[Elvis]

That's a pretty cautious gut he has there. I thought this was pretty much a given ever since the Inglewood Stadium plans became public...

[Hacksaw]

I thought you were going to say he needs to lose weight.

So many signs pointing out of StL. The locals seem to be clutching at straws.

[Elvis]

I thought you were going to say he needs to lose weight.

So many signs pointing out of StL. The locals seem to be clutching at straws.

It's a weird situation, really seems like a lot of people are simply delusional about what's going on at this point. But if the Rams end up staying, maybe it was us all along?

Here's what Bernie is saying:



But keep in mind, saying they'll file doesn't mean they'll move. Could just be more "leverage" (as the kids say), or maybe the powers that be find a reason and a way to keep Stan in MO.

Still, seems like JT ought to be moving his meter...

[Hacksaw]

Agreed Elvis, and what is a measly $1mm for drawings and lining up politicians anyway. Chump change for them. But this isn't about leverage unless as you say "it was us all along" in which case I will be shocked.

Go RAMS

[Elvis]

Looks like Dave Peacock's gut has been hanging out with Vinnie's:

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... l?page=all

Peacock also acknowledged Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s commitment to the Los Angeles market.

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the (Rams) because I think (Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles,” Peacock said. “I’m not against Stan going to Los Angeles, I just don’t want our team there... This is why we’re spending most of our time with the league — we think this is an NFL issue.”

[Hacksaw]

Looks like Dave Peacock's gut has been hanging out with Vinnie's:

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... l?page=all

Peacock also acknowledged Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s commitment to the Los Angeles market.

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the (Rams) because I think (Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles,” Peacock said. “I’m not against Stan going to Los Angeles, I just don’t want our team there... This is why we’re spending most of our time with the league — we think this is an NFL issue.”

It's official,,,, it appears, and now your seeing Peecock diggin in with some tough words. Gonna bite him me thinks.
Is still hate them saying "our" team. And suggesting he's working with the NFL to separate Stan from his team seems regrettable. My positive vibes for Peecock are going polar.

[Elvis]

Looks like Dave Peacock's gut has been hanging out with Vinnie's:

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... l?page=all

Peacock also acknowledged Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s commitment to the Los Angeles market.

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the (Rams) because I think (Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles,” Peacock said. “I’m not against Stan going to Los Angeles, I just don’t want our team there... This is why we’re spending most of our time with the league — we think this is an NFL issue.”

It's official,,,, it appears, and now your seeing Peecock diggin in with some tough words. Gonna bite him me thinks.
Is still hate them saying "our" team. And suggesting he's working with the NFL to separate Stan from his team seems regrettable. My positive vibes for Peecock are going polar.

Yeah, i liked him better when his goal was to keep St. Louis an NFL city.

Counting on the other owners to stop SK from moving his team into his stadium seems like a long shot, but it's probably the only shot St. Louis has...

[Elvis]

http://www.dailynews.com//sports/201505 ... os-angeles

St. Louis Rams fans in knots about team’s possible move to Los Angeles

By Vincent Bonsignore, Los Angeles Daily News

POSTED: 05/12/15, 11:48 PM PDT | UPDATED: 34 MINS AGO 5 COMMENTS

ST. LOUIS >> The St. Louis Rams, in order to justify moving to Los Angeles, have to make a case for the move despite a potential $400 million standing stadium offer on the table from Missouri. But it’s not such a far-fetched argument.

Imagine being a Los Angeles high school standout, a USC product drafted by an NFL team in the Midwest.

When the contract is up, the team doesn’t offer a long-term max deal, and in the process, legally frees you up as an unrestricted free agent. Meanwhile, Los Angeles comes calling with a contract offer for you to become the highest-paid player in the NFL. Then, the Midwest team comes back insisting it still wants you, only it asks you to re-sign at a discount.

No brainer, right?

Would anyone argue against your right to say, “Thanks, but no thanks,” and accept the offer to return to the city you grew up on a contract that will make you the richest player in the NFL?

That’s the case the St. Louis Rams can make, justifying relocating to Los Angeles despite $400 million in public money potentially coming from Missouri to help build them a stadium.

Thanks to an out-clause St. Louis leaders foolishly agreed to 20 years ago upon luring the Rams east from Los Angeles — and St. Louis opting not to pay the $700 million an arbitrator ruled was needed to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome — the Rams are legally free agents no longer bound to a specific market.

Which seems to make a potential move to Los Angeles, where Rams owner Stan Kroenke is building a privately financed $1.8 billion stadium on the site of the old Hollywood Race Track in Inglewood, perfectly justified.

The NFL must mull over that argument during the next six months as it pieces together a Los Angeles relocation puzzle that has grown to three teams and five cities and has left fans across the Midwest and San Diego and Oakland in a panic.

League owners will reconvene next week in San Francisco and get updates on the various stadium proposals. Another meeting is scheduled for New York in October.

We could have an answer soon on who is coming to Los Angeles.

In St. Louis, fans are anxious.

First, will Missouri leaders come through on financing for the proposed $1 billion riverfront stadium being pushed by Gov. Jay Nixon?

If so, will that be enough to keep Kroenke from fleeing to Los Angeles?

If not, will the NFL grant him his wish or force him to stay in St. Louis?

Is it possible St. Louis will lose a third NFL team, following the old Gunners and Cardinals?

And will the very team St. Louis stole from Los Angeles in 1995 break its heart by returning to the City of Angels 20 years later? The angst among St. Louis Rams fans is piled up higher than a plate of toasted ravioli at Charlie Gitto’s on the Hill.

“I think St. Louis Rams fans are skeptical of how the NFL will handle this situation,” said Mike Contrera, a 32-year-old Rams fan from Brentwoood, Mo. “In the end, of the three markets, I think St. Louis will be the first to fulfill their end of the deal. After some political pandering, I do not believe any politician will want to have their name attached to blocking what would be the largest building project in downtown St. Louis.”

But will that keep the Rams in St, Louis?

Gov. Nixon’s two-man task force of Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz is building financial and political momentum for a new stadium along the banks of the Mississippi River, although the deal is still being formulated. Meanwhile, the NFL’s strict relocation guidelines seem to suggest the Rams won’t have justification to move if Missouri comes through on financing — especially if the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders don’t get stadium deals in their cities.

Yet, the talk persists that Kroenke is set on going to Los Angeles. And even if Missouri approves a stadium deal, it might not be for the Rams.

Peacock admitted as much Tuesday while speaking at a Commercial Real Estate Women of St. Louis breakfast,

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the (Rams) because I think (Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles,” Peacock said. “I’m not against Stan going to Los Angeles, I just don’t want our team there. This is why we’re spending most of our time with the league — we think this is an NFL issue.”

And that leaves fans uneasy.

“I understand business, and I also understand that St. Louis could receive another team that is left out of L.A.,” Contrera said. “(But) I also understand the bylaws specifically state that a team cannot move solely on the basis of the ability to increase franchise value.”

Kroenke hasn’t spoken publicly about his plans, and the Rams haven’t put a strong team on the field in recent years.

“The Rams fans here in St. Louis have shown up and supported this team through the worst stretch of losing of any team in the NFL in the last 11 years,” longtime fan Derek Walton said. “Why not show your fans some love and support and tell them what the future holds for the Rams in St. Louis?”

Said Mat Martin, a 30-year-old Rams fan now living in Southern Illinois: “I think Los Angeles should have a team, but the Rams are the best option to work for St. Louis and this region to succeed and I think the NFL knows these things, or if not they should.”

If only it were that easy.

The Rams are one of three teams lining up Los Angeles as a potential new home, which complicates their plans and puts NFL owners in a complex they hope to resolve within the next six months.

While Kroenke eyes Inglewood, the Raiders and Chargers have teamed up with plans to build their own stadium in Carson pending the outcome of stadium fights in Oakland and San Diego.

The NFL has said it will approve just one NFL stadium.

The potential problem facing the league is obvious: How do you weigh the Rams wanting to move to Los Angeles against the Chargers and Raiders needing to relocate?

Especially if Missouri follows through on a proposal to help fund a new stadium and San Diego and Oakland fail to come up with viable stadium plans for the Chargers and Raiders.

Or, as one NFL executive pointed out to the Los Angeles News Group: “If (St. Louis) comes up with $400 million, how can you say that’s a failed market?”

The Rams have not publicly disclosed their plans, and it appears they will wait until all options are on the table before making a decision.

If the Rams do file for relocation, it seems their plan will rely heavily on part of the premise upon which the Rams left Los Angeles for St. Louis 20 years ago — the lease clause that allowed them to become free agents after the 2015 season if the Edward Jones Dome wasn’t among the top-tier stadiums in the NFL.

The argument is strengthened by stressing the importance of the NFL nailing a gold-medal landing upon returning to Los Angeles.

And what better way to ensure success than making a seamless transition in which the Rams return to the city they called home for 49 years to play in a sparkling new stadium financed by a multi-billionaire owner?

And there’s room to add another team, like the Chargers if San Diego leaders can’t come up with a plan to help build a new stadium.

And in doing so, two favorable outcomes are created for two critical issues facing the NFL: a strong return to Los Angeles and protection of the interests of Chargers owner Dean Spanos, who has been fighting for a new home in San Diego for more than 10 years.

If the NFL can nail Los Angeles and help Spanos, that’s a win-win.

“You can certainly see their argument,” an NFL executive said. “But is Stan the kind of guy who would be reasonable in negotiating a deal with a second team in Inglewood?”

If the NFL guaranteed Kroenke the 24 votes he needs to relocate only if he plays fair with the second team, he might not have a choice.

Where that leaves St. Louis — or the Raiders for that matter — is uncertain.

Peacock and Blitz declined to speak to the Los Angeles News Group, but recent conversations with St. Louis area reporters suggest they are nearing a plan they hope will convince the NFL that St. Louis remains a viable market.

Even if the Rams chose to leave.

“Our job is to build the best plan for St. Louis and that works for St. Louis,” Peacock told Fox2Now in St. Louis. “We assume the league, and we have trusted the league, will do the right thing if we accomplish what we set out to do.”

St. Louis Rams fans are counting on it.

Still, every move Kroenke has made over the last year indicates his heart is set on Los Angeles.

No matter what St. Louis eventually comes up with, the Rams have the right to weigh that offer against the Los Angeles deal and pursue the one they feel best suits their needs.

Others will argue that doesn’t jive with NFL relocation guidelines, and as an NFL executive pointed out, Kroenke didn’t own the Rams when they moved to Los Angeles and had nothing to do with the lease.

Maybe, but he’s clearly using it to his benefit.

Meanwhile, St. Louis Rams fans sit in knots awaiting an outcome.

“St. Louis has the best possible people working on our behalf in Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz,” Contrera said. “I think there is cautious optimism that St. Louis will remain an NFL city. We just hope it is the Rams.”

He might still might get his wish.

But the Rams have a strong argument for an L.A. move working in their favor.

[Hacksaw]

Powerful stuff.

[BuiltRamTough]

Sup Hacksaw!

What Peacock is basically saying is this..

"Stan is going to LA but we're working with the NFL to try and force Stan to sell his team to us"

First of all, Stan is not going to sell the team. Second of all, Stan is apart of the NFL.

Think about this, if STL could force Stan to sell his team, why can't SD and OAK do the same?