team contributions, plus PSLs will go a long way toward the total cost of building the stadium. The rest (probably under $500M) will not be too difficult to raise from private sources in LA. It is probably worth noting that both owners, Mark Davis (along with his mother Carol) and Alex Spanos are among the league’s least wealthy. ( http://www.chatsports.com/nfl/a/How-Much-Is-Each-NFL-Owner-Worth-10-206-847 ) Neither has a significant amount of wealth outside of their team ownership.
TackleDummyParticipantDon’t be so sure. The St. Louis proposal looks good on paper, and apparently the NFL likes it because Grubman has flown to St. Louis twice to talk to Peacock since Kroenke’s plan was unveiled, and have said encouraging things publicly. I’d say it’s pretty clear that the NFL likes Peacock’s proposal enough to encourage its development as a future NFL home. And since that stadium is going to be built in St. Louis, that means a team in St. Louis, and the Rams are the logical tenant.
It is true that the money has not been worked out for the Carson site, but even though Spanos and Davis are not was wealthy as Kroenke, they are both billionaires, and there are two of them. The NFL can kick in money, public money could be used, and they could sell pieces of their teams to raise more capital. There are ways it can work. It is true, though, that the Carson proposal is much weaker at this point than Kroenke’s. But Kroenke’s project has everybody working intently to create viable alternatives.
I agree with you about the St. Louis proposal. I think it is far enough along that it will be done and that the Rams will be staying in St. Louis.
I also think that if it came to it, as far as the Chargers and Raiders go, that they could make the Carson site work. But Davis cannot sell pieces of the Raiders to make it work. He, along with his mother, own only 47% of the Raiders that they inherited form Al Davis. The rest of the team is owned by the heirs of Al Davis’s partners when the Raiders were created. So if Davis sold any of his share of the Raiders he would not be in control of the Raiders.
February 26, 2015 at 8:39 pm in reply to: Facts related to NFL relocations (and a prediction) #19153TackleDummyParticipanttend to agree with all of that, too, with the exception of Assumption #5, and I am not sold on #3 or #4. I am not so sure that neither Oakland nor San Diego will come up with a stadium plan. St. Louis pulled one out when nobody expected them to.
I think it is less likely that Oakland will come up with anything because Oakland is working on a new stadium for the A’s right now. I think I read that, anyway. But I would not be surprised by a San Diego solution that is the equivalent to the St. Louis solution.While I think the NFL would prefer the Rams to stay put, I think the likelihood of the Carson project unraveling at some point is greater than the Inglewood project unraveling. There are more variables, more ways the Carson project can go wrong. Kroenke’s stadium construction plan stops ONLY if he gets some other opportunity he likes as well i.e. the Broncos. While I have a hard time picturing Kroenke pulling an Al Davis and moving regardless, I also have an equally hard time seeing him settle for less than the vision of the Los Angeles Rams that he has created, drawn up, and planned for. Neither action seems in character for him. He has no history of going rogue, and he has no history of being denied. So either way, we are going to see something new from Kroenke. Remember how he got the Rams? There was Khan coming strong, and talk about cross-ownership impediments, and Kroenke can’t do it, and…BOOM.
I agree with you that assumption 5 is the most likely to break down. Both owners have indicated that they would prefer to stay in their present cities. However, if assumption 5 does not hold up but the other assumptions do hold that will not make much difference to the Rams and St Louis. The Rams would stay in St. Louis but they would also stay in the NFC West.
With all of the statements coming out of the league office over the past many years about wanting to keep teams where they are I do not think that if the Riverfront Stadium gets final approval before the end of the year that the Rams will move from St. Louis. Even if Kroenke wanted to “go rogue” he might not be able to. There are rules put in place since Al Davis was doing his thing that would prevent that.
Right now, I really believe that the Rams will remain in St. Louis in the new Riverfront stadium.
As far as the way Kroenke got control of the Rams, that was a fairly unique thing. He had a clause in his ownership of 30% of the Rams that gave him right of first refusal if the Rams were sold. This plan had been approved by the league even though he had ownership in other teams. It would have been a real legal problem if the NFL turned Kroenke down.
February 26, 2015 at 6:50 pm in reply to: Facts related to NFL relocations (and a prediction) #19145TackleDummyParticipantDemoff. You mean
the invisible man.Actually, Demoff has made quite a few public appearances until the relocation stuff came to the forefront. And he came at the Rams stuff from the perspective of the “money man” which was always interesting. I am sure that if he were to answer questions today it would all be about relocation. I am also sure that neither he nor Kroenke want this.
-
AuthorPosts
