Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise

(01-15-2016, 05:08 PM)Nately120 Wrote: [ -> ]I knew we'd eventually agree on something.

They also need to bring this back....

This video was pretty much a mainstay in the original LNC thread on the old boards.

(01-15-2016, 05:10 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: [ -> ]This video was pretty much a mainstay in the original LNC thread on the old boards.

That video taught me how to ram it all day and ram it all night.

(01-15-2016, 05:08 PM)Nately120 Wrote: [ -> ]I knew we'd eventually agree on something.

They also need to bring this back....

Glad you found that... I was looking for that to post here the other day.  

(01-15-2016, 07:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: [ -> ]Glad you found that... I was looking for that to post here the other day.  

Yeah, I BET that's why you were looking for it.

I wonder how many players went up to a cheerleader and went, "hey, how 'bout you let me ram it?"

(01-15-2016, 12:34 PM)TreasureCoastBenGal Wrote: [ -> ]LA should have a football team.  I said that the whole 7 years I lived out there.  Some people thought they should just build a stadium at the confluence of the 15 and the 10 and then build a rail system on the median of the 15 that would go all the way from east LA to Vegas.  

Sure, if they wanted no one to go to a game, ever.  You're talking past Rancho Cucamonga in the area of Fontuckey.  That's not Los Angeles and no one would ever go there to watch a game.  It's take two hours for the average fan to get to the game, probably more.  Plus that area is for shit.  Inglewood is a good idea actually and they've been starving for a team in the area after the Kings and Lakers left The Forum.

(01-12-2016, 11:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: [ -> ]Really it should only be the Rams in LA.

and St Louis doesn't deserve a football team.   It's not a pro football town.   They have the Chiefs

chief fans don't harbor your view. they say **** st. louis you don't get to root for "our" team. i think i know chief fans since i've lived here (in kansas city, where the chiefs actually reside) for well over a decade. don't get to be a card fan and a chief fan. actually it pisses off a lot of chiefs fans since they are also royals fans and don't care too much for the cards. as do we as reds fans.

(01-16-2016, 05:21 AM)WildCat Wrote: [ -> ]chief fans don't harbor your view. they say **** st. louis you don't get to root for "our" team. i think i know chief fans since i've lived here (in kansas city, where the chiefs actually reside) for well over a decade. don't get to be a card fan and a chief fan. actually it pisses off a lot of chiefs fans since they are also royals fans and don't care too much for the cards. as do we as reds fans.

Yea, it's like saying you can take the Bengals and Reds away because Cleveland has baseball and football.

Or the Dolphins because Tampa Bay has the Bucs. 

or the Steelers because the Eagles exist.

Despite being in the same states, these are very different markets with very different fans who have very different histories. 

(01-16-2016, 05:21 AM)WildCat Wrote: [ -> ]chief fans don't harbor your view. they say **** st. louis you don't get to root for "our" team. i think i know chief fans since i've lived here (in kansas city, where the chiefs actually reside) for well over a decade. don't get to be a card fan and a chief fan. actually it pisses off a lot of chiefs fans since they are also royals fans and don't care too much for the cards. as do we as reds fans.

(01-16-2016, 10:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: [ -> ]Yea, it's like saying you can take the Bengals and Reds away because Cleveland has baseball and football.

Or the Dolphins because Tampa Bay has the Bucs. 

or the Steelers because the Eagles exist.

Despite being in the same states, these are very different markets with very different fans who have very different histories. 

Well to be fair I could care less if St. Louis has anything. It's a scumbag town.

Hey pat if you guys never got the Browns to move would you have been a redskins fan?

(01-12-2016, 11:27 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: [ -> ]LA Rams is what I recall in the days of Dickerson. St. Louis is not a football town and the Rams figured it out. Chargers will probably move to LA and Oakland will build a new stadium.

The problem is, the NFL hasn't done too well in LA either.

(01-16-2016, 02:08 PM)jason Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is, the NFL hasn't done too well in LA either.

Exactly. How many teams have they had there? They all left for a reason.

LA has always had stadium issues. Now with the Rams self funding they will have their own solutions which will make it easier.

Best thing for the NFL and LA is make sure the Rams are the only team there. Hopefully The Chargers stay in San Diego . If not maybe the raiders will go there.

Listen.  You can take St. Louis and throw it into the ***** Mississippi for all I care, but owners holding new stadium deals over entire cities heads every 20 years is completely ridiculous if you ask me.  I mean Ed jones dome opened in '95.  Doesn't that seem a little wasteful to anyone else?  I can understand putting money into some renovations and whatnot, but ****, do taxpayers really need to finance these things for a rich scumfuck like kroenke?  What does it say about the state of our country when we start rewarding a guy that can't shit in public?    Thats about as pathetic as it gets in my book.

(01-19-2016, 04:20 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: [ -> ]Listen.  You can take St. Louis and throw it into the ***** Mississippi for all I care, but owners holding new stadium deals over entire cities heads every 20 years is completely ridiculous if you ask me.  I mean Ed jones dome opened in '95.  Doesn't that seem a little wasteful to anyone else?  I can understand putting money into some renovations and whatnot, but ****, do taxpayers really need to finance these things for a rich scumfuck like kroenke?  What does it say about the state of our country when we start rewarding a guy that can't shit in public?    Thats about as pathetic as it gets in my book.

Didn't St Louis agree to keep the Edward james Olmos dome a top 8 facility? I am certainly not a big public stadium guy, but if you sign a lease then you should abide by the terms.

I do think the NFL is going towards self funded entertainment complex's. The issue will be when cities hold property up to leverage owners. That will be the next reason teams move.

(01-19-2016, 05:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't St Louis agree to keep the Edward  james Olmos dome a top 8 facility?  I am certainly not a big public stadium guy, but if you sign a lease then you should abide by the terms.

I do think the NFL is going towards self funded entertainment complex's.   The issue will be when cities hold property up to leverage owners.  That will be the next reason teams move.

Not sure of the particulars, but I would hope the terms of said lease would be more clearly spelled out than a completely subjective clause like 'top 8 facility'...

Maybe Kroenke wanted a top shitter facility to go along with the product he was putting on the field.  

(01-19-2016, 06:18 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure of the particulars, but I would hope the terms of said lease would be more clearly spelled out than a completely subjective clause like 'top 8 facility'...

Maybe Kroenke wanted a top shitter facility to go along with the product he was putting on the field.  

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2016/01/06/st-louis-rams-fans-should-direct-blame-towards-1994-lease-and-not-stan-kroenke/#2715e4857a0b5813e08e6f09

Good article about it.    Will try to quote it all.

Quote:After the 1987 season, the St. Louis Cardinals football team left the city for Arizona (primarily, as in most cases with franchise relocation in sports, over stadium-related issues). Desperate to get back into the NFL, the city (represented by the St. Louis Regional Sports Authority, the Convention and Visitors Commission, who no doubt consulted with local city, county, and state officials) agreed to a lease which stipulated a “First Tier Promise”, which, in essence, required the stadium to remain among the top 25% of all facilities.

Furthermore, it outlines that the team would not be responsible for financing facility upgrades to ensure the First Tier standards.

(01-19-2016, 07:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2016/01/06/st-louis-rams-fans-should-direct-blame-towards-1994-lease-and-not-stan-kroenke/#2715e4857a0b5813e08e6f09

Good article about it.    Will try to quote it all.

Another example of a terrible contract being signed by inept and corrupt local government.  I guess my question is, how did we get to the point that this is acceptable?  The tide may be changing, but **** if we aren't just lining these guys pockets.  MB included.  

(01-19-2016, 07:49 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: [ -> ]Another example of a terrible contract being signed by inept and corrupt local government.  I guess my question is, how did we get to the point that this is acceptable?  The tide may be changing, but **** if we aren't just lining these guys pockets.  MB included.  

Well I understand MB did a hell of a job getting a nice deal for the Bengals.. but the economic impact of a sports team like the Bengals is pretty impressive.. The City has gained from keeping the Bengals.. sure we get pissed that we can;t control who and what benefits from our taxes.. but there are thousands of people that benefit every game weekend when the Bengals in town or when a concert is in town at PBS etc.

So when you talk about lining pockets, don;t forget the pockets of the small business owner that is also benefitting.

https://sportscommissions.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/taxes-the-hidden-economic-impact-of-sporting-events/

(01-19-2016, 09:32 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: [ -> ]Well I understand MB did a hell of a job getting a nice deal for the Bengals.. but the economic impact of a sports team like the Bengals is pretty impressive.. The City has gained from keeping the Bengals.. sure we get pissed that we can;t control who and what benefits from our taxes.. but there are thousands of people that benefit every game weekend when the Bengals in town or when a concert is in town at PBS etc.

So when you talk about lining pockets, don;t forget the pockets of the small business owner that is also benefitting.

https://sportscommissions.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/taxes-the-hidden-economic-impact-of-sporting-events/

Completely and totally agree.  Not saying their isn't a positive economic effect whatsoever.  I do have a problem when an 'owner' or a group of 'owners' decide to up and move after a mere 20 years over petty cosmetic issues.  I'm going to be pissed if MB even mentions the idea in '25.  There are far better things those tax dollars could be going towards and all the bells and whistles in the world wont sustain season tix sales for a failing organization and complicit ownership.  The way I see it, if the owner wants out, they should have to sell to highest bidder, but the team stays.

(01-19-2016, 07:49 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: [ -> ]Another example of a terrible contract being signed by inept and corrupt local government.  I guess my question is, how did we get to the point that this is acceptable?  The tide may be changing, but **** if we aren't just lining these guys pockets.  MB included.  

I don't necessarily mind stadiums but they need to be multi purpose. I also think of you build a stadium you need to do an area like the Rams are doing in LA.

That being said I would be ok with states not allowing and public money going to them.