(04-29-2016, 01:06 PM)Benton Wrote: Y
You're mistaken.

The weird ass lease required the Dome to meet conditions. It didn't. The convention control board submitted $50 million renovation plans. The Rams rejected them. They submitted $125 million renovation plans. Rams rejected and countered with a $700 million project, mostly funded by municipal bonds. The city couldn't afford it, so Kroenke got his broken lease necessary to move.

Kroenke wanted nothing to do with STL. He wanted to be on the Coast. STL wanted a football team, but they also wanted one that was competitive. Kroenke hasn't tried in a while.

So Kroenke followed the process afforded in the lease?  The city could have easily kept them from moving by upgrading the dome .  Instead they let the field get to the point it was catching on fire.   

I'm not saying it was a great deal for the city but they signed it and should have followed through had they wanted to actually keep the team.     Once again they didn't and have shown they aren't that interested in an NFL team. 

(04-29-2016, 10:11 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: Cali has enough teams.  Rams Chargers 49ers Raiders they can afford to lose one.

LV Raiders  about as cool as the LA Raiders...

California is pretty big, though.

(04-29-2016, 10:12 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: Apparently they cant as the last 2 teams they have had have left.

LA lost two teams should they not have a team again? Stlouis is the 19th biggest metropolitan area in the country it's big enough to have a Football team.

(04-29-2016, 02:29 PM)J24 Wrote: LA lost two teams should they not have a team again? Stlouis is the 19th biggest metropolitan area in the country it's big enough to have a Football team.

St Louis market may be large enough it's just too bad they don't understand the concept of signing an agreement then following through.   

Plenty of other cities that deserve a shot.... Portland, San Antonio, Salt Lake, London 

LA lost two teams because the raiders were never supposed to be there and the Georgia Frontiere scuttled the Rams on her own.   The league is at least doing it right and pushing for Rams only in LA.  

(04-29-2016, 02:29 PM)J24 Wrote: LA lost two teams should they not have a team again? Stlouis is the 19th biggest metropolitan area in the country it's big enough to have a Football team.

and LA is the Biggest correct?

Rams wanted out St Louis is not upholding their part of the contract and the rams had every right to leave.

(04-28-2016, 06:09 PM)jason Wrote: You do know that the Super Dome is spitting distance from Bourbon St.... Right?

True, but the combination of alcohol and gambling might make visiting teams want to fight each other and destroy team chemistry. Plus, if you ever needed an emergency QB you could always pull Manziel out of whatever casino he's trashed in.

(04-29-2016, 01:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So Kroenke followed the process afforded in the lease?  The city could have easily kept them from moving by upgrading the dome .  Instead they let the field get to the point it was catching on fire.   

I'm not saying it was a great deal for the city but they signed it and should have followed through had they wanted to actually keep the team.     Once again they didn't and have shown they aren't that interested in an NFL team. 

I'm starting to think the city of St. Louis killed someone you loved or got the promotion you put in for. This is borderline silly.

Yes, if the city had just done everything Kroenke mandated, he wouldn't have been able to break the lease. He asked for renovations the city couldn't afford, and he left. He knew what he was doing. They did try to come up with a billion dollar stadium to get him to stay, but he didn't. Why? That wasn't what Kroenke wanted because it was in Missouri. As I understand it, he's going to spend three times that, almost entirely of his own money.

The Rams leaving STL had nothing to do with STL. Kroenke has a vision of what he wants, and the money to do it. There's nothing wrong with that. It's pretty freaking awesome in this day and age of hedge fund managers who try to force cities into spending millions to build new arenas or stadiums with public money. And there's nothing wrong with him taking the Rams to LA. He's paid for them, I don't care if he puts them in pink leotards and moves the team to Australia.

But the assumption that it was STL's fault because they wouldn't spend nearly a billion dollars of taxpayer money without any say is absurd.

(04-29-2016, 04:48 PM)Benton Wrote:

I'm starting to think the city of St. Louis killed someone you loved or got the promotion you put in for. This is borderline silly.

Yes, if the city had just done everything Kroenke mandated, he wouldn't have been able to break the lease. He asked for renovations the city couldn't afford, and he left. He knew what he was doing. They did try to come up with a billion dollar stadium to get him to stay, but he didn't. Why? That wasn't what Kroenke wanted because it was in Missouri. As I understand it, he's going to spend three times that, almost entirely of his own money.

The Rams leaving STL had nothing to do with STL. Kroenke has a vision of what he wants, and the money to do it. There's nothing wrong with that. It's pretty freaking awesome in this day and age of hedge fund managers who try to force cities into spending millions to build new arenas or stadiums with public money. And there's nothing wrong with him taking the Rams to LA. He's paid for them, I don't care if he puts them in pink leotards and moves the team to Australia.

But the assumption that it was STL's fault because they wouldn't spend nearly a billion dollars of taxpayer money without any say is absurd.

Not sure why you think this is an anti St. Louis position.   The city is fine, I have zero issue with them.    I do have a problem with people who don't follow through on signed agreements.    They promised to keep the stadium in the top 3 or 5.   They proposed their version of improvements because of the Rams accepted them they would basically let the city cheat the lease agreement.   I hope Kroenke still buys Rams park for a dollar next year.  

And if the city cared why would they let the field get to the state where fires break out?   

(04-29-2016, 04:21 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: and LA is the Biggest correct?

Rams wanted out St Louis is not upholding their part of the contract and the rams had every right to leave.

They tried to negotiate a stadium multiple time the owner didn't want anything to do with the city. The owner had every right to leave but that still doesn't mean that St Louis shouldn't get a chance at another Football team. It's a big time city if they get an owner committed to the area then it can easily work.

(04-29-2016, 04:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Not sure why you think this is an anti St. Louis position.   The city is fine, I have zero issue with them.    I do have a problem with people who don't follow through on signed agreements.    They promised to keep the stadium in the top 3 or 5.   They proposed their version of improvements because of the Rams accepted them they would basically let the city cheat the lease agreement.   I hope Kroenke still buys Rams park for a dollar next year.  

And if the city cared why would they let the field get to the state where fires break out?   

To the bold, mainly because every time this issue has come up, you've said the city doesn't deserve an NFL team, as if its residents are a bunch of sports hating morons who tar and feather coaches. The truth is, the city and area supported the team. The team just quit being any good. When you're picking in the top 10 a lot, your fan base is going to shrink.

As far as the agreement, it was top 10, and that was an incredibly dumb agreement that should have included some kind of reciprocation — like fielding a team in the top 10. Hell, the top 20. But even that aside, the city was trying to make renovations, the Rams wanted no part in it. The city even proposed an alternative stadium. Again, the Rams wanted no part.

And that's ok, it's his team. Like I said, I think it was a good move for them. But to say STL didn't try and doesn't deserve a team is either ignorant or dishonest.

(04-29-2016, 06:00 PM)Benton Wrote: To the bold, mainly because every time this issue has come up, you've said the city doesn't deserve an NFL team, as if its residents are a bunch of sports hating morons who tar and feather coaches. The truth is, the city and area supported the team. The team just quit being any good. When you're picking in the top 10 a lot, your fan base is going to shrink.

As far as the agreement, it was top 10, and that was an incredibly dumb agreement that should have included some kind of reciprocation — like fielding a team in the top 10. Hell, the top 20. But even that aside, the city was trying to make renovations, the Rams wanted no part in it. The city even proposed an alternative stadium. Again, the Rams wanted no part.

And that's ok, it's his team. Like I said, I think it was a good move for them. But to say STL didn't try and doesn't deserve a team is either ignorant or dishonest.

Ok on my mobile so I can't get it bolded.   But to the part about the agreement.   Yes I totally agree it was a ridiculous lease that they should have never signed or proposed.  But without that ridiculous lease they never get the Rams.   And they stay in LA.   I doubt field catching on fire was top 10. If St. Louis was a great city the raiders would be considering their proposal.

As far as blasting the city of St. Louis.....  Personally I don't feel like any city should be considered for a team once they lose 2.   LA was never meant to be a 2 team city so losing raiders doesn't count.   I would never have replaced the Browns.   Cleveland has lost several teams.   New city options are what we need not retreads.   I am happy to see the raiders exploring Vegas and San Antonio 

We shall see what happens, but I feel like the main reason Mark Davis is courting St. Louis, Las Vegas, San Antonio, LA etc. is to attempt to put pressure on Oakland to give him what he wants. I didn't pay too much attention, but was San Antonio Raiders really something people were convinced was happening last year?

(05-02-2016, 02:42 PM)Nately120 Wrote: We shall see what happens, but I feel like the main reason Mark Davis is courting St. Louis, Las Vegas, San Antonio, LA etc. is to attempt to put pressure on Oakland to give him what he wants.  I didn't pay too much attention, but was San Antonio Raiders really something people were convinced was happening last year?

Davis has rejected St. Louis and their attempts to court them.   

I think San Antonio was closer to happening than most think which is why I think the raiders will have a clear path to Vegas.   Cowboys and Texans owners don't want another team in Texas.   

(04-28-2016, 05:05 PM)PikesPeakUC Wrote: If this happened then the Raiders would have the best home field advantage in the NFL, especially if they played early games. Guys would be rolling in and be absolutely destroyed from being out on the town the night before.

I don't think it would be a good idea to have in Vegas.  

People go to Vegas to gamble, not to go to football games, and people rarely ever sleep.  

I just think people would rather sit in a casino and gamble on the game than actually go to it.

Then again, people without a football team in their city might come to Vegas to gamble and to see a game, but I think people would just rather sit in a casino sportsbook and bet on games, especially since it will be blistering hot.

Also, people are typically only in Vegas 3 days (4 tops), and two of those are flight days, so would people really want to spend 4 hours (games last 3 hours and 12 minutes, plus you have to figure that they'd get there early and wouldn't get out right on after) of a very short vacation in a football game?

Maybe they could find a way to get a sportsbook in the stadium (even booths like her booths that you could place bets in).

I must be in the minority, but it just doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

(05-03-2016, 01:15 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I don't think it would be a good idea to have in Vegas.  

People go to Vegas to gamble, not to go to football games, and people rarely ever sleep.  

I just think people would rather sit in a casino and gamble on the game than actually go to it.

Then again, people without a football team in their city might come to Vegas to gamble and to see a game, but I think people would just rather sit in a casino sportsbook and bet on games, especially since it will be blistering hot.

Also, people are typically only in Vegas 3 days (4 tops), and two of those are flight days, so would people really want to spend 4 hours (games last 3 hours and 12 minutes, plus you have to figure that they'd get there early and wouldn't get out right on after) of a very short vacation in a football game?

Maybe they could find a way to get a sportsbook in the stadium (even booths like her booths that you could place bets in).

I must be in the minority, but it just doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

2013

Las Vegas Metropolitan Population:  2.02 million
Las Vegas City:  600,000
Median Income:  $51,000

Growth trending up

Cincinnati Metropolitan Population: 2.2 million
Cincinnati City Population:  200,000
Median Income:  $33,000
Growth trending down 

In 2013 the Populations of these two metro areas were nearly the same with LV slanted heavier towards the downtown sector and trending upwards while Cinci was trending downwards.  Also the average population has more money to spend.  Given these facts I'd say LV would do well with an NFL team.                      

(05-03-2016, 11:53 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: 2013

Las Vegas Metropolitan Population:  2.02 million
Las Vegas City:  600,000
Median Income:  $51,000

Growth trending up

Cincinnati Metropolitan Population: 2.2 million
Cincinnati City Population:  200,000
Median Income:  $33,000
Growth trending down 

In 2013 the Populations of these two metro areas were nearly the same with LV slanted heavier towards the downtown sector and trending upwards while Cinci was trending downwards.  Also the average population has more money to spend.  Given these facts I'd say LV would do well with an NFL team.                      

Not to mention the discounted flights to Vegas isn't bad either ... 

Good point. People could get cheap flights and cheap hotel stays in Vegas. Makes away games more accessible to the rest of the NFL to visit the town. And hang out in the casinos before and after the game.

(05-03-2016, 01:46 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: Good point. People could get cheap flights and cheap hotel stays in Vegas. Makes away games more accessible to the rest of the NFL to visit the town. And hang out in the casinos before and after the game.

Exactly.  If you're a Raider fan living in say, Ohio, you're not going to convince the wife to fly to Oakland for a game/vacation.  But throw a game on top of a trip to Vegas and she'll be Googling flights within minutes.  Raiders home games would be a must destination for thousands of fans of whomever they play each week. 

(05-03-2016, 09:14 PM)Awful Llama Wrote: Exactly.  If you're a Raider fan living in say, Ohio, you're not going to convince the wife to fly to Oakland for a game/vacation.  But throw a game on top of a trip to Vegas and she'll be Googling flights within minutes.  Raiders home games would be a must destination for thousands of fans of whomever they play each week. 

So when do we play the AFCW again?  Haha 

(05-03-2016, 09:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So when do we play the AFCW again?  Haha 

Think we're not back out there until 2021.  New stadium would be done by then.