Maulbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,232
- Reaction score
- 2,450
I'd feel worse for St. Louis if it weren't for the way the Rams got there in the first place.
RedAlice":3q97asjr said:It's getting exciting now. Hopefully rhe Rams are out of that horrible place soon. But, either way they will have a nice new stadium - either in LA or in St Louis.
St Louis proposal is supposed to be presented to the Govenor today and there should be something public about it soon.
Hopefully Kroenke hates it and off they go to LA.
Spanos is said to have enough votes to block it, and it's also rumored he wants the Chargers to share the stadium.
Why would it?jkitsune":2iupnjtv said:Is this still rumored to push us back to the AFC West?
-The Glove-":1p3s9gn4 said:Why would it?jkitsune":1p3s9gn4 said:Is this still rumored to push us back to the AFC West?
jkitsune":13cwiauj said:Is this still rumored to push us back to the AFC West?
dcbshowstopper":k52lfxve said:The St. Louis proposal isn't supposed to be funded by taxpayer money either. It was one of Gov. Nixon's requirements when he made his appointments for the stadium task force.
And that's your fly in the ointment right there and St. Louis's only chance to keep them, personally I prefer they just go back to Los Angeles and be in the same time zone as the rest of the division like they should be.Spanos is said to have enough votes to block it, and it's also rumored he wants the Chargers to share the stadium.
But even if Kroenke doesn’t get to 24 votes, it may not matter. According to the source, Kroenke has informed the mayor of Inglewood on multiple occasions that he’ll move the team with or without the approval of the other clubs.
That would be an aggressive, risky move. If Kroenke moves without approval, he’d be entitled to no financial assistance from the league, and his stadium would be blocked from hosting Super Bowls. He also would avoid paying the relocation fee.
One article I read stated that at least some of the public funding would come from extending the existing bonds currently being used to pay for the EJ Dome.RedAlice":3gza46t6 said:They have the pretty pictures. They don't have a clear path to funding it - very iffy on all of those answers.
Peacock said no "additional" taxes, but also said they need public funding and gave no clear answer on how that would happen. They are also dependent on the team owner contributing, however, it's a publicly owned stadium. Not sure how that works either since seems that Kroenke has plans to put his money into a stadium that he actually owns.
Guess we wait and see now.
SeatownJay":35uik1cg said:One article I read stated that at least some of the public funding would come from extending the existing bonds currently being used to pay for the EJ Dome.RedAlice":35uik1cg said:They have the pretty pictures. They don't have a clear path to funding it - very iffy on all of those answers.
Peacock said no "additional" taxes, but also said they need public funding and gave no clear answer on how that would happen. They are also dependent on the team owner contributing, however, it's a publicly owned stadium. Not sure how that works either since seems that Kroenke has plans to put his money into a stadium that he actually owns.
Guess we wait and see now.
Sherman4Prez":1joi9mh3 said:Kroneke not on the record whatsoever about moving the Rams. Actually, it's quite the opposite.