InvaderRam wrote:

somewhat misleading. all zelasko and johnson do is throw out some rumor that there was an 8 to 10 vote in favor of a rams move, but they make it clear they don’t know where this vote came from. they only suppose it’s from the finance committee because of the ten total votes. they also throw out a rumor that mayor butts supposedly said gave a cryptic answer when someone asked if there would be an announcement in August about the rams moving to los angeles, which he completely denied saying later.

so no real information here other than rumor mongering.

Yes, there are some articles out there about Mayor Butts. Some reporter from KTLA said he had a text from an extremely reliable source that said the Rams are moving to LA for sure, and the announcement is coming in August. He claimed to have spoken with Butts at some event with 500 people, with the fire chief and police chief of Inglewood also in the conversation, during which Butts allegedly confirmed the story.

Skeptics point out that the story is unbelievable because – among other things – the window to file for relocation isn’t even open, and furthermore, making an announcement in August would be terrible timing for the NFL because it would cost millions of dollars in lost revenue.

It’s possible the finance committee approved Kroenke’s project FROM A FINANCIAL STANDPOINT, and that got “telephoned” from one person to another as a vote to approve the move.

sdram wrote:

We’re surrounded by native American sites here in SD and if anything is unearthed while digging anything – construction stops until it gets sorted out. How long depends on the significance of what was unearthed and how big it is.

Apparently Missouri does not have those protective laws.

It is private land, and they can do whatever they want as long as they do not take any federal money for the project. I have no idea how they would get federal money anyway, or if that was part of their planning.

But it seems to me that this is – at best – a PR snag Peacock cannot afford, since the need to have everything nailed down is urgent. At worst, there could be litigation, though I don’t know what grounds anyone would have to sue over it.

Kroenke is opening a bottle of his finest tonight, methinks.

Well, I wish I could fast forward to the part about the Rams, especially since I accidentally refreshed the page and have to start again at the beginning of a 43 minute piece.

But my reaction without hearing it is this: the NFL Finance Committee’s approval was a foregone conclusion, I would think. It doesn’t mean approval of the move. All it means is that the committee believes that the financing to back the plan is reliable, and they verify that the project is financially sound. That’s all it means, though, and everybody already knew that. So Kroenke is in the lead at that particular post again, but – again – that was already known. Carson and St. Louis are still assembling financing, and San Diego and Oakland don’t have anything to finance yet.

If Carson or St. Louis gets financing together, they can pull even with Kroenke instantly. Then they move on to the other considerations. If they don’t get financing together, they are out anyway. So this is not game-changing information.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

And three rookies?

Well to be annoyingly exact, it’s not 3 rookies. The center will be Barnes, Jones, or Rhaney, none of whom of course are rookies.

AND this team likes its placeholders. They have several candidates to hold down the guard spot until Brown is ready. Or, ready-er. That’s anyone from Washinton to Bond to Reynolds to Unknown Player to be Named Later. I mean think of who they have used at guard so far since 2012—Turner, Smith, Williams. Is there someone on the roster at least as good as them? Could be, sure.

Now granted I did not just describe the 70s or 80s Rams OL.

But it is at least better than “3 rookies.”

Technically. OK.

But they are redshirted, basically.

If Barnes starts, it’s a bad sign, and if it’s Jones or Rhaney, it’s a rookie. Basically.

At center, no less.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/25191640/chargers-raiders-stadium-co-op-fast-tracks-nfls-la-return-but-rams-may-fight

LaCanfora thinks Carson has the advantage.

JASON LA CANFORA
CBS Sports NFL Insider

Chargers-Raiders stadium co-op leads NFL’s LA return, but Rams may fight

The joint stadium project between the Chargers and Raiders in Carson, Calif., continues to gain momentum and there was strong positive buzz about their plan coming out owners meeting in San Francisco this week, according to several high-ranking ownership sources. Meanwhile, concerns linger as to whether Rams owner Stan Kroenke can force his way out of St. Louis without a protracted fight.

Chargers owner Dean Spanos, among the league’s more respected owners, has exhibited great patience in navigating his franchise through an uncertain stadium situation in San Diego and continued to earn kudos from other ownership groups at the meeting. The NFL intent to be in Los Angeles by 2016 cannot be understated and several sources maintained they would have to consider the Chargers/Raiders project in Carson as the early favorite.

There is a certain political element to this process, in securing necessary votes for franchise relocation — in this case a dual relocation — and Spanos has moved expertly, sources said. And Raiders owners Mark Davis is a highly-motivated wingman willing to let Spanos take the lead when required. The Raiders are mostly willing to do what the league wants, and go along for the ride to Southern California and plentiful revenue streams that come from a new facility. The willingness to collaborate with the Chargers, their longtime rivals, speaks to the potential potency of this project and it continues to curry favor with other important owners at a critical.

Meanwhile, Kroenke has shown willingness to go rogue and faces more of an uphill climb with his Inglewood project, at least in lining up support from owners on the powerful stadium and finance committees, sources said. With his full-speed-ahead approach regarding LA, he’s seen as more of an outsider than Spanos and has rubbed the league office the wrong way. So all things being equal, people very close to some of the NFL’s most respected ownership groups believe the Carson project has the best chance of winning this race.

That’s not to say Kroenke will go easily, and this scenario could be a precursor to an ugly legal fight. The NFL could well deem St. Louis has a formidable ongoing stadium project and the Chargers and Raiders are in greater need of a new immediate home. But with Kroenke procuring the land and a finance deal on his own, and his St. Louis lease up again at the end of the season, he just might — ironically — take a page from Al Davis’ book and go to court to fight for his right to party every Sunday in Los Angeles rather than stay in St. Louis, where he clearly has no plans of staying.

Don’t discount for an instant Kroenke’s desire to get to California, but he’s failed to curry favor the same way others have and the NFL will flex its muscles to maintain control of the process. Telling any uber-successful magnate what he can or can’t do with his business and land is always a good way to prompt a significant response, and that’s just what we might get in this case.

As for the Chargers and Raiders, if they merely stay in course, things could be lining up their way. It’s clear the municipalities around Carson are on board. Certainly a hurdle or two could come their way — AEG will try to obfuscate the process, I’m sure — and there could be environmental issues down the road (there often are, especially in California) but this thing is coming to a head by the winter and the support behind this project is strengthening at the league’s highest reaches.

Could well be the Chargers and Raiders both move in 2016. It would take two game-day facilities to do so — sources at The Rose Bowl have continued to tell me they cannot support two teams at the same time — and it could be both teams would use their current training facilities for practices for the first season in LA. Some in the know have speculated the Chargers, in exchange for getting the keys to LA, end up moving to the NFC, with perhaps the Cardinals going to the AFC West, which would maintain the Raiders’ rivalries with the Chiefs and Broncos, for as much as that is worth.

Bottom line is if it gets to that stage, the issue of realignment would be no hindrance. There are plenty of parties more than motivated to shuffle around their current division to complete this complicated deal, and the right people continue to have a positive enough view of the Carson solution to make me believe that’s likely where this thing is headed, barring unforeseen roadblocks forming. And all that could well lead to a lot of very rich lawyers getting even richer should Kroenke take the nuclear route to getting what he wants.

InvaderRam wrote:

yeah. it’s all pretty obscene. but that’s what the nfl wants.

inglewood is also undergoing mass gentrification. you got santa monica, venice, marina del rey, and manhattan beach to the west. beverly hills and west los angeles are less than 30 minutes to the north. it would be an absolute spectacle during super bowls and possible pro bowls. and like you said with all the hotels, shopping, and other venues. there’d definitely be that hollywood party atmosphere. plus nfl network would be based there. a kind of second home base. i also see the nfl draft being held there. it’d be a prime spot for celebrities to be seen being so close to the airport and beaches.

carson? it’s kind of a dump. redondo beach and long beach aren’t so happening. inglewood is a dump too. but like i said. real estate developers in california see a lot of potential there.

Ever been to Disneyland?

Just on the other side of that glamorous facade…is a shitty Anaheim boulevard.

But it isn’t part of your world when you’re in Disneyland. You are in the Magic Kingdom.

Nobody cares what Inglewood looks like on the backside of those chic sidewalk cafes just across the plaza from that fabulous stadium. There will be enough stuff around for the cameras to love.

InvaderRam wrote:

yeah. this is the same group of billionaires who have no problem holding cities hostage and trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of them for a new stadium.

my best guess is the raiders to st. louis. if it’s true that davis will have a hard time keeping the team after carol passes, he will need to sell the team. it solves a lot of problems. it gets rid of the raiders whose name is mostly irrelevant in today’s nfl. it gets rid of the davis name which has been a sore spot for the owners. it establishes a true geographical rivalry between kansas city and st. louis. the rams are back in los angeles which the league was against in the first place. it establishes one of its strongest owners (let me emphasize that by strong i mean rich) in the second biggest media market in the nation.

and if i was kroenke. this would be my biggest selling point. if the chargers somehow stay in san diego. the league can still extort money from cities by threatening a move of a second team to los angeles to play in kroenke’s brand new stadium.

nefarious i tell ya. nefarious.

Absolutely. Yes. All of that.

Dak wrote:

I can see a scenario where Stan tries to poach Stanos and make him more more a partner in the Inglewood deal, leaving Oakland out to dry.

If I were the Raiders’ owner, I’d make it sound like St. Louis was an intriguing option, because if they lose the L.A. market, they’re going to need more options to force a deal in Oakland.

I agree with that. Especially since the San Antonio threat never got any traction.

And what St. Louis has to offer is above the median point in the league, I would think. It’s a more attractive community and stadium than most teams have.

Herzog wrote:

Well, nobody can force them to move to St. Louis if they don’t want to. Or can they?

I agree, no stadium sharing and no turf. I guess Kroenke would want two teams as this means more profits for him.

I doubt they can force a move. But that isn’t the way it’s usually done in business and politics. It’s usually leverage, rather than a demand. They can probably create circumstances in which moving is the best option for the Raiders. Pretty simple, really. “You’re not going to Los Angeles. Oakland isn’t building a stadium for you. Here’s St. Louis. What would you like to do?”

I did a bit of reading around. Carol is 82 years old now. It doesn’t seem likely that Mark can afford the taxes any more than Georgia’s heirs could. And a move to LA would increase the value of the Raiders, and hence the unlikelihood that Mark could afford the tax bill.

This is some high stakes poker here. And the game is still afoot. It’s just that the Raiders got the shittiest hand when the cards were dealt.

PA Ram wrote:

This is all going to be very interesting when it gets to the finish line.

It’s musical chairs and someone is not getting a chair.

The team that “feels” like the odd team out is Oakland. Maybe that’s just because they’ve been the quietest team during all this. There is no doubt that the Chargers and Rams are full speed ahead toward L.A. but because their moves involve two different stadiums, something has to give somewhere. At some point the NFL will have to get Spanos and Kroenke and Davis in a room and lock the door and not come out until it’s all sorted out and even then–if things go badly you have to wonder if teams will say “screw it” and do what they want to do anyway.

I still feel, at the end of the day, that somehow it’s going to be the Rams and Chargers but nothing is carved in stone yet.

We’ll see.

Oakland does feel like the odd team out.

1. In the survey of the LA market, there was a great deal of interest in the Rams, some in the Chargers, and little for the Raiders. In fact, there was some negative response to the Raiders.

2. The Raiders are the poorest team. They can’t do anything without help. They can’t build a stadium. How are they going to pay a relocation fee?

3. The Raiders have the shakiest ownership. I didn’t know this before now, but apparently Davis is going to have to pass through inheritance issues where Chip and Lucia could not. A Raiders sale? Subsidize a team moving to LA when ownership could be uncertain soon?

In contrast, Kroenke is a titan financially, and has an entire complex ready to go, and can afford to pay the NFL a substantial fee, plus provide an entire Super Bowl party venue.

I do not think the Raiders have any control of their destiny. Whatever is going to happen to them in the next decade is going to happen TO them. Davis can say whatever he wants about the Raiders’ destiny. I think their destiny is going to be determined by 31 other owners.

And I’m with WV. I don’t want the Rams to share a stadium.

Can only speculate, obviously. But I am going to guess that Barksdale’s value to the Rams dropped when Havenstein was picked. They have that guy slated to start. That means that, at best Barksdale would be a placeholder for a handful of games, and then go be quality backup. You don’t pay $4 million for a backup RT.

I’m guessing the Rams “interest” in Barksdale post-draft was of the “come-down-to-earth” variety, and whatever they may have offered before was probably withdrawn.

And I think I have to agree that he should find a new agent. Given the depth of OL in this draft, his value was only going to go down afterwards.

I am glad my name is not Chase Goodbread.

laram wrote:

bnw wrote:

wv wrote:

—————————————
Laramie

You can grind it out all day but it’s gonna take more plays which increases the odds for error.

If I have a superior pass game, I don’t need as many possessions.

We’ll see how it all plays out, but I’m usually pretty dialed in on the Rams.
=================

For someone who claims to be dialed into the Rams he’s missed the main goal (besides winning) of Fisher’s system. That is he wants a ball control offense to keep the other teams defense on the field and wore down by the 4th quarter. The assumption is our defense will be better rested and able to keep our offense within 7 points of the lead starting their final game winning drive while running out the clock.

I think even Ray Charles can see what Fisher wants to do.

Again a superior pass offense doesn’t need as many possessions to score.

Who were the rb’s for the last 5 SB winners? Quick name them??

Exactly.

Okay. But there was no way they were going to get a superior pass offense in this draft.

Gurley was there at 10. Cooper and White were gone. And Foles…well…he isn’t Warner. Who also was unavailable at 10.

Things are never easy, are they?

This right here is exactly why I would never want to have the job of a judge.

I will say this.

My compassion level for Phillips just went up. I find that’s what information often does to early judgement.

I don’t know, man. Tragedy. The whole story. Just tragedy.

bnw wrote:

Again it doesn’t have to be an ACL. As serious an injury as an ACL. Any of those four enter the league as injured as Gurley? The Rams have such great need other places and RB wasn’t one. An injured one at that. Great expectations for TA which haven’t materialized is this deja vu? Is this what our draft board does for the offense? Will this extend the Rams streak of 11 years since a first round pick on offense has been worth it? This pick makes my stomach churn.

Whom would you have taken? Waynes? Peat? Parker?