| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CalifornianRam
Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Posts: 470
Location: Porterville, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
D9-EM
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 442
Location: St. Louis, MO
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Its not a surprise that they didn't accept each others first offers. I fully believe the Rams will stay and even I was expecting arbitration. The good news is that both sides have agreed to negotiate on their own before the process begins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CalifornianRam
Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Posts: 470
Location: Porterville, California
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
It said we had to be in the top 25% of the league and i think its going to be hard to improve the "Dungeon" into a top tier stadium of the league. just to provide the facts the top 8 team stadiums in the league read as thus:
1.Cowbows
2.Colts
3.Cardinals
4.Packers
5.49ers (their stadium should be open in the 2015 season)
6.Giants/Jets
7.Seahawks
8.Lions
here are two more who will be tough to pass on the list
9.Ravens
10.Texans
i truly believe they cant modify one of the worst stadiums in football into something spectacular and manage to pass up these other stadiums. i cant see it happening. plus i dont for see people paying out of their pockets for renovations on a stadium they never go to when they would rather go to a STL Cardinals game or Blues game. Yes the oh so old thing to reassure a Stl native is to say there is no fan support here in LA not true, the rams while here was one of the most attended teams in the league and still hold a record for consistent sell out crowds.
also if kronke is such a huge fan and native of STL then why was his original plan (which was to shut the stadium for a year while the renovations happened) would actually have lost the city in millions in convention based revenue. so why is his plan backfiring on the city?
_________________
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv308/jotto89/SamBradfordsig2.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bluesfreak74
Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 1738
Location: Illinois
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:13 pm Post subject: Re: Rams Dome Proposal Rejected |
|
|
|
Because these things take so quickly to resolve..
Everybody knew the CVC would reject it.
_________________
El Ramster on this beaut! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StLunatic88
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 7252
Location: How good is your Good?
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CaliforniaRam, you are so desperate for this to be a real story its really quite amusing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 32772
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CalifornianRam wrote: | | also if kronke is such a huge fan and native of STL then why was his original plan (which was to shut the stadium for a year while the renovations happened) would actually have lost the city in millions in convention based revenue. so why is his plan backfiring on the city? |
If Kroenke was planning to move to LA, why did he pull out of bidding for the Dodgers when Goodell warned him that LA was going to get a football team and he'd have to give up the Dodgers?
I mean if he was planning to move the Rams to LA then he wouldn't have to give up the Dodgers and would have no reason to pull out of the bidding.
Yea, I know, you aren't allowed to be logical when talking about this tired subject. 
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The J.R.S.
Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Posts: 2789
Location: Next to Waldo
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | CalifornianRam wrote: | | also if kronke is such a huge fan and native of STL then why was his original plan (which was to shut the stadium for a year while the renovations happened) would actually have lost the city in millions in convention based revenue. so why is his plan backfiring on the city? |
If Kroenke was planning to move to LA, why did he pull out of bidding for the Dodgers when Goodell warned him that LA was going to get a football team and he'd have to give up the Dodgers?
I mean if he was planning to move the Rams to LA then he wouldn't have to give up the Dodgers and would have no reason to pull out of the bidding.
Yea, I know, you aren't allowed to be logical when talking about this tired subject. |
I'm not sure what you are saying above. I think you mis typed something...
_________________
Real sports fans do not condone ESPN. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 32772
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| The J.R.S. wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | CalifornianRam wrote: | | also if kronke is such a huge fan and native of STL then why was his original plan (which was to shut the stadium for a year while the renovations happened) would actually have lost the city in millions in convention based revenue. so why is his plan backfiring on the city? |
If Kroenke was planning to move to LA, why did he pull out of bidding for the Dodgers when Goodell warned him that LA was going to get a football team and he'd have to give up the Dodgers?
I mean if he was planning to move the Rams to LA then he wouldn't have to give up the Dodgers and would have no reason to pull out of the bidding.
Yea, I know, you aren't allowed to be logical when talking about this tired subject. |
I'm not sure what you are saying above. I think you mis typed something... |
I promise you I didn't. A little hard to understand without this though so I probably should have included this:
| Quote: | | Kroenke, who also owns the National Basketball Association’s Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche of the National Hockey League and Arsenal, the English soccer club, was interested in buying Major League Baseball’s Los Angeles Dodgers from Frank McCourt, but pulled out of the bidding near the end of the sale process because he was told by the NFL Los Angeles is likely to get a football team in the near future. That would have required Kroenke to sell either the Dodgers or Rams (unless he made one of his family members the controlling owner) because the NFL does not permit its owners to have teams in another sport where there is an NFL team. |
Basically, if Kroenke wanted to move the Rams to LA, why would he need to pull out of the Dodgers bidding?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The J.R.S.
Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Posts: 2789
Location: Next to Waldo
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | The J.R.S. wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | CalifornianRam wrote: | | also if kronke is such a huge fan and native of STL then why was his original plan (which was to shut the stadium for a year while the renovations happened) would actually have lost the city in millions in convention based revenue. so why is his plan backfiring on the city? |
If Kroenke was planning to move to LA, why did he pull out of bidding for the Dodgers when Goodell warned him that LA was going to get a football team and he'd have to give up the Dodgers?
I mean if he was planning to move the Rams to LA then he wouldn't have to give up the Dodgers and would have no reason to pull out of the bidding.
Yea, I know, you aren't allowed to be logical when talking about this tired subject. |
I'm not sure what you are saying above. I think you mis typed something... |
I promise you I didn't. A little hard to understand without this though so I probably should have included this:
| Quote: | | Kroenke, who also owns the National Basketball Association’s Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche of the National Hockey League and Arsenal, the English soccer club, was interested in buying Major League Baseball’s Los Angeles Dodgers from Frank McCourt, but pulled out of the bidding near the end of the sale process because he was told by the NFL Los Angeles is likely to get a football team in the near future. That would have required Kroenke to sell either the Dodgers or Rams (unless he made one of his family members the controlling owner) because the NFL does not permit its owners to have teams in another sport where there is an NFL team. |
Basically, if Kroenke wanted to move the Rams to LA, why would he need to pull out of the Dodgers bidding? |
I promise you did,lol.
"If Kroenke was planning on moving to LA, why did he pull out of the bidding for the Dodgers.."
I think you meant "was not". Then it would make sense.
_________________
Real sports fans do not condone ESPN. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StLunatic88
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 7252
Location: How good is your Good?
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
No 'was' is the correct word there.
If he was planning to move to LA, then owning the Dodgers wouldnt be a problem because he would then own both the NFL and MLB team and there would be no problem.
But if he didnt plan on owning the NFL's LA franchise then he would have to sell the Dodgers shortly after buying them and doesnt want to have to do that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 32772
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| StLunatic88 wrote: | No 'was' is the correct word there.
If he was planning to move to LA, then owning the Dodgers wouldnt be a problem because he would then own both the NFL and MLB team and there would be no problem.
But if he didnt plan on owning the NFL's LA franchise then he would have to sell the Dodgers shortly after buying them and doesnt want to have to do that. |
Exactly.
It was a question.
There would be no reason to ask the question if it said "was not".
Why? Lets look at it:
If Kroenke was not planning on moving the Rams to LA, why would he pull out of bidding for the Dodgers?
Well, the answer is in the first clause, what's the point of asking the question?
The point of asking it the way I did was to show how illogical it is to believe that Kroenke is planning to move the team because his actions don't mirror that claim.(i.e. why would he pull out of bidding for the Dodgers if he wants to move the Rams to LA?)
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The J.R.S.
Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Posts: 2789
Location: Next to Waldo
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | StLunatic88 wrote: | No 'was' is the correct word there.
If he was planning to move to LA, then owning the Dodgers wouldnt be a problem because he would then own both the NFL and MLB team and there would be no problem.
But if he didnt plan on owning the NFL's LA franchise then he would have to sell the Dodgers shortly after buying them and doesnt want to have to do that. |
Exactly.
It was a question.
There would be no reason to ask the question if it said "was not".
Why? Lets look at it:
If Kroenke was not planning on moving the Rams to LA, why would he pull out of bidding for the Dodgers?
Well, the answer is in the first clause, what's the point of asking the question?
The point of asking it the way I did was to show how illogical it is to believe that Kroenke is planning to move the team because his actions don't mirror that claim.(i.e. why would he pull out of bidding for the Dodgers if he wants to move the Rams to LA?) |
My head is still spinning. I'll take your word for it. Like I said, I wasn't sure what you meant. Now I get what you're saying.
I've said all along that there is no way the Rams move back to L.A. and this rejection means nothing to me. I would have put the odds of any first proposal being accepted at 100-1 and taken bets all day.
We'll end up building a new stadium, especially if Fisher and company can start winning this year and next.
_________________
Real sports fans do not condone ESPN. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 32772
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| The J.R.S. wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | StLunatic88 wrote: | No 'was' is the correct word there.
If he was planning to move to LA, then owning the Dodgers wouldnt be a problem because he would then own both the NFL and MLB team and there would be no problem.
But if he didnt plan on owning the NFL's LA franchise then he would have to sell the Dodgers shortly after buying them and doesnt want to have to do that. |
Exactly.
It was a question.
There would be no reason to ask the question if it said "was not".
Why? Lets look at it:
If Kroenke was not planning on moving the Rams to LA, why would he pull out of bidding for the Dodgers?
Well, the answer is in the first clause, what's the point of asking the question?
The point of asking it the way I did was to show how illogical it is to believe that Kroenke is planning to move the team because his actions don't mirror that claim.(i.e. why would he pull out of bidding for the Dodgers if he wants to move the Rams to LA?) |
My head is still spinning. I'll take your word for it. Like I said, I wasn't sure what you meant. Now I get what you're saying.
I've said all along that there is no way the Rams move back to L.A. and this rejection means nothing to me. I would have put the odds of any first proposal being accepted at 100-1 and taken bets all day.
We'll end up building a new stadium, especially if Fisher and company can start winning this year and next. |
I agree. I don't see Kroenke moving the Rams. We'll either see a new stadium or them spend a lot of money to upgrade the old one.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bluesfreak74
Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 1738
Location: Illinois
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| The J.R.S. wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | StLunatic88 wrote: | No 'was' is the correct word there.
If he was planning to move to LA, then owning the Dodgers wouldnt be a problem because he would then own both the NFL and MLB team and there would be no problem.
But if he didnt plan on owning the NFL's LA franchise then he would have to sell the Dodgers shortly after buying them and doesnt want to have to do that. |
Exactly.
It was a question.
There would be no reason to ask the question if it said "was not".
Why? Lets look at it:
If Kroenke was not planning on moving the Rams to LA, why would he pull out of bidding for the Dodgers?
Well, the answer is in the first clause, what's the point of asking the question?
The point of asking it the way I did was to show how illogical it is to believe that Kroenke is planning to move the team because his actions don't mirror that claim.(i.e. why would he pull out of bidding for the Dodgers if he wants to move the Rams to LA?) |
My head is still spinning. I'll take your word for it. Like I said, I wasn't sure what you meant. Now I get what you're saying.
I've said all along that there is no way the Rams move back to L.A. and this rejection means nothing to me. I would have put the odds of any first proposal being accepted at 100-1 and taken bets all day.
We'll end up building a new stadium, especially if Fisher and company can start winning this year and next. |
They will renovate the dome before they build a new one. I don't know of any space in downtown they can build a stadium right now unless they bought some buildings and bulldozed them down which is highly unlikely.
_________________
El Ramster on this beaut! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StLunatic88
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 7252
Location: How good is your Good?
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| bluesfreak74 wrote: | | They will renovate the dome before they build a new one. I don't know of any space in downtown they can build a stadium right now unless they bought some buildings and bulldozed them down which is highly unlikely. |
A new stadium is the end goal for Kroenke, that is the major reason his original proposal has been concidered outlandish by some. He knows that they cant really make the Dome how he wants it, so right now its all about finding a number of how much the team is worth to the city so he can buy his way out.
Stan understands the "culture" of professional football, that haveing a stadium forced into a down town area like it is right now just isnt good for business. Downtown works for baseball and hockey and even basketball, because after those fans want to go out on the town, or come early and have dinner before hand. Football is a completely different beast, Every sunday is an event unlike any other sport.
You need the Tailgating space, and you need it close enough to the stadium. Right now it is completely spread out, it is sprinkled for blocks away from the dome and there is no party atmosphere to it. Have you ever been to Arrowhead? To the Complex set up in Philly? Those create a party atmosphere that attract fans who dont even go to the games. The Parking Lot revenue can be just as big as the ticket revenue to an owner if he owns the lot.
If he mosves a new facility out to the County, say the Chrysler Plant or anywhere out there, he can get the exact facility he wants, that can hold a Superbowl, Final Fours, Mega Concerts, etc... And a man with his Busniess prowess has investors and other business' set up to build their business around the outskirts of the new facility.
This thing is much bigger than just "sprucing up" the Dome, if they would have been doing that every year for the last 2 decadesthen they would have been alright but they ignored it for 15 years then tryed to slap some new flashy things in there and pretend they have improved it. The Rams are staying in St. Louis, but not Downtown long term. A whole new facility needs to be built with an entire area developed around it, and in my opinion thats exactly what Stan is planning to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
