OT: Let the Rams move back to LA

[Louis]

I hope St Louis doesn't allow Stan Kroenke (already one of the richest guys in the US - married into WalMart $ and his net worth is over $6 billion) to blackmail them into a sweetheart deal to keep the Rams here.

NYT Story: http://nyti.ms/1OZYnKm

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/08/10/sports/Y-STADIUM/Y-STADIUM-master675.jpg

[bobswire]

Why don't you want to keep them there. Choose one.
1. You don't like football?
2. It's Monday, bah humbug.
3. You're worried building a new stadium will be a curse to the Lambs after seeing the San Francisco 49ers go from being one the elite teams in football to a has been in less than a year after getting their new stadium built last year.

[FlashUNC]

Maybe the public shouldn't be subsidizing billionaires and their flights of fancy?

From what I've read, city seems bent on building this thing whether Kroenke stays or not.

Let em walk, I say. Spend the tax dollars on roads and schools.

[unterhausen]

Maybe the public shouldn't be subsidizing billionaires and their flights of fancy?
stadiums are a really bad investment for cities.

[rwsaunders]

The commercial real estate owners in the neighborhood and the unions that supply the labor to build and operate the stadium will be part of the blackmail team as well.

[thwart]

Living in a state that just agreed to fund a stadium for our pro basketball team... because (surprise) the billionaire owners threatened they would move elsewhere...

I'd agree with Louis.

The truly sad part here in Wisconsin is that I think the stadium deal was for $250 million, which is ironically the same amount as the huge cut to our University system, in what is described as a 'cost-cutting, bare bones' state budget.

Maybe that cheesehead thing is accurate... :crap:

[Elefantino]

Billionaires holding taxpayers hostage? Yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs

[rugbysecondrow]

Its the Rams...People in St Louis don't even really like the Rams.

[Shoeman]

I live in St. Louis and I'm all in for letting them leave, the product isn't that Great!!!!!!!! There is no way that any Public Money should be used to build stadiums for Billionaire Owners. There many issues that could use the money for better use, especially when the Government Is Going Broke!!!!!!

[Plum Hill]

Local (STL) TV news just stated $6M has already been spent in the dreaming stage. I don't think there is as much interest in keeping the geospatial jobs in town as there is a mediocre football team.
Then again, I live on the east side where the geospatial HQ should go....

[FlashUNC]

Living in a state that just agreed to fund a stadium for our pro basketball team... because (surprise) the billionaire owners threatened they would move elsewhere...

I'd agree with Louis.

The truly sad part here in Wisconsin is that I think the stadium deal was for $250 million, which is ironically the same amount as the huge cut to our University system, in what is described as a 'cost-cutting, bare bones' state budget.

Maybe that cheesehead thing is accurate... :crap:

The complication with the Bucks is the new owners bought the team with a rider on the sale agreement that they would get a new stadium deal by a certain date (I think within 36 months of buying the team), or the NBA would be obligated to buy the team at some price above what they paid, which was a record at the time.

So the owners got the league in on the fight with some incentive to do their dirty work for them too. Not that the leagues need much incentive to wring new stadiums out of taxpayers...

[MattTuck]

The greatest show on turf, indeed.

Combining that John Oliver clip with this TED talk about city flags, (http://www.ted.com/talks/roman_mars_why_city_flags_may_be_the_worst_designe d_thing_you_ve_never_noticed?language=en) and my opinion has become more nuanced on this topic.

yes, politicians cave in and build these things. Yes, special interests, unions, real estate developers, etc. all have a hand in it, but the public still has a voice... and if it were widely unpopular, politicians wouldn't risk their offices.

So, then why does the public support these things? The TED talk suggests that it is because sports teams (the play things of billionaires) have co-opted the symbolism of civic pride and identity.

It is sad. I bet the average person could look at the logos of the NFL and do better at naming them than they could looking at city flags. We're a social species, a species of tribes and communities. We've ceded big portions of that social identity to the sports corporations owned by billionaires.

PS. I hate Goodell.
PPS. Free Brady ;)

[etu]

Eric Dickerson - best running back of all time.
if not the best, the most stylish. so fluid and effortless.

[Uncle Jam's Army]

Well, St. Louis did it once before when they lured the Rams from L.A. (err, Anaheim). Why wouldn't they do it again? Let them stay in St. Louis. We don't want them back.

[bikingshearer]

Well, St. Louis did it once before when they lured the Rams from L.A. (err, Anaheim). Why wouldn't they do it again? Let them stay in St. Louis. We don't want them back.

Actually, they did it twice before. The Cardinals moved there from Chicago, as I recall. St. Louis has always been more of a baseball town than a football town.

And no team is moving to LA until the NFL feels it has milked every possible new stadium around the country they can get. Having no team in LA means that LA can be the bogeyman to which a team will move if it doesn't get a sweet stadium deal. This little piece of extortion has been working for a long time; why would the greedheads stop now?

Oh, and there is the small matter of there being no stadium in the LA area that comes close to what the NFL currently deems acceptable, and there has yet to be any truly serious efforts to build one. This year's Chargers/Raiders ploy is, so far at least, just that - a ploy. Could it become serious or even come to fruition? Yeah, perhaps, but I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, count on the "if we don't get what we want we'll move to LA" extortion racket to continue for the indefinite future.