Jenna M. Prosceno · Top Commenter · Author/Vlogger at Liveyourpositivelife.com
“Union Shills” the same people that brought you the 40 hour work week, OSHA, the Labor Board, and made making 6 year olds working hard labor illegal. Yep, got it.
Reply · Like · 119 · 23 hours ago

Tony Schipani · Top Commenter
Jenna M. Prosceno The 40 hour work week is dead, I’ve never only worked 40 hours in my life. If unions are supposed to help worker’s rights, they are doing a terrible job. The only thing that unions are good for is to shovel millions of member’s dollars into politicians pockets.
Reply · Like · 253 · 23 hours ago

Hunh. Weird how that rise in the expectation that the labor force will work more than 40 hours corresponds with the weakening of unions across the board.

But Tony can’t connect those dots.

You’re right, PA. It’s just truly depressing. The whole situation. We have millions of people who are hard-hearted against their OWN interests. It is truly weird.

I just want everyone to know that I haven’t sent any PMs to you.

A losing season in 2016.

IMO, SK considered Fisher’s experience with the Houston/Tennessee transition as part of his value when he hired him.

Agamemnon wrote:

I’m guessing he didn’t snap this photo in Fisher’s office.

zn wrote:

..

Big overstuffed chat with only a few highlights (though zooey got a question in, maybe other huddle folk too).

..

Which he made up an answer for. Which is fine. I wouldn’t expect the question to interest him, or anyone else but me. And he didn’t know.

rfl wrote:

Just listened to it. They had a pre-recorded section and a recent one. A bit hard to figure nout what they think now.

In terms of predictions, I think they are too optimistic about …

1. The problem Kroenke will have with Spanos & Davis and the Old Boys Club among the owners.

2. The league’s necessity of solving the problems at OAK and SD before accommodating Stan.

3. The league’s likely commitment to honoring the StL willingness to build 2 stadia in 20 years.

What Stan is offering in Inglewood, IMO, just bowls over those sorts of principles. Every owner will see what a crown jewel the site will be for the league. Maybe a couple will vote no on principle, but only if the vote is sure otherwise. Then it can be a free, protest vote which won’t stop the train gathering steam.

Ever since I heard about Stan’s vision for the Inglewood site, I figured the Rams would be playing in there. No way to stop it, is my guess.

Of course, this is all speculative prediction. I express no opinion about what SHOULD happen.

Although I’ve written quite a bit about this topic, I have refrained from making any predictions because there are just so many moving parts, and so many ways new injections can change things, that it isn’t worth bothering predicting outcomes. Like…who saw the Carson project coming?

And, of course, it’s complicated. There are all those by-laws, the Peacock proposal, now the Carson proposal, the politics of owner votes, legacies and brands, potential litigation, three current municipalities with teams, and two LA sites.

But I think I keep circling around to what you just said: what Stan is proposing in Inglewood just bowls over everybody’s principles.

I think there will be a lot of arguing, and a lot of genuine conflict both internal and external among the owners, but I just don’t know how – in the end – the owners don’t just look at the Inglewood project – a football palace like Jerry Jones’ – with a billboard roof, and a entirely new surrounding upscale community (as opposed to both the literal and figurative dump that is Carson), and say no to that. His proposal exceeds their dreams for “doing it right in LA” both because it’s a palace, and because it’s privately owned. If it weren’t for the Peacock proposal, there would be nothing to do but wait for the inevitable rubber stamp.

As it is, Stan’s way solves everybody’s problems in the best possible manner. Stan’s stadium holds the Rams and Chargers. Spanos keeps his San Diego fans/market. Raiders move to St. Louis and get renamed, and have an in state rivalry with the Chiefs. Everybody’s problem is solved, and while there is short term pain in SD, OAK, and STL, in the long run really only the Raiders fans get screwed, and no tears will get shed over them anyway.

I’ve been surprised by a few twists and turns already in this saga, but I don’t expect the outcome(s) to change unless somebody quickly introduces another sweet (and viable) stadium plan in the next 5 months.

InvaderRam wrote:

i just remember how fisher kept telling thomas there was no way the rams were trading sam. flat out denied it. we all know what happened.

so do i think the league can pull the rug out from under st. louis while saying in public that they will not abandon them? absolutely.

They absolutely can.

Remember that as this story unfolds, and we encounter twists and turns that change what the landscape looks like from one week to the next, the one thing never to lose sight of is the fact that this is a business.

And in the end, the NFL is going to make the decision they think is best for the business.

Not for any one city. Not for any one owner. But for the business as a whole.

zn wrote:

You’re not supposed to be able to move a franchise just to enrich yourself. Stan was awarded a franchise in the St. Louis market. Why doesn’t he use that money _ and it would take less than half of what he’s spending in LA _ to build a stadium in the St. Louis market? Oh right. He wants to enrich himself.

My thought when I read that?

A lot of owners will see it as enriching the league. Kind of different if there’s something in it for everybody.

And while I don’t think it increases the day-to-day operational revenue significantly, that stadium and the surrounding area looks like a gorgeous made-for-TV Super Bowl site. Not to mention a weekly studio site. Los Angeles is a fashionable street in this here town of USA.

Does the NFL want a team in LA in a great stadium? Yes, it does.

Is that going to be an expansion team? Nobody’s in the mood for expansion.

So, a current team? Yes.

Meaning…some city is going to get screwed and lose a team? Well…yes.

Can the NFL live with that? Yes.

Doubts are forming re: Wisniewski. I thought he is supposed to be pretty good, and there are a few teams in need of a center.

zn wrote:

Anyway a lot of this is all confusion-ville.

They may not be simplifying the offense, but they ARE changing it—tweaking it, more like.

From another article (from today):

===

Fisher Talks Offensive Roster Moves

Myles Simmons

http://www.stlouisrams.com/news-and-events/article-1/Fisher-Talks-Offensive-Roster-Moves/6eb9cbf9-0083-4645-826d-59105cc64ea5

Fisher didn’t divulge much about those offensive changes, other than saying that the team would like to get rid of the ball quicker.

…

“One factor to consider is the offensive change,” Fisher said. “We’re going to be doing different things.”

I think long drives that end in TDs is better than just getting rid of the ball.

I don’t think I would go so far as to say the fix is in. There is still the matter of an owners vote.

I have said from the beginning of this that I didn’t think the by-laws would dictate the outcome(s), but I do not think the vote of the owners can be dismissed as easily.

What is happening is that the NFL is setting the table to cover all of their options. And I don’t think they are “fixing” the studies by deliberately harvesting skewed results. They probably want accurate market assessments, so if some PSL holder got left out, it was either an accident, or he wasn’t a necessary part of market analysis. Not conspiracy. Because they want an accurate study. They don’t need an inaccurate study to say what they want; they can take an accurate study and spin it to say what they want, anyway. It is better to have accurate information (that can be twisted to say whatever they want) than it is to have faulty information. There is a lot of money at stake here, and a lot of greedy/ambitious people. They want the best deal. And successful billionaires don’t go around lying to themselves. They lie to other people.

So what we have here is that Kroenke has one hell of a sexy project designed for Los Angeles, has all the private financing, and has his engine warmed up just waiting for the light to turn green. Furthermore, the Rams are the most popular team in LA, so they win the check mark in that column, too. They are out in front.

The problem is that they aren’t the only team that has interest in LA, and St. Louis is ahead of the other municipalities in solving their local stadium “problem.” The by-laws would dictate that the Rams do not have sufficient grounds to leave their community. So the NFL is considering – it isn’t DONE yet – moving up the timeline for relocation applications. That does two things: one, it probably really IS necessary since a team moving to LA is going to have to lease facilities to play in, and practice in, etc. And these places book their engagements well in advance. You can’t just schedule 8 home games in someone else’s stadium whenever you feel like it. Second, it shortens the race by moving the finish line up. That hurts St. Louis’ chances of having an “actionable” plan in place when decision time comes. It makes it easier for the NFL to say, “Too late.” If they decide to go that way.

Bear in mind, though, that it also makes it nearly impossible for San Diego and/or Oakland to come up with anything in time. What it does is cover the NFL’s ass regardless of what they do, and it may possibly make something shake loose in other cities.

I will add that Bernie’s last couple of columns (both on this subject) have been as clear-eyed as I can recall Bernie ever being. I just thought I would throw that in here because usually I roll my eyes at his various tantrums.

This is clearly an issue of sage.

In 99, we correctly diagnosed that the Rams were cursed, although there remained dispute as to where the curse came from. We also correctly identified the cure. There was a lot of burning with sage. The Rams won, and everyone became complacent.

The curse has returned. It is most obviously manifested in the OL. And the cure is probably sage.

It’s worth a try.

Someone go find Old Hacker.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Interesting board glitch.

Sorry. What is?

The last post on page one.

Interesting board glitch.

On the bright side, this will NEVER happen again.