Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 9, 2015 at 2:18 pm in reply to: Eagles rumors: Sanchez, Foles, Mariota … including Foles to Rams #19719ZooeyModerator
Well, I think what Foles has that the other available QBs don’t have is an indefinite ceiling.
All the other guys out there have pretty much exhausted their “potential upside growth.” They are what they are. They are past the point of “hopefully he’ll be better next year.”
Foles may have peaked, too. We just don’t know for sure yet.
March 9, 2015 at 1:56 pm in reply to: Eagles rumors: Sanchez, Foles, Mariota … including Foles to Rams #19715ZooeyModeratorI have no objection to Foles. There may be something there. I hope it doesn’t cost a 2nd round pick, though.
ZooeyModeratorI don’t know how that is structured, but that looks like bad news for everybody. That is better than most QBs make.
ZooeyModeratorZooey: Miklasz Should Cut Rams Fans a Break
I just had to say that. It was too tempting.
But, really, the only way Bradford takes a cut this year is with an extension. And so it’s not really a cut, but a cap thing.
Bradford can go into this year without an extension. If he gets hurt again, his second contract value plummets. If he does well, he gets a pay raise. He may be willing to take that gamble because he’s already made enough money to last a lifetime if he has any financial brains. So he would be betting on himself.
I don’t have a problem with that.
ZooeyModeratorHere’s a discussion that touches on that…
Well, that’s all cleared up.
ZooeyModeratorIt is remarkable to me that Saddam Hussein is routinely referred to by his first name. I don’t remember articles referring to Margaret and Ronald.
There’s Napoleon, of course. But…what the hell?
ZooeyModeratorI hope he has a forgettable time playing for the 49ers, and has a long, losing season.
ZooeyModeratorWell.
That’s disgusting.
While I’m not surprised that these biases exist, I am surprised by how open and pervasive they are.
My goodness, what a wreck.
ZooeyModeratorI’ll only go this far on that: I think Raiders are a more likely candidate than the Raiders.
by jthomas 4:47 PMDon’t know about that.
I’d rate that as a toss-up, myself.
ZooeyModeratorBy the way, new renderings:
ZooeyModeratorthe 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.
Nobody cares about Los Angeles Rams fans except Los Angeles Rams fans. That sounds harsh, but it’s true.
Your scenario is possible, but I can make it worse.
Kroenke and Davis trade franchise NAMES. The Rams (newly christened the Raiders) move to Los Angeles as the Raiders, and the Raiders switch uniforms and move to St. Louis to be the Rams.
Cuz maybe they don’t want to trade their entire organizations that they have been building. Kroenke may very well want to hang onto his front office, Fisher and his crew, and his players. All of them become Los Angeles Raiders, but the “Rams” are still in St. Louis.
How’s that sound?
I’m not sure I could survive that.
ZooeyModeratorZooey wrote:
The 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.
Well, 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 ownersZooeyModeratorI was surprised to discover I felt sadness when I heard the news. You know, celebrity humans come and go. It’s the way of the world.
Usually, I think, “Damn. I liked that guy.”
But there was a bit of sorrow with this one. Perhaps fondness developed in childhood is the most potent. I don’t know.
ZooeyModeratorTackleDummy wrote:
So if Davis sold any of his share of the Raiders he would not be in control of the Raiders.According to the NFL constitution, a principal or controlling owner must own at least 30% of a team.
I don’t know what that means in relation to the Raiders.
Whatever.
The 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.
ZooeyModeratorJust someone else’s opinion. And when was the last time they hosted a super bowl in a rams stadium? Oh yeah, never. Kroenke is building the stadium. It remains to be seen if the st. Louis proposal even gets off the ground. I just can’t see him letting another team play there whem he settles for a stadium he won’t own. Plus San Diego and Oakland don’t have any money. It’s all just a ploy to get a better deal where they are now.
Just my opinion like everyone else’s but none of the other makes sense to me. Build on toxic land lol. I just don’t see it happening.
Don’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 as 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.
ZooeyModeratorLet that last one sink in a bit. Sadly, this is what we are up against as a country.
Jim Inhofe brought a snowball onto the Senate floor as proof against global warming.
I think maybe it would be better (safer?) for the rest of the world if we weren’t a country anymore.
There should be a Mercy Rule.
Once a nation’s Total Stupidity Index reaches a certain level, it’s just time….
ZooeyModeratorZooey wrote:
nittany ram wrote:
Do you want to delete this, or did you just post it wrong? I can add-edit anything you want into the post. Up to you.
So, see…here’s the thing.
I wrote an absolutely scathing attack on Nittany. It was brilliant. Sure to reduce him to cinders. And tears. Only the whole thing hinged upon my assumption that the Rams actually CAN’T sign this guy right now because there is no signing of players for another 10 days.
Except that applies to free agents.
And I’m not sure about guys who got cut. They aren’t Free Agents in the same sense. I don’t know about the rules for signing these guys. And thinking that the pain of being exposed as ignorant myself right when I am arrogantly denouncing Nittany’s ignorance…well, I thought better of it.
Not because I was worried about MY reputation. I was just worried that everyone might lose sight of the fact that Nittany is an ignorant slut.
So I deleted it. Only I can’t delete the whole post. Something has to live in the box.
ZooeyModeratorBetween the llamas and the dress, you may have missed Fox News’ reaction to Net Neutrality decision
byJen HaydenFollowFebruary 26, 2015 was quite a day for the denizens of the internet world. First, the epic decision by the FCC to keep the internet open and free, followed by the great Arizona llama escape and finally the incredible dress debate.
In all the excitement, you probably missed the Fox News coverage of the Net Neutrality decision.
It’s the end of the internet as we know it!
“Broad regulation of how Americans use the internet.” Curious choice of language given that Net Neutrality is about maintaining an open internet.
Net Neutrality is the Internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online. This is the definition of an open Internet.Net Neutrality means an Internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that Internet service providers should provide us with open networks — and should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn’t decide who you can call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn’t be concerned with the content you view or post online.
Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open Internet.
So, how did Fox News fans react to the decision to keep the internet open and free? With unbridled outrage. Of course. I’m not including any names, only the comments, but below are a sample of the most uprated comments from the Fox News Facebook page:
Hey 51% of you morons voted for him twice. You get what you get. And for those of you who stayed home and didn’t vote for Mitt….up yours !
There goes Internet freedom. First thing will be no Fox News web site.
So I guess our first amendment rights don’t matter.
There goes the Internet as we know it.
Are we living in North Korea??? Wait.. we must not… they at least control their borders.
The Fall of Rome
Obama is trash
I didn’t realize that something needed to be “fixed”. Leave it to the government to step in a fix something that didn’t need to be fixed.
Take freedom one bite at a time and the country watches in silence.
Next he is after the bullets. How is it that we are putting up with this? I don’t care what this guy’s religion is or where he was born, it is too late to care about that, but I truly care that he is single handedly destroying the Constitution of the United States and for that he should be removed from office.
Venezuela did the same thing as they tightened down on their communist regime. Then when the GNB was arresting, raping, and killing student protesters, they blocked the Internet and social media accounts of dissidents who where uploading all the proof to Twitter and Facebook… And this was all last year, by the way.
The FCC just voted for government to sensor all content distributed onto the web. Prepare to be brainwashed with Liberal propaganda, and the word Freedom stripped from our vocabulary.
Thanks again to the uneducated voters who have laid out my children’s and Grand Children’s futures. Much appreciated.
Let that last one sink in a bit. Sadly, this is what we are up against as a country.
ZooeyModerator“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
“I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.February 26, 2015 at 10:25 pm in reply to: Facts related to NFL relocations (and a prediction) #19163ZooeyModeratorhe’s the only one of the three owners who just went forward with his plans and is making something happen.
This is the key to me.
For thirty years, there has been nothing but talk in LA about stadiums.
For 20 years, LA has been there for the taking.
Kroenke is the only guy who is making it happen. He owns the land. He has political clearance. He has the money. He needs No Help from anybody. The shovels are on site.
The other stuff matters. It matters a lot.
But the window of opportunity for alternatives is closing, and the competing groups have approximately a year to match, or there will be no showdown. Spanos can whine all day and night, but if he hasn’t got shovels on site, he’s toasted. Same with St. Louis.
I think there is enough time for those alternatives to match Kroenke and force a showdown, so it isn’t locked up, but those groups are going to have to show the committee a rock-solid plan, or they are going to be denied a seat at the table. Kroenke is already at the table.
By the way, I think the flaw in the St. Louis plan is that it asks Kroenke to pony up money. And I don’t think the NFL can tell a guy he HAS to spend his money on someone else’s business plan, regardless of how much they love that plan. They just cannot make him do it. The contract was to upgrade the dome, and they aren’t doing that, so no matter what, they are not meeting the terms of the agreement, and Kroenke is essentially a free agent. They can’t make him stay in the dome, and they can’t make him invest in the St. Louis stadium. So I don’t know where that leaves everything legally. The courts, I guess.
February 26, 2015 at 8:58 pm in reply to: Facts related to NFL relocations (and a prediction) #19155ZooeyModeratorI 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.
We disagree on #3 and #4, then.
The NFL would PREFER to abide by their bylaws, but I have every confidence they will weasel their way around them if they want to. I am sure their PR people will compile some manure to explain it all. If it comes to that.
I am less certain of #4. I used to think Kroenke wouldn’t go rogue, but “rogueishness” will come in degrees here. If – as I said – he gets, say, 20 or 22 votes, but not they requisite 24, I can see him plowing ahead. He will have a bunch of owners that have no stomach for a fight over the issue, a fight that is going to cost millions of dollars and damage the shield in the news, especially when they think his plan is a good one. I think in this case, everybody settles. Kroenke ends up paying a fee, or “fine,” or whatever makes the most sense in terms of PR, and that’s that. And if you agree that the NFL didn’t want a legal problem contesting Kroenke’s assumption of ownership of the Rams, I don’t know why you think they would have any greater stomach for a fight over LA when he is going to deliver a HUGE asset to the league and a majority of the owners favor it, even if it doesn’t quite hit the 75% bar. I mean…they aren’t going to vote 31-1 against this move. So what does going rogue even mean?
Meanwhile, Baron Kroenke has been working towards LA a LONG time, and he isn’t going to accept a minority bloc of votes killing his plan and just roll up his blueprints. He will take another swing at the fence post.
February 26, 2015 at 8:44 pm in reply to: Facts related to NFL relocations (and a prediction) #19154ZooeyModeratori still don’t understand why the league would favor a raiders/chargers move over a rams move. in fact, i’d see every reason to favor the rams move. kroenke would seem to be the more qualified owner. and the other team can always move at a later date and play in kroenke’s stadium.
plus, the chargers/raiders move depends on BOTH teams actually moving which is far from certain while kroenke seems intent on pushing through with the stadium project. and this is the league’s best opportunity yet to finally have an nfl team back in la. what happens if one of oakland or san diego come up with a stadium plan? the carson site is nixed and los angeles is again without a team. and i’m fairly confident the league does not want that to happen.
i agree with you. kroenke is a guy who is used to getting what he wants. the league also wants a strong owner in los angeles. spanos and davis don’t strike me as strong owners. at least in the business sense. kroenke might be a sociopath. but he’s a sociopath who gets things done. and that’d be just fine with the league.
They would favor the Raiders/Chargers over the Rams simply because St. Louis has offered a new stadium and SD and Oak have not. It’s the public appearance of the thing. The Rams’ move looks like the groom ditching the bride at the altar. Now they can spin that, and WILL spin that if the Carson project does not become viable in time, but with both projects viable, the jilting of St. Louis looks bad. And IS bad. They want LA, and they will jilt St. Louis if that is necessary, but they won’t jilt St. Louis if they can move other teams to LA with worse situations, and SD and Oak currently have no solutions on the horizon.
I don’t know what you even mean by “qualified” owner.
I think that if Carson falls apart, the NFL will back Kroenke’s move and try to lure either SD or Oak to St. Louis. Second choice would probably be to broker a deal where Kroenke and Davis trade teams and Davis keeps the Rams in St. L while Kroenke moves the Raiders to LA, or some variation of that.
If Carson AND St. Louis fall apart, the Rams move cleanly into LA, end of story. Maybe the remaining team joins them there later.
Kroenke will file to move at the end of next season, and the league will have to give him an answer. They won’t tell him No unless there is another LA plan nailed into place. There is no way the NFL does not have a team in LA in 2016. It will be the Rams, or the Chargers.
February 26, 2015 at 7:59 pm in reply to: Facts related to NFL relocations (and a prediction) #19149ZooeyModeratorright now st. louis, the raiders, and chargers are way behind kroenke. i wonder if that wins votes with the league.
I don’t think it does. What the NFL is going to want is Certainty, though. The timeline is less important.
So if the Carson deal is locked in, but a year behind, they might prefer that solution regardless of time.
But if the other things are not locked into place – while Kroenke’s already IS – then that is going to be a factor.
February 26, 2015 at 7:37 pm in reply to: Facts related to NFL relocations (and a prediction) #19147ZooeyModeratorI tend 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 just think the St. Louis stadium is “settling for less,” and I’m not sure he’s going to be happy with the runner-up proposal when there isn’t anything to stop him from taking first place in the beauty pageant except his own conscience. That biography of Kroenke I posted a few weeks ago portrays a man whose business approach is to make a business goal, and treat it like a fence post. You just keep banging on it, again and again, until you get what you want. He is steady, he is patient, and he is relentless. In the mean time, his stadium project is in the lead in the timeline. We’re at the quarter post, and Kroenke is in the lead by two lengths. Stopping Kroenke, I think, will require a firm and united NFL (if LA is what he truly wants, and all indications are that it is). I am not making a prediction on how this will end, but I will say that if Kroenke gets more than half of the owners – including some rich and powerful ones (and it appears he has Jerry Jones) – I’d be surprised if he takes No for an answer.
I don’t think they are going to persuade Kroenke. They are going to have to compel Kroenke.
He is not going to accept the Spanos/Davis LA “solution” as being more appropriate. What? They’re entitled to it cuz their daddies were pioneers, and they have family legacies, and they live closer anyway, and besides, they couldn’t get anything done in their hometowns, so they should get LA.
Yeah, I don’t think so. The man is a sociopath, and he isn’t going to feel sorry for Dean and Mark, especially now that they are gunking up his business plan. The NFL is either going to have to forcefully stop him by making it too painful for him to move, or bribe him somehow, maybe by some ownership transfers that leave the Rams in St. Louis and Kroenke in LA with a different team.
ZooeyModeratorShouldn’t the Rams have two picks in the first round? This one pick thing doesn’t seem like as good an idea.
ZooeyModeratorFebruary 25, 2015 at 6:35 pm in reply to: NFL will 'sweeten the pot' to keep the Rams in St. Louis #19084ZooeyModeratorI was just griping to someone today
about California. It seems like yall
get to vote on things out there.
Referendums on this and that.
We dont get to have ref-erendums in WV.I’d like to start a referendum about
giving us the right to have referendums.w
vReally?
Be careful what you wish for.
We started ballot propositions in California in the late 70s, so that we could pass bills that them damn politicians won’t or can’t. Great idea.
Now we get Safe Drinking Water initiatives that are backed by astroturf “citizens groups” that get their money from Monsanto, and propositions to reform education financing, only there will suddenly be 3 propositions on the same ballot that all claim to do great things for education reform, all with poison pills that will have to be litigated, and backed by carefully concealed interests, and to be honest, I don’t think most California voters actually read the complete text of each proposition before making their voting decisions.
And if the stadium goes to a vote in Inglewood, it will all be about traffic congestion, and crime, and drunkenness, and business revenue, and taxes in versus taxes out, with all kinds of tv commercials claiming completely different things with no way of knowing if anybody is even trying to tell the truth, and even if they are, if what they are saying is actually accurate because who the hell can figure any of this out?
So the real vote will be on “Do you want the NFL, specifically the Rams, right here in Inglewood, or not?” because that’s all most of the voters will care about, and all the other issues are just going to be market tested to find out where it is worthwhile to invest advertising dollars to bang a drum long enough to chip off a percentage of undecided voters.
If you want that kind of democracy in West Virginia, you are welcome to take California’s version of it, as far as I’m concerned.
What we’ve ended up with here is a lot of voters thinking they know more than the legislators, and that they can budget better than the state government can (cuz gov’t misappropriates all the $), and a lot of good causes got voted intractable amounts of the general budget to the point that our state government can’t actually govern anything anymore, and the voters have gone and misspent the money worse than the government ever did, and there’s nothing that can be done about it.
February 25, 2015 at 2:25 pm in reply to: NFL will 'sweeten the pot' to keep the Rams in St. Louis #19059ZooeyModeratorAny opponents of the Inglewood plan, dubbed the City of Champions Revitalization Project, now have 30 days to file a referendum to force a public vote.
Per LA Times
ZooeyModeratorAnd he’s already torn a meniscus, so he should fit right in with the guys.
-
AuthorPosts